That would be wonderful if millions of Africans weren't always on the point of starvation.
We have advanced towards the goal of not just surviving. We produce an excess, a small part of which is then sent to Africa.
If evolution is true.............
- Thread starter gasbanni
- Start date
That would be wonderful if millions of Africans weren't always on the point of starvation.
We have advanced towards the goal of not just surviving. We produce an excess, a small part of which is then sent to Africa.
Sponsored Links
If that's true, why are millions of Africans always on the point of starvation?
On the other hand, people in other parts of the world do more than just 'survive'. They produce an excess, a small part of which is then sent to Africa.
I'm not sure how you are using your' millions of Africans' question to counter the theory of evolution in terms of mutations being behind the process?
There are two aspects here to start with. If left alone, the population will find a sustainable level. Altruism, such as that found in other species, or a meme of altruism in humans will provide an impetus to keep genes being passed on.
If that's true, why are millions of Africans always on the point of starvation?
On the other hand, people in other parts of the world do more than just 'survive'. They produce an excess, a small part of which is then sent to Africa.
Quite simple really in answere to your question, the reason there are millions of Africans on the point of of starvation and suffering so much is because over the last 50yrs or so we have been feeding them, so it is our fault there is so much suffering, i reckon for every couple we saved 50yrs ago they have probably about 10kids in mid 70s the 10 kids had 10 kids, thats 100, early 90s 1000 and now we are reaping the benefit of about 10,000 kids from just one couple we fed back in the early 60s. Far out man
If that's true, why are millions of Africans always on the point of starvation?
On the other hand, people in other parts of the world do more than just 'survive'. They produce an excess, a small part of which is then sent to Africa.
I'm not sure how you are using your' millions of Africans' question to counter the theory of evolution in terms of mutations being behind the process?
There are two aspects here to start with. If left alone, the population will find a sustainable level. Altruism, such as that found in other species, or a meme of altruism in humans will provide an impetus to keep genes being passed on.
I was demonstrating that evolution is a march towards a goal, ie. evolving a species to a level that can best survive without threatening it's own existence, or finding ways to handle threats. We (Europeans) can solve many of Africas problems, but they are not advanced enough to solve ours.
Sponsored Links
If that's true, why are millions of Africans always on the point of starvation?
On the other hand, people in other parts of the world do more than just 'survive'. They produce an excess, a small part of which is then sent to Africa.
Quite simple really in answere to your question, the reason there are millions of Africans on the point of of starvation and suffering so much is because over the last 50yrs or so we have been feeding them, so it is our fault there is so much suffering, i reckon for every couple we saved 50yrs ago they have probably about 10kids in mid 70s the 10 kids had 10 kids, thats 100, early 90s 1000 and now we are reaping the benefit of about 10,000 kids from just one couple we fed back in the early 60s. Far out man
Not saying that evolution always gets it right.
If that's true, why are millions of Africans always on the point of starvation?
On the other hand, people in other parts of the world do more than just 'survive'. They produce an excess, a small part of which is then sent to Africa.
Quite simple really in answere to your question, the reason there are millions of Africans on the point of of starvation and suffering so much is because over the last 50yrs or so we have been feeding them, so it is our fault there is so much suffering, i reckon for every couple we saved 50yrs ago they have probably about 10kids in mid 70s the 10 kids had 10 kids, thats 100, early 90s 1000 and now we are reaping the benefit of about 10,000 kids from just one couple we fed back in the early 60s. Far out man
Not saying that evolution always gets it right.
In the case Pred puts forward , we've definately been failed then by evolution. We've evolved a sense of conscience and strive to help that starving child whereas if we could look at it somewhat more "cold heartedly" then it would make it more sensible to let the child die rather than be the cause of future problems
But evolution is not a' march towards a goal' in any mainstream theory of evolution. Genes mutate randomly. This leads to some degree of change in an organism from its firbears. If this makes it more or less likely to survive then it will or will not be passedon. That is all there is to it evoluyion is not trying you make us better
the case Pred puts forward , we've definately been failed then by evolution. We've evolved a sense of conscience and strive to help that starving child whereas if we could look at it somewhat more "cold heartedly" then it would make it more sensible to let the child die rather than be the cause of future problems
Or educate, birth control and so on :-C
Two books give pretty good explanations of evolution and why societies develop technology at different rates.
The Selfish Gene - Richard Dawkins
(Basically we are just temporary life support systems for genes, all the action is at the DNA level, not the 'animal' level. Natural Selection is primarily for the survival of our genes, not our species)
Guns Germs and Steel - Jarod Diamond
(Basically all humans are essentially the same, the level of technology societies have reached is determined by the plants and animals which happen to live in proximity to that society. Also discusses resistance to disease)
Read them and it will explain a lot of the stuff we all ponder over when down the pub talking bolleaux with your mates after supping ten pints of ale.
The Selfish Gene - Richard Dawkins
(Basically we are just temporary life support systems for genes, all the action is at the DNA level, not the 'animal' level. Natural Selection is primarily for the survival of our genes, not our species)
Guns Germs and Steel - Jarod Diamond
(Basically all humans are essentially the same, the level of technology societies have reached is determined by the plants and animals which happen to live in proximity to that society. Also discusses resistance to disease)
Read them and it will explain a lot of the stuff we all ponder over when down the pub talking bolleaux with your mates after supping ten pints of ale.
Agreed, Selfish Gene is excellent inparticular ,also likehis 'Bind Wartchmaker (although his chapter on the computer generated mutations a bit dubious IMHO).
The theory of evoluton is so misunderstood, or half understood ( especially by creationists) that I wonder what is being taught in schools on the subject.
Have you read 'Almost LIke a Whale' - Steve Jones?
- Joined
- 28 Oct 2005
- Messages
- 31,282
- Reaction score
- 1,998
- Country
has anyone read the God Gene? Not read it yet but will do. Here's a summary:
"The overwhelming majority of Americans believe in God; this conviction has existed since the beginning of recorded time and is shared by billions around the world. In The God Gene, Dr. Dean Hamer reveals that this inclination towards religious faith is in good measure due to our genes and may even offer an evolutionary advantage by helping us get through difficulties, reducing stress, preventing disease, and extending life. Popular science at its best, The God Gene is an in-depth, fully accessible inquiry into cutting-edge research that can change the way we see ourselves and the world around us. Written with balance, integrity, and admirable scientific objectivity, this is a book for readers of science and religion alike."
"The overwhelming majority of Americans believe in God; this conviction has existed since the beginning of recorded time and is shared by billions around the world. In The God Gene, Dr. Dean Hamer reveals that this inclination towards religious faith is in good measure due to our genes and may even offer an evolutionary advantage by helping us get through difficulties, reducing stress, preventing disease, and extending life. Popular science at its best, The God Gene is an in-depth, fully accessible inquiry into cutting-edge research that can change the way we see ourselves and the world around us. Written with balance, integrity, and admirable scientific objectivity, this is a book for readers of science and religion alike."
No I haven't but I will put it on my list.
Talking of whales, I've always thought that whales/dolphins have a 'more evolved' upper respiratory tract than us humans. We share our eating apparatus with our breathing apparatus and have a complex method of stopping our food and drink flooding our lungs when we swallow. I suppose the pressure on us land dwelling creatures to adapt isn't so strong, we evolved an epiglottis and that's good enough for now.
Religion could be considered a 'meme' (introduced by Dawkins in his book) and not a gene. Not sure about that myself, an interesting conversation piece.
It does appear to serve no purpose as a force for good in modern western society so one would expect it to die out but it unfortuately persists, perhaps in Star Trek time we will have got rid of that yoke.
Fiction though it is religion does still feature in Star Trek and its spinoffs such as Deep Space Nine -
http://jimmyakin.com/2005/05/that_next_time_.html
- Joined
- 7 Jan 2007
- Messages
- 8,836
- Reaction score
- 1,230
- Country
What do you mean "If Evolution Is True" what is the alternative fur christ sake!
Big "G" and his band of merry men, lucifer and his horde of henchmen, fairies at the bottom of the garden, that is one almighty leap of faith (blind)
The theory of evolution has not been proved granted its taught as a fact.
however on a micro biological level there's virtually no published works on how " a simple cell as Darwin called it" now know to be lilliputian world of extreme complexity could have evolved.
Darwin had no idea of how complex cells are as he had no way seeing or knowing of the complexity of detail existing on a scanning electron microscopic level.
A molecular biologist was looking for published works on this subject of how evolution occurred on this micro biological level the very foundation of evolution... consulted over 4000 books if i remember correctly and drew a blank.
So its one thing to look at a monkey and say it evolved in to a man because there are various similarities, but how a single cell evolved seems to be evading a coherent explanation........the complexity seems to defy explanation because the fact is it isn't a simple cell as Darwin thought.
I wonder why Einstein believed in a god as opposed to evolution ?
Sponsored Links
