Is Evolution a Dangerous Idea? If so, why?

@edgarblythe,

Assuming we are overpopulated.

The whole notion of overpopulation was devised by Malthus, who decided the poor ought be caned to death so the rich don't starve. Basically when a snob asshole writes a theory, a sensible person should take it with a few grains of salt. His followers are all snobs too, usually rich actors and politicians, who tell the rest of us not to have sex.

There is a video series known as Overpopulation Is A Myth that says our population will eventually peak and go down (it already is sorta, because of the no child and dog families and gay/lesbian families), and that the entire population could be squished into Texas leaving the rest of the Earth to farm, explore, etc.

1 Reply

@edgarblythe,

Not really. My God is like me.

Paul's God is like him, indecisive as hell, and constantly giving him mixed messages. I dunno why Paul is like that.

And if you hate or don't believe in your God, then you do the same for yourself? Because for God to be in your image means God reflects how you treat yourself.

To the transgender believer, God is like the Buddhist Guanyin. Guanyin started out in India as a male, and by the trip to China is a female boddhisatva.

http://wp.production.patheos.com/blogs/exploringourmatrix/files/2015/10/Jesus-and-Gender-Identity.png

Kinda like how Koreans depict Jesus as this...

https://yt3.ggpht.com/-COMdBz9K3vk/AAAAAAAAAAI/AAAAAAAAAAA/h_Tquc6VosY/s900-c-k-no/photo.jpg

but the Jews know that Jesus looks like this.

http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2009/01/08/j460.jpg

When they accept Jesus at all, that is.

0 Replies

@bulmabriefs144,

When climate change wipes out great swaths of farmland and farmed animals, you may change your mind about population limitations. I'm not suggesting killing anybody, but limiting our population growth is bound to be a thing in the near future.

1 Reply

So every person gets to have a personal god as they perceive it should be.

0 Replies

@edgarblythe,

edgarblythe wrote:

When climate change wipes out great swaths of farmland and farmed animals, you may change your mind about population limitations. I'm not suggesting killing anybody, but limiting our population growth is bound to be a thing in the near future.

It's already in decline.

Up until the beginning of the industrial revolution, global population grew very slowly. After about 1800 the growth rate accelerated to a peak of 2.1% annually in 1968; but since then, due to the world-wide collapse of the total fertility rate, it has declined to 1.1% today (2020).[2] "World Population Prospects 2019, Population Data, File: Population Growth Rate, Estimates tab". United Nations Population Division.

In order to maintain its population, a country requires a minimum fertility rate of 2.1 children per woman (the number is slightly greater than 2 because not all children live to adulthood). However, almost all societies experience a drastic drop in fertility to well below 2 as they grow more wealthy (see income and fertility). The tendency of women in wealthier countries to have fewer children is attributed to a variety of reasons, such as lower infant mortality and a reduced need for children as a source of family labor or retirement welfare, both of which reduce the incentive to have many children. Better access to education for young women, which broadens their job prospects, is also often cited.[3] Long-term projections predict that the growth rate of the human population of this planet will continue to decline, and that by the end of the 21st Century, will reach zero.[2] Examples of this emerging trend are Japan, whose population is currently (2015–2020) declining at the rate of 0.2% per year,[2] and China, whose population could start declining in 2027 or sooner.[4] By 2050, Europe's population is projected to be declining at the rate of 0.3% per year.[2]

[3] "Thanks to education, global fertility could fall faster than expected". The Economist. 2019-02-02. ISSN 0013-0613. Retrieved 2021-04-30.

[4] Myers, Steven Lee; Wu, Jin; Fu, Claire (January 17, 2020). "China's Looming Crisis: A Shrinking Population". New York Times.

1 Reply

@Mame,

That might be too slow for the conditions I was implying.

1 Reply

@edgarblythe,

Well, we need to start a few more wars then. Although I'd prefer if Canadians returned to being peacekeepers.

Apparently 1/3 of Afghanis are suffering food insecurity.

0 Replies

A new paper published in the pro-evolution journal 'Bio-Complexity' expresses the view that a step-by-step evolutionary pathway for the bacterial flagellum is unlikely.
In view of this, evolution is a dangerous idea because it is an unlikely cause of lifes' manifold designs, even the simplest.

(Small snippet from paper)

Quote:

[T]he evolutionary biological community has yet to hypothesize a likely, detailed, step-by-step scenario to explain how the flagellum and its control system could have been blindly engineered naturalistically. Yet even that would still fall short of real evidence that such a thing actually happened, given real-world constraints. The flagellum seemingly is irreducible. How would portions of an incomplete, nascent flagellum be protected from degradation for generations while the remainder was yet to be gradually added? If some of the subassemblies discussed above could be omitted, what function would result?

2 Replies

@Leadfoot,

ahem, maybe youve been out of touch with the literature but Mike Behe's been pushin that prune for almost 20 yrs. Ken Miller alwys makes ole MIke look like a grade school student. to whit;

Quote:

Proteins that make up the flagellum itself are closely related to a variety of cell surface proteins, including the pilins found in a variety of bacteria. A portion of the flagellum functions as an ion channel, and ion channels are found in all bacterial cell membranes. Part of the flagellar base is functional in protein secretion, and once again, all bacteria possess membrane-bound protein secretory systems. Finally, the heart of the flagellum is an ion-driven rotary motor, a remarkable piece of protein machinery that converts ion movement into rotary movement that males flagellar movement possible. Surely this part of the flagellum must be unique? Not at all. All bacteria possess a membrane protein complex known as the ATP synthase which uses ion movements to produce ATP. How does the synthase work? It uses the energy of ion movements to produce rotary motion. In short, at least four key elements of the eubacterial flagellum have other selectable functions in the cell that are unrelated to motility.

Miller, Kenneth 2002 Science n Religion Even if you were omehow on to something new, whatos "Irreducible complexity" have anything to do with giving some irrefutable evidence to the living system?? Mikes still hunting for the "irreducible part"

0 Replies

Except that evolutionary biologists are quite sure the flagellum existed BEFORE the protein excretion complex.

'Electric motors' are useful in all kinds of applications.

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

look up pilins

0 Replies

Just when I was beginning to think creationists were tired of posting to lose another one.

3 Replies

@edgarblythe,

Richard Dawkins has a new You Tube series on th Genius of Charles Darwin. As usuall , its 50% strait fact and 50% Dawkinzean venom.
He ctually vry right but hes never learned to pik his targets and language.

Since hes made his position as Dawkins Science vs ALL THE WORL's TELIGIONS, hes just making those who could be convinced more dug in.

0 Replies

@edgarblythe,

Richard Dawkins has a new You Tube series on th Genius of Charles Darwin. As usuall , its 50% strait fact and 50% Dawkinzean venom.
He ctually vry right but hes never learned to pik his targets and language.

Since hes made his position as Dawkins Science vs ALL THE WORL's RELIGIONS, hes just making those who could be convinced more dug in.

I wish hed just sttle down and stick only with the facts

1 Reply

@farmerman,

I like Dawkins for quotes but rarely read or listen to him. I may check this series out a bit later.

0 Replies

@edgarblythe,

You think evolution runs backwards too?

I understand that you have no idea of what the discussion is actually about, but your loyalty to that pseudo scientific poser is admirable.

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

In your mind it runs backward. It in fact has no loyalty to ideology, which is where all of your arguments so far reside.

2 Replies

@edgarblythe,

😂

0 Replies

@edgarblythe,

he has no idea of what youve just said. All he is into is how DNA looks like a barcode, and he has no fuckin idea about anything else.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

growing ideas of manifesting scientific facts with "religious underpinnings" is just as idiotic and dangerous as Fundamentalist Religious Thinking. Both concepts are without evidence and tend to stoke up intolerance.

1 Reply

Is Evolution a Dangerous Idea? If so, why?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know