Evolution

[afghooey]

Though it's impossible to know the exact events that lead to the evolution of human intelligence (evidence like fossils don't really leave us many clues in this area), one could speculate that it was our specific physiology that lead to our becoming more intelligent, probably in combination with environmental factors such as climate change (intelligence can be an important key to adaptation).

There are other theories too, such as that there is a 'critical mass' of neurons which must be acheived in order for an animal to reach a human-like level of consciousness. If that's the case, then other mammals simply haven't had an evolutionary need to meet this critical mass, but that doesn't mean that the potential isn't there.

afghooey Reviewed by afghooey on 05-01-2007. Evolution I am an atheist myself, but I would like to know what religious people think about evolution and other emerging sciences. I don't see how it can be said that evolution by natural selection isn't real. All the evidence is there. Looking at fossils you can see vestigial structures, parts that no longer work but worked in an ancestor. For instance, whales having hind legs, humans having tailbones, etc. Look at the embryo of a chicken and the embryo of a human in early stages. They look almost Rating: 5

[Delta9 UK]

im curious as to how evolution attempts to explain this and human nature

Then to be honest you should really learn more about it rather than trying to debate with people over a topic you don't understand fully.

Earlier on you called me uneducated (by default) as I stated evolution was fact - but to be honest I am degree educated in Genetics and Microbiology so that's not really accurate . I wouldn't normally bring that up but this thread has encouraged me to think differently and be blunt about a few things.

I'm sort of surprised and a bit alarmed at the sort of responses these threads get - here in the UK the scientific culture is very different and also the general mentality towards issues of religion are very much subdued. The fact this thread is even in "Spirituality" is kind of ironic, but anyway.

From age 15 in the UK when we first started learning this in biology we also discussed creationism and earler "ideas" of how evolution worked e.g. "Are giraffes tall because they stretch a lot" that kind of stuff. We picked at the flaws in Darwins theory, how things have changed and how intelligent design fits in. We really had a pretty holistic approach - after considering all the arguments evoltion comes up trumps and doesn't require faith.

What you are really debating is the origin of life on this planet and NOT evolution. That is a whole different story. I personally think its time that evolution was just accepted in the U.S as the evidence is overwhelming and really there is no logical justification to teach creationism as a "theory" or masquerade it as science in any way. I would lose my job before teaching crap like that.

[Delta9 UK]

its clear that on some level they are far below humans and evolution doesnt explain it because it would make alot more sense under evolution if more than 1 species progressed as much as we have

Well a few species DID evolve alongside us. The Neanderthal would be a good example. Looking at the fossil record we most likely out competed them for food, shelter and were better hunters. We may even have killed them off - literally.

Eating meat made a big difference to our brain development and to be honest we were driven like any species to develop faster. Natural selection will always favour the adaptive intelligent organism that's pretty obvious.

We didn't just "luck out" we are the result of a 4.6billion year old planet supporting life.

[Frank_The_Tank]

Ahhhhh. the discovery of early humanoids. Science 1 / religion 0

[hazetwostep]

stemis...

very true... micro cannot be argued since we see it and it simply follows logic... stronger genes eventually will prevail.

macro is another story... science does not claim to know how complex life as we know it began. go check it out at the Museum of Natural History's "Walk the Big Bang" exhibit... just was there the other day.

[Pass That Shit]

what is erm?

This question should be for Delta9. I don't know what he meant. He's the one who brought it up earlier in this thread.



What scientific proof is there that the LORD is not coming back? If he said it, shall it not come to pass?

"So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it."

[xblackdogx]

evolution, deals with the changes that one OBSERVES in animals. THESE changes are declared "facts" due to the fact that one can SEE differences. But when we take into account that anything we perceive and would declare to be a "living, solid thing" is just energy being processed and projected into the back of the brain indicates that SEEING is not proof of anything. Quantum physics has provided evidence to support that "PHYSICAL" things don't exist, which would make any transformation done "by the eyes" a result of a change from the brain....
so if you can BELIEVE in evolution, your brain will surely attract the infinite possibilities in nothingness to provide you a PICTURE of "evolution".

[jdmarcus59]

actually if uve been reading my posts, i happen to agree with you on most things, and im not an athiest

but nice try

no insult intended

[darth stoner]

With science, you can put bits and pieces together to form your own conclusion. Just like religion. We're all in the same boat.

Grab a paddle. :jointsmile:

No, with science you put bits and pieces together by gathering evidence and making experiments that yield predictable results.

With religion you believe because you were told to, and refer back to ${HOLY_BOOK} to hold all your beliefs true.

Not quite the same thing.

[Coelho]

We basically perceive physical matter in its true form (with our physical senses) and this can be proven mathematically

Really?? Well, though im not a mathematic, i have enough knowledge in math and would like very much too see such demonstration.

Theorem:
Starting from x+0=x, x.1=x, x+y=y+x, ...
Proof:
...
... (lots of math here)
...
So, we conclude the outside world is real. Q.E.D.

Would???

Some people have perfect vision and perfect pitch and do see the world as it really is,

I dont think so... for one, our senses are pretty limited. For example, our vision only can see a small strip of the electromagnetic spectrum, that we call light and colors. But there is a large range of light (or rather electromagnetical waves), like ultra-violet, infra-red, x-ray, radio waves, etc, we cant see. And they are as part of the world as the colors are. So, even the vision of the perfectest people is a fragmented vision. We see only a very small part of the world. Thus we sould not trust so much in this fragmented vision, as if it were the vision of everything thats exist.
Our perception of the world is heavily limited by our senses and our mind, so what we see as "the world" in only the very small part of it that was filtered and understood by our mind. Not the world itself.
Note that I gave a materialistic argument above. I only talked about "physical" things.

But the quote below goes even further:

But when we take into account that anything we perceive and would declare to be a "living, solid thing" is just energy being processed and projected into the back of the brain indicates that SEEING is not proof of anything. Quantum physics has provided evidence to support that "PHYSICAL" things don't exist, which would make any transformation done "by the eyes" a result of a change from the brain....

And I agree completly.