Mutation and evolution

[Jbuza]

gone

[Byblos]

[R]esearch show mutations to be, not a "blind watchmaker," but more truthfully analogous to a "blind gunman.

Mutations behave like a "blind gunman," a destroyer who shoots his deadly "bullets" randomly into beautifully designed models of living molecular machinery.

The human mutation problem is bad and getting worse.

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/ ... tions.html

Evolution requires mutations in order to cause speciation over time, but again this philosophical approach to science runs contrary to observations. IT is more reasonable to deduce that the Human was more fit in the past, rather than less fit.

If you're referring to longevity, I agree (based on the Bible's account of how long people lived in the past). But if you look at it from the survivability of the species viewpoint , I would say we have a better chance of surviving now (again, as a species) than at any point in the past, considering the gigantic advancements we've accomplished in technology, medicine, education, agriculture, and so on.

[Jbuza]

gone

[Byblos]

[R]esearch show mutations to be, not a "blind watchmaker," but more truthfully analogous to a "blind gunman.

Mutations behave like a "blind gunman," a destroyer who shoots his deadly "bullets" randomly into beautifully designed models of living molecular machinery.

The human mutation problem is bad and getting worse.

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/ ... tions.html

Evolution requires mutations in order to cause speciation over time, but again this philosophical approach to science runs contrary to observations. IT is more reasonable to deduce that the Human was more fit in the past, rather than less fit.

If you're referring to longevity, I agree (based on the Bible's account of how long people lived in the past). But if you look at it from the survivability of the species viewpoint , I would say we have a better chance of surviving now (again, as a species) than at any point in the past, considering the gigantic advancements we've accomplished in technology, medicine, education, agriculture, and so on.

hmmmm possibly. I do know that we do in fact have a history of survival so the chance of survival in the past is 100%. Since I do not beleive our survival to be chance I also believe it to be 100% in the future.

GREAT point! I stand corrected.

[Zenith]

the communal society humans have instinctually developed causes a much wider variety of people to survive and reproduce. there are 6 billion people on this earth today and all of them are different. our nation and many others strive to help everyone else (maybe not as much as we should, but definately much more than in the past). as a result, there are a lot more 'different' types of people, with both good and bad traits. for instance, there is an increasing number of physically or mentally handicapped people, at least in the US. since there is virtually no competition for survival in our habitats now, the physically or mentally weaker are able to live and reproduce. this allows for even greater gene differentiation within the species which causes an even greater variety. genes that would have died out in the past are now bred back into the species. this might make it appear that humans were more fit in the past, but the opposite is actually true. differentiation is vital for survival.

[AttentionKMartShoppers]

the communal society humans have instinctually developed causes a much wider variety of people to survive and reproduce. there are 6 billion people on this earth today and all of them are different. our nation and many others strive to help everyone else (maybe not as much as we should, but definately much more than in the past). as a result, there are a lot more 'different' types of people, with both good and bad traits. for instance, there is an increasing number of physically or mentally handicapped people, at least in the US. since there is virtually no competition for survival in our habitats now, the physically or mentally weaker are able to live and reproduce. this allows for even greater gene differentiation within the species which causes an even greater variety. genes that would have died out in the past are now bred back into the species. this might make it appear that humans were more fit in the past, but the opposite is actually true. differentiation is vital for survival.

So you're calling for the institution of Social Darwinism?

You don't seem to get it...there is no such thing as good or bad.

[Zenith]

the communal society humans have instinctually developed causes a much wider variety of people to survive and reproduce. there are 6 billion people on this earth today and all of them are different. our nation and many others strive to help everyone else (maybe not as much as we should, but definately much more than in the past). as a result, there are a lot more 'different' types of people, with both good and bad traits. for instance, there is an increasing number of physically or mentally handicapped people, at least in the US. since there is virtually no competition for survival in our habitats now, the physically or mentally weaker are able to live and reproduce. this allows for even greater gene differentiation within the species which causes an even greater variety. genes that would have died out in the past are now bred back into the species. this might make it appear that humans were more fit in the past, but the opposite is actually true. differentiation is vital for survival.

So you're calling for the institution of Social Darwinism?

You don't seem to get it...there is no such thing as good or bad.

exactly, good and bad are completely subjective and our sense of morals is only based in what is advantageous or detrimental to our own species/culture/nation/humanity/etc. try looking at people when you're out and about and imagine who would survive and who would die if society weren't there to help them. humans have found that staying together and helping each other will give them a greater chance at surviving. that's a fact.

[aa118816]

Your analysis of people "communally living" as a virtuos fact is not substantial. In fact, humans are the most destructive and murderous creatures on Earth. We are also dramatically sectarian and violently divided on philosophical, religious, economic, geographical and political lines. Also, how do you know that there is no "good or bad" and how do you know that this "evolved". Both of your observations are philosophical and not based in any empirical data.

Dan

[BGoodForGoodSake]

Your analysis of people "communally living" as a virtuos fact is not substantial. In fact, humans are the most destructive and murderous creatures on Earth. We are also dramatically sectarian and violently divided on philosophical, religious, economic, geographical and political lines. Also, how do you know that there is no "good or bad" and how do you know that this "evolved". Both of your observations are philosophical and not based in any empirical data.

Dan

Not to interject but you seem to be describing violence which is inter-communal(between communities) not intra-communal. Also sectarian divisions you describe also require membership to a group. You can't have divisions without union, otherwise we would only have individuals.

In any case please continue.

[Zenith]

Your analysis of people "communally living" as a virtuos fact is not substantial. In fact, humans are the most destructive and murderous creatures on Earth. We are also dramatically sectarian and violently divided on philosophical, religious, economic, geographical and political lines. Also, how do you know that there is no "good or bad" and how do you know that this "evolved". Both of your observations are philosophical and not based in any empirical data.

Dan

as bgood was saying, human controversies stem from seperation of different groups. there is only conflict because there is union and division between unions. humans have learned to live together because they have a better chance of surviving. just like "two heads are better than one" more people will bring about more ability to adapt to the environment. its like when single celled organisms began living together as multicellular organisms because they had a better chance of surviving. it works on the same basic principles, though we are far more complex.

actually humans are not the most destructive and murderous creatures on earth, it just so happens that we are the most powerful creatures on earth and so that means that our destruction is that much more powerful. carnivores constantly kill to survive, and sometimes kill each other, such as rivaling wolf packs struggling to survive with a limited food source.

there is only a definition for good and bad in the human mind, therefore good and bad are subjective and only have meaning--they only exist--in the human mind. i am not justifying the actions of those we call evil, but saying that we need to look at it differently. what we commonly think of as evil is what is harmful to our survival, and the survival of our community. this is why we see it as evil; it is a product of a kind of social evolution.

how do you know that there is such thing as absolute good or bad? there is no evidence for it so it must be purely philosophical.

[AttentionKMartShoppers]

there is only a definition for good and bad in the human mind, therefore good and bad are subjective and only have meaning--they only exist--in the human mind. i am not justifying the actions of those we call evil, but saying that we need to look at it differently. what we commonly think of as evil is what is harmful to our survival, and the survival of our community. this is why we see it as evil; it is a product of a kind of social evolution.

Thank you for your ranting.

[aa118816]

Human violoence does not necessarily stem from separation of different groups. This is patently false. The number one cause of death is domestic violence and 85% of murders occur within family groups. Sexaul predation is typically commited intrafamily. Human violence comes about due to the threat of the individuals will to survive and satisfaction to destroy others. No other animals kill and subjugate for the sheer pleasure of it...only humans pursue these lustful and degenerate behavior because we seek to engrandize ourselves. Our goal is not to "survive", but dominate and individually live forever.

Your statement that there is only conflict because there is union and division between unions is false as proven above. This class warfare garbage really makes me ill. Humans live together because they have a better chance of surviving-obviously, but what does that mean? What is the philosophy behind this point?

People live together because humans have the need to dominate one another or be dominated. Humans are individualistic creatures whose main motivation is separation and freewill.

Dan

[Zenith]

Human violoence does not necessarily stem from separation of different groups. This is patently false. The number one cause of death is domestic violence and 85% of murders occur within family groups. Sexaul predation is typically commited intrafamily. Human violence comes about due to the threat of the individuals will to survive and satisfaction to destroy others. No other animals kill and subjugate for the sheer pleasure of it...only humans pursue these lustful and degenerate behavior because we seek to engrandize ourselves. Our goal is not to "survive", but dominate and individually live forever.

Your statement that there is only conflict because there is union and division between unions is false as proven above. This class warfare garbage really makes me ill. Humans live together because they have a better chance of surviving-obviously, but what does that mean? What is the philosophy behind this point?

People live together because humans have the need to dominate one another or be dominated. Humans are individualistic creatures whose main motivation is separation and freewill.

Dan

i admit, when i was typing that post i was thinking of transnational conflicts, but you bring up a good point. there is still a primal urge for conflict, for dominating over others. this stems from the age old instinct to survive, and that the best way to do this is to take as much for yourself and to only think of yourself. but humans, along with several other species, have adapted to work together, surely you agree with this; it is seen everyday. this desire to work together is either strengthened, or brought about by the presence and preaching of jesus and christianity. we are shown that, working together, we have a better chance of overcoming all odds. this is why i dislike large corporations and the present state of our government as well as the governments of much of the world. much of their decisions and the way they run things is based around self-centered survival instead of the greater good: companies swindling people so they can make more money, or elected officials running false campaigns only so they can be reelected.

you must remember that the first communities humans lived in were not like the ones we see today. there was still a leader, or alpha male of sorts, but the community was more based around equality and helping each other, because they all knew that they would not survive as easily alone.

[The Barbarian]

Conflict exists in almost all social animals. It's the way the pecking order gets established. But there are usually controls that keep them from killing or seriously harming each other. A dog getting the worst of a fight, can roll over on his back, expose his throat, and the other dog will almost always stop attacking him. Most social species have some form of submissive posture that does this.

The problem is that humans are both very plastic in behavior (which means that such signals are not as commanding for us as for most other animals, and also that humans have produced means of quickly killing each other, before such signals can be given. ER physicians will tell you a lot of stories about domestic violence and the grief and horror killers experience, because it was so easy to pull a trigger. If they had been forced to beat the person to death with their fists, they would not have done it, in most cases.

[Wall-dog]

One of the problems in the argument against morality is that the argument is empirically flawed. If morality were a creation of Mankind then morality would differ dramatically from place to place and from culture to culture and would grow stronger as civilizations grow and our needs to interact increase. empirically however the opposite is true. Read a little about the birth and growth of civilization - Will Durant's 'The Story of Civilization' series is a good starting point. The first 100 pages of Book One, Our Oriental Heritage should be required reading.

It is fact that every civilization from the dawn of time has had almost exactly the same sense of morality. Variations are minimal and are easy to explain. Furthermore, it has been the case in every civilization that morality weakens as civilizations grow (leading to the fall of civilization).

The fact that morality is universal smacks of God, as does the fact that we become less moral as a peoples rather than more when civilizations grow.

What I'd like to know is, if we are an evolved species, where is the fossil evidence? It is ALSO a fact that archeologists have yet to find a single human or 'pre-human' fossil that does not fit modern man. Darwinists have created 'pre-human' skeletons by being creative with how they fit 'bone fragments' together.

Darwin only took micro-evolution as fact. By his own admission, his theories would have to be discarded if fossil evidence supporting it is not found.

Let me put it this way. Darwinism demands that all species are in a continual flux. Everything is continuously evolving, thus every 'species' is really a pre-species of another species. We are, according to Darwin, but a link between a previous pre-human type and a future human type (who will call us pre-human). This being the case, 100% of all fossil remains by definition are transitionary in nature and the VAST majority of fossils should be forms of species prior to modern forms. Yet no such fossils have ever been found with the possible exception of an animal Darwinists claim to be a common ancestor to both whales and hippos. Is it a common ancestor, a separate species altogether (and now extinct), or a fabrication? There is no reason to believe that it is a common ancestor other than that it appears to share some characteristics with both. How many shared characteristics? I could find just as many shared characteristics between my pet dog, a hippo, and myself. Does this make my dachshund a shared ancestor too?

The problem with modern science is that modern scientists have thrown out the scientific method and replaced it with a 'rule' that all things must have a natural cause. In other words, 'Science' starts with an assumption that God does not exist. Arguments against Intelligent Design start with the statement that Intelligent Design can't be scientific because it doesn't gel with the 'rule of science' that all things have naturalistic causes. But the statement that all things have naturalist causes is a THEORY rather than a fact. Saying that one can't use God as a legitimate scientific theory goes against the very nature of science - that only things PROVEN are accepted as fact. I find it particularly ironic that the arguments used to keep Intelligent Design outside the realm of science are exactly the same arguments the Catholic Church used to throw Gallelleo into jail.