| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"loose cannon" |
| Date: |
13 Jun 2005 11:47:26 PM |
| Object: |
Evolution debate confounds evangelicals |
http://www.twincities.com/mld/pioneerpress/news/local/11867477.htm
Evolution debate confounds evangelicals
'Intelligent design' theory at center of conflict
BY PAUL NUSSBAUM
PHILADELPHIA - Can God and evolution coexist?
For many evangelical Christians, the debate over teaching evolution in
public schools touches a vital spiritual nerve. Some see evolution as a
path to perdition, while others see it as a crowning example of God's
handiwork.
A legal battle in Dover, Pa., over the teaching of evolution and
"intelligent design" has focused attention on the issue, as have
proposals in Kansas to change how evolution is taught.
For David Wilcox, a biology professor at the evangelical college of
Eastern University, the challenge is to teach students that it's
possible to embrace evolution "without intellectual schizophrenia."
"They've been taught that evolution is another way of saying atheism,
and they just shut it out," said Wilcox, author of "God and Evolution:
A Faith-Based Understanding." "They say, 'Why do I have to learn this
stuff - don't you know that God hates science?' "
"God doesn't hate science - he invented it. We try to get them to see
that evolution happened, and it's not so scary ... that evolution is
the way God did it."
"Evolutionary theists" such as Wilcox are part of an effort by the
scientific establishment to defend evolution against advocates of
creationism, intelligent design and other concepts that challenge the
theory of natural selection in whole or in part.
Evangelical Christians are as divided as much of the rest of the
nation.
"No topic in the world of science and Christianity has created the
intensity of discussion and disharmony with evangelicals as the source
of biological diversity," asserts the American Scientific Affiliation,
an organization of scientists who are Christians. "Today's spirited
discussion often pits Christian versus Christian and scientist versus
scientist."
The nation's leading science organizations and the majority of
scientists accept the theory of evolution as the explanation for the
origin of all living things, but Americans in general are much less
convinced.
Offered three explanations for the origin of humans in a CBS News/New
York Times poll six months ago, 13 percent of respondents said they
believed "we evolved from less-advanced life forms over millions of
years, and God did not directly guide this process." Twenty-seven
percent believed "we evolved from less-advanced life forms over
millions of years, but God guided this process." And 55 percent
believed "God created us in our present form." The poll, which
questioned 885 people, had a margin of error of plus or minus 3
percentage points.
Evangelicals who are "young Earth" fundamentalists dismiss evolution
and subscribe to a literal interpretation of the Genesis account of
creation, believing Earth is less than 10,000 years old.
They often see the teaching of evolution as undermining Christianity
and paving the way to immorality.
"What you believe about where you came from directly affects your
worldview," said Ken Ham, president of Answers in Genesis, a
fundamental creationist organization that is building a
50,000-square-foot Creation Museum in Petersburg, Ky. "If you can use
man's ideas to reinterpret the book of Genesis, then why not use man's
ideas to reinterpret morality?"
One of the newest wrinkles in a debate that has percolated ever since
Charles Darwin published his "On the Origin of Species" in 1859 is
"intelligent design."
That is the concept at the heart of the battle in Dover, 25 miles south
of Harrisburg.
Eleven parents have filed a federal lawsuit to stop the Dover school
board from requiring biology teachers to present "intelligent design"
as an alternative to evolution.
The parents say intelligent design is a religious argument and teaching
it violates a 1987 U.S. Supreme Court ruling against teaching
creationism as science.
Intelligent design holds that natural selection cannot explain all of
the complex developments observed in nature and that an unspecified
intelligent designer must be involved. Its adherents say it is a
scientific, not a religious, concept based on scientific observations,
although they acknowledge its theological implications.
Michael Behe, a biochemistry professor at Lehigh University in
Bethlehem, Pa., and the author of "Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical
Challenge to Evolution," is an intelligent-design proponent and is
scheduled to be an expert witnesses for the Dover school board when the
case goes to trial in the fall.
He says religion is "clearly why (intelligent design) evokes such
emotion. ... It's not just another issue of science. If it were, no one
would care."
Christian supporters of evolution say intelligent design seems to
require periodic intervention by the designer.
Kenneth R. Miller, a biology professor at Brown University and the
author of "Finding Darwin's God," is an ardent proponent of evolution
and opponent of intelligent design.
He is slated to be an expert witness for the parents in the Dover case.
"I think there is a God, and he is the creator of the universe," said
Miller, who is Catholic. "But the God of the intelligent-design
movement is way too small. In their view, he designed everything in the
world and yet he repeatedly intervenes and violates the laws of his own
creation.
"Their God is like a kid who is not a very good mechanic and has to
keep lifting the hood and tinkering with the engine."
Many evangelical Protestants, like many Catholics and other Christians,
argue that faith and science complement each other and need not collide
over evolution.
The scientific establishment is trying harder to present evolution as
something apart from, not a threat to, religion.
"It's not science versus religion - that misses the point entirely,"
said Jay Labov, senior adviser for education and communication for the
National Academy of Sciences. "Science cannot begin to look into the
supernatural. That's beyond the realm of science."
The president of the National Academy, Bruce Alberts, sent a letter in
March to members, urging them "to confront the increasing challenges to
the teaching of evolution in public schools."
The academy also gathered the signatures of more than 4,000 Christian
clergy - including evangelicals - supporting evolution as "a
scientific truth." The clergy, in the letter, "ask that science remain
science and that religion remain religion, two very different, but
complementary, forms of truth."
The theory of intelligent design holds that natural selection cannot
explain all of the complex developments observed in nature and that an
unspecified intelligent designer must be involved.
.
|
|
| User: "Katt" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution debate confounds evangelicals |
14 Jun 2005 05:06:18 PM |
|
|
"Jon." <jd_waller@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1118783534.469059.9820@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
As long as there are differences between
individuals that lead to greater or lesser reproductive success, there
will continue to be evolution.
Jon,
Since we are posting in n/groups wherein the actual grasp of Darwinism may
not always be great, would you agree that we might helpfully amend your
statement above to read:
"As long as there are HERITABLE differences between individuals that lead to
greater or lesser reproductive success, there will continue to be
evolution".
Are you happy with that alteration, mon brave?
Regards,
Katt.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jon." |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution debate confounds evangelicals |
14 Jun 2005 05:14:43 PM |
|
|
Katt wrote:
"Jon." <jd_waller@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1118783534.469059.9820@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
As long as there are differences between
individuals that lead to greater or lesser reproductive success, there
will continue to be evolution.
Jon,
Since we are posting in n/groups wherein the actual grasp of Darwinism may
not always be great, would you agree that we might helpfully amend your
statement above to read:
"As long as there are HERITABLE differences between individuals that lead to
greater or lesser reproductive success, there will continue to be
evolution".
Are you happy with that alteration, mon brave?
Bien sur. I am a simple lawyer who sometimes flounders in the seas of
biological terminology. ;)
Jon.
aa #703
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jeff Welch" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution debate confounds evangelicals |
14 Jun 2005 05:33:04 PM |
|
|
"Jon." <jd_waller@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1118783534.469059.9820@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
You are confusing "natural selection" (which is natural in the sense
that it is not directed by some intelligence) with the "natural
environment" (which is natural in the sense that it has not been
modified by humans).
It isn't possible to consider one without the other. Natural selection
occurs as a result of environmental factors.
As long as there are differences between individuals that lead to greater
or lesser reproductive success, there
will continue to be evolution.
And as I've said - humans have assumed control of those factors, so
evolution in humans is at this point nonexistent.
The pressures on the human species may be different from those in the
past, or on other species,
but there are still pressures that can give rise to niches in which
beneficial variations can flourish.
Such as. . .?
As an earlier poster noted, there has not been sufficient time in human
history, let alone in the period where we have had any meaningful
degree of control over our environment, to see any visible results of
evolution.
Very well. How about using deductive reasoning. Given what we know about
the mechanisms of evolution (natural variation, mutation, natural
selection), what factors are currently in play to drive human evolution?
Best guess.
-Jeff
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jon." |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution debate confounds evangelicals |
14 Jun 2005 06:06:00 PM |
|
|
Jeff Welch wrote:
"Jon." <jd_waller@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1118783534.469059.9820@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
You are confusing "natural selection" (which is natural in the sense
that it is not directed by some intelligence) with the "natural
environment" (which is natural in the sense that it has not been
modified by humans).
It isn't possible to consider one without the other. Natural selection
occurs as a result of environmental factors.
Yes, and there are still environmental factors, even though we have
some degree of control over our environment.
As long as there are differences between individuals that lead to greater
or lesser reproductive success, there
will continue to be evolution.
And as I've said - humans have assumed control of those factors, so
evolution in humans is at this point nonexistent.
You seem to think that control over environmental factors means that
there are no such factors. There are.
The pressures on the human species may be different from those in the
past, or on other species,
but there are still pressures that can give rise to niches in which
beneficial variations can flourish.
Such as. . .?
As an earlier poster noted, there has not been sufficient time in human
history, let alone in the period where we have had any meaningful
degree of control over our environment, to see any visible results of
evolution.
Very well. How about using deductive reasoning. Given what we know about
the mechanisms of evolution (natural variation, mutation, natural
selection), what factors are currently in play to drive human evolution?
Best guess.
It's difficult to look at these factors from the inside, as it were. A
detached observer would have a better vantage point. However, I would
suggest as an example that one would be our predilection for polluting
the air, land and water. We see an increase in childhood asthma, which
is a mechanism selecting for ability to deal with these factors.
I'm sure others can give other examples.
Jon.
aa #703
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jeff Welch" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution debate confounds evangelicals |
14 Jun 2005 08:46:14 PM |
|
|
"Jon." <jd_waller@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1118790360.378361.84390@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Yes, and there are still environmental factors, even though we have
some degree of control over our environment.
What are they?
And as I've said - humans have assumed control of those factors, so
evolution in humans is at this point nonexistent.
You seem to think that control over environmental factors means that
there are no such factors. There are.
O.K. cool - what are they?
Very well. How about using deductive reasoning. Given what we know
about
the mechanisms of evolution (natural variation, mutation, natural
selection), what factors are currently in play to drive human evolution?
Best guess.
It's difficult to look at these factors from the inside, as it were. A
detached observer would have a better vantage point. However, I would
suggest as an example that one would be our predilection for polluting
the air, land and water. We see an increase in childhood asthma, which
is a mechanism selecting for ability to deal with these factors.
I'm sure others can give other examples.
Would be interested in hearing them.
But thinking about your childhood athsma example - how does that factor in
to natural selection?
Are human beings becoming more chemical resistant? Would you expect them
to?
-Jeff
.
|
|
|
| User: "Llanzlan Klazmon" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution debate confounds evangelicals |
15 Jun 2005 01:28:32 AM |
|
|
"Jeff Welch" <seattledemocracy@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:1118799975.0d1e3dbb19f8ad7ba93271dc4daabde5@meganetnews2:
"Jon." <jd_waller@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1118790360.378361.84390@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Yes, and there are still environmental factors, even though we have
some degree of control over our environment.
What are they?
And as I've said - humans have assumed control of those factors, so
evolution in humans is at this point nonexistent.
You seem to think that control over environmental factors means that
there are no such factors. There are.
O.K. cool - what are they?
Apart from genetic drift and sexual selection. The ready availability of
food means that families that have large number of children have a good
probability that most of the children will survive. This means that the
allelles of more fertile people are eventually likely to increase as a
percentage of the population. In preindustrial society the dynamics would
be a bit different because of the risk of famine. Ok a bit of a hand
wave. There is also resistence to disease - the effectiveness of
antibiotics is rapidly declining and the rapid movement of people around
the globe and greater population density could mean that disease could
again play a major role in selective pressures.
Klazmon.
Very well. How about using deductive reasoning. Given what we know
about
the mechanisms of evolution (natural variation, mutation, natural
selection), what factors are currently in play to drive human
evolution? Best guess.
It's difficult to look at these factors from the inside, as it were.
A detached observer would have a better vantage point. However, I
would suggest as an example that one would be our predilection for
polluting the air, land and water. We see an increase in childhood
asthma, which is a mechanism selecting for ability to deal with these
factors.
I'm sure others can give other examples.
Would be interested in hearing them.
But thinking about your childhood athsma example - how does that
factor in to natural selection?
Are human beings becoming more chemical resistant? Would you expect
them to?
-Jeff
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jeff Welch" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution debate confounds evangelicals |
15 Jun 2005 02:59:15 PM |
|
|
"Llanzlan Klazmon" <Klazmon@llurdiaxorb.govt> wrote in message
news:Xns9676BBE8CC9D0Klazmonllurdiaxorbgo@203.97.37.6...
Apart from genetic drift
What adaptation would you expect genetic drift to produce?
and sexual selection.
Not sure what you mean by this.
The ready availability of food means that families that have large number
of children have a good
probability that most of the children will survive.
This fact bolsters my argument. If anything the aspect of evolution that is
in action due to humans' capacity to control environmental factors isn't
evolution at all - it's DEvolution.
-Jeff
.
|
|
|
| User: "Llanzlan Klazmon" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution debate confounds evangelicals |
15 Jun 2005 05:55:28 PM |
|
|
"Jeff Welch" <seattledemocracy@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:1118865556.a2acd138b87845bcf6d833e4acc0759a@meganetnews2:
"Llanzlan Klazmon" <Klazmon@llurdiaxorb.govt> wrote in message
news:Xns9676BBE8CC9D0Klazmonllurdiaxorbgo@203.97.37.6...
Apart from genetic drift
What adaptation would you expect genetic drift to produce?
That would be just speculation. That drift will occur is a mathematical
certainty. Some alleles will disppear and other become fixed without any
selective pressure.
and sexual selection.
Not sure what you mean by this.
Males or females only mating with others with traits they are attracted
to.
The ready availability of food means that families that have large
number of children have a good
probability that most of the children will survive.
This fact bolsters my argument. If anything the aspect of evolution
that is in action due to humans' capacity to control environmental
factors isn't evolution at all - it's DEvolution.
Incorrect term. Biologists define evolution as being the "change in
allele frequency of a population over time". The theory of evolution
explains why and how this happens.
1. Mutation. This is the source of new alleles. In metazoans the only
mutations that are relevant to evolution are those that occur in the germ
cells. This is because somatic cells all die when the individual dies but
the some of the germ cells may lead to a new generation. (The only
exception known being HeLa cells which are human somatic cells that have
become protist). Mutation is caused by chemical agents, ionising
radiation and random copying and duplication errors in cell reproduction.
Every individual has a few mutations that were not in the genome of the
somatic cells of either parent. I.e the mutation occured in the germ cell
line after the somatic cells had already formed from the original zygotes
of the parents.
2. Selection. This includes the classic natural selection (i.e
environmental pressure) and sexual selection (as explained above - most
obvious example is the plumage of some male birds). The fact that humans
can and do conciously modify the environment doesn't alter the basic
mechanism. Other species also alter their environment to a greater or
lessor degree (though not conciously).
Through genetic engineering humans are also close to the ability to
directly alter specific genes however there is a debate on whether or not
it is ethical to do so. This would be a form of conciously guided
evolution.
3. Genetic drift. This is just a statistical phenomena. Google 'genetic
drift' if you want more information.
Klazmon
-Jeff
.
|
|
|
| User: "Katt" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution debate confounds evangelicals |
15 Jun 2005 07:29:03 PM |
|
|
"Llanzlan Klazmon" <Klazmon@llurdiaxorb.govt> wrote in message
news:Xns96776F18140EFKlazmonllurdiaxorbgo@
and sexual selection.
Not sure what you mean by this.
Males or females only mating with others with traits they are attracted
to.
And that's a really interesting one: its results can 'run away with
themselves' in ways that don't, in any other sense, qualify as particularly
'adaptive' -- look, for example, at the *peacock's tail*...
Katt.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jeff Welch" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution debate confounds evangelicals |
15 Jun 2005 02:59:53 PM |
|
|
"Llanzlan Klazmon" <Klazmon@llurdiaxorb.govt> wrote in message
news:Xns9676BBE8CC9D0Klazmonllurdiaxorbgo@203.97.37.6...
There is also resistence to disease - the effectiveness of
antibiotics is rapidly declining and the rapid movement of people around
the globe and greater population density could mean that disease could
again play a major role in selective pressures.
Did the black plague produce humans resistant to plague?
-Jeff
.
|
|
|
| User: "Katt" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution debate confounds evangelicals |
15 Jun 2005 03:29:57 PM |
|
|
"Jeff Welch" <seattledemocracy@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1118865593.713bea7e1c9239b3d457c0509703d8bc@meganetnews2...
"Llanzlan Klazmon" <Klazmon@llurdiaxorb.govt> wrote in message
news:Xns9676BBE8CC9D0Klazmonllurdiaxorbgo@203.97.37.6...
There is also resistence to disease - the effectiveness of
antibiotics is rapidly declining and the rapid movement of people around
the globe and greater population density could mean that disease could
again play a major role in selective pressures.
Did the black plague produce humans resistant to plague?
Oh fucking hell.
Will someone please get this arrogant idiot to *find out something* about
the topics he's wasting people's time with...?
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/10/4/l_104_05.html
The *Usenet Hydra*, ladies and gentlemen: you cut off one head -- and *a
stupider one grows back*...
Katt.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Katt" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution debate confounds evangelicals |
15 Jun 2005 03:27:46 PM |
|
|
"Jeff Welch" <seattledemocracy@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1118865593.713bea7e1c9239b3d457c0509703d8bc@meganetnews2...
"Llanzlan Klazmon" <Klazmon@llurdiaxorb.govt> wrote in message
news:Xns9676BBE8CC9D0Klazmonllurdiaxorbgo@203.97.37.6...
There is also resistence to disease - the effectiveness of
antibiotics is rapidly declining and the rapid movement of people around
the globe and greater population density could mean that disease could
again play a major role in selective pressures.
Did the black plague produce humans resistant to plague?
Oh fucking hell.
Will someone please get this arrogant idiot to *find out something* about
the topics he's wasting people's time
with...?http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/10/4/l_104_05.html
The *Usenet Hydra*, ladies and gentlemen: you cut off one head -- and *a
stupider one grows back*...
Katt.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jeff Welch" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution debate confounds evangelicals |
15 Jun 2005 06:17:04 PM |
|
|
"Katt" <seruhshjaudn@dfhu.net> wrote in message
news:6b0se.10865$q46.5525@newsfe1-win.ntli.net...
Oh fucking hell.
Is that better than the regular kind? It sounds pretty good up front. . .
Will someone please get this arrogant idiot
Arrogant I'll cop to, but no idiot I.
Thanks for the wonderful feedback, have a pleasant reality, and go *****
yourself.
-Jeff
.
|
|
|
| User: "Katt" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution debate confounds evangelicals |
15 Jun 2005 07:41:43 PM |
|
|
"Jeff Welch" <seattledemocracy@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1118877424.d52477496a82d5dd0f0888ceea44f917@meganetnews2...
"Katt" <seruhshjaudn@dfhu.net> wrote in message
news:6b0se.10865$q46.5525@newsfe1-win.ntli.net...
Oh fucking hell.
Is that better than the regular kind? It sounds pretty good up front. . .
Will someone please get this arrogant idiot
Arrogant I'll cop to, but no idiot I.
*****. Someone who wasn't an idiot would *keep out of a debate about
neo-Darwinism unless and until he understood the topic*. You're just one
more under-informed internet ***** who loves the sound of his own mouse.
Come back any time and have me kick your sorry ***** all over the field once
again.
Or *read a fucking book about Darwinism*, you dim twat. And not one by
Stephen Jay Gould or Steve Jones, either: neither they nor you are up to the
job.
Katt.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jeff Welch" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution debate confounds evangelicals |
15 Jun 2005 10:00:47 PM |
|
|
"Katt" <seruhshjaudn@dfhu.net> wrote in message
news:bV3se.11296$q46.2150@newsfe1-win.ntli.net...
Come back any time and have me kick your sorry ***** all over the field once
again.
You'll pardon me if I recuse myself as having more important things to do.
Enjoy yourself. It's pretty clear nobody else is going to enjoy you.
-Jeff
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sanders Kaufman" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution debate confounds evangelicals |
15 Jun 2005 03:15:58 PM |
|
|
"Jeff Welch" <seattledemocracy@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1118865593.713bea7e1c9239b3d457c0509703d8bc@meganetnews2...
"Llanzlan Klazmon" <Klazmon@llurdiaxorb.govt> wrote in message
news:Xns9676BBE8CC9D0Klazmonllurdiaxorbgo@203.97.37.6...
There is also resistence to disease - the effectiveness of
antibiotics is rapidly declining and the rapid movement of people around
the globe and greater population density could mean that disease could
again play a major role in selective pressures.
Did the black plague produce humans resistant to plague?
Yes.
After we were exposed long enough - we developed several ways to resist the
plague.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Azrael" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution debate confounds evangelicals |
15 Jun 2005 04:34:08 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 15 Jun 2005 12:59:53 -0700, "Jeff Welch"
<seattledemocracy@hotmail.com> wrote:
"Llanzlan Klazmon" <Klazmon@llurdiaxorb.govt> wrote in message
news:Xns9676BBE8CC9D0Klazmonllurdiaxorbgo@203.97.37.6...
There is also resistence to disease - the effectiveness of
antibiotics is rapidly declining and the rapid movement of people around
the globe and greater population density could mean that disease could
again play a major role in selective pressures.
Did the black plague produce humans resistant to plague?
-Jeff
Actually yes, to some degree.
And heres the kicker,
Studies have found that those who had ancestors that were exposed to
the plague or survived it are more resistant to AIDS/HIV.
Azrael
The thiest/diest defense:
1)I believe in god, ergo god exists
2)I believe in god, ergo I know what god wills, wants, the path to god, etc.
3)I believe in god, ergo I am right/correct
4)You don't agree with me, you are wrong (see 1,2,and/or 3 above)
5)You dont' beleive as I do then you are wrong (see 1,2,and/or 3 above)
6)You want proof of god? (see 1,2,and/or 3 above)
7)You have evidence god does not exist (see 1,2,and/or 3 above)
8)If you don't believe as I do you are wrong (see 1,2,and/or 3 above)
There was no "before" the beginning of our universe, because once upon a time there was no time.
John D. Barrow
Question #1: If I get im my spaceship and fly to the very edge of the universe what do I see out the front window?
Question #2: What is the most mass/matter that a black hole can obsorb and what happens after it reaches that point and trys to absorb more matter?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "DanielSan" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution debate confounds evangelicals |
14 Jun 2005 03:40:45 PM |
|
|
Jeff Welch wrote:
"JCarew" <othmer@prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:QXEre.1072$G55.678@newssvr33.news.prodigy.com...
As far as the evolution of humans goes I'm not sure we are just a
"stage" - natural selection ceased for us some time ago as our
intelligence gave us the tools to over-ride environmental factors
that impact reproduction, etc.
All people in every corner of the earth???
Pretty much, yeah. Even the most fundamental of tribal societies control
their environment to such a degree that evolution is interrupted.
I don't totally agree. Homo sapiens, as the only extant subspecies of
Homo sapiens sapiens, have only existed for only 150,000-200,000 years,
or thereabouts. Our ancestor, Homo erectus, on the other hand, was
around for nearly 1 million years. Its ancestor, Homo habilis for about
750,000 years.
Homo sapiens, as a subspecies, have only been around for a short period
of time, historically speaking. It is far too early to suggest that
human evolution has been "interrupted."
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "brutus" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution debate confounds evangelicals |
14 Jun 2005 01:58:27 PM |
|
|
"Jeff Welch" <seattledemocracy@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1118770566.b4378f5fb7bde255e591ccc09c12f11f@meganetnews2...
<nafc@snet.net> wrote in message
news:1118763475.086760.168200@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Not according to my Catholic friends. They say God directed the path
that evolution took that resulted in us humans. The fact that we
humans are just one stage in the evolution process and not some final
outcome they simply ignore.
As far as the evolution of humans goes I'm not sure we are just a
"stage" - natural selection ceased for us some time ago as our
intelligence gave us the tools to over-ride environmental factors that
impact reproduction, etc.
-Jeff
Actually not. We are getting taller. Fatter. Living longer. Suffering
more chemical induced cancers, etc. Why? Natural selection is still at
work.
Brutus
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jeff Welch" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution debate confounds evangelicals |
14 Jun 2005 03:04:44 PM |
|
|
"brutus" <brutus@thebrute.com> wrote in message
news:nNFre.4365$NX4.3173@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
As far as the evolution of humans goes I'm not sure we are just a
"stage" - natural selection ceased for us some time ago as our
intelligence gave us the tools to over-ride environmental factors that
impact reproduction, etc.
Actually not. We are getting taller.
No, we are not getting taller.
Fatter.
We're definitely getting fatter, but this is an example of how we have
interfered with evolution, not an example of it. Obesity is a natural human
variation - in fact, an evolutionary adaptation. We are getting fatter
because evolution encoded obesity as a natural defense against starvation.
The growing health crisis of obesity is evidence that human beings have
interrupted evolution - otherwise we'd be getting thinner (due to no more
need to stave off starvation), not fatter.
Living longer.
Again - not natural selection doing this, this is humans controlling our
environment through medicine.
Suffering more chemical induced cancers, etc.
Again - this is the opposite of evolution in action. If the process of
natural selection were still in play for human beings, we'd be becoming LESS
susceptible to chemical induced cancers - not more so.
Why? Natural selection is still at work.
No it isn't, not for human beings - and you just proved it.
-Jeff
.
|
|
|
| User: "Katt" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution debate confounds evangelicals |
14 Jun 2005 04:59:42 PM |
|
|
"Jeff Welch" <seattledemocracy@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1118779478.42b1e1433e5f727390e41a9ff2bdff06@meganetnews2...
"brutus" <brutus@thebrute.com> wrote in message
news:nNFre.4365$NX4.3173@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
As far as the evolution of humans goes I'm not sure we are just a
"stage" - natural selection ceased for us some time ago as our
intelligence gave us the tools to over-ride environmental factors that
impact reproduction, etc.
Actually not. We are getting taller.
No, we are not getting taller.
A more accurate and informative formulation would have put it that we
certainly *are* getting taller, though for reasons that are environmental
rather than genetic: many (not all) of us have access to the kinds of
nutrition and health-care that allow the somatic realisation of our genetic
'blueprint' to be less compromised now than it would have been 500 years
ago.
Living longer.
Again - not natural selection doing this, this is humans controlling our
environment through medicine.
Even though many (not all) of us do so, the fact remains that modern
societies' stress on late reproduction and planned parenthood are inevitably
exerting a selection pressure in the direction of increased longevity: as
Western men and women, for a variety of reasons, increasingly delay
reproduction until they are in their 30s and 40s, 'lethal genes' whose
effect would be to cause the death of the bearer before middle age, will
tend to be selected out. If we were to force everyone to delay reproducing
until the 'last possible recommendable moment' for their particular sex,
then a massive proportion of these lethal genes could be removed from the
gene-pool in only a few generations, and average human lifespan would
increase markedly.
Suffering more chemical induced cancers, etc.
Again - this is the opposite of evolution in action. If the process of
natural selection were still in play for human beings, we'd be becoming
LESS susceptible to chemical induced cancers - not more so.
That assertion shows a serious lack of understanding of Darwinian evolution.
I'm beginning to wonder what your qualifications are: you are making
aggressively categorical statements that do not stand up. Specifically, you
now seem to think that a selection pressure in the direction of 'resistance
to chemically induced cancers' could somehow have manifested an evolutionary
effect in the 180 years or so since scientific industrialisation first made
a major chemical impact on the world. Can I point out that you're out by
about *9,820 years*...? What's more, since cancers are predominantly
diseases of late maturity and old age, it's not easy for them to be selected
against.
Why? Natural selection is still at work.
No it isn't, not for human beings - and you just proved it.
Yes it is, and you are seriously under-informed. Take pandemics, for one
thing. Several times in the last few hundred years, enormous human mortality
has been caused by diseases that will inevitably have had an 'evolutionary'
impact by forcing natural selection to favour those individuals who are even
slightly more resistant than the rest. In today's AIDS-ravaged world, and in
African communities especially, the instructions for making an HIV-resistant
human are probably already making their way through the gene-pool.
What is more, 'fitness' is determined purely in terms of 'adaptation to
environment' -- and we ourselves are now changing our total environment in
ways that will almost certainly be exerting a selection pressure: genes that
protect against the effects of cigarettes, wrong-fat foods and junk-carb
diets, will all be being selected for in Western societies, even if the
pressure is as slight as having a clinically obese chain-smoker dying as an
ill 66-year-old rather than an active 76-year-old -- because even though a
septuagenarian might not be likely to do much reproducing of his/her own,
the fact remains that our familial and societal structures mean that many
younger people are much 'freer' to have additional children if there are
still fit and healthy grandparents around who can look after them rather
than needing to be expensively looked after themselves.
And then there is the question of the many industrial/chemical pollutants
(and more than a few actual infectious diseases) that exist which themselves
have the effect of modifying the sufferer's DNA in unpredictable ways.
Whether or not they encounter selection pressure for or against them in any
currently imaginable environment isn't the point: the fact remains that they
are producing the 'diversity' part of the Darwinist triad of Diversity,
Selection, and Reproduction -- and even if they weren't, some of that
diversification would be happening anyway: 'science', 'medicine', or
anything else can't stop the 'background' mutational drift in our genes.
Katt.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution debate confounds evangelicals |
15 Jun 2005 12:18:59 AM |
|
|
Katt wrote:
"Jeff Welch" <seattledemocracy@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1118779478.42b1e1433e5f727390e41a9ff2bdff06@meganetnews2...
"brutus" <brutus@thebrute.com> wrote in message
news:nNFre.4365$NX4.3173@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
As far as the evolution of humans goes I'm not sure we are just a
"stage" - natural selection ceased for us some time ago as our
intelligence gave us the tools to over-ride environmental factors that
impact reproduction, etc.
Actually not. We are getting taller.
No, we are not getting taller.
A more accurate and informative formulation would have put it that we
certainly *are* getting taller, though for reasons that are environmental
rather than genetic: many (not all) of us have access to the kinds of
nutrition and health-care that allow the somatic realisation of our genetic
'blueprint' to be less compromised now than it would have been 500 years
ago.
Living longer.
Again - not natural selection doing this, this is humans controlling our
environment through medicine.
Even though many (not all) of us do so, the fact remains that modern
societies' stress on late reproduction and planned parenthood are inevitably
exerting a selection pressure in the direction of increased longevity: as
Western men and women, for a variety of reasons, increasingly delay
reproduction until they are in their 30s and 40s, 'lethal genes' whose
effect would be to cause the death of the bearer before middle age, will
tend to be selected out. If we were to force everyone to delay reproducing
until the 'last possible recommendable moment' for their particular sex,
then a massive proportion of these lethal genes could be removed from the
gene-pool in only a few generations, and average human lifespan would
increase markedly.
Suffering more chemical induced cancers, etc.
Again - this is the opposite of evolution in action. If the process of
natural selection were still in play for human beings, we'd be becoming
LESS susceptible to chemical induced cancers - not more so.
That assertion shows a serious lack of understanding of Darwinian evolution.
I'm beginning to wonder what your qualifications are: you are making
aggressively categorical statements that do not stand up. Specifically, you
now seem to think that a selection pressure in the direction of 'resistance
to chemically induced cancers' could somehow have manifested an evolutionary
effect in the 180 years or so since scientific industrialisation first made
a major chemical impact on the world. Can I point out that you're out by
about *9,820 years*...? What's more, since cancers are predominantly
diseases of late maturity and old age, it's not easy for them to be selected
against.
Why? Natural selection is still at work.
No it isn't, not for human beings - and you just proved it.
Yes it is, and you are seriously under-informed. Take pandemics, for one
thing. Several times in the last few hundred years, enormous human mortality
has been caused by diseases that will inevitably have had an 'evolutionary'
impact by forcing natural selection to favour those individuals who are even
slightly more resistant than the rest. In today's AIDS-ravaged world, and in
African communities especially, the instructions for making an HIV-resistant
human are probably already making their way through the gene-pool.
A recent media report described a medical study of prostitutes in a
Nairobi brothel. They were all free of HIV. As HIV is mainly
transmitted by hereosexual sex in Africa, it seems that they have buit
up immunity by the survival of the fittest.
B C.
What is more, 'fitness' is determined purely in terms of 'adaptation to
environment' -- and we ourselves are now changing our total environment in
ways that will almost certainly be exerting a selection pressure: genes that
protect against the effects of cigarettes, wrong-fat foods and junk-carb
diets, will all be being selected for in Western societies, even if the
pressure is as slight as having a clinically obese chain-smoker dying as an
ill 66-year-old rather than an active 76-year-old -- because even though a
septuagenarian might not be likely to do much reproducing of his/her own,
the fact remains that our familial and societal structures mean that many
younger people are much 'freer' to have additional children if there are
still fit and healthy grandparents around who can look after them rather
than needing to be expensively looked after themselves.
And then there is the question of the many industrial/chemical pollutants
(and more than a few actual infectious diseases) that exist which themselves
have the effect of modifying the sufferer's DNA in unpredictable ways.
Whether or not they encounter selection pressure for or against them in any
currently imaginable environment isn't the point: the fact remains that they
are producing the 'diversity' part of the Darwinist triad of Diversity,
Selection, and Reproduction -- and even if they weren't, some of that
diversification would be happening anyway: 'science', 'medicine', or
anything else can't stop the 'background' mutational drift in our genes.
Katt.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Barry Trotter" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution debate confounds evangelicals |
14 Jun 2005 01:45:17 PM |
|
|
In the great debate about "Re: Evolution debate confounds
evangelicals" in alt.atheism, catapaulted the following
boulder:
Barry Trotter wrote:
In the great debate about "Evolution debate confounds evangelicals" in
alt.atheism, "loose cannon" <looseaint@aol.com> catapaulted the
following boulder:
Some see evolution as a
path to perdition, while others see it as a crowning example of God's
handiwork.
God and evolution cannot possibly coexist. The one disproves the other
because evolution explains how intelligence came about, and why it
cannot have pre-dated life.
David Silverman F.L.A.H.N. aa #2208
Not according to my Catholic friends. They say God directed the path
that evolution took that resulted in us humans. The fact that we
humans are just one stage in the evolution process and not some final
outcome they simply ignore.
You cannot believe in the Judeo/Christian/Islamic God without
believing that Mankind is the purpose of creation.
Cognition/intelligence is a feature of humans and many other species
and it is a product of evolution. The relationship between cause and
effect is not symmetrical, so intelligence could not have caused
matter.
David Silverman F.L.A.H.N. aa #2208
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution debate confounds evangelicals |
14 Jun 2005 03:55:01 PM |
|
|
On 14 Jun 2005 08:37:55 -0700, wrote:
Barry Trotter wrote:
In the great debate about "Evolution debate confounds evangelicals" in
alt.atheism, "loose cannon" <looseaint@aol.com> catapaulted the
following boulder:
Some see evolution as a
path to perdition, while others see it as a crowning example of God's
handiwork.
God and evolution cannot possibly coexist. The one disproves the other
because evolution explains how intelligence came about, and why it
cannot have pre-dated life.
David Silverman F.L.A.H.N. aa #2208
Not according to my Catholic friends. They say God directed the path
that evolution took that resulted in us humans. The fact that we
humans are just one stage in the evolution process and not some final
outcome they simply ignore.
Likewise the fact that if their god did it that way it chose a
remarkably callous method.
nafc
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "ריעין ברתון/Riain Barton" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution debate confounds evangelicals |
14 Jun 2005 02:17:40 AM |
|
|
Not true at all, complete hogwash.
There is absolutely no reason that it was not G-d who created the atom
or an element or a fraction thereof and then let that develop on its
own. For instance we know the universe had to have the element hydrogen
to begin and to exist -- Where did hydrogen come from? Why could it not
have been G-d that created hydrogen?
"Barry Trotter" <trotb02@hogwash.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:f80ta19h0ejljc0gkioa2f5vn64r2n86vu@4ax.com...
: In the great debate about "Evolution debate confounds evangelicals" in
: alt.atheism, "loose cannon" <looseaint@aol.com> catapaulted the
: following boulder:
: > Some see evolution as a
: >path to perdition, while others see it as a crowning example of God's
: >handiwork.
: God and evolution cannot possibly coexist. The one disproves the other
: because evolution explains how intelligence came about, and why it
: cannot have pre-dated life.
:
: David Silverman F.L.A.H.N. aa #2208
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jon." |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution debate confounds evangelicals |
14 Jun 2005 01:27:34 PM |
|
|
=F8=E9=F2=E9=EF =E1=F8=FA=E5=EF=FD/Riain Barton wrote:
Not true at all, complete hogwash.
There is absolutely no reason that it was not G-d who created the atom
or an element or a fraction thereof and then let that develop on its
own. For instance we know the universe had to have the element hydrogen
to begin and to exist -- Where did hydrogen come from? Why could it not
have been G-d that created hydrogen?
It could have been. It could also have been that Prometheus brought
fire, or that Raven brought the first men in a clamshell (see the new
Canadian $20 bill for a beautiful rendering of this legend, by the
way). The point is, that we don't *need* god(s) to explain the
universe and our place in it. And in science (which is what the
original post was about), any element of an explanation which is not
needed is discarded.
Jon.
aa #703
.
|
|
|
| User: "brutus" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution debate confounds evangelicals |
14 Jun 2005 01:56:51 PM |
|
|
"Jon." <jd_waller@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1118773654.760663.324210@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
ריעין ברתון/Riain Barton wrote:
Not true at all, complete hogwash.
There is absolutely no reason that it was not G-d who created the atom
or an element or a fraction thereof and then let that develop on its
own. For instance we know the universe had to have the element hydrogen
to begin and to exist -- Where did hydrogen come from? Why could it not
have been G-d that created hydrogen?
It could have been. It could also have been that Prometheus brought
fire, or that Raven brought the first men in a clamshell (see the new
Canadian $20 bill for a beautiful rendering of this legend, by the
way). The point is, that we don't *need* god(s) to explain the
universe and our place in it. And in science (which is what the
original post was about), any element of an explanation which is not
needed is discarded.
Jon.
aa #703
So we kind of have to take science on faith, right?
Brutus
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jon." |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution debate confounds evangelicals |
14 Jun 2005 02:03:24 PM |
|
|
brutus wrote:
"Jon." <jd_waller@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1118773654.760663.324210@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
=F8=E9=F2=E9=EF =E1=F8=FA=E5=EF=FD/Riain Barton wrote:
Not true at all, complete hogwash.
There is absolutely no reason that it was not G-d who created the atom
or an element or a fraction thereof and then let that develop on its
own. For instance we know the universe had to have the element hydrogen
to begin and to exist -- Where did hydrogen come from? Why could it not
have been G-d that created hydrogen?
It could have been. It could also have been that Prometheus brought
fire, or that Raven brought the first men in a clamshell (see the new
Canadian $20 bill for a beautiful rendering of this legend, by the
way). The point is, that we don't *need* god(s) to explain the
universe and our place in it. And in science (which is what the
original post was about), any element of an explanation which is not
needed is discarded.
Jon.
aa #703
So we kind of have to take science on faith, right?
No. That is a moronic argument frequently advanced by anti-science
theists who are trying to say that "evolution is just another
religion." It's *****.
Every theory advanced by science is open to being disproven by contrary
facts, observed and recorded in an objective fashion and replicated by
other scientists. That is how science advances (and why religion
doesn't). Only someone with no understanding of the scientific method
would suggest that "we kind of have to take science on faith."
Jon.
aa #703
.
|
|
|
| User: "brutus" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution debate confounds evangelicals |
14 Jun 2005 07:12:28 PM |
|
|
"Jon." <jd_waller@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1118775804.362492.33890@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
brutus wrote:
"Jon." <jd_waller@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1118773654.760663.324210@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
ריעין ברתון/Riain Barton wrote:
Not true at all, complete hogwash.
There is absolutely no reason that it was not G-d who created the atom
or an element or a fraction thereof and then let that develop on its
own. For instance we know the universe had to have the element hydrogen
to begin and to exist -- Where did hydrogen come from? Why could it not
have been G-d that created hydrogen?
It could have been. It could also have been that Prometheus brought
fire, or that Raven brought the first men in a clamshell (see the new
Canadian $20 bill for a beautiful rendering of this legend, by the
way). The point is, that we don't *need* god(s) to explain the
universe and our place in it. And in science (which is what the
original post was about), any element of an explanation which is not
needed is discarded.
Jon.
aa #703
So we kind of have to take science on faith, right?
No. That is a moronic argument frequently advanced by anti-science
theists who are trying to say that "evolution is just another
religion." It's *****.
Every theory advanced by science is open to being disproven by contrary
facts, observed and recorded in an objective fashion and replicated by
other scientists. That is how science advances (and why religion
doesn't). Only someone with no understanding of the scientific method
would suggest that "we kind of have to take science on faith."
Jon.
aa #703
Jon - I would easily venture to guess that my "understanding of the
scientific method" FAR surpasses yours. And, after spending most of my life
reviewing scientific "discoveries", theories and "facts", I have come to the
conclusion that it takes just as much faith to accept science as a Supreme
Being. Scientific discoveries in many fields constantly disprove existing
theories. I don't claim that science is, in and of itself, a "religion",
but most of my Evangelical friends would dispute the claim that Christianity
is a "religion" as well. (I doubt that you can grasp the facts in the last
statement I made but please try)
Brutus
.
|
|
|
| User: "Llanzlan Klazmon" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution debate confounds evangelicals |
15 Jun 2005 12:47:05 AM |
|
|
"brutus" <brutus@thebrute.com> wrote in
news:MnKre.4456$jX6.2171@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net:
"Jon." <jd_waller@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1118775804.362492.33890@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
brutus wrote:
"Jon." <jd_waller@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1118773654.760663.324210@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
ריעין ברתון/Riain Barton wrote:
Not true at all, complete hogwash.
There is absolutely no reason that it was not G-d who created the
atom or an element or a fraction thereof and then let that develop
on its own. For instance we know the universe had to have the
element hydrogen to begin and to exist -- Where did hydrogen come
from? Why could it not have been G-d that created hydrogen?
It could have been. It could also have been that Prometheus brought
fire, or that Raven brought the first men in a clamshell (see the new
Canadian $20 bill for a beautiful rendering of this legend, by the
way). The point is, that we don't *need* god(s) to explain the
universe and our place in it. And in science (which is what the
original post was about), any element of an explanation which is not
needed is discarded.
Jon.
aa #703
So we kind of have to take science on faith, right?
No. That is a moronic argument frequently advanced by anti-science
theists who are trying to say that "evolution is just another
religion." It's *****.
Every theory advanced by science is open to being disproven by
contrary facts, observed and recorded in an objective fashion and
replicated by other scientists. That is how science advances (and why
religion doesn't). Only someone with no understanding of the
scientific method would suggest that "we kind of have to take science
on faith."
Jon.
aa #703
Jon - I would easily venture to guess that my "understanding of the
scientific method" FAR surpasses yours. And, after spending most of
my life reviewing scientific "discoveries", theories and "facts", I
have come to the conclusion that it takes just as much faith to accept
science as a Supreme Being.
Science is taken on evidence. You are falling into what is known as the
fallacy of equivocation. i.e you are using different meanings of the word
faith. Faith as applied to science is the same as the faith you have that
the sun will rise each day or a light bulb glows when you turn on the
switch. This sort of faith is just based on inference from past
experience. If the light bulb doesn't glow, you go and look for a cause
like a power cut or blown bulb. Faith as applied to a religious belief is
supposed to be acceptance without evidence. Same word different meaning.
Scientific discoveries in many fields
constantly disprove existing theories.
The major ones are doing fine. GR stands intact after ninety years. Ditto
electrodynamics, QED and Darwin's theory of evolution (the later
augmented with knowledge of genetics). Nevertheless we keep trying to
falsify them. e.g:
Gravity probe B - http://einstein.stanford.edu/
In fact that is the most exciting thing in science to show that the
established theory has a flaw, finding something new gets you a visit to
Stockholm. On the other hand religion says things like 'dont test god or
don't question'.
I don't claim that science is,
in and of itself, a "religion", but most of my Evangelical friends
would dispute the claim that Christianity is a "religion" as well. (I
doubt that you can grasp the facts in the last statement I made but
please try)
You must be using an odd meaning of the word 'religion'.
Klazmon.
Brutus
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
