Instead of replying to numerous new threads that come up every day about intelligent design vs. evolution I’ve decided to rather open a new thread. (go with the flow kind of thing )
Personally, I’m not completely certain how life originated (but neither are many scientist) however, life does change over time and animals and humans alike do adapt to new conditions, which often changes their shape and characteristics. We see that in both animal and human world that living beings are, for instance getting characteristic peculiar to certain geographic zones. Think of bear in North Pole, grizzly bear, panda, etc. Whether those changes can go as far as turning into completely new species I don’t know, though it is not too difficult to imagine. Homologies of living beings are certainly a powerful testimony of common origin of many species. Of course, there is a constant argument what that origin is. A scientist through deductive logic sees that living things had one common ancestor. On the other hand, a creationist sees that original designer used same blueprint over and over again. This is an argument that will still take some time to settle through better understanding of world around us, and education.
One thing is certainly clear though. Evolutionary theory has certainly freed inquisitive minds of scientists to seek natural explanations to natural phenomena without shackles of religions and religious thinking.
I mean, whatever your personal beliefs are, just put that aside and think for a moment of what the alternative is. It is nothing else but call to return to 1500’s ways of thinking back into our society along with religious dogmatism, separatism, “my god is better than your god” line of thinking and ultimately hatred. Return of Intelligent Design into classes would not unify mankind under one ideology or belief but would just ensure that whatever madness and separatism already exist to be even more solidified. Is that really what you want? Don’t we already have enough of such lunacy in this world? Whether completely true or not evolution theory brings a buffer into our way of thinking that stops us from slipping too far into separatist thinking. Oh yes, I know WTBS would be quick to point out that Nazis and Hitler embraced evolution. Well not exactly their main ideology was Germanic mythology. On the other hand even if evolution theory influenced a side of their reasoning it certainly didn’t provide potent ideological backing that led to disaster. For that my mate you need religion. If you look around you, you’ll see numerous examples of religious people getting “overzealous” (read mad). There is no force in this world that can mobilize people as easily as religion can, there’s simply none. In fact, throughout history religion was the main mechanism, which was used to turn people against each other.
Truly, until something better comes along evolutionary theory is probably the best option we have that prevents us from slipping back into another dark age. We may well find even better explanation as time goes by and we probably will crystallize our knowledge even more. But for that we need scientific methods that are unlike religion, testable, clear, and precise and most importantly are providing grounds on which most reasonable people can agree. And isn’t that what all of us should strive to achieve? Anything else leads us to path of another Dark Age and ultimately inquisition. It is just that considering how far as civilization we have progressed that inquisition would no longer be only Spanish. Is that really what you want?
Regardless what you think of it Evolution has brought us great good
by zagor 35 Replies latest watchtower bible
-
zagor
-
zagor
food for thoughts
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/news/051115_birdflu
Evolution and the avian flu
November/December 2005
The warnings are dire. The economic cost for developed countries alone is estimated at 550 billion dollars, and the projected worldwide death toll ranges between 2 million and 150 million people. The very real specter behind these warnings is, of course, avian flu. As the virus spreads through bird populations, governments have heeded the warnings of health officials and begun to cull infected flocks. More than 150 million birds have been killed so far, with further control efforts looming. However, less than 200 human cases of avian flu have been identified thus far. Why the global concern over localized outbreaks? Currently, the virus can only spread bird-to-bird and, in rare instances, bird-to-human — but biologists warn that the virus could easily "change" to pass from human to human, sparking a deadly, global pandemic.Where's the evolution?
We're not even sure if viruses are alive — can they evolve? Definitely! To evolve by natural selection, all an entity needs is genetic variation, inheritance, selection, and time, all of which viruses have in spades. And this is the concern. The avian flu virus evolves rapidly and could easily evolve into a form that can be passed from human to human.The H5N1 flu virus The current outbreak involves a flu strain called H5N1, which we already know from occasional bird-to-human transmissions can be deadly to humans. H5 and N1 represent forms of viral proteins that our bodies use to recognize and attack the virus. Some flu strains, such as H1N1, are relatively common in humans; many people's immune systems can recognize and attack these strains. This reduces the number of human carriers and thus, the risk that this strain will cause a serious pandemic. Unfortunately, people's immune systems do not yet have any ability to recognize the H5N1 strain, leaving us extremely vulnerable to it. Luckily, H5N1 is not adapted to human hosts and does not have the genes that would allow it to be passed easily person to person. But evolution may change that.
Viruses evolve quickly, in part because they acquire genetic variation in multiple ways. Sometimes viruses acquire genetic variants through random mutation, much as human populations do. However, viruses have a much higher mutation rate than humans and produce a high number of genetic variants as they reproduce. The more genetic variants, the higher the odds that one of them carries a useful mutation that selection can act upon. This increases the rate at which viruses evolve. Through random mutation and subsequent selection, an H5N1 virus could slowly evolve into a form better adapted to human-to-human transmission.
The most worrisome possibility, however, is that an H5N1 virus could acquire genes for human-to-human transmission directly from a human flu strain. Unlike humans, many viruses can easily incorporate ready-made genes from other viruses into their genomes. This is a possibility anytime a host is infected with two different viral strains. A human infected with a typical, non-lethal human flu virus and H5N1 avian flu could serve as a mixing vessel for the two viruses, resulting in a flu strain with the deadly properties and unrecognized proteins of H5N1 but with human transmissibility genes.
Each case in which a human is infected by H5N1 from a bird is another opportunity for the virus to adapt to human hosts via random mutation or by acquiring genes directly from other viruses. This explains why governments participate in programs to cull infected birds: the fewer infected birds, the fewer infected humans, and the fewer chances for the evolution of a pandemic-causing H5N1 strain.
A global flu pandemic is a very real possibility. However, the situation is not hopeless. Policy makers, health organizations, and scientists are working together to find ways to forestall an epidemic and lessen the impact, should one occur. For example, scientists have used computers to model the evolution of flu viruses and have found that preventatively administering antiviral drugs near the beginning of pandemic could slow the evolution of the virus into a fully transmissible form and buy us more time to develop and produce vaccines.
-
tetrapod.sapien
wow, nice write up zagor. i liked that. formulated well.
it's funny, but you come across very few agnostic IDers. this is because the large majority of IDers are pretty religious. yes, they are the first to point out that ID is not xian based. but i wonder if the kids in the biology class know the following:
1. evolution has nothing to do with origins, in a falsifiable and technical sense.
2. that the strongest and most vocal supporters of ID are xian fundies.
a lot of people kind of wince at the evolution / ID debate getting religious in nature. but honestly, after it is all striped away, all you really have left is religion getting in the way of scientific advancement. i always smile at rex in this regard, because i think he is right when he says that no xian in his/her right mind can really accpet evolution. because it's not just about changing ones interpretation of genesis from literal to metaphorical. it's about the entire xian doctrine kind of seeming silly and pointless after evolution is done with it.
and in this way, i guess i am not really doing much to help people unite under one auspice instead of being sepparatist. but i can't help it. i didn't ask for the facts to turn out the way they did.
ID provides no real, workable framework for discovering new data and knowledge. it's all basically a premise. scientists still have to use evolutionary theory to discover new biological and anthropolocal knowledge, regardless of what their pet-origins hypothesis is. so, in that light, ID really kind of becomes a retarded tautology of mental masturbation. and though i have nothing against masturbation in general, i do have something against mental masturbation. and ID is just that. mental masturbation. creationism is way easier to learn than evolution is. so, i have to wonder what some creationists really have against it, lol.
it's a big scary world out there for many of us apes. it doesn't surprise me anymore that this is a raging debate.
cheers,
TS
-
zagor
mental masturbation
LMAO, I love that
-
DavidChristopher
What is the difference between "science", "philosophy", "religon", and " a driveablility tech"? What are the goals, beginnings, steps, and similarities, as well as differences? I think this division concerning these words are overwhelming us to the point it is hard to concentrate on a single goal. Which is? is this "divide and conquer" at work again? so you keep the scientists, philosophers, religous people, and the "driveability techs" at each others throats so they won't work together to find some answers together. I am so sorry did I forget the "doctors" and "cops"? I think we need to stop trying to put ourselves in a "protective custody cell" for our "protection", and start trying to find middle grounds here. I cannot speak the "cop" language among others. come on people...get a grip.
-
tetrapod.sapien
I think this division concerning these words are overwhelming us to the point it is hard to concentrate on a single goal.
that's exactly why i have sort of stopped caring about the issue david. because there is no "single goal" that i want to work towards. religionists and some scientists have "goals", yes. you know, some scientists want to help our species eventually attain some super-species status, where we live extremely long and extended life spans, and populate the universe with our dna. religionsits think god has already done those things for us, we just have to suffer a bit first.
but really, that's the great irony. that we (all of us) have hijacked evolution. evolution doesn't give a shit about anyone or anything. unconscious, indifferent. it's us that read meaning into nature. and that's why people debate this. there is still some strand in them that believes there is a "better way". atheistic scientist, or born again xian: they can imagine it, so it must be worked towards. this thing called hope. this distinction between right and wrong that must be found out at all costs. heh...
i do it. i'm doing it right now. you did it in your previous post. everyone does it. so there is no grip to be had by the peoples, imo. we're all trying to get a grip. sure sure, evolutionary biologists are most likely "right", technically. and kudos to them for hacking it so well! survival of the fittest ideas, right? that's what's going on here. the evolution of abstraction. memes. but at that point, i have to ask again, now what? who cares? where are we going? to a better place? i'm done holding my breath. life is too short. so far, all i can see is the universe, and it's really slutty. but it's right here, right now, so i say don't worry about the future, and "single goals", and fundies, and the scientists, and the cops, and the philosophers. if the world had no fundies, i dare say it would be pretty boring after a while. you see, the fundies assist evolution more than anyone likes to give them credit for. why do creationists want to disprove evolution so badly? heh, because of evolution of course. irony of ironies. why do scientists want to find new knowledge and make the world a "better place"? because of evolution.
well, that was a fun rant. back to the theme of evolution bringing us great "good". i say, we think we have brought ourselves great "good" by discovering evolution. the funny thing is that it doesn't matter after all. caring about being right, when evolution doesn't at all, seems like a cruel, self-fulfilling joke/prophecy, LOL.
ts
-
hooberus
One thing is certainly clear though. Evolutionary theory has certainly freed inquisitive minds of scientists to seek natural explanations to natural phenomena without shackles of religions and religious thinking.
I mean, whatever your personal beliefs are, just put that aside and think for a moment of what the alternative is. It is nothing else but call to return to 1500’s ways of thinking back into our society along with religious dogmatism, separatism, “my god is better than your god” line of thinking and ultimately hatred.There are many possible definitions of the word "evolution." However, "Evolution" (in the dispued molecules-to-man sense) is really a claimed version of history. This view of history involves facts being interpreted by a religious/ philosophic framework (using philosophic principals such as materialism, uniformitarianism, etc.).
The Creationism/Evolutionism debate/war is thus really about history. Usually, (though not always) history as interpreted through the lens of the recorded history in the Bible vs. "history" as interpreted through the lens of anti or non-biblical types of philosophy. This can be easily demonstrated by the fact that most most of the major organizations on either side of the debate have historically openly embraced one or the other world views. I will not take the time here to document the philosophic world view of the major creationist organizations- you can read it for yourself on their websites. However, the following demonstrates the religious/ philosophic bias of some of the major proponets of evolutionism (a bias that is not always known by many people).
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/religion.asp http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/189.asp -
funkyderek
hooberus:
The Creationism/Evolutionism debate/war is thus really about history. Generally, (though not always) "history" as interpreted through the lens of the recorded history in the Bible vs. "history" as interpreted through the lens of anti or non-biblical types of philosophy. This can be easily demonstrated by the fact that most most of the major organizations on either side of the debate have historically openly embraced one or the other world views.
As the "world views" you describe here seem to be belief in the Bible and non-belief in the Bible, everybody necessarily falls into one of these camps. It's not a true division of course, and I see no point in you mentioning it, unless you're trying to establish the importance of the Bible by subterfuge.
However, the following demonstrates the religious/ philosophic bias of some of the major proponets of evolutionism (a bias that is not always known by many people).
The links you posted to are from a Creationist site. They demonstrate little more than a desire on the part of Creationists to equivocate evolution, evolutionism and atheism, and label them as a religion, specifically one in opposition to (fundamentalist) Christianity.
Very very poor, hooberus, even by your low standards.
-
hooberus
hooberus:
The Creationism/Evolutionism debate/war is thus really about history. Generally, (though not always) "history" as interpreted through the lens of the recorded history in the Bible vs. "history" as interpreted through the lens of anti or non-biblical types of philosophy. This can be easily demonstrated by the fact that most most of the major organizations on either side of the debate have historically openly embraced one or the other world views.
My comments were edited slightly before I saw your quote, though they were posted timewise later.
-
hooberus
The links you posted to are from a Creationist site. They demonstrate little more than a desire on the part of Creationists to equivocate evolution, evolutionism and atheism, and label them as a religion, specifically one in opposition to (fundamentalist) Christianity.
Very very poor, hooberus, even by your low standards.
I'll leave this to the readers to judge for themselves.
