Evolution

[Peregrine]

You're asking me to try and disprove evolution, but I don't really disagree with it all that much to begin with. I think that evolution and creation are related some how, I don't exactly know how, and honestly, I don't care. Both sides I think take it to far saying that either there is absolutely no God or that evolution is entirely wrong.

 

Then explain exactly HOW you disagree with it, no matter how minor.

 

And your "two sides" are completely wrong. The Theory of Evolution has nothing to do with god/atheism. So please don't bring religion into this and get my thread locked.

 

=========================================

 

 

Thank you for your insight Peregrine.

 

On irreducible complexity the general argument against is that it actually remove evolution from the equation seeing how life would reach this point only thru design. My question was only about the general idea of IC and ID, and whether or not you had any unique outlook on the matter.

 

My "unique outlook" is that the idea of "irreducible complexity" is either ignorance or outright fraud. Every single example proposed so far has been explained in terms of evolution and natural selection, so the people who keep mentioning them either:

 

1) Don't understand the theory.

 

or

 

2) Know perfectly well that the argument has been disproven, but know that their target audience doesn't. So they keep repeating the same old arguments over and over again, pretending that the counter-proof doesn't exist.

 

 

And even in the worst case scenario, "IC" does not prove a designer. Even if an example was found, the most we could say is that "we currently lack an evolutionary explanation for this feature". We are NOT justified in making the jump to "no explanation will ever be found", the critical requirement for setting aside evolution and including a designer/guiding force/etc.

 

 

As for the supposed "meaning" of life, it's a completely irrelevant point. An interesting one maybe, and deserving of its own thread, but irrelevant to the factual truth of evolution. Evolution either happens or doesn't happen. It either explains the complexity of modern life, or fails to do so. But it does so completely independently of our human opinion of the truth. If it takes away (or adds) meaning to life, that doesn't change the facts at all... we just have to deal with an uncomfortable reality.

 

 

Naturally, there would have to be some things in place for anything to be able to move beyond merely being able to survive and propigate well. Humans evolved first because there were already a number of things present in our ancestors to allow those steps. First would be the spot on the foodchain, being at the top would mean few things giving advantage to smarter, or more organized members of the species since capability is assured

 

That's somewhat of a misunderstanding... predators have just as much need for intelligence and ability as prey. Remember the concept of predator/prey relationships as an arms race, a predator that fails to improve will lose to prey that is adapting and getting better at avoiding becoming dinner. So capability is far from assured. If you want a counter-example, just look at the various pack hunters... they've evolved a complex method of hunting, requiring far more intelligence than other animals. It's not hard to see how, given the right key advances (tool use, language, etc, whichever of these started the rapid expansion of human-ancestor brain power), a predator could go all the way to full human-like intelligence.

[Vagrant0]

That's somewhat of a It's not hard to see how, given the right key advances (tool use, language, etc, whichever of these started the rapid expansion of human-ancestor brain power), a predator could go all the way to full human-like intelligence.

I kinda see where you're going, but think it would be more likely that those advances would happen by a species somewhere in the middle than predator or prey. The advances of the predator are made according to the advances in the prey, which is well and good if both have conditions which require further adaptation. However it is also possible that both species would hit a point of stagnation where there aren't any significant advances on either side. Whereas the one in the middle has to not only beat the predator, but also the prey, so would have to develop the mental capacity to survive at both.

 

As for tool use, they need a hand or something to operate that tool. Which, in the case of wolves and most animals, would require significant mutations to morphology, and those mutations would have to make a significant different in effectivness. Since more advantage would likely go to the member with sharper claws, or larger paws, and not to those with more dexterity, such things probably wouldn't take place. You also have to remember that such mutations would be more likely to take hold in species with shorter breeding cycles and smaller populations. Which means that larger animals are more likely to improve the traits (through natural selection) they already have than develop new ones (through mutation).

[Marcus Wolfe]

I'm a Grade 9 science guy.

I don't really know what's out there. Why did the Big Bang happen? Saying that it was perhaps caused by some superior being isn't dislogical. But, even if there is a 'God' that created the universe, this God still didn't create all life in one week or less. You can't ignore evolution, there's far too much evidence. I do not believe in creationism, and I also believe that if there is a God, there's no point praying to him (or her) because the mind of this God would be spread across the universe and cannot pay attention to mere mortals.

 

For anybody who still thinks God made all, let's look at it this way: Evolution is God's work.

 

Back to science then....

As for this recent predator/prey debate, predators will always rein supreme. The majority of predators are much smarter than their prey. For example:

Wolf IQ>Deer IQ

Grizzly IQ>Salmon IQ

Polar Bear IQ>Seal IQ

Spider IQ>Fly IQ

Eagle IQ>Rodent IQ

Robin IQ>Worm IQ

And so on and so forth......

This has to do with 2 factors, the first of which is the fact that predators evolved to phsically and mentally better their prey. The second factor is that the consumption of meat provides proteins important for brain development.

So now I can say my 2 points:

A) Humans evolved to be smarter and more advanced as they became more predator and less prey.

B)If humans or some other primate hadn't evolved to become the planet's dominant species, whatever would evolve in our place would definitly be a predator.

[Crisb92]

It may not necessarily be the case that a predator has the greatest chance of becoming the dominant being in an ecosystem, but it is far more likely given the way that evolution works and the development that the eating of meat allows in animals brains.

 

The problem people have with believing in evolution is that it shows that humans are definitely not the best that there can be, that we were in all likelihood a giant mistake on the part of natural selection. I mean, look at how humans have treated the environment, each other, and other species in their quest for continual advancement. There is only one other organism on this planet that travels from place to place, staying in one spot only long enough to take all the resources that it has to offer, reproduce wildly, then leave for the next fertile patch. That is a virus. Humans could well be called a virus of the planet, because of our willingness to destroy it to gain material wealth for ourselves. (For those of you for whom this sounds familiar, think of the Matrix)

 

If there is a superior being, and I do not believe myself, then they must be truly sorry that they ever placed us here.

 

To return to my point, humans want to believe that they are the best that can ever exist, because we are egomaniacal, and religion allows us to believe this, as we are supposedly the image of a greater being, or greater beings.

 

Science is slowly explaining away all the 'truths' that religion held, truths such as the origination of the human race, and the beginning of the universe. People still hold with religion because they can't face the fact that their life may have no more meaning than they give it, that they are not going to continue to exist after death. Once science has explained the final truths that religion holds there will still be a 'need' for it, as there will be more questions that we can't answer, and more people that can't bear to believe that our consciousness could be destroyed, when it is so precious to us.

[ninja_lord666]

The problem people have with believing in evolution is that it shows that humans are definitely not the best that there can be, that we were in all likelihood a giant mistake on the part of natural selection. I mean, look at how humans have treated the environment, each other, and other species in their quest for continual advancement. There is only one other organism on this planet that travels from place to place, staying in one spot only long enough to take all the resources that it has to offer, reproduce wildly, then leave for the next fertile patch. That is a virus. Humans could well be called a virus of the planet, because of our willingness to destroy it to gain material wealth for ourselves. (For those of you for whom this sounds familiar, think of the Matrix)

Yes, humans could be considered a parasite, but a mistake? Natural Selection is about survival of the fittest. We have proven that we can survive anything, even ourselves. That shows, there, that e are the fittest, and, thus, not a mistake. A mistake in natural selection would be something like the dodo bird as the dominant species. We may not treat the environment the way most animals do, but that doesn't mark us as a 'mistake'. Evolution doesn't care if everything destroys itself, as long as the strong live on and the weak die out.

[Marxist ßastard]

Humans evolved to be smarter and more advanced as they became more predator and less prey.

I don't know about you, but most of the food I eat has been pre-killed.

[Ginji]

Humans evolved to be smarter and more advanced as they became more predator and less prey.

I don't know about you, but most of the food I eat has been pre-killed.

Yes, by OTHER humans.

 

Even if YOU weren't the actual killer of your food, ANOTHER human was, thus; humans are still predatorial in nature.

[Marxist ßastard]

With their bare hands and teeth, I presume?

[Vagrant0]

Humans evolved to be smarter and more advanced as they became more predator and less prey.

I don't know about you, but most of the food I eat has been pre-killed.

Yes, by OTHER humans.

 

Even if YOU weren't the actual killer of your food, ANOTHER human was, thus; humans are still predatorial in nature.

Actually, some people suggest that humans were mostly scavengers for awhile, taking meat from things which recently died, or were killed by other animals.

[Dark0ne]

Word is that humans were indeed scavengers. The superior hunting race mentioned in a previous post would leave the brain of their victims, which humans would eat. I lol'd.