33
   

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
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 05/16/2021 at 04:08:09