32
   

Is Evolution a Dangerous Idea? If so, why?

 
 
bulmabriefs144
 
  -1  
Reply Mon 22 Feb, 2021 08:46 am
@edgarblythe,
Yes and no.

The idea that God wants us to be our best selves, to learn and grow, to repent our sin and to become better is a Biblical idea. On the macro level we even see this happening, the world during the early Bible being extremely warlike, and the people of God gradually becoming more and more peaceful, with only those not of God (the Romans, the Babylonians, etc) being warlike and authoritarian. On a genetic level, it is not "dangerous" to believe that God might not also have a plan for us genetically (which is why I strongly oppose things like machine/human hybrids, cloning and genetic modification, we as humans must grow as a species and evolve as God intends us to be).

What is a dangerous idea is Darwin's take on evolution. There are actually many evolution theories, but most of the ignorant people out there won't bother with any of them. There is Lamarck's theory of acquired characteristics (which has since borne out in epigenetics). There is the theory that creatures mainly evolve due to environmental crises (which seems to be proven not just by studies of islands that past volcanic eruptions had two different flora and so birds developed two distinct beaks, but Darwin's own journey). Ironically, Darwin's trip supported both of these theories on some level, but what they never actually proved was his assertion of "survival of the fittest."

1. First, as a result of the US (and other countries) selecting the healthiest, the strongest, etc to be in the military, the scrawniest tended to be the ones left. This is sometimes called the small fish theory, as in, it's not the apparent fittest that survived but those that were scrawny and able to get away. This is biblical too. We see in the Passover how the Jews were not the leading power in Egypt, not particularly smart or strong, yet they survived a plague event that killed the firstborn.
2. This theory itself is dangerous because it breeds psychopathic competition for certain people (who decide themselves to be "fittest") to basically try to fight or kill others. Ethnic cleansing is one of these manifestations, but a general ideal that there are essential and nonessential people (sound familiar? It should, this is COVID rhetoric) and that certain people shouldn't be allowed to live or work because they have stupid or backwards ideas compared to us enlightened.
3. It is dangerous because the Bible teaches that all of us have intrinsic worth. All of us are created equal, not "some are more equal than others."
4. And it is dangerous because it undermines the idea that humanity as a group is responsible for its survival. If there is a natural disaster, and we all fixate on safety of ourselves rather than making sure the group survives, useful skills that could help everyone survive are lost. For example, an avalanche. The strongest runner may be the fittest, but if they don't bother saving a farmer, a medic, and a few other of these less fit people, he's gonna starve alone.
5. Lastly, when we start trying to determine the fittest, we get into evolutionary dead-ends. So strong that they can't move a muscle? Not useful. So smart that they basically overthink and never carry on reproduction? Not useful. Suppose someone wanted the perfect supersoldiers, lacking in remorse. They'd basically start removing population once whatever war that bred them was over.
kaczmarek
 
  -1  
Reply Mon 22 Mar, 2021 08:10 pm
@edgarblythe,
Has anyone heard of Kaczmarek's Theory of Evolutionary Change? Apparently Christopher Kaczmarek believes that families that have histories of mother's having babies at early ages consistently throughout the evolutionary process will evolve faster than those that do not have as many generations in their lineage. What are your thoughts?
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Tue 23 Mar, 2021 05:11 am
@kaczmarek,
Perhaps youre thinking of the latest interests and validation of Lamarck's ideas??? "Acquired characteristics" in the epigenetic "Mass" of our chromosomes are often heritable, like drug induced pathologies.
farmerman
 
  3  
Reply Wed 24 Mar, 2021 09:02 am
@farmerman,
researchers at severl centers including Stony Brook and Cold Springs , have discovered several precursor self assembling molecule polymers that may require an "RNA world" concept b rethought. It appears that several eris of simple N monomeric compounds hve been prt of an early assembly of living cells and molecules that had been part of a "Nutrition first" world.
Im sure the Creationist/IDers will try to convince the science process tht this is clearly the evidence of a Supreme Intelligence in charge.

Its more like Dr Behe's hypotheses are under scrutiny again. As this progresses, Id like to see what the Discovery Institute comes up with so they can preserve their funding stream.

Even though this is separate from the overall concepts pf evolution, it may appear that the evolution of the origins of present life, is just another batch of chemical reactions.
0 Replies
 
bulmabriefs144
 
  -1  
Reply Sun 28 Mar, 2021 05:46 am
@kaczmarek,
I find this rather sketchy.

It's based on the idea that flies have short lifespans therefore they quickly adapt because they mate before dying, adjusting to sudden changes in heat or cold, or becoming immune to poisons.
But this is all their evolution is, adjusting to change. In fact, thousands of generations of flies still doesn't give you a human fly or a fly so adapted that it knows you will swat it.

Nor do women who have children at age 14 out of marruage seem to be particularly well-adjusted or the pinnacle of evolution. I tend to think of dumb blondes living in trailers, who probably will have kids that scrape by. Not only are they not likely to provide properly for their child, but the child is more likely to be a premature birth and have cognitive issues. That's a no. It doesn't work for flies and it doesn't work for humans.

I think that crises and how a member of species adjusts to it determines how they evolve.
hightor
 
  1  
Reply Sun 28 Mar, 2021 06:19 am
@bulmabriefs144,
Quote:
It doesn't work for flies and it doesn't work for humans.

You mean like "survival of the fittest"?
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Sun 28 Mar, 2021 07:03 am
@hightor,
Thats what watching Youtube "Science douche bags" can cause in our yout's
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sun 28 Mar, 2021 06:05 pm
@bulmabriefs144,
Quote:
"survival of the fittest."
is simply, adapt to your environment.
0 Replies
 
trueSceptic
 
  -2  
Reply Tue 20 Jul, 2021 04:16 pm
@edgarblythe,
Is Evolution a Dangerous Idea? If so, why?

Yes. If it is true and we all came from primordial soup, then there is no grounding for morality. Not saying that we cannot have moral actions, but there is no grounding for our morality. The only reason we don't kill others is we don't want them to kill us.

It also removes the issue of an afterlife with consequences for our actions. If there are no absolute consequences, then why not hurt others and do whatever it is we want? After all, it doesn't matter as we will all die.

My questions in reply:
1. You stated "since evolution has been with us the whole of our history". Can you please share where the definitive evidence of this is that so convinced you?
2. How do you ground your moral actions? What is "good" and why?
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Tue 20 Jul, 2021 04:31 pm
@trueSceptic,
Horseshit.
0 Replies
 
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Sat 24 Jul, 2021 08:32 pm
@trueSceptic,
Nonsense our morals are basic on that fact that we are pack animals and nothing more is needed in that regard.
farmerman
 
  3  
Reply Sun 25 Jul, 2021 05:20 am
@BillRM,
its only dangerous to the fundamentalists. theyve got lots to lose since they want a fully inerrant bible , and that hasnt happened.
coluber2001
 
  1  
Reply Sun 25 Jul, 2021 05:52 pm
@farmerman,
Up until Darwin's and Wallace's natural selection explanation of evolution, most everyone fell back on a supernatural reason for the phenomenon of life on Earth.

Essentially, we were slaves to the church, any church system upon which whole credos were based.

The discovery of evolution through natural selection busted those credos and was revolutionarily destructive to science based on magical thinking, and it freed mankind from the shackles of the church.
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Sun 25 Jul, 2021 06:08 pm
@coluber2001,
and , while most of the churches have accepted nat selection, and evolution itself, a few of the smaller cults stick with the fairy tales of genesis
0 Replies
 
Leadfoot
 
  0  
Reply Mon 26 Jul, 2021 08:12 am
@coluber2001,
Quote:
Essentially, we were slaves to the church, any church system upon which whole credos were based.

Does Self enslavement count as such?
You are free to do that of course.
But it is a mistake to pretend you are free after you have enslaved yourself to Darwin's Theory. You jus picked a different church.
0 Replies
 
Leadfoot
 
  -1  
Reply Thu 29 Jul, 2021 07:00 am
In the ultimate irony/stupidity, 'Scientific American' published this piece of filth.

If you miss the irony, look up the full title of Darwin's famous book.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/denial-of-evolution-is-a-form-of-white-supremacy/
farmerman
 
  2  
Reply Thu 29 Jul, 2021 09:31 am
@Leadfoot,
Darwin's "Famous Book"??? which one. Even the "Origin..." ha six editions.

Youre problem (and the problem with your ilk) is that you seek to disassemble science but aint too adept. You look at one component, get all fired up as if your thinking (That lacks any evidence whatsoever), and then start preaching a it re a fact.
What you say aint a fact because youve missed several tens of arenas of science (proxy dating via hemistry, and radionulides, palo, geology, stratigraphy, molectlular biology, organic chem, remnant magnetism , planetary science, etc etc)

Theories tie all that stuff together, it doesnt attempt to tr it apart just because one area doesnt support another.

You guys, in an attemppt to make believe that DNA/RNA existed at the origin of life, fail to recognize how life prsnted itself through time as a CONSEQUENCE of environmental and /or climatological changes or even catastrophies.

Thats why Dr Bhe's BS about enzyme cascades ha failed to rcognize that evolution is hardly wver CREATION OF A NEW STRUCTURE, its the modification of an existing structure and/or chemical process and changing its own structure or xhanging th structures funtion.

YOU guys keep missing all that rally neat discovery just to sound like you know of what you speak.
Now aing scripture to the mix as Noint's does, is even more humorously ridiculous and obtuse in its thinking.(he was talking about how genesis makes scientific ense as does the books of ENOCH and JUBILEES)

Otherwise , knock yrself out. I get a kick out of reading it all.

I know Ive told you to read Sean Carroll's new book, its a real conversation builder and both sides can have fun. When you get around to reading it , all I ask you is what caused the climatological changes that RESULTED in apparent macro volutionary jumps, like p.e.
Leadfoot
 
  -1  
Reply Thu 29 Jul, 2021 11:44 am
@farmerman,
You get real sensitive when someone points out that your sacred institutions make fools of themselves.

BTW, what is your position on scientific Wokeness? Do ya support 'Scientific ' American here or not?

And please dont play dumb on what book I refered to. Ya damn well know. And ya know the full title as well.

farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Thu 29 Jul, 2021 01:18 pm
@Leadfoot,
Im not sensitive at all (I usd to get paid teaching whether they "got it" or not). Apparently its gone over yer head .
Leadfoot
 
  0  
Reply Thu 29 Jul, 2021 07:53 pm
@farmerman,
You ever answer any question?

You were probably that way in the classroom too.
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 07/30/2021 at 05:58:50