Philosophy Discussion Forums

LuckyR wrote:

BardoXV wrote: (Nested quote removed.)


"Thought Out" is useless unless it can be applied, and so far the only ones thinking about it are those who produce few or no offspring. The ones producing offspring are those who do not think about it but reproduce without any control at all. The point is that reproduction is not thought out in the industrial nations at all, the majority of reproduction is done without any consideration of the consequences. Breading is mostly to chance as it is, there is little thought being applied to the process.

Wow, speak for yourself... oh wait, I guess you already are! The rest of us consider with whom we breed and how many children we have (and when) in quite some detail.

I've read your previous posts and we are saying the same thing, but it seems that you are not reading or understanding what I am posting. It also seems that you are lumping me with those in the ghettos who are breeding indiscriminately. I am not one of them, but I am aware that they exist, and I don't ignore their existence. I am also aware that those who produce the most offspring, produce the next generation of human beings, and until you can get them to control their numbers, they will take over the world by sheer force of numbers.

"Humans" is a big word. "Should" is a vague word.

If you talk about things that should happen, you are really talking about how to make them happen (you). About what should you do (the only one you can control). You don't say "should it rain?" if you are not going to think how to make rain.

So, should you make people be responsible about their own evolution?
Now, "their evolution" are vague words. They control "their evolution" already, if that means they control with whom they make babies.
Should you change that?

For me, that's very similar to "should I control other people reproduction?" Sometimes, maybe. I wouldn't blame you if you get angry with your son, and shout Having children is not a game, be carefull! But there isn't a "objective" answer, do as you wish, but don't expect to be the only one who want to gain control over that kind of things, don't espect everybody to have the same thoughts about that (I want control over myself, that's a start).

But if you are talking about your own reproduction, or your own evolution. Well, again, it's your choice, do as you wish.

And... if you are talking about (your, not mine) gen modification etc, it's again your choice. What about me? I would say Why not? choose your plasmid and evolve!

TSBU wrote:"Humans" is a big word. "Should" is a vague word.

If you talk about things that should happen, you are really talking about how to make them happen (you). About what should you do (the only one you can control). You don't say "should it rain?" if you are not going to think how to make rain.

So, should you make people be responsible about their own evolution?
Now, "their evolution" are vague words. They control "their evolution" already, if that means they control with whom they make babies.
Should you change that?

But if you are talking about your own reproduction, or your own evolution. Well, again, it's your choice, do as you wish.

It is obvious that since the beginning of time females do not always choose who impregnates them. Also males do not always want to impregnate a female just because
he desires sex. Unintended pregnancies is probably the norm even for married couples.
Then there is rape which causes many pregnancies. It is not a given that ones reproduction is in ones own hands, therefore, nor is their choice/evolution.

"Should humans be responsible for their own evolution?"

This question presumes evolution is a fact. Since when?

Anthony Edgar wrote:"Should humans be responsible for their own evolution?"

This question presumes evolution is a fact. Since when?

Evolution IS a fact. We have directly observed the change in phenotypic traits between generations of a species population, and have recorded that change, on multiple occasions.

The THEORY of evolution, that is, Darwin's theory of natural selection, is a theoretical framework to interpret the mechanisms behind and explain WHY evolution happens. The theory he laid out also gives a testable explanation for the idea that some populations of organisms tend to survive and reproduce more efficiently in their environments, and that it's due to those changes which are brought on by evolutionary forces.

The theory he laid out also gives a testable explanation for the idea that some populations of organisms tend to survive and reproduce more efficiently in their environments, and that it's due to those changes which are brought on by evolutionary forces.

That explains adaptation, but not evolution. That is, the simplest organisms adapt best to their environment, so evolution beyond that point is antithetical to survival.

Felix wrote:

The theory he laid out also gives a testable explanation for the idea that some populations of organisms tend to survive and reproduce more efficiently in their environments, and that it's due to those changes which are brought on by evolutionary forces.

That explains adaptation, but not evolution. That is, the simplest organisms adapt best to their environment, so evolution beyond that point is antithetical to survival.

Yes, but it was a part of Darwin's theory. And what I stated before that is the fact that the other parts of Darwin's theory are meant to explain why evolution happens (what its mechanisms are).

Some folks (mainly atheists) dogmatically insist that it is a "fact" that humans evolved from simpler life forms, starting with a single-cell organism, via a process of speciation. I find it interesting that so many people believe in this "fact" although:
a) speciation at any level of life has never been observed
b) there are no known practical uses for speciation
c) human survival is in no way dependant on believing in the fact" of microbe-to-man evolution.

So why all the fuss over such an irrelevant belief? Is it reasonable to conclude that belief in this "fact" has a lot more to do with justifying an individual's atheistic philosophy than science?

Anthony Edgar wrote:Some folks (mainly atheists) dogmatically insist that it is a "fact" that humans evolved from simpler life forms, starting with a single-cell organism, via a process of speciation. I find it interesting that so many people believe in this "fact" although:
a) speciation at any level of life has never been observed
b) there are no known practical uses for speciation
c) human survival is in no way dependant on believing in the fact" of microbe-to-man evolution.

So why all the fuss over such an irrelevant belief? Is it reasonable to conclude that belief in this "fact" has a lot more to do with justifying an individual's atheistic philosophy than science?

blogs.scientificamerican.com/science-su ... ervations/
I just had to google "has speciation been observed". This is the first link I got. I realize from the general tone of your post that you will ignore this as another lie perpetrated by the atheists who want to destroy religion, but I thought it was worth a try.

-- Updated September 25th, 2016, 12:09 pm to add the following --

You also seem to be suggesting that atheists are the only people who "believe" in evolution. ( I find this term bizarre as evolution is not a belief system, but anyway) I am pretty sure there are some theists who study science too and "believe" in evolution. So clubbing evolution as a subset of atheism seems to be just ignorance on your part of the facts. Atheism is and always will be an absence of belief in God. No more and no less. It has nothing to do with believe or lack thereof in anything else whatsoever. This has also been repeated countless times by atheists but some theists just seem to completely ignore this fact. Science is independent of theism and atheism. I wish you would understand at least that much.

Well it depends on how broad your definition of "species" is. It's true that we've never seen complete speciation, i.e., mutation from one type of species to a different one, just variations in existing species, as mentioned in that article you linked to, which is more definite in lower life forms such as plants.

As I mentioned earlier, Darwinian evolution doesn't explain why upwardly mobile evolution should occur, since the simplest life forms can adapt better to their environment than more complex ones. Did they tire of the unicellular dating scene and want something more?

Yes they not should but are responsible.

In the news today is three parent babies.

..."The technique involved removing some of the mother's DNA from an egg, and leaving the disease-causing DNA behind. The healthy DNA was slipped into a donor's egg, which was then fertilized. As a result, the baby inherited DNA from both parents and the egg donor.

....The technique is sometimes said to produce "three-parent babies," but the DNA contribution from the egg donor is very small.

.....People carry DNA in two places, the nucleus of the cell and in features called mitochondria, which lie outside the nucleus. The technique is designed to transfer only DNA of the nucleus to the donor egg, separating it from the mother's disease-causing mitochondrial DNA."....

Of course human evolution is much more than just genetics, but this latter caught my eye today.

r6

Vijaydevani wrote: I just had to google "has speciation been observed". This is the first link I got. I realize from the general tone of your post that you will ignore this as another lie perpetrated by the atheists who want to destroy religion, but I thought it was worth a try.

-- Updated September 25th, 2016, 12:09 pm to add the following --

You also seem to be suggesting that atheists are the only people who "believe" in evolution. ( I find this term bizarre as evolution is not a belief system, but anyway) I am pretty sure there are some theists who study science too and "believe" in evolution. So clubbing evolution as a subset of atheism seems to be just ignorance on your part of the facts. Atheism is and always will be an absence of belief in God. No more and no less. It has nothing to do with believe or lack thereof in anything else whatsoever. This has also been repeated countless times by atheists but some theists just seem to completely ignore this fact. Science is independent of theism and atheism. I wish you would understand at least that much.

For every scientist who claims that speciation has occurred, it almost certain that another scientist somewhere will dispute it.  One step forward and one step back ... so goes the dance of speciation - nowhere, in other words.   

------------------------------------------------------------

There is no doubt that many theists accept evolution as a fact.  As for the Christian variety, those who are accept it are in error, in my opinion, as evolution cannot be reconciled with Scripture.  
The Catholic Church had for centuries generally accepted that the six days of creation mentioned in Genesis were literally six days of 24 hours.  But due to the influence of "science", the 1992 publication of the Catechism of the Catholic Church describes Scripture as presenting the six days "symbolically", thus allowing a "day" to be interpreted as longer than 24 hours (as in, possibly billions of years).
Many influential Catholics (eg, Popes) have deferred to the Church's Pontifical Academy of Sciences for advice on evolution.  The scientists who make up this Academy are not all Catholic by any means, but come from a wide cross-section of humanity - atheists included.  This Academy's views on evolution are no different to the secular scientific establishment - ie, man evolved from a microbe.

The disturbing (and frankly, inexcusable) fact that many Christians accept microbe-man evolution as reality says a lot about their ignorance and stupidity in this matter, and also demonstrates the extent to which the masses have been brainwashed into accepting evolution.  This phenomenon, however, doesn't weaken the claim that microbe-man evolution is essentially an atheist invention.

"If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it ... It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent."  Joseph Goebbels, Nazi Propaganda Minister.  

Anthony Edgar, I'll remind you, as a moderator of this site, that we do not allow ad hominem remarks. Your comment about "the masses" being brain-washed, comparing atheists to Joseph Goebbels and calling evolution an "atheist invention" come awfully close to an ad hominem argument.

Also, evolution - that is, the change in phenotypic traits between generations of organisms - is literally just a fact. We have directly observed this in certain cricket populations (sources below).

The only debateable thing about evolution is HOW it happens. One might be able to argue against Darwin's theory of natural selection, but his theory of natural selection is only a description of the mechanisms behind evolution. In simple point of fact, we have SEEN evolution happen, we just don't have all the answers as to what lies behind its mechanisms, causes and effects (though Darwin's theory was a fantastic starting point, and serves us to this very day).

Zuk, Marlene, John T. Rotenberry, and Robin M. Tinghitella. "Silent night: adaptive disappearance of a sexual signal in a parasitized population of field crickets." Biology Letters 2.4 (2006): 521-524.

Tinghitella, R. M. "Rapid evolutionary change in a sexual signal: genetic control of the mutation ‘flatwing’ that renders male field crickets (Teleogryllus oceanicus) mute." Heredity 100.3 (2008): 261-267.

Tinghitella, R. M., et al. "Island hopping introduces Polynesian field crickets to novel environments, genetic bottlenecks and rapid evolution." Journal of evolutionary biology 24.6 (2011): 1199-1211.

Pascoal, Sonia, et al. "Rapid convergent evolution in wild crickets." Current Biology 24.12 (2014): 1369-1374.

ThamiorTheThinker wrote:Anthony Edgar, I'll remind you, as a moderator of this site, that we do not allow ad hominem remarks.

Also, evolution - that is, the change in phenotypic traits between generations of organisms - is literally just a fact. We have directly observed this in certain cricket populations (sources below).

The only debateable thing about evolution is HOW it happens.

Your advice regarding ad hominem remarks has been duly noted.

--------------------------------------------------------------

The unobserved, unverified "fact" of microbe-to-man evolution would be worth discussing if it actually had a practical use.  But it doesn't; it's as useless to applied science as a fairy tale.  Which begs the question:  Why is so much emphasis placed on such a useless idea?

On the other hand, the observed, verified fact of changes within a species - for example, producing a sheep dog from a wolf - is eminently useful and thus most worthy of discussion.

Thank you for the cricket experiments sources.

-----------------------------------------------------------

Incidentally, if "The universe is a quantum computer", is this evidence of Intelligent Design?  

Anthony Edgar-

It seems, then, that we're talking about different things. When you said "evolution", I presumed you meant evolution as biology textbooks define the term, that is: change in the gene pool of a population from generation to generation by such processes as mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift.

This kind of evolution is a fact - a directly observed and recorded fact (see the sources I shared previously).

Whether microbe-to-human evolution is something you want to deny or support is an entirely different matter than the one I was addressing, and perhaps that is why there was disagreement between us. I was not saying anything about microbe-to-human models of human origins, I was talking merely about evolution as biology textbooks define it - the kind of evolution Darwin developed his natural selection theory to explain.