Subject:
|
Re: Support for a 'young' earth.
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sat, 10 Feb 2001 16:23:15 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
175 times
|
| |
|
|
> > >
> > I guess it would have to matter for mathematical probability to make sense.
> > How many Downs Syndrome children will be born before we give rise to X-men?
>
> I don't know the statistics for this, but the theory is fairly
> straightforward. No matter how many thousands of deleterious (harm-causing)
> mutations take place, as soon as a mutation that confers a benefit arises it
> will spread through the population. Have any of the X-men had an X-baby?
I don't know if it would spread through the population. Before I go on, I
really want to keep this on friendly terms. I'm not a fighter and I am a
creationist. And as a Christian I don't feel any argument is worth the cost
of mutual respect and friendship so if I feel like I'm ticking you off or
I'm getting bushwacked by the masses, I will retreat. It's not worth it to me.
But here's my question. Please tolerate this weak analogy because I know
it's ludicrous but I'm just an average joe and I like plain English. I
disagree that a single benefit would spread to the entire population because
any change would have to be subtle at best. Let's say there was a girl born
with an eye in the back of her head. That would be an improvement, because
she could see danger coming from behind. She would not be as likely to be
hit by a car, etc. (As a child, I often wondered if my mom had that
ability) However, because I don't find that attractive, I wouldn't marry
(or I guess mate) with her because it would not be attractive.
Now let's say I could get past the ugliness of the bonus eye because she was
such a warm and wonderful person (assuming all the jokes about her didn't
make her bitter I guess), and did mate with the new improved human. Is that
extra eye so great that it would cause the rest of humanity to pale in
comparison? No, they would continue to survive and live long because such
sub-humans have lived just as well without that new difference.
And like those scary Killer Bees that were supposed to arrive here at some
time. I understand that they have pretty quickly mellowed out because
they've blended with the other non super Killer bees. Their gene pool was
watered down by so many other bees even though they were more powerful.
That would likely happen with my third eye family. Some would look like the
Mrs, but others would look like me, and unless I could just produce a bumper
crop of kids, or some great tragedy would strike all the other humans, my
new family trait wouldn't take, especially if it was a recessive trait.
This same thing would have to happen with every sizeable population in
existence ever. If I'm totally off base, show me how. I really want to
understand your point of view. In other words, not every improvement is
vital, and thus would likely be watered down by the rest of the population.
I also think we are "devolving" as human beings if you look at us as a
culture. (I'm speaking as a U.S. citizen since that's all I know, but not
to offend, please) Look at the decreasing work ethic, growing disrespect
for human life, weakening family unit, etc. Now I know that technology has
improved, but that's just because we're adding to previous knowledge. To me
a great example of the "dumbing down" of America is the replacement of game
shows (that were on when I stayed home from school) with Jerry Springer type
shows (that are on today). Look how much more interested we were in who was
left on Survivor than what was happening on that Russian sub at the same
time. But perhaps I digress. Take a hundred typical "Americans" (I don't
like to use that term since everyone in both N. and S. America are
Americans) and drop them in a third world country without welfare and
technology and they wouldn't survive. Drop them in an untamed wilderness
and they wouldn't survive the first winter. Do you agree, or would you say
that luxury has slowed down and perhaps reversed evolution? And are we
hurting ourselves as a species by caring for the handicapped and infirm when
we should just let them die? That ruins the survival of the fittest and
would pollute the species. Are birth defects on the rise or fall? I don't
know.
> Age of the Earth? Radioactive decay. Is 4.5 billion years long enough to
> allow for plenty of mutation and natural selection to take place? Yep.
How do you know the starting point of the radioactive decay or other kinds
of decay? I'm not trying to be a smart aleck but I recall reading about an
Armadillo they found at the bottom of a river that was dated as being tens
of millenia old. I know that plastic is supposed to take hundreds and
hundreds of years to disintegrate, but I've seen plastic bottles on the farm
that have deteriorated considerably. Did the sunlight/weather affect it's
decay rate? If so, what other forces could make something decay faster and
are these things considered when dating critters. (I must confess that I
know very little about the nature of radioactive dating and would love to
understand it better. But please don't use fancy pants terms cuz I'll get
bored)
> > re dinosaur cataclysm see Dave!'s reply.
> >
> > snip, snip
> > What are your conclusions then? They have nothing to do with the age of the
> > earth, but more sociological implications if we really are really just top
> > of the dung heap.
>
> Evolutionary psychology is a massive and controversial field. My glib one
> sentence summary is that we may be pre-disposed to certain behaviours, but
> ultimately our individual and collective behaviour should be mitigated by
> conscience and culture.
If we evolved to this point by accident, we should purge our consciences and
cultures of morality since it unseemingly causes us to help those who should
be eliminated by survival of the fittest. That's the only way our species
can progress. Of course, I don't believe this but if you're right about
evolution, everything about this statement is true. This is a wonderful
discussion that I would love to continue because I think this topic is more
important for life here and now.
> > > > I must confess that despite lots of big words that scientists can use and
> > > > lots of important names that smart people can name, I still think Planet of
> > > > the Apes was a pretty unrealistic movie.
> > >
> > > The costumes sucked, sure. But why was it so unrealistic?
> >
> > Hmmm. The fact that only the monkeys evolved (so far as we could see)
>
> Leaving aside any allegorical interpretation...
>
> I bet we will see genetically "enhanced" apes within the next ten years.
> Talking chimps by 2030.
> > and they were speaking english.
>
> What was that half-buried statue again ;^)?
>
> > I haven't seen any but the first, and I question why the humans that were
> > there under the dominion of the monkeys de-evolved? Were they another
> > species, or did they survive better being dumb?
>
> In the novel (IIRC) it's described as Frankenstein meets Spartacus, with a
> bit of Gulliver's Travels and "The Time Machine" thrown in. Or maybe that's
> just my interpretation.
If that was an explanation, it didn't help me at all. Did you actually
answer my questions without me knowing it? :O) I guess what you're telling
me is that it wasn't really supposed to be an intelligent work but just a
fun concept film. I can accept that easily.
>
> > Please tell me why you consider the costumes to be the worst discrepancy.
>
> Becuase they're so funny they actively interfere with my suspension of
> disbelief.
As I side, did you ever see on the Simpsons when they did a clip from Planet
of the Apes: the Musical. That was one of the few times in my life I
laughed so hard I cried.
> Sorry for the bitter tone in my earlier post, I'm rapidly wearying of this
> "debate".
I'm equally guilty. I usually don't come to offtopic.debate because I find
that I stop liking people if I'm not careful. I suppose it's immaturity on
my part, but I don't deal well with arrogance or 8 people vs. 1 all
attacking with different points.
Markus
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Support for a 'young' earth.
|
| (...) Ditto :o). I hope to make teaching evolutionary biology an important part of my career, and I don't think that I can be a good teacher if I resort to name calling etc. I'm not interested in harassing people just because they have a world-view (...) (23 years ago, 10-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Support for a 'young' earth.
|
| (...) Many organisms, particularly plants, cope very well with multiple copies of the same (or similar) chromosomes. For example, modern agricultural wheat has three "sub-genomes" which are more or less identical. Spelt (I think), a more ancient (...) (23 years ago, 10-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
24 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
