Creationist or Evolutionist?

[Guest Scathane]

I guess that you have some stuff worth arguing over in your post, Scath...

Don't I always?

 

...but all of those could be explained via the evolutionary theory and survival of the fittest.

No, they can't... That's just the point I was trying to make...

 

For instance, the flowers that underwent a mutation and became more visable tobees had greater fitness and managed to reproduce...

Yes...? Your point being? Try evolution theory in explaining how the flower and the bee had any 'knowledge' as to what to change to achieve symbiosis...

 

You see, Tofu, evolution theory doesn't explain how it's possible for some flower eons ago to detect that a bee has ultraviolet vision (it's also completely silent on which was the initiator: the flower, bee or both?)... And even when you skip the detection part, evolution theory doesn't explain how the flower was able to develop features it didn't have before... Unless you suppose it went to some early form of Watto's Shop and asked for fitting some ultraviolet headlights or something....

 

Let me give you an example (remember people: this is just a theoretical case)... It's quite safe to say that human beings evolved just like every other living thing did. So, we can also safely assume that it is possible to change the human body over a long period of time. Say that a group of people wanted to develop wings over a long period of time... What should they do for the next - say - 1,000,000 years to develop wings? Jump from large cliffs? Sit in trees a lot? Eat bird seed?

Edited January 27, 2006 by Scathane

[budious]

You see, Tofu, evolution theory doesn't explain how it's possible for some flower eons ago to detect that a bee has ultraviolet vision (it's also completely silent on which was the initiator: the flower, bee or both?)... And even when you skip the detection part, evolution theory doesn't explain how the flower was able to develop features it didn't have before... Unless you suppose it went to some early form of Watto's Shop and asked for fitting some ultraviolet headlights or something....

 

Ok... my two cents for what they are worth... I bought my PhD online ~

 

Early in earth's development there was a higher concentration of phosphate and other ultraviolet molecues in the natural environment. Certain species of plants naturally accumulated these at a substantially high rate. Therefore bees evolved to detect the the ultravoilet signature as the flower evolved with only the genes that retained the highest saturations of these molecules.

 

Naturally, the scorpion evolved with a ultraviolet exoskeleton for no apparent reason other than for Jeff Corwin to chase them through the desert with a blacklight.

[AdmiralToguroAni]

Evolution is just the long term result of adaption and mutation. Neither the flower nor the bee were "aware" of the other's advancement (though the bee may recognize the flower's UV signature, it probably didnt think "I'll evolve to recognize this even more!") This is where we get into natural selection:

 

Suppose that flowers needed a way to reproduce, and bees needed a way to eat. Many flowers were dull and mundane, and in fact looked more like grass than actual flowers. These bees, in the meantime, decided to go out and look for food. Some of them tried to find food on a rock or a tree or a fish. They failed and died. Some got lucky and found flower pollen. They make it back to the hive. The larvae are now fed pollen, and thus when the new queen bee forms, she says "Okay bees. We were raised on this pollen stuff, so go find it." Maybe she doesn't SAY it, but thats the bee command she gives. So now the bees go off and look for that pollen.

The bees that found the pollen do their little bee dance and lead the new bees to the flowers. They only collect pollen from flowers that resemble what the old bees found. Thus, any plant that doesn't look like that dies off. Therefore, only those plants get to reproduce.

Now...how do the flowers "beecome" so specific? We've got to understand that most flowers at this time would have pollen that would be hard for bees to get. After all, the flowers haven't been subject to natural selection for very long! So, eventually mutations develop. For this example we'll say that a flower grew up having loose pollen that flaked off easily. This would probably be the human equivalent to a person with premature balding syndrome or something. Either way it happens by accident. One of the bees collects pollen and says "bzzzz!! bzzz!" which roughly translates into "I can collect more pollen with half the work on this plant! Everyone look for these!!!" Thus, only those plants are given the opportunity to reproduce. Soon, all species of that flower have loose pollen.

 

In this manner, which is repeated time and again for different species (since the bees probably found more than one flower to get pollen from), the bees and flowers change and evolve without ever being "aware" of the other. The bees do it for convenience, and the flowers are forced along out of natural selection. I took some liberty with the bee talk, but thats the basis of evoluton. As for the human emotions...I turn your attention to the Polar Bear over here.

http://www.coolbuddy.com/wallpapers/animals/imgs/polar%20bear.jpg

 

Consider this true: A warm coat is good for survival if you live in the artic.

Consider this true: a coat that is lightweight is good for survival.

 

The Polar bear finds himself in a predicament. He can't have BOTH of these, as a warm coat is by definition a heavy one. Several dead lightweight coated polar bears later, natural selection determines that heaving a warm coat outweighs the disadvantages of having a heavy coat. So, how does that affect us humans?

 

Feeling the concepts of attraction and love are beneficial for the survival of our species. However, this doesn't explain the queasiness that we feel in our stomachs. After all, having butterflies in your stomach is uncomfortable! Just like the polar bear, however, the queasy stomach is necessary (a reaction to the chemicals your thyroid and brain release) for the feeling of attraction. Attraction is necessary, so the butterflies stay.

 

As for beings of the same sex (in cases where it is not a conscious choice), biologists have determined that this is a result of brain deformity developed during the fetal period. I know its not PC to say that homosexuality is a brain deformity, but that is what seems to be the case. I will concede that there are other theories (such as homosexuality being a choice in all circumstances), but I am merely stating the prevailing theory. This would be an example of the mutations I spoke of earlier in the bee scenario.

 

As for why you feel more attracted to one person than another, blame social conditioning. Humans are extremely vulnerable to it. Same way with "feeling like it was destined to be."

 

Hope that helps, Scath. As for the half of the world believes in a God thing, remember that we all have a common geographic origin, a common need to explain things we can't understand. All one person had to do was say "God" at that time, and everyone would start wondering if it was true. It was a good idea at the time, so of course it stuck. I think my bee post covers your other arguments. If not, just let me know.

 

Edit: Oh sorry! Almost missed your humans with wings in the second post. While I won't say that this is the only way to do it, a good way to start would be to position yourself where it is geographically beneficial to have wings. Lets say the treetops. No one in the trees is ever allowed to come down. If they do, you kill them. Now make it necessary to move from tree to tree. You'll quickly find that the best jumpers and those with the longest legs are the best. Increase the distance so that those without legs die off or something. Now the people who survive will be lighter, more muscular, and have long legs. Now it gets tricky. The trees must be just so far apart that those people can barely make it. One of several things will happen: The survivors of this group will merely get longer legs, the people will start to grow wings in the form of skin flaps like sugar gliders have, or they will develop some other way. Its a gamble at this point--if it wasn't, we'd have homogeneity in all of our archetypes like flyers, swimmers, etc. I should note that the body will undergo drastic changes to do this. Since we're so focused on tree hopping, we're likely to lose arm and stomach muscle, and probably any brain mass not needed for survival, so our winged people are likely to be pretty stupid

[Guest Scathane]

Hope that helps, Scath!

It does, thank you... Excellent post, ToguroAni!

 

Nevertheless... I still feel that the matter is projected somewhat oversimplified, accurate though it may be on some counts... It also has a lot of assumptions... And you also matter-of-factly state things that modern science has no answers to, but rather theories about...

 

Considering your example... You said suppose flowers needed a way to reproduce and bees needed a way to eat... I would suppose they both already had one, otherwise they wouldn't exist, now would they? The problem, then with natural selection is: why look for a new way of reproduction if you have already found a way to make you survive? Since the idea behind natural selection without direction (!!!) is that successful adaptations survive and others don't, then why keep adapting if you've found a way to survive? Moreover, scientists now understand that not all evolution is driven by natural selection (second alinea, first line)...

 

Furthermore, I don't see what the necessity of human emotion has in common with the necessity of a polar bear fur coat, apart from the fact that it's a necessity... Emotions can sometimes be necessity for survival or reproduction whereas the fur coat on a polar bear is always a 'bear' necessity for survival and not at all for reproduction. I will agree that a lot of emotions are the result of instincts for survival and reproduction... But that doesn't tell me why I feel happy when the sun shines, why some people get depressed during the last few months of the year or why one most likely feels pity for a cow when I see a cow butchered, yet think myself in heaven while eating a burger... I would even challenge you to account for altruism based solely on evolution theory...

 

As for beings of the same sex (in cases where it is not a conscious choice), biologists have determined that this is a result of brain deformity developed during the fetal period. I know its not PC to say that homosexuality is a brain deformity, but that is what seems to be the case. I will concede that there are other theories (such as homosexuality being a choice in all circumstances), but I am merely stating the prevailing theory. This would be an example of the mutations I spoke of earlier in the bee scenario.

I would like to see this backed up by arguments and links, ToguroAni. What kind of brain deformity? When exactly did biologists determine this? Which biologists were they? When and where did they publish? How did the scientific community respond?

 

I know that the theory you stated is a theory, but I would refute that it's the prevailing theory...

 

@ dinochick: Where are you in all this? Come on! You're the paleontologist!

[DarthTofu]

Such... Long... Posts... Took me at least ten minutes to read Scath's, I think... need to increase my reading speed! As for what ToguroAni had to see, I must say this in response- YOU BEAT ME TO IT, YOU BASTARD!!! You, Scath, in saying that jumping around in trees flapping our arms should have been very apparent to you as being incorrect. There was a scientist in Darwin's age, Mr. Lamark, who had the same thoughts as you about it. He hypothosized that birds developed the ability to fly by wanting to fly and flapping thier arms really hard. However we now know, due to genetics, that acquired characteristics can not be passed down, thus at least one mutation would be necessary for humans to be capable of flying/gliding. As for attraction and the like, I will say this- what are women attracted to above almost everything else in a guy? no, after personality... after social life... after sex life... How they look! Girls tend to lean towards guys with huge frickin' muscles and the like. They realized back in our neanderthalithian age (Yes, that is a new adjective I just made up) that these males were more likely to survive. Now, Dinochick or someone else will contradict me on this by mentioning how many other factors there are in coosing a relationship- this is due to other factors ages ago. Some people were faster, making them capable of getting away from dangerous situations faster. Thus they had greater fitness as well, resulting in an attraction to those still alive. As for people who like fat people because of their personality... Okay, so I don't know. Maybe its a "No! We had 9 months of hell last time you got pregnant and then you go and kill our child when he pukes on the animal skin rug! We're not having another one!" situation, or something Wow... huge post by my standards... I should probably start putting these things in paragraph format...

[AdmiralToguroAni]

This post will be shorter as its 3:30 in the morning. But I'll do my best to respond to your arguments, the foremost being adaptation and why it occurs once symbosis is reached with another species (if necessary, such as the case of the flowers and bees).

 

As explained in my university, our cells are constantly mutating, whether we like them to or not! Sometimes the changes are small and we don't notice them, and they don't do anything. These tend to die off, as cells do with time. Note that if you get 2 mutations on the same DNA strand, you get cancer, which is NOT beneficial for survival. Hence, cancer kills and takes away that particular specimen. It should be noted that medical practices have the effect of slowing the onset of cancer to the point where most people who are prone to cancer will have already reproduced. Without that medicine, many people who got cancer would die before reproducing. The point of this is that regardless of whether another species like the bee is around, mutation will continue to happen by virtue of cellular change and decay. Having another species select which mutations are desirable (more pollen, brighter collers) only affects HOW the mutations occur, not the fact that they DO occur. Hopefully that takes care of your first problem. Moving on to emotions:

 

Humans are not particulary strong, fast, or anything else other than intelligent. Our evolutionary line sacrificed physical aptitude for mental ability. Emotions like attachment and love grew out of this as a necessity to keep our children alive. A baby snake can live on its own from day one, but a human baby sure can't! But like you said, a it doesn't explain happiness, altruism, etc. I'll address all of these point by point so you can refute or agree with them:

 

Why do you feel happy when the sun shines? There are likely two factors involved in this. The first being social conditioning. Its easy to say "social conditioning causes this", but I think there's a darned good reason here. Being out in a rainy day, unprotected, causes your immune system to weaken and you get sick more easily. Today, that's nothing due to medicine. To early people, this was deadly. Sunny days were the days in which to be active. A mother tells her son not to go outside because its rainy, but to go outside when its sunny because "its a good day today." This story has never really changed, and now even hundreds of years later, it still stands. Think about elementary schools with the pictures of the big smiling suns and the mean looking rain clouds. That has an effect on you whether you recognize it or not. The other factor is that human beings desire a feeling of warmth that the sun provides. Slight warmth typically feels better than a slight chill, so that naturally causes people to think that sunny days are better.

 

Why do some people get depressed at the end of the year (besides looking at their bank account after Christmas?) This is known as Seasonal Affective Disorder (SAD) and it is caused by the shortening days upsetting the body's internal clock. Speaking from a natural selection standpoint, why do people have this? Certainly having a brain that is unable to adequately cope with changes can't be good for survival. What probably happened here is the brain developed the capacity to think and perform advanced functions, and included a resting function in order to prevent overload due to stress. However, mutation stepped in, causing this problem to occur. Remember earlier when I stated that mutation happens regardless of other species. SAD, however, is not life threatening, and so otherwise healthy individuals with SAD continued to breed, passing this problem down until many people had it. A similar example is the Green Iguana, which at one point was in the process of developing a heat-sensitive "third eye" on its forehead. This never quite worked out, but this partially developed eye wasnt life-altering, and thus the iguanas with the "eye" kept breeding until the point where they kept it. What we can conclude is that natural selection will USUALLY produce the best possible specimen, but will not always remove unwanted traits if those traits are not life threatening.

 

Next up: The cow and the hamburger. To this, all I have to say is "social conditioning", and point you to Genie, the wild child left in her room for 13 years. Acts of violence did not bother her, as she was not conditioned to feel empathy (though she COULD feel empathy, as her caretakers later taught her how). Basically this goes with attachment. Humans have evolved the capability of feeling attachment, but our intelligence enables us to choose who or what we attach to. Naturally, we attach to things that benefit us. At first it might be Mother and Father, and when we get a little older, our beloved pet who gives us comfort. Now we put animals into the loop. Once we feel empathy for an animal, we feel that way about other animals. Hence we why feel bad for a cow being killed because it makes us think about US being killed, our our DOG being killed, or whatever. We know pain and do not wish it on others due to attachment. As far as the hamburger is concerned, we speed on the interstate because we are thinking of immediate gratification rather than the effects of speeding where someone could get hurt. Likewise with the hamburger, we are enjoying immediate gratification, which is greater than the overall effect that being empathetic towards cows gives us.

 

Finally, the challenge of altruism! Many will say that true altruism does not exist. If you donate to charity, you feel good about yourself and others look upon you kindly. Though not a physical reward, many people feel that the good feeling you get justifies the donation. Its hard to argue that in THIS situation, you get no reward. But I have a feeling that what you're talking about is the man jumping onto a grenade, killing himself to save his friends. Or maybe the man on the plane who fights and defeats the terrorists, crashing the plane into a field so the plane doesn't hit the White House. Why do something altruistic when you know you're going to die? This is certainly a hard question, but one I'm prepared to answer. Attraction is a very powerful emotion. Mothers sacrifice themselves for children because of instinct to save their progeny (which has the evolutionary effect of preserving the species). Likewise, people will sacrifice themselves to protect people they know because of attachment. Remember that natural selection is for the benefit of the many, not the individual, so any action which results in one person saving many at the cost of himself fits into that in the same way that a bee will kill itself by stinging an opponent for the benefit of the hive. Our emotions and developed intellect has nearly buried that in favor of protecting ourselves, however it still comes out in times of crisis. As you can see, there is room for altruism in natural selection--its just odd that humans haven't evolved out of it yet. Or perhaps the opposite is true. Perhaps altruism is something that humans have fully evolved, but our social conditioning is preventing us from being altruistic (it should be noted that some research says that higher apes are capable of altruism, so that would imply that it is evolved. This hasnt been delved into too much, so I won't use it as a point).

 

Whew! Okay, back to homosexuality. This was longer than I expected.

 

I try not to depend on internet articles for my research, so I can't give you links. However I will tell you which biologists to look up so you can try to find some journals. I got mine from the West Virginia University library, but since you're on Tatooine, I dont think you can get them. Basically its a problem in the development of the hypothalamus during the first trimester of pregnancy. One such journal, "Is Behavior Written in our Genes?" by Dennis Drayna goes into this with a lot of detail, going so far as to say that portions of our genes, when altered during pregnancy, can cause homosexual behavior. It can be found in the January 2006 edition of the New England Journal. Here is another article:

 

TIME

Title: WHAT MAKES YOU WHO YOU ARE , By: Ridley, Matt, Time, 0040781X, 6/2/2003, Vol. 161, Issue 22

Database: Academic Search Elite

 

Section: SCIENCE

 

Here's an excerpt about homosexuality:

"HOMOSEXUALITY Ray Blanchard at the University of Toronto has found that gay men are more likely than either lesbians or heterosexual men to have older brothers (but not older sisters). He has since confirmed this observation in 14 samples from many places. Something about occupying a womb that has held other boys occasionally results in reduced birth weight, a larger placenta and a greater probability of homosexuality. That something, Blanchard suspects, is an immune reaction in the mother, primed by the first male fetus, that grows stronger with each male pregnancy. Perhaps the immune response affects the expression of key genes during brain development in a way that boosts a boy's attraction to his own sex. Such an explanation would not hold true for all gay men, but it might provide important clues into the origins of both homosexuality and heterosexuality."

So here's another genetic factor. I'll concede that among the Christians and the general populace, the idea of an in-born tendancy toward homosexuality may not be the prevailing theory, but the reverse is true among the science community.

 

Hope that helps. Feel free to respond to my arguments and point out anything I missed. I haven't got to do this since the religion forum died out a while back!

[Guest Scathane]

I understand you can explain a lot of the feelings I was referring to, but that wasn't my point... Science has lots of theories and explanations but natural selection/evolution theory itself doesn't link up to every emotion or feeling we have other than saying, "I can't find any clue as to its purpose so it must have been some random try-out."

 

I also understand that random occurences can generate into structures, networks, virals and behaviours... The point is that we often don't understand what exactly these behaviours are because we are unable to unconclusively prove what exact combination of occurences is needed for a particular behaviour... And isn't this what we want to know?

 

Let's face it, the point in studying evolution theory is often driven by our own desire to survive and reproduce. How would the scientific community (or indeed humanity!) react if - hypothetically speaking - in 20 years the worldwide scientific community could present the world with the following unconclusive outcome...? People, we have figured it out. Evolution is indeed totally random... In fact, it is random to the extent that we will never know if we live to see tomorrow as a species... Statistically speaking, the chances are that we don't have much time left... In fact we have reason to believe that the next globally dominant species on earth is going to be the pink wadoodle...

[AdmiralToguroAni]

Its true that certain emotions may seem as if they don't fit into emotions, but its not the great mystery that you seem to think it is. When an animal goes into heat, for example, chemicals are released into their brain in response to outside stimuli that produces conditions in which to mate. In humans, we have a similar effect with arousal or happiness (in terms of dopamine release). As great as these emotions feel, they are simply chemicals that tell us how to feel. We have conclusively linked brain chemicals to emotions, and the release of brain chemicals to produce behavior associated with emotions in humans has been found in lower animals. So it does stand to reason that emotions are an evolved trait. Especially when you consider that higher animals experience emotions closer to humans than lower animals.

 

As for not knowing what random mutations lead to effects and behavior...that doesn't hold. We know what genes cause Down Syndrome, many agree on what causes homosexuality, AND we know that having x strains of DNA in y order will produce people who are MORE LIKELY to behave in z fashion. I'll concede that genetics is not the only thing that governs behavior, since social conditioning is a huge, perhaps greater factor than genetics in that respect. However, we know more about genetics and behavior than you think. I can grab some articles if you'd like, or you can google them yourself.

 

As for how we'd react in your hypothetical scenario....just because we don't want to hear it doesn't make it the truth.

[DarthTofu]

This post will be shorter as its 3:30 in the morning.

 

First off, why were you up at 3 AM? Second off: This is SHORT by your standards? The proffessors really hate grading your term papers, don't they?

 

"Oh, dammit, he missread again- I said twenty to thirty pages, not two hundred to three hundred!"

[dinochick]

 

@ dinochick: Where are you in all this? Come on! You're the paleontologist!

 

Sorry, I lost track of this for a few days. Let me get caught up and I will reply tomorrow Its after midnight here and I may ramble on for 3 pages, and no one would want that

[Guest Scathane]

Its true that certain emotions may seem as if they don't fit into emotions, but its not the great mystery that you seem to think it is.

I said that certain emotion couldn't be easily linkedto instincts, not other emotions. Moreover, I never stated that emotions are a mystery to science. I didn't use the word mystery

but rather has no explanations. Neither did I use the word science

but rather evolution theory/natual selection. I even stated this in the first part of my post.

 

When an animal goes into heat, for example, chemicals are released into their brain in response to outside stimuli that produces conditions in which to mate. In humans, we have a similar effect with arousal or happiness (in terms of dopamine release). As great as these emotions feel, they are simply chemicals that tell us how to feel. We have conclusively linked brain chemicals to emotions, and the release of brain chemicals to produce behavior associated with emotions in humans has been found in lower animals.

I know all this and I didn't refute any of this... One point, though: it is a common mistake to talk in terms of lower and higher when it comes to evolution theory. It implies that natural selection has direction, which it hasn't. I would like to quote Stephen Gould (God rest his soul): you can state a carrot has evolved differently from a human being but it is scientific babble to state that a human being is evolved higher or better than a carrot. (I could get the specific reference for this quote, if you like)

 

So it does stand to reason that emotions are an evolved trait. Especially when you consider that higher animals experience emotions closer to humans than lower animals.

Sure, it stands to reason but in science, standing to reason is hardly conclusive scientific evidence, isn't it? In an earlier post, you did the same thing, you said that my questions could be answered, yet in doing so, two of your key explanations hold terms like there are likely two factors involved and what probably happened (these are quotes, TA...). This is hardly a scientific approach to take, since you're not conclusively answering my question whilst saying you are.

 

You exercised the same recklessness with the point about homosexuality. First you said that this was basically found to be a result of brain deformity developed during the fetal period. I checked this out but could find nothing to support this theory. After asking you about it, you went on say that there is much research pointing to genetic origins of homosexuality. How curious, this is exactly what I found when checking your post on homosexuality being linked to brain deformity: scientists believe that homosexuality can be transmitted through genetic material. I would hardly call your approach 'scientific' if you stretch this to terms such as basically found to be and brain deformity.

 

As for not knowing what random mutations lead to effects and behavior...that doesn't hold.

Yes, it does... Science has hardly found any answers as to how complex systems form, arise and are maintained. Moreover, I was speaking of behaviour in terms of complex systems and not human behaviour.

 

We know what genes cause Down Syndrome, many agree on what causes homosexuality, AND we know that having x strains of DNA in y order will produce people who are MORE LIKELY to behave in z fashion. I'll concede that genetics is not the only thing that governs behavior, since social conditioning is a huge, perhaps greater factor than genetics in that respect. However, we know more about genetics and behavior than you think. I can grab some articles if you'd like, or you can google them yourself.

As I said, I wasn't talking about human behaviour. But, for the sake of argument... First off, here you go again: many agree... This doesn't make it scientific knowledge but educated (scientific) guesses and beliefs. Some of these will pan out and some won't but you can't use it as an argument to state that we conclusively know it is the case... Moreover, you say that genetics doesn't govern all human behaviour... Again: we think that genetics doesn't govern all behaviour but there is hardly solid evidence, especially since social science has a hard time finding evidence as solid as it is in, say, biology or physics.

 

As for how we'd react in your hypothetical scenario....just because we don't want to hear it doesn't make it the truth.

I understand that... I never said it did... I was merely making the point that the need for finding meaning in the things we study is a human trait. For religious people as well as scientific people. Think along these lines: how far would general scientific research have been today if the human race had never felt the need to find meaning to the world around it? Edited January 30, 2006 by Scathane

[Defender_16]

Omg. I'm glad I stoped following this after the first day. It looks like it's almost getting out of hand.

 

I haven't actually read the whole thing so it might not be getting out of control.

[DarthTofu]

*clutches head* Sheesh, I'm sorry I asked in the first place! Defender, I might take your advice and stop posting controversial topics on this site!

[Guest Scathane]

Aw, come on D16! We're just engaged in a battle of arguments... Although I must say I would appreciate comments and views apart from TA's and my own...

[BadSamaritan]

We all exist because Chuck Norris stared at the universe, and scared the universe into creating us.

[Jahled]

We all exist because Chuck Norris stared at the universe, and scared the universe into creating us.

 

Ah! But there you go! Which came first, Chuck Norris' twelve yard death-stare, or the shiver that reverberated amongst the cosmos? Time is an oroborus, constant to nothing. Pervading over all is Chuck Norris, his beard, and the twelve yard death stare. This is why large stars deside to drop out of the universe and become black holes. After billions of years of existance, they finally realize they can't handle the stare. Perhaps in the beginning, all there was was the stare. Who knows, perhaps in the end, when the cosmos has died it's pathetic heat death, all that will be left is the death-stare, scaring entropy into non-existance; thus providing the spark for a reality that is even more strange than this one.

 

All hail and dread Chuck.

[dinochick]

1st:

 

As for beings of the same sex (in cases where it is not a conscious choice), biologists have determined that this is a result of brain deformity developed during the fetal period. I know its not PC to say that homosexuality is a brain deformity, but that is what seems to be the case. I will concede that there are other theories (such as homosexuality being a choice in all circumstances), but I am merely stating the prevailing theory. This would be an example of the mutations I spoke of earlier in the bee scenario.............

 

hours pass

................................

 

Whew! Okay, back to homosexuality. This was longer than I expected.

 

I try not to depend on internet articles for my research, so I can't give you links. However I will tell you which biologists to look up so you can try to find some journals. I got mine from the West Virginia University library, but since you're on Tatooine, I dont think you can get them. Basically its a problem in the development of the hypothalamus during the first trimester of pregnancy. One such journal, "Is Behavior Written in our Genes?" by Dennis Drayna goes into this with a lot of detail, going so far as to say that portions of our genes, when altered during pregnancy, can cause homosexual behavior. It can be found in the January 2006 edition of the New England Journal. Here is another article:

 

TIME

Title: WHAT MAKES YOU WHO YOU ARE , By: Ridley, Matt, Time, 0040781X, 6/2/2003, Vol. 161, Issue 22

Database: Academic Search Elite

 

Section: SCIENCE

 

Here's an excerpt about homosexuality:

"HOMOSEXUALITY Ray Blanchard at the University of Toronto has found that gay men are more likely than either lesbians or heterosexual men to have older brothers (but not older sisters). He has since confirmed this observation in 14 samples from many places. Something about occupying a womb that has held other boys occasionally results in reduced birth weight, a larger placenta and a greater probability of homosexuality. That something, Blanchard suspects, is an immune reaction in the mother, primed by the first male fetus, that grows stronger with each male pregnancy. Perhaps the immune response affects the expression of key genes during brain development in a way that boosts a boy's attraction to his own sex. Such an explanation would not hold true for all gay men, but it might provide important clues into the origins of both homosexuality and heterosexuality."

So here's another genetic factor. I'll concede that among the Christians and the general populace, the idea of an in-born tendancy toward homosexuality may not be the prevailing theory, but the reverse is true among the science community.

 

WTF? First of all, I don't consider an article in Time to be hard science. And even if Ray Blanchard did publish in a journal this theories, that does not make them facts. And what is the big deal that the science types and the religious types differ in oppinion on this. Is that a big suprise? I think not. It is that way with many things. Science can prove it and draw a picture to show them, but they still do not want to believe it. So why waste the effort on trying to drill it into thier heads, IMO.

 

You exercised the same recklessness with the point about homosexuality. First you said that this was basically found to be a result of brain deformity developed during the fetal period. I checked this out but could find nothing to support this theory. After asking you about it, you went on say that there is much research pointing to genetic origins of homosexuality. How curious, this is exactly what I found when checking your post on homosexuality being linked to brain deformity: scientists believe that homosexuality can be transmitted through genetic material. I would hardly call your approach 'scientific' if you stretch this to terms such as basically found to be and brain deformity.

 

Agreed.

 

2nd:

Being out in a rainy day, unprotected, causes your immune system to weaken and you get sick more easily.

 

Another WTF here. This is not true. Urban Legend and corporate BS

 

Let's face it, the point in studying evolution theory is often driven by our own desire to survive and reproduce. How would the scientific community (or indeed humanity!) react if - hypothetically speaking - in 20 years the worldwide scientific community could present the world with the following unconclusive outcome...? People, we have figured it out. Evolution is indeed totally random... In fact, it is random to the extent that we will never know if we live to see tomorrow as a species... Statistically speaking, the chances are that we don't have much time left... In fact we have reason to believe that the next globally dominant species on earth is going to be the pink wadoodle...

 

Evolution is random and unperdictable. Thats what makes it great!

 

 

As for how we'd react in your hypothetical scenario....just because we don't want to hear it doesn't make it the truth.

I understand that... I never said it did... I was merely making the point that the need for finding meaning in the things we study is a human trait. For religious people as well as scientific people. Think along these lines: how far would general scientific research have been today if the human race had never felt the need to find meaning to the world around it?

 

The human race would not be where it is today. Which may have been a good thing....People would still die at young ages and would not live to be an average age of 75 (or whatever it is). The planet most likely would not be over populated. Science has gotten us where we are today. Not religion.

 

So, aside fro emotions, are there any other points/questions to discuss?

 

I saw this survey the other day which maybe of interest to this topic:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4648598.stm

 

And some other numbers:

 

Take Genesis literally = "creationism": USA: 45% UK: 22%

 

Think God guided evolution = intelligent design: USA: 25% UK: 17%

 

Favor godless evolution: USA: 12% UK: 48%

 

"Remember that just 200 years ago a similar survey would have found a great majority, perhaps nearly all, in both countries taking the Bible literally. In all other western nations creationism has suffered severe losses to the point that no majority supports Genesis, pure selective evolution is usually accepted by nearly half the population, and large majorities accept human descent from apes and other animals. This is a historically remarkable accomplishment in a western world where only a quarter of the population has college degrees, and about 6 in 10 believe in some aspect of the paranormal (ESP, astrology, alien abductors, Bush is a competent, honest president)." ~ Greg Paul

[Jahled]

We're a cynical bunch us British!

 

I once stayed at a Buddhist monestry for a couple of weeks. One of the senior monks once told me that thinking, (after many deeply theological questions on my behalf) like boiling an egg, must at some point come to an end. Without human thought, there is no 'god' is there...

 

Just my two pence on the subject, but I sure as hell don't want kids tought any religious stuff of any creed. They can do that in their own time, outside of the tax-payer's expense. I would rather teach kids physics that ultimately gets us closer to mining the moon like the Russian Duma has just agreed to fund for Helium3 or whatever it's called, a shuttle's worth of which could power North America for a year, and a ton for Russia. It's clean as well; no waste desposal problems.

 

The universe is about 13 billion years old. If you don't understand the scientific methods that have unearthed this, be at peace, and leave it at that. 'I know not,' is about the most worthy and enlightened phrases in Buddhism. Physics; evolution, fact, gets things like our mobile phones to work because there are shiny-things called satalites flying in orbit, because of proven data that translates into invention.

 

I'm not knocking any particular faith; if it makes you feel more at peace with the experiance of being alive then cool. If you try to impose any aspact of it on my, or any child's adolecent minds, then I will fight you.

[Mitth_raw_nuruodo]

So you don't think that students should be taught what ideas are out ther in school? I know what I believe. I DON'T agree with evolution in and of itself. I understand that living beings WILL adapt to their environments. I don't think that schools should stop teaching something just bc people have stopped thinking it correct. My roommate had a psych teacher last year that was teaching a particular idea. It was an old, out-dated idea that is obviously wrong. She came out and told the class 'this is wrong but I'm still supposed to teach it, b/c at one point in time everyone thought it was right.'

[DarthTofu]

Umm, Mitth, are you familiar with IHum classes? As in Introduction to Humanity which most people have to take in college which takes you through a couple of major religions in addition to High School level World History classes and college level religious studies classes? Kids are being taught about all the beliefs out there. Heck, through my world cultures class I'm considering becoming a Buddhist! (No, really, I am... It has been over three months since I fully insulted someone or hurt them on purpose)

[Mitth_raw_nuruodo]

Keep in mind Tofu, not all high schools have the same classes. The one I went to didn't have any classes even remotely like the classes you're talking about. Also I'm just in my first semester of college and am only taking the courses that my advisor said I should.

 

There are HS's out there that won't teach creationism anymore. I went to one. I know people who went to different ones. They are out there. All I meant was that HS's should provide a more well rounded education for their students.

 

Maybe I should just start thinking more before I make my posts...I'll try and work on that.

[DarthTofu]

Maybe I should just start thinking more before I make my posts...I'll try and work on that.

 

I seem to be working as a bad example... Anyway, I refuse to believe that your High School did not have a World History/ World Cultures class. Its a requirement for graduation, for pity's sake! You must have had one, you just can't recall it or something... I dunno... But you had to have had a world cultures class... And religous studies/ IHum classes are optional- my sister is a freshmen at Stanford and is taking and IHum class, so there. YOu're just different from everyone else, Mitth

[dinochick]

So you don't think that students should be taught what ideas are out ther in school? I know what I believe. I DON'T agree with evolution in and of itself. I understand that living beings WILL adapt to their environments. I don't think that schools should stop teaching something just bc people have stopped thinking it correct. My roommate had a psych teacher last year that was teaching a particular idea. It was an old, out-dated idea that is obviously wrong. She came out and told the class 'this is wrong but I'm still supposed to teach it, b/c at one point in time everyone thought it was right.'

 

HS should not be teaching creationism/ID. It is religion, and religion has no place in a science class. Evolution is not an old outdated theory, or why would we still use it everyday!? Everyone use to believe that the world was literaly created in 7 days, but that is not the common beliefe anymore. It should not be taught in any class that a HS (public at least) would offer. Teach it in church, go right ahead.

 

I don't even see how people who are ultra-religious can even stand behing ID as being a scince and an alternative to evolution when even the freaking Vatican does not agree with them!!!

 

http://www.redorbit.com/news/science/363447/intelligent_design_not_science_vatican_paper/index.html

 

"Vatican Says "intelligent design" Not Science

Tom Heneghan at RedOrbit.com has this report:

 

The Roman Catholic Church has restated its support for evolution with an article praising a U.S. court decision that rejects the "intelligent design" theory as non-scientific.

 

The Vatican newspaper L'Osservatore Romano said that teaching intelligent design -- which argues that life is so complex that it needed a supernatural creator -- alongside Darwin's theory of evolution would only cause confusion.

 

The ID movement sometimes presents Catholicism, the world's largest Christian denomination, as an ally in its campaign. While the Church is socially conservative, it has a long theological tradition that rejects fundamentalist creationism.

 

"Intelligent design does not belong to science and there is no justification for the demand it be taught as a scientific theory alongside the Darwinian explanation," said the article in the Tuesday edition of the newspaper.

 

Evolution represents "the interpretative key of the history of life on Earth" and the debate in the United States was "polluted by political positions," wrote Fiorenzo Facchini, a professor of evolutionary biology at Italy's Bologna University."

[Mitth_raw_nuruodo]

Maybe I should just start thinking more before I make my posts...I'll try and work on that.

 

I seem to be working as a bad example... Anyway, I refuse to believe that your High School did not have a World History/ World Cultures class. Its a requirement for graduation, for pity's sake! You must have had one, you just can't recall it or something... I dunno... But you had to have had a world cultures class... And religous studies/ IHum classes are optional- my sister is a freshmen at Stanford and is taking and IHum class, so there. YOu're just different from everyone else, Mitth

 

I've had a problem with 'open-mouth, insert-foot' longer than I've been a member of the forum. Also, Illinois DOESN'T require those classes for graduation. I know because I graduated and I didn't take any of those classes. Yes, Tofu. I am different. I'm happy that I'm different. I thrive on it. It's in my blood and will always be a part of my personality.

 

@ Dinochick: Should public schools be allowed to perform "Christmas" songs at concerts in December?

[dinochick]

 

@ Dinochick: Should public schools be allowed to perform "Christmas" songs at concerts in December?

 

As long as they don't try to turn the Christmas songs into Science lessons. Sure. Like I said, I am not anti-religion, just anti-religion in science classes. What you are proposing has nothing to do with ID/Evolution, it is a separate battle on its own and deserves a different thread in order to keep this one on topic. Feel free to open one if you like.