Go to Religion in the Modern World
- Add a comment
- Go to Where the heck did we come from?
We are still evolving with the help of science.
posted by
A-and-B
on December 10, 2006 at 1:17 PM
| link to this | reply
Odysseus - the answer is no is it not then, in fact, improved simply
because of adaptability, at least not necessarily so.
To use a living example: blind, cave-dwelling fishes of the genera Amblyopsis and Typhlichthys, family Amblyopsidae, live in completely dark, fresh water environments within caves in North America. They are a perfect example of "speciation", we can presume that their evolutionary process was the result of a more adaptive type of fish (with sight) becoming trapped underground. Would you call the evolution of this species improved when it would surely die in any other environment? . . . for the record I haven't acknowledged anything concerning "survival of the fittest"....I stated at the very outset of this exchange (and politely I might add) that you were using colloquial meanings of the word "evolve" as representing the scientific theory of evolution. You are still attempting to do so, I have little patience for this type of stubbornness in the face of facts and you will garner nothing but blunt responses from me if you continue with this foolishness.
Read a little, come up to speed on the theory of evolution or this dialogue is over.
posted by
gomedome
on December 8, 2006 at 11:21 AM
| link to this | reply
Gomedome I wante to say in my comment down below
is
not of much relevance in the context being discussed here, instead of 'much relevance'.
posted by
Bhaskar.ing
on December 8, 2006 at 3:07 AM
| link to this | reply
Gomdome……argument on this issue makes no sense,
as you acknowledge the association with evolution in your last comment…..besides, the issue of our contention was not such terminology bur rather, whether or not it may be said that evolution represents an improvement or betterment to life forms. The point I made before your tirade was that if a species has become more adapted, is it not then, in fact, improved?
posted by
telemachus
on December 8, 2006 at 12:14 AM
| link to this | reply
Odysseus - Survival of the fittest may well be a metaphor associated with
evolution but it is an erroneous association.
I'm not going to argue with you on this, you simply do not know what you are talking about. If my speaking this truth bluntly is considered rude by you, so be it. I will leave you with a dictionary definition, maybe someday you will read up on the subject and not through out so many erroneous contentions.
"In biology, evolution is change in the heritable traits of a population over successive generations. This is determined by shifts in the viable variations of the units of heredity ("shifts in the allele frequency of genes"). Over time, this process can result in speciation, the development of new species from existing ones. All contemporary organisms on earth are related to each other through common descent, the products of cumulative evolutionary changes over billions of years. Evolution is thus the source of the vast diversity of life on Earth, including the many extinct species attested to in the fossil record"
At least you didn't use the term "devolve"
posted by
gomedome
on December 7, 2006 at 10:29 PM
| link to this | reply
Gomedome…..”survival of the fittest” is a metaphor very commonly associated
with the evolutionary theory of “natural selection” and one that anyone who is interested in the subject should become aware of. Your descent to rudeness does absolutely nothing to improve your position.
posted by
telemachus
on December 7, 2006 at 9:45 PM
| link to this | reply
Bhaskar.ing - I cannot disagree with your views on evolution versus
Intelligent Design.
The theory of evolution is incomplete and all competing or contradicting theories should be encouraged but Intelligent Design is not a theory. It is speculation at best due to one singular element as posed by its proponents. The identity of the designer is fixed as being a predefined entity that no one can prove exists. If Intelligent Design were to truly be a theory, the identity of the designer would be subjected to the same scrutiny and integrity as all portions of any theory are. ID should be advanced as intelligent design by a party or parties unknown, or it is just a religious belief.
posted by
gomedome
on December 7, 2006 at 6:58 PM
| link to this | reply
Bhaskar.ing and GEPRUITT - that'll teach me to start blathering on from
memory about things I haven't studied in years.
and GEPRUITT ... I see the point you are making by choosing a timeline that was based on biblical reference, despite its probable innacuracy. The biblical timeline is ridgid and only unlikely to ever be recanted when proof to the contrary is overwhelming (and after a few million people have been burned at the stake), much as the flat earth idea was. At least with following the scientific view, new knowledge pertaining to this subject can be viewed objectively.
posted by
gomedome
on December 7, 2006 at 6:50 PM
| link to this | reply
Odysseus - you apparently do not know much about what you speak
pertaining to the theory of evolution.
Where I suggested that you read up on it before continuing your dialogue on a subject that you don't seem to have ever studied, I have to amend that suggestion. I would now suggest you just withdraw before you embarrass yourself further. Evolution is non directional, the primary mechanism for evolution is the process of natural selection, you are speaking of adaptive traits that have nothing to do with evolution and "survival of the fittest" has nothing to do with the theory of evolution.
posted by
gomedome
on December 7, 2006 at 6:35 PM
| link to this | reply
The sun and the earth are believed to be of the same age - 4.57 billion years, and the moon, 4.53 billion years, but I think that is of much relevance in the context being discussed here.
posted by
Bhaskar.ing
on December 7, 2006 at 5:49 PM
| link to this | reply
GOME
THE ANSWER TO THE LAST QUESTION OF YOUR LAST RESONSE IS: NO; I WAS NOT REFERRING TO THE HARDENING OF THE EARTH'S CRUST, BUT TO A LONG-AGO MENTALLY-FILED MEMORY OF THE COMMONLY ACCEPTED, STANDARD SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY'S BEST "QUESTIMATE" OF THE ACTUAL FORMATION OF THE EARTH.
IN ORIGINALLY ACCEPTING THAT AGE, I HAD DELIBERATELY AVOIDED THE OPINIONS OF THOSE WHO MAY HAVE HAD EVEN THE REMOTEST RELIGIOUS BIAS. IN ORDER TO ANSWER TO QUESTION AS CORRECTLY AS POSSIBLE. I HAVE JUST POSED THE QUESTION AGAIN BY ASKING FOR "THE AGE OF THE EARTH." AND I FIND THAT IT IS STILL THE SAME: 4.5 - 5 BILLION YEARS, WHILE THE AGE OF THE ENTIRE UNIVERSE IS SET AT 15 - 20 BILLION YEARS.
I ATTEMPTED TO COPY THE ENTIRE ARTICLE FOR YOU, BUT WAS NOT SUCCESSFULL. I AM SURE, THO, THAT YOU CAN DETERMINE THE SAME THING IF YOU POSE THE QUESTION TO ANY GOOD SEARCH ENGINE. IF YOU ARE UNABLE TO DO THIS, I WILL TRY AGAIN FOR YOU. LET ME KNOW WHAT YOU FIND.
GERALD
THANKS
posted by
GEPRUITT
on December 7, 2006 at 4:48 PM
| link to this | reply
Thought I'll participate in this interesting debate on evolution.
A growing school of thought, particularly in the US, is convinced that the universe was possibly created not only by random mutation and natural selection as Darwin suggested, but by Intelligent Design of an unseen Power as well. Those who argue in favour of Intelligent Design say that the single cell is too complex to be created by natural selection alone.
On the other hand, Evolutionists cite the example of the Global Positioning System. Over time, more features may be built into the GPS, not only enhancing it but making it more complex as well. Similarly, every additional protein may have been gradually incorporated in the complex cell that we see today.Physicists David Wolpert and William Macready derived the ‘No Free Lunch’ theorem in the late nineties. To reach the top of the highest mountain, one may start walking in a specific direction with the highest point in view, or: one can start walking in a random direction. The duo showed that the chance of the person reaching the highest peak was equal under both circumstances.
Though the balance of evidence seems to favour evolution, holding it up as the only truth can lead to grave social consequences. Darwin’s theory of natural selection applies at the level of the material world while Intelligent Design applies at the level of consciousness.
posted by
Bhaskar.ing
on December 7, 2006 at 4:15 PM
| link to this | reply
Gomedome………actually I must disagree with your contention that things can
evolve to be less because your contention violates the entire theory of evolution, which is essentially that environmental changes serve as the catalyst for changes in the species…….to the extent that a species is adapting to its environment, it must be changing to better itself. In fact, the theory contends that mutations for the worse do not survive because they are inappropriate for the environment, hence the term “survival of the fittest”.
posted by
telemachus
on December 7, 2006 at 3:32 PM
| link to this | reply
Parnell - yep, I sure do attract them
But it is part of the fun of writing a blog such as this. Some of the comments are entertaining.
posted by
gomedome
on December 7, 2006 at 8:37 AM
| link to this | reply
WhiteJedi - I have to agree that it doesn't matter much if we ever know
The only thing that matters in the ongoing debate is how those in the differing camps play the game. Continuing efforts by religious folks to discredit science from a position of ignorance to impose their agendas, as well as any extreme bias or misinformation proliferated by onyone in the debate are the only real concerns.
posted by
gomedome
on December 7, 2006 at 8:07 AM
| link to this | reply
Odysseus - I really think you should read about the theory of evolution
before you continue on with this line of "reasoning"
You are attempting to argue your point using the word "evolve" in the colloquial sense. You are merely speaking of adaptation or the collective advancment of awareness and not evolution. I appreciate that most people, including myself upon occassion, use the word "evolve" in the colloquial sense to mean growth or change but again, this post spoke of the scientific theory of evolution. The two fundamental errors in your argument is your implying that evolution is pushing us to be better. The evolutionary process is non directional, any species can evolve to be less than what they are just as easily as they can evolve to be more than they are. The determination that a species has evolved is measured by a permanent change to the majority of the species at the genetic level. Try to get it straight if you are insistent on continuing with these suggestions.
posted by
gomedome
on December 7, 2006 at 7:27 AM
| link to this | reply
GEPRUITT - forgive me for nitpicking and I can say much the same thing
as I have had a layman's interest in ancient mythology for about 30 years as well.
I am curious though how you have arrived at 5 billion years as the age of the earth? We of course do not know with any certainty how old this hurtling rock we live on is but 5 billion years seems an odd number when considering the 2 primary schools of thought pertaining to this. Those in the precursive event camp (such as the Big Bang theory) place the creation of the universe, including earth, at around 17 billion years, give or take a few billion. Those wanting to reconcile the existence of this planet with religious doctrine place the age of the earth as much younger with some folks even adhering (against all reality) to less than 10,000 years. Were you in fact referring to the speculation by the scientific community of the earth's crust hardening around 5 billion years ago?
posted by
gomedome
on December 7, 2006 at 7:09 AM
| link to this | reply
Nice Outline....
Before I left the chruch I followed the theisitc evolution theory. I.E. that evolution had created everything but God had a hand in it. Now I don't really believe God had a hand in anything. The most reasonable looking theory is evolution. That being said I don't really care what created life. I'm not sure it matters all that much. Either way we still live and breathe. Aren't there better things to do than ask a question that has no answer?
posted by
WhiteJedi
on December 7, 2006 at 6:48 AM
| link to this | reply
GOME
GOMEDOME
Of course, you are right! I failed to include an important phrase in the first sentence of my admittedly short and hastily written comment, which would have, I think, clarified the statement.
That first sentence should have been: "THERE IS A VERY ANCIENT DOCUMENT, PURPORTING TO CHRONICLE EARTHLY EVENTS DATING TO AROUND 50,000 YEARS AGO OR SO.
I WAS UNCERTAIN ABOUT THE ACCEPTED DATE OF THE DOCUMENT, ITSELF, AND HAD, I THOUGHT, DELIBERATELY LEFT IT UNSTATED, NOT WISHING TO LOOK IT UP. NO EXCUSES, ONLY MY APOLOGY. I SHOULD HAVE LOOKED IT UP.
HOWEVER, FOR THE SAKE OF ADDITIONAL CLARITY, I SHOULD HAVE ALSO INCLUDED THE WORD "ALSO" AS THE THIRD WORD IN THE FOURTH SENTENCE: "THIS DOCUMENT ‘ALSO' PURPORTS TO ..."
LET'S SEE. IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE? YES! I TRUST THAT YOU KNOW THAT I KNOW THAT THE ACCEPTED AGE OF THE EARTH IS APPROXIMATELY 5 BILLION YEARS AND THAT THE ENUMA ELISH HAD EVEN EARLIER VERSIONS FROM WHICH IT WAS PROBABLY COPIED INCLUDING SUMERIAN INFLUENCES. THE DATES OF THE CREATION OF THE SOLAR SYSTEM AND EARTH WOULD BE CLOSER TO THIS 5 BILLION YEAR TIME FRAME.
ONE LAST POINT, AND THIS WAS YOUR ERROR. I DID NOT SAY I HAVE SPENT "ALL MY LIFE" STUDYING MYTHOLOGY. RATHER, I SAID I HAVE SPENT "A LARGE PART OF MY LIFE" STUDYING MYTHOLOGY. THAT "LARGE PART' AMOUNTS TO ABOUT 30 YEARS OF MY NEARLY 65.
FURTHER, I DO NOT CLAIM TO BE AN EXPERT ON MYTHOLOGY, AND I HAVE NOT STUDIED IT CONTINUOUSLY FOR THE LAST 30 YEARS. NO FORMAL, ACADEMIC COURSES, JUST MY OWN SELF STUDY.
AGAIN, I'M SORRY FOR THE MISUNDRSTANDING CAUSED BY ME.
posted by
GEPRUITT
on December 7, 2006 at 3:46 AM
| link to this | reply
Yikes, another groupie!
posted by
telemachus
on December 7, 2006 at 12:05 AM
| link to this | reply
Gome
You do attract them don't you...
posted by
Antipodean
on December 6, 2006 at 11:31 PM
| link to this | reply
Gomedome
Quite the contrary, we can affect the evolutionary process very dramatically. For example, the detonation of a nuclear bomb obviously impacts the environment and would clearly be a catalyst for promoting evolutionary change. Other possible environmental impacts would include oil spills and carbon dioxide emissions, things that can necessitate and require a species to change or adapt, in order to survive. But it is even more profound that our actions constantly represent attempts to adapt to our surroundings. When we put on an overcoat, wear sunglasses, wear reading glasses, exercise, study, put on sunscreen, scuba dive, or any other number of activities, we are, in fact, adapting ourselves to our environment and to external stimulus. Clearly, evolution pushes us toward self-betterment. All things strive to improve themselves by constantly working to adjust to environmental flux. There is something in evolution that implies a universal direction. There is something in evolution that tells us that the universal canvas is still wet and is still being painted; that the creation is yet to be completed. The quest and movement toward the more perfect life and existence, constantly looms before us.
posted by
telemachus
on December 6, 2006 at 11:30 PM
| link to this | reply
GEPRUITT - I don't know what to say to someone who tells me they know of
a written document that is 50,000 years old or so.
Then after saying this you mention that you have studied ancient mythology all of your life? We'll assume that the 50,000 years is a misprint. The generally accepted schools of thought concerning: the written word, written documents and other forms of pictorial chronicle are as follows: The earliest form of writing that we know of that exists today appears on ancient pottery and other hand worked or carved objects. Surviving today in both hieroglyphical form and in early forms of language. The oldest that we know of dates back about 5,500 years but we are not entirely certain of this dating. To my knowledge there does not exist a surviving written document (written on the early forms of parchment) any older than 3,500 years. The Enuma Elish or the Mesopotamian/Babylonian creation myth is dated at around 3,200 years. Cave drawings on the other hand, though much more difficult to accurately determine their age, are believed to date back over 30,000 years.
These dates in themselves are telling. It is not likely that an oral tradition would survive intact from the first forms of pictorial chronicle to the era of the written chronicle. What is more likely is that the myths as found in the Enuma Elish predate its written chronicling by only a few centuries as an oral tradition. So now we have ancient myths that have been continuously filtered through the ages until finally being put to print so many years later. Do you really think there is any possibility of stories such as this having any validity?
posted by
gomedome
on December 6, 2006 at 11:16 PM
| link to this | reply
GOMEDOME
THERE IS A VERY ANCIENT DOCUMENT, DATING TO AROUND 50,000 YEARS AGO OR SO. IT IS CALLED "THE ENUMA ELISH." ANYBODY EVER HEARD OF IT? THIS DOCUMENT PURPORTS TO DETAIL ONE VERSION OF THE CREATION OF THE EARTH AND THE EMERGENCE OF HUMAN LIFE UPON IT. ALTHOUGH IT IS INTIMATELY ENTANGLED WITH MYTHOLOGY, IT ALSO CONTAINS MUCH KNOWLEDGE ABOUT OUR OWN SOLAR SYSTEM THAT SIMPLY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN KNOWN AT THAT TIME, KNOWLEDGE WHICH RIVALS OUR OWN TODAY!
HAVING STUDIED MYTHOLOGY FOR A LARGE PART OF MY LIFE, I HAVE COME TO BELIEVE THAT MYTHOLOGY HAS A MUCH BROADER BASIS THAN SIMPLY THE PRIMITIVE GROPINGS OF EARLY MAN STRIVING TO EXPLAIN HIMSELF. WOULD IT NOT BE A REVELATION TO FIND THAT WE HAVE HAD ALL ALONG THE CLUES TO KNOWING WHERE WE CAME FROM AND HOW WE GOT HERE? THAT THE EARLY BELIEF IN "GODS," AND "GODDESES" HAS ORIGINS BASED ON FACT?
STAY TUNED TO MY OWN FICTIONAL VERSION OF HOW THIS MIGHT HAVE BEEN. I STARTED IT LONG AGO, MANY YEARS BEFORE I HEARD OF THE ENUMA ELISH. IT WILL BE CALLED "THE ORIGINALS!"
posted by
GEPRUITT
on December 6, 2006 at 10:30 PM
| link to this | reply
Odysseus - this is exactly what arGee was taking you to task about
This post referred to the scientific theory of evolution. In your comment you use the word "evolve" as it is sometimes used colloquially and in this case erroneously as meaning "growth". . . . Do you not see where the thoughts contained in this paragraph are irrelevent to each other and subsequently make little sense? . . . "What is the message for us in evolution? Where is evolution pushing us? How do I evolve positively? Can I accelerate the evolutionary process?"
An individual cannot affect the evolutionary process as described in the theory of evolution in any real sense. It could be argued that the expansion of our collective knowledge base as a species, could in a very very miniscule way propagate behaviour amongst mankind that in turn influences the evolutionary process but as the theory outlines, this takes untold thousands of years to manifest itself. To take the last two questions as refering to personal growth and the collective growth of mankind respectively; As individuals, we can only do our best to do our best. If our outlook is positive, with our actions and deeds in life reflective of this attitude, we do influence others in a positive manner.
posted by
gomedome
on December 6, 2006 at 3:14 PM
| link to this | reply
Creation and evolution are synonymous from the standpoint
that creation can be said to be continuing about us each and every moment; and we often actually participate in it or affect it in certain ways.
When you think about it, there is really very little difference between what you term “theistic evolution” and the “scientific view”. What difference does it make whether you say that “God created the first cell” or whether you say “evolution was driven by purely natural forces”? The simply point is that it was made to occur by “something”! And the bigger questions should be: “What is the message for us in evolution? Where is evolution pushing us? How do I evolve positively? Can I accelerate the evolutionary process? These are the types of questions that allow one to discern the existence of a universal direction.
I feel confident that it is man’s destiny to fully unveil his origin and that such discovery will stem from both the scientific and the spiritual realms.
posted by
telemachus
on December 6, 2006 at 12:25 PM
| link to this | reply
Did they say Jen a sis?
posted by
Jenasis
on December 6, 2006 at 9:20 AM
| link to this | reply
How about the answer, "We don't know yet"?
posted by
SuccessWarrior
on December 6, 2006 at 9:06 AM
| link to this | reply