Resistance to evolution
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
28-10-2012, 04:06 AM
RE: Resistance to evolution
(26-10-2012 07:26 PM)Thomas Wrote:  I like to use Homosexuality as an example of how evolution works.
No designer would design an animal to be homosexual if he wanted it to replicate.
Evolution is random chance followed by survival to pass on the genes.
Homosexuals will always exist in human society as heterosexuals will produce some percentage of homosexuals .
Mother Nature doesn't plan, she just throws out a range of possibilities.
What works, works. What does not does not.
So why don't homosexuals go extinct? Because sexual preference is random enough and homosexuality is closer to heterosexuality than most believe.
As most women are attracted to men, as men to women, naturally humans have crossover - women to women, men to men. It happens and will continue to happen as long as any human has a sex drive.

This is why the fundie will not admit homosexuals are born this way. The designer would never design such a person. Spoiler alert: There is no designer. Duh!

Thats maybe a little simple, homosexuality in a species is a reaction to over population. At least there's a study of homosexuality in rodent populations increasing with population overcrowding. Lemmings I believe, were the subject. This was a paper a flat mate was reading some 20+ years ago, so Im just guessing. Anywhoo, the crux of the paper was that as population pressure on the enviroment increases incidents of homosexuality increase, this lowers birth rate, reduces population pressure and incidents of homosexuality decreases. In this way, the individual homosexual animal may not pass on its genes, but the genes of the species have a more favourable chance of propogating. No idea how worthy the paper was, only know it was part of my flat mates HND course, but I remember talking it over with him and others and its always stuck with me, in paticular it got me over the hump of understanding how evolution can and does work not just on the individual, but on groups.

Legal Disclaimer: I am right, I reserve the right to be wrong without notice, opinions may change, your statutory rights are not affected, opinions expressed are not my own and are an approximation for the sake of communication.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-10-2012, 06:37 AM
RE: Resistance to evolution
(27-10-2012 07:45 PM)fstratzero Wrote:  Being born from nature, the impression of brutal, self serving, destruction, comes to their minds. They think animal behavior is some sort of murderous free for all.

To only look at this world as savage is to miss out on its beauty.

I myself have no problem with the way nature is; sure, it's brutal, but it's also incredibly beautiful and most importantly, it works; it's trial and error, over the span of millennia. I would, however, have a huge problem with it, had it been designed. Because even though it works, it's so often not in the most efficient way, nor in the most benign way either. And if we are capable of seeing it as (sometimes unnecessarily) brutal, why would an all-loving creator allow it? And no, The Fall is not a good enough explanation.

(27-10-2012 09:05 PM)Free Thought Wrote:  Fuckers are arrogant; we are "self aware", we are "superior" to the other creatures, we were made specially.
"Are humans special because we were given it? Or is it our job to make our selves special?" (The same question can be applied to birth rights)
It is, I feel, quite arrogant to assume that one deserves anything on merit of existence alone.

Yeah, I do not think we are superior just because we're self-aware. Sure, we are different, but this consciousness was not "given" to us, it just happened; it wasn't planned, designed or what have you, but was just another amazing instance of evolution. One of the most important things to come out of self-awareness, one'd think, would actually be greater responsibility (and no, I'm not quoting SpidermanWink) and not the freedom to do as you fucking please...

However, I also don't like the other extreme - people saying "oh, animals are sooo much better than people" (plus, I have yet to meet a person who's told me this, who isn't a bit - or more - of a jerk). No they ain't and the same idea of "goodness" (or "badness") cannot be applied to a self-aware creature and one operating purely on instinct. Not to mention that this is a pretty arrogant thing to say, 'cause most people who say it, do not usually think they themselves are worse than animals... so they're kind of putting themselves above the rest of their species and are feeling superior not only to animals, but to their own kind...

"E se non passa la tristezza con altri occhi la guarderò."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Vera's post
28-10-2012, 08:37 AM
RE: Resistance to evolution
(27-10-2012 07:45 PM)fstratzero Wrote:  The fundie thinks they are special. An exaulted entity seperate from nature and her ruler. Rather than her product.

Being born from nature, the impression of brutal, self serving, destruction, comes to their minds. They think animal behavior is some sort of murderous free for all.

If they knew anything about species and their behavior they'd understand nature is full of beautiful relationships between different species. Symbiotic relationships, compassion amongst troops of certain primates, silly mishaps of young species learning, etc.

Sure at times a lion ripping a zebra to shreds is hard to watch but the fact it feeds the pride is something they ignore. Even with their brutal eating habits they do not express the same violence amongst members of their pride.

To only look at this world as savage is to miss out on its beauty.

That's a nice view, but a little Disneyesque.
At any given moment, thousands and thousands of animals are being chased and killed, eaten alive by predators or parasites, starving to death, dying of thirst, pecked to death or thrown out of the nest by siblings.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-10-2012, 09:52 AM
RE: Resistance to evolution
(28-10-2012 08:37 AM)Chas Wrote:  At any given moment, thousands and thousands of animals are being chased and killed, eaten alive by predators or parasites, starving to death, dying of thirst, pecked to death or thrown out of the nest by siblings.

This is emotive language, sir.

Consider

This may sound like an odd request but I'm trying to write something (cos Ghost asked me too expand on something I said) that draws parallels between the small and the large.

So who are the physicists / chemists out there? I need your help.

I want to find the equivalent language of "predator" / "prey" / symbiosis", "consumer" / "producer" / "merger" / "acquisition" but at the atomic / molecular level e.g. "bonding".

I know some elements are more volatile (aggressiveness) than others but my knowledge of chemistry is 30 years old. I could do with some examples Confused

Did that make sense?

Any suggestions?

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-10-2012, 10:06 AM
RE: Resistance to evolution
(28-10-2012 08:37 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(27-10-2012 07:45 PM)fstratzero Wrote:  The fundie thinks they are special. An exaulted entity seperate from nature and her ruler. Rather than her product.

Being born from nature, the impression of brutal, self serving, destruction, comes to their minds. They think animal behavior is some sort of murderous free for all.

If they knew anything about species and their behavior they'd understand nature is full of beautiful relationships between different species. Symbiotic relationships, compassion amongst troops of certain primates, silly mishaps of young species learning, etc.

Sure at times a lion ripping a zebra to shreds is hard to watch but the fact it feeds the pride is something they ignore. Even with their brutal eating habits they do not express the same violence amongst members of their pride.

To only look at this world as savage is to miss out on its beauty.

That's a nice view, but a little Disneyesque.
At any given moment, thousands and thousands of animals are being chased and killed, eaten alive by predators or parasites, starving to death, dying of thirst, pecked to death or thrown out of the nest by siblings.

Indeed there are many examples of every type of behavior in nature.

Member of the Cult of Reason

The atheist is a man who destroys the imaginary things which afflict the human race, and so leads men back to nature, to experience and to reason.
-Baron d'Holbach-
Bitcion:1DNeQMswMdvx4xLPP6qNE7RkeTwXGC7Bzp
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-10-2012, 11:16 AM
RE: Resistance to evolution
(27-10-2012 06:17 PM)Chas Wrote:  I don't understand with what you disagree or have an issue with.

My point is that I believe their emotional reaction to the very idea of evolution prevents the consideration of the evidence.

I just had a problem with this part: "I don't think that the resistance to, and denial of, evolutionary theory is cognitive".

People's emotional reaction, to being confronted by an idea the goes against their core beliefs and what they have been taught, is just causing them to, basically, ignore the evidence, selectively, or just view the evidence in a way that allows them to come to whatever conclusion they want to come to. I just view it as emotion affecting cognition. Saying that the resistance isn't cognitive, I just saw as a weird, confusing way of putting it. I guess that's all. It's either/or, a lack of understanding on my part, or I just don't like the wording.

To your last quote, I think that people are considering the evidence; they are just considering it in a way, ignoring and denying, that allows them to come to the conclusion they already, or would be most willing, to accept. It would be too much of a generalization to say they aren't considering the evidence-- it might even be just wrong. If you ask people, specifically those denying it, about evolution, a lot of them would probably get the main idea, which, personally, I think is all you need. They might slip up when you ask them to explain further, but you would also find people accepting evolution, probably even myself, making some of the same mistakes, slip ups and misrepresentations of the theory, the more you go into the details, maybe just not as negatively and harshly. It might be fair to say they aren't reading Richard Dawkins or watching PBS, but a lot of people denying it, understand enough of the main idea to come to a legitimate conclusion, accepting evolution.

I would agree that people aren't attempting to be objective and take things seriously, but people, in general, aren't very rational, objective and don't really take things seriously. You would definitely be asking way too much, if you wanted to ask people to think for themselves and think about what is actually true, as opposed to allowing others to influence their thinking and believing what they want to believe. And that's for people, in general, not just theists and creationists.

The Paradox Of Fools And Wise Men:
“The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser men so full of doubts.” ― Bertrand Russell
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-10-2012, 12:01 PM
RE: Resistance to evolution
Next of Kin: My Conversations with Chimpanzees (1997), a book I finished reading a few months ago, explains why people reject human relatedness to chimps, as well as recognizing animal intelligence. Their views are influenced by biblical and Greek philosophical sources. The bible says that man was created from the dust of the earth. This is a source of pride for such people because, if true, it would mean they were special. Evolutionary theory, on the other hand, says that man is descended from lower primates who developed through the forces of natural selection over many millions of years. This would mean they were not special and were themselves animals. This offends Christians because they believe man is superior to the beasts of the earth. After all, the bible portrays man as having dominion over the animals. The ancient Greek philosophers developed the "Great Chain of Being" (a.k.a. the Ladder of Life), a hierarchical list that puts god at the top and minerals down at the bottom. Humans are listed as being a higher form of life than animals. Scientists were once highly influenced by such views. For instance, animal behaviorists influenced by Descartes (17th-century) viewed animals as mindless automatons that did not think but only responded to environmental stimuli. They believed that if you studied the behavior of one animal you could apply it to all others. Luckily, scientists have parted ways with this methodology.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-10-2012, 02:02 PM
RE: Resistance to evolution
The idea that there is a "grand meaning" to life in general is what evolution challenges, however the evolutionists have mistakenly fallen into this trap a little.

Evolution implies that there is a trajectory from less complex to more complex, when what is called complex or not complex is simply a subjective human opinion.

The bourgeois liberals have also contradicted evolution in falsely claiming that life or habitats are part of an "eco-system" that somehow levels itself out as long as we dirty bird humans keep our hands out of it. According to this view, nature is static and maintains itself at an optimum level when left alone, this view clearly contradicts evolution.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-10-2012, 02:06 PM
RE: Resistance to evolution
(28-10-2012 02:02 PM)I and I Wrote:  The idea that there is a "grand meaning" to life in general is what evolution challenges, however the evolutionists have mistakenly fallen into this trap a little.

Evolution implies that there is a trajectory from less complex to more complex, when what is called complex or not complex is simply a subjective human opinion.

The bourgeois liberals have also contradicted evolution in falsely claiming that life or habitats are part of an "eco-system" that somehow levels itself out as long as we dirty bird humans keep our hands out of it. According to this view, nature is static and maintains itself at an optimum level when left alone, this view clearly contradicts evolution.

No, evolution does not posit a trajectory from less to more complex. There are no goals in evolution, no foresight; there is only selection.

I don't think eco-system is a 'bourgeois liberal' term, merely a view of the natural world at a level higher than species selection.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-10-2012, 02:18 PM
RE: Resistance to evolution
(28-10-2012 02:02 PM)I and I Wrote:  the evolutionists

One of the most meaningless "terms" ever.

"E se non passa la tristezza con altri occhi la guarderò."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Vera's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: