Page 2 of 18 FirstFirst 123456789101112 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 358

Thread: On the morality of evolution

  1. #21

    Default Re: On the morality of evolution

    Quote Originally Posted by basics View Post
    A lot of words being said here but sadly for you all, " In the beginning God made the heaven and the earth," only some six thousand years ago and each to its own kind. So, evolution as you thik it to be is non-existant.
    A most certainly convenient answer to avoid (or at least deflect) many issues, but unsatisfying and narrow as ever especially in the scope of reason this thread seeks to address.

    The responses that followed, more topical and satisfying. Not much for me to add though. I believe we're at a point where the rough gist is understood, just being nudged in different ways.

    Wikis are like panthers. It's a good idea to feed them.

  2. #22
    basics's Avatar Vicarius Provinciae
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Scotland, UK.
    Posts
    11,280

    Default Re: On the morality of evolution

    [QUOTE=Morticia Iunia Bruti;16053009]Hmmm, that evolution exits is the opinion of almost all scientist, while some evangelical "scientists" with graduations from christian "universities", which are not acknowledged by any public university with real renomee on the field of science, deny this.

    Who should i believe?

    " The one with scientific facts, especially geological, paleontological one. Or those with the book, which was composed by many authors? For me the choice is not complicated.

    Morticia lunia Bruti,

    How about James Tour?

  3. #23
    Morticia Iunia Bruti's Avatar Praeses
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Location
    Deep within the dark german forest
    Posts
    8,405

    Default Re: On the morality of evolution

    In 2001, Tour was one of a small number of nationally prominent researchers among the five hundred scientists and engineers whose names appeared on the Discovery Institute's controversial petition, "A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism".[59] The petition states "we are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged."[60] The two-sentence statement has been widely used by its sponsor, the Discovery Institute, and some of their supporters in a national campaign to discredit evolution and to promote intelligent design.

    Tour was born into a Jewish family becoming a born-again Christian in his first year at Syracruse.[42] He identifies as a Messianic Jew,[61] which is considered a form of evangelical Christianity by the State of Israel and major Jewish movements.[62] He feels that religion plays no part in his scientific work.[42]

    I'm sceptical that this two sentences petition has any scientific value without some basis data.

    And after reading this:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Scie...from_Darwinism

    Its only evangelical propaganda, not something which has any scientific value.
    Last edited by Morticia Iunia Bruti; October 02, 2021 at 04:35 AM.
    Cause tomorrow is a brand-new day
    And tomorrow you'll be on your way
    Don't give a damn about what other people say
    Because tomorrow is a brand-new day


  4. #24

    Default Re: On the morality of evolution

    Quote Originally Posted by Morticia Iunia Bruti View Post
    For me the starting point is:

    Are the recent changes naturally?

    In my opinion they are not, as normally evolutional changes are happening in hundredthousands of years and not in a few hundred like in our time. And they are obviously human made, so its our moral duty to stop them, as in most cases, species are on the blink of extinction, which could survive without human destruction of their living space.
    Evolutionary changes are the product changes in allele frequencies. Changes in allele frequencies can and do change with each generation. Therefore, evolutionary changes can be observed in human populations over the span of a single human lifetime. For example, selection against genetic variants associated with educational attainment can be observed in modern populations. Normally, this scale would be referred to as microevolution. Nevertheless, macroevolution is simply microevolution over the course of a longer period.

    Quote Originally Posted by Morticia Iunia Bruti View Post
    But are we not already outside of the natural system? We have a highfunctional brain, which can develop high efficient tools. Normal species which are overpopulated, will be decreased by disease. We have the means to counter this regulation mechanique by medicine and vaccine. So i'm doubtful, that we are still part of the natural system.
    We are not at all outside of the natural system. Your example of modern medical technology in no way insulates us from the consequences of evolution, it simply changes the selection parameters. In each generation, there are a number of de novo (new) mutations. The vast majority of these are either neutral or deleterious. Deleterious means that they have a negative impact on fitness. The build up of these deleterious mutations is referred to as a population's mutation load. Mutation load is removed from the gene pool via what is referred to as purifying selection. Meaning those with more deleterious mutations will have lower net reproductive success. Individuals or their children dying earlier because of health problems or because of bad choices are examples of purifying selection in action, but it can also be that people with more deleterious mutations are simply less attractive. Modern medicine, social safety nets, and birth control technology are all among factors that change up the parameters, but nevertheless, the process remains in place and constant. Currently, these factors appear to be selecting for less healthy, less intelligent, and more impulsive individuals, although there is probably a limit to how far that can go.

    The error in the thinking in these two posts is simply that it's too narrowly Darwinian. It was really only natural selection that Darwin contributed to the modern synthesis, upon which our current understanding of evolution is based:

    Quote Originally Posted by Enros View Post
    You don't seem to be familiar with how the burden of proof works in when discussing social justice. It's not like science where it lies on the one making the claim. If someone claims to be oppressed, they don't have to prove it.


  5. #25
    basics's Avatar Vicarius Provinciae
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Scotland, UK.
    Posts
    11,280

    Default Re: On the morality of evolution

    Evolution does not have any morality and you only have to look at the state of the world to see that?

  6. #26
    antaeus's Avatar Cool and normal
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Cool and normal
    Posts
    5,419

    Default Re: On the morality of evolution

    Quote Originally Posted by basics View Post
    Evolution does not have any morality and you only have to look at the state of the world to see that?
    The irony of your statement here is wonderful. Because everything about it is correct.
    IN PATROCINIVM SVB MARENOSTRUM

  7. #27
    Himster's Avatar Praeses
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Dublin, The Peoples Republic of Ireland
    Posts
    9,838

    Default Re: On the morality of evolution

    Quote Originally Posted by antaeus View Post
    The irony of your statement here is wonderful. Because everything about it is correct.
    I wouldn't say that precisely.
    There is a sense in which mores mutate over generations and those most suited to a given environment are propagated.
    Then again, memetics would be more relevant to the field of anthropology, than biology. And what I'm talking about is more analogous to evolutionary biology than a component of it. But I'm not completely convinced it is absolutely separate.

    Quote Originally Posted by Basics View Post
    Evolution does not have any morality and you only have to look at the state of the world to see that?
    Sure. But should we compare modern state of the world and its moralities with a time when Christian morality was dominant? I.e. the fall of the Roman Empire and the Middle Ages.
    It would seem, from a pragmatic perspective, almost any moral system would be preferable to live under than a Christian one.
    The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are so certain of themselves, but wiser people are full of doubts.
    -Betrand Russell

  8. #28
    antaeus's Avatar Cool and normal
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Cool and normal
    Posts
    5,419

    Default Re: On the morality of evolution

    Quote Originally Posted by Himster View Post
    I wouldn't say that precisely.
    There is a sense in which mores mutate over generations and those most suited to a given environment are propagated.
    Then again, memetics would be more relevant to the field of anthropology, than biology. And what I'm talking about is more analogous to evolutionary biology than a component of it. But I'm not completely convinced it is absolutely separate.
    Oh I agree with you... that cultural change (whether we use the memetic explanation or not) probably impacts on biological evolution enough for the processes to absolutely overlap. For influence to either go both ways, or to be interwoven so much so as to be impossible to separate.

    But "The irony of your statement here is wonderful. Because everything about it is relatively correct, allowing for the fact that morality is a collection of ideas that themselves arguably experience an evolutionary process over time, and that look at the state of the world is a subjective assessment that serves no purpose in this context other than to reiterate that culture now is different to what it has been in the past because it experiences a change process over time" isn't quite as snappy, and doesn't achieve the same as a statement of irony when we're responding to the intent of the creationist statement that is being quoted. basics will respond to a discussion about evolution by saying "I don't believe in it" and there the conversation will end for them, so a snappy statement of irony is important in this context!
    Last edited by antaeus; October 04, 2021 at 09:57 PM.
    IN PATROCINIVM SVB MARENOSTRUM

  9. #29
    basics's Avatar Vicarius Provinciae
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Scotland, UK.
    Posts
    11,280

    Default Re: On the morality of evolution

    Basics doesn't believe in it because there is too much evidence against it.

  10. #30
    antaeus's Avatar Cool and normal
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Cool and normal
    Posts
    5,419

    Default Re: On the morality of evolution

    Quote Originally Posted by basics View Post
    Basics doesn't believe in it because there is too much evidence against it.
    Well humour us then...

    (burden of proof aside)
    IN PATROCINIVM SVB MARENOSTRUM

  11. #31
    Flinn's Avatar His Dudeness of TWC
    Patrician Citizen Content Emeritus Administrator Emeritus Gaming Emeritus

    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Italy
    Posts
    20,306
    Blog Entries
    46

    Default Re: On the morality of evolution

    Human beings are animals of culture (as opposed to being animals of nature), that means that our evolution is much much faster now than before, because it is based on concepts and ideas rather than physical evolution: a very crude example, if you want to go underwater you don't have to wait thousands of years in order to evolve gills, but you invent the aqualung or the submarine.

    But, and that's my whole point with this thread, the passage from animal of nature to animal of culture is still a result of natural evolution, and therefore all that comes with it, included our supposed superior morals, is a product of evolution, and either we will fail or succeed in preserving our status quo, it will still be a result of the natural evolution...
    Last edited by Flinn; October 05, 2021 at 03:30 AM.
    Under the patronage of Finlander, patron of Lugotorix & Lifthrasir & joerock22 & Socrates1984 & Kilo11 & Vladyvid & Dick Cheney & phazer & Jake Armitage & webba 84 of the Imperial House of Hader

  12. #32

    Default Re: On the morality of evolution

    Quote Originally Posted by Flinn View Post
    Human beings are animals of culture (as opposed to being animals of nature), that means that our evolution is much much faster now than before, because it is based on concepts and ideas rather than physical evolution: a very crude example, if you want to go underwater you don't have to wait thousands of years in order to evolve gills, but you invent the aqualung or the submarine.
    All true, except maybe the phrase "as opposed to", because while the capacity for culture allows adaptation that is faster than biological adaptation would be, the cultural developments themselves become selection pressures that drive biological evolution. Since human societies have become more complex, human biological evolution has accelerated as people adapted to the new environments created by technology and larger social structures. The interplay between biological and cultural evolution is referred to as gene-culture coevolution or dual inheritance theory.

    Ironically, there is at least one ethnic group who have biologically adapted to spending time underwater:

    When a human is submerged in water, within seconds the body begins to reflexively adjust. The heart rate slows; blood vessels in the extremities tighten, diverting blood flow to vital organs. And, crucially, the spleen constricts, expelling a precious reserve of oxygenated red blood cells into the bloodstream. All of this extends the time we can go without gasping.

    Now a new study suggests some seafaring people may have evolved over thousands of years to push the limits of typical dive responses even further. Genetic changes have allowed one population in Southeast Asia to grow plus-size spleens that may enhance their breath-holding capabilities, according to an international research team’s analysis. Some scientists have likened these evolutionary adaptations to the ones that have allowed Tibetans to thrive at high elevations.

    The new study dealt with people who are often locally called “Sea Nomads” and live among the islands and coastlines of Southeast Asia. “Traditionally, they live on houseboats and come to land only occasionally,” says Melissa Ilardo, a postdoctoral researcher at The University of Utah and first author on the study. “They have a reputation for being incredible divers, and for their connection to the sea. I went diving with them, and their abilities are just unreal.”

    Among the Bajau—one group of people who live on houseboats in the waterways around and between the Philippines, Malaysia and Indonesia—divers have been recorded holding their breath for over five minutes while hunting for fish or shellfish. In comparison, average people might be able to stay underwater for one to two minutes, and world-class free divers can hold their breath in competitive settings for up to three or close to four and a half minutes.

    Previously, a crew filming for the BBC documentary series Human Planet recorded a Bajau hunter during dives, and noted his heart rate plummeted to a mere 30 beats per minute. (The diving reflex in most humans only drops the heart rate to perhaps 50 beats per minute in a healthy adult.) “They’ve been observed diving over 70 meters with only a weight belt and a set of goggles,” Ilardo says. “If they’re just collecting shellfish at 10 meters, they could spend all day doing these shallow dives. We were diving at one point and [a Bajau friend] looked down and saw a large clam. He dropped another 15 meters in an instant and grabbed it. It’s pretty remarkable.”

    Ilardo, an evolutionary geneticist, wanted to know if the Bajau’s abilities were a result of being trained from birth or if they evolved to be elite divers over generations of marine living. So she asked the Bajau, along with the Saluan—a genetically similar group of farmers—to let her sequence their genomes and measure the size of their spleens. A larger spleen may store greater amounts of oxygenated red blood cells, allowing divers to remain submerged longer. “I had a portable ultrasound machine. I brought it to the villages, and people would come and let me measure their spleens,” she says. 43 Bajau and 33 Saluan participated in the study, which was published in Cell on Thursday.

    The Bajau had significantly larger spleens than the nondiving Saluan, says Rasmus Nielsen, a computational biologist at the University of California, Berkeley, and a senior author on the study. “We found the Bajau had 50 percent larger spleen size,” he says. But among the Bajau themselves, divers had only slightly larger spleens (roughly 10 percent larger) than those who eschewed the traditional diving lifestyle, he notes. That surprising finding raised the possibility that the reason for the Bajau’s larger spleens was genetic—not from a lifetime of underwater training.

    Next, the researchers scoured the Bajau genome for signs of natural selection and found 25 gene variants that seemed unique to this population. When Ilardo and colleagues cross-referenced what the involved genes do, they discovered a few of them seem to be related to breath-holding and oxygen deprivation. “[That] was absolutely thrilling when we saw all of these genes that were under selection that had potential relevance for diving,” Ilardo says.

    One of the genes the team identified is called PDE10A. “We know that this gene controls thyroid hormone levels, and we know that controls spleen size,” Nielsen says. Just under half of the Bajau carry the version of this gene that is associated with larger spleen, compared with 6 percent of the Saluan and 3 percent of Han Chinese (a population chosen for comparison because they are not closely related to either group), he says. Two other genes that the analysis suggested had evolved in the Bajau were BDKRB2, which controls blood vessel constriction in the extremities, and FAM178B, which helps regulate carbon dioxide balance in the blood. Both could be important for oxygen conservation and breath-holding ability underwater, according to the researchers.
    Returning to the opening post, it is impossible for us to stop human evolution, but there are many moral questions regarding whether or not we should try to steer it in a particular direction. For some, even the suggestion sounds a bit too much like Eugenics, which is not an unfounded association.

    Quoting the opening of the Eugenics Wikipedia entry:

    Eugenics... is a set of beliefs and practices that aim to improve the genetic quality of a human population,[3][4] historically by excluding people and groups judged to be inferior or promoting those judged to be superior.[5] In recent years, the term has seen a revival in bioethical discussions on the usage of new technologies such as CRISPR and genetic screening, with a heated debate on whether these technologies should be called eugenics or not.[6]

    The concept predates the term; Plato suggested applying the principles of selective breeding to humans around 400 BC. Early advocates of eugenics in the 19th century regarded it as a way of improving groups of people. In contemporary usage, the term eugenics is closely associated with scientific racism. Modern bioethicists who advocate new eugenics characterize it as a way of enhancing individual traits, regardless of group membership.

    While eugenic principles have been practiced as early as ancient Greece, the contemporary history of eugenics began in the late 19th century, when a popular eugenics movement emerged in the United Kingdom,[7] and then spread to many countries, including the United States, Canada, Australia,[8] and most European countries. In this period, people from across the political spectrum espoused eugenic ideas. Consequently, many countries adopted eugenic policies, intended to improve the quality of their populations' genetic stock. Such programs included both positive measures, such as encouraging individuals deemed particularly "fit" to reproduce, and negative measures, such as marriage prohibitions and forced sterilization of people deemed unfit for reproduction. Those deemed "unfit to reproduce" often included people with mental or physical disabilities, people who scored in the low ranges on different IQ tests, criminals and "deviants", and members of disfavored minority groups.

    The eugenics movement became associated with Nazi Germany and the Holocaust when the defense of many of the defendants at the Nuremberg trials of 1945 to 1946 attempted to justify their human-rights abuses by claiming there was little difference between the Nazi eugenics programs and the U.S. eugenics programs.[9] In the decades following World War II, with more emphasis on human rights, many countries began to abandon eugenics policies, although some Western countries (the United States, Canada, and Sweden among them) continued to carry out forced sterilizations.

    Since the 1980s and 1990s, with new assisted reproductive technology procedures available, such as gestational surrogacy (available since 1985), preimplantation genetic diagnosis (available since 1989), and cytoplasmic transfer (first performed in 1996), concern has grown about the possible revival of a more potent form of eugenics after decades of promoting human rights.

    A criticism of eugenics policies is that, regardless of whether negative or positive policies are used, they are susceptible to abuse because the genetic selection criteria are determined by whichever group has political power at the time.[10] Furthermore, many criticize negative eugenics in particular as a violation of basic human rights, seen since 1968's Proclamation of Tehran[11] as including the right to reproduce. Another criticism is that eugenics policies eventually lead to a loss of genetic diversity, thereby resulting in inbreeding depression due to a loss of genetic variation.[12] Yet another criticism of contemporary eugenics policies is that they propose to permanently and artificially disrupt millions of years of evolution, and that attempting to create genetic lines "clean" of "disorders" can have far-reaching ancillary downstream effects in the genetic ecology, including negative effects on immunity and on species resilience.[13]
    I would say that there is broad agreement today that negative eugenics, especially when coercive or based on group membership, is ethically unacceptable. Nevertheless, without using the word, there are many positive eugenic technologies being worked on, while abortion is being effectively used as a negative eugenic practice in some cases. The moral questions surrounding these issues are complicated, especially since many of the dysgenic trends in modern populations are the result of moral decisions. For example, if medical technology is employed to allow a person with a genetic disease to live a normal life and have children, most would consider this a moral practice, though it is unambiguously dysgenic.

    Currently, it appears that average IQs are falling by about half a point per generation, primarily because highly educated women are having very few or no children. A few generations of this isn't really a big deal, but long term it could actually threaten the survival of our species, since it reduces our ability to tackle all other challenges we face. Policies that facilitate or encourage intelligent women having more children would likely be controversial, and may not be effective, but the alternative solution that is likely to come about is embryo selection (I believe this may already be happening in China). The idea is to create several zygotes in a lab using a couple's eggs and sperm, and then allow the couple to choose which zygote to implant based on each zygote's genetic profile. This would be like rolling the dice 10 times or 50 times, and then just keeping the highest result. Implantation could even be done in a surrogate mother, so the biological mother wouldn't have to disrupt her career as much as she would otherwise. Such a technology will likely be seen as immoral, at least to some extent, by those who oppose abortion, since the unused zygotes would ultimately be discarded. Likewise, some will object to the notion that it will allow the wealthiest class of people to hyper select their children for talent and IQ, which could create a significant aptitude gap between social classes over the course of just a few generations.

    Regarding the issue of other species mentioned by the OP, I will point out that some species have been major beneficiaries of human development, even some wild species, such as crows and coyotes. It's not so simple as thinking that we simply destroy environments since we also create new (albeit less biologically diverse) environments.
    Quote Originally Posted by Enros View Post
    You don't seem to be familiar with how the burden of proof works in when discussing social justice. It's not like science where it lies on the one making the claim. If someone claims to be oppressed, they don't have to prove it.


  13. #33
    Flinn's Avatar His Dudeness of TWC
    Patrician Citizen Content Emeritus Administrator Emeritus Gaming Emeritus

    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Italy
    Posts
    20,306
    Blog Entries
    46

    Default Re: On the morality of evolution

    Quote Originally Posted by sumskilz View Post
    I would say that there is broad agreement today that negative eugenics, especially when coercive or based on group membership, is ethically unacceptable. Nevertheless, without using the word, there are many positive eugenic technologies being worked on, while abortion is being effectively used as a negative eugenic practice in some cases. The moral questions surrounding these issues are complicated, especially since many of the dysgenic trends in modern populations are the result of moral decisions. For example, if medical technology is employed to allow a person with a genetic disease to live a normal life and have children, most would consider this a moral practice, though it is unambiguously dysgenic.

    Currently, it appears that average IQs are falling by about half a point per generation, primarily because highly educated women are having very few or no children. A few generations of this isn't really a big deal, but long term it could actually threaten the survival of our species, since it reduces our ability to tackle all other challenges we face. Policies that facilitate or encourage intelligent women having more children would likely be controversial, and may not be effective, but the alternative solution that is likely to come about is embryo selection (I believe this may already be happening in China). The idea is to create several zygotes in a lab using a couple's eggs and sperm, and then allow the couple to choose which zygote to implant based on each zygote's genetic profile. This would be like rolling the dice 10 times or 50 times, and then just keeping the highest result. Implantation could even be done in a surrogate mother, so the biological mother wouldn't have to disrupt her career as much as she would otherwise. Such a technology will likely be seen as immoral, at least to some extent, by those who oppose abortion, since the unused zygotes would ultimately be discarded. Likewise, some will object to the notion that it will allow the wealthiest class of people to hyper select their children for talent and IQ, which could create a significant aptitude gap between social classes over the course of just a few generations.

    Regarding the issue of other species mentioned by the OP, I will point out that some species have been major beneficiaries of human development, even some wild species, such as crows and coyotes. It's not so simple as thinking that we simply destroy environments since we also create new (albeit less biologically diverse) environments.
    Evolution makes mistakes too, it doesn't have to necessarily end well, for us and for anybody else involved ...
    Under the patronage of Finlander, patron of Lugotorix & Lifthrasir & joerock22 & Socrates1984 & Kilo11 & Vladyvid & Dick Cheney & phazer & Jake Armitage & webba 84 of the Imperial House of Hader

  14. #34
    basics's Avatar Vicarius Provinciae
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Scotland, UK.
    Posts
    11,280

    Default Re: On the morality of evolution

    Quote Originally Posted by antaeus View Post
    Well humour us then...

    (burden of proof aside)
    Well, for a start no-one has ever witnessed one kind changing into another. It's all assumption to suit the narrative and when that fails fall back on billions of years which cannot themselves be proved. God's version of events is far more plausible.

  15. #35
    antaeus's Avatar Cool and normal
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Cool and normal
    Posts
    5,419

    Default Re: On the morality of evolution

    Quote Originally Posted by basics View Post
    Well, for a start no-one has ever witnessed one kind changing into another. It's all assumption to suit the narrative and when that fails fall back on billions of years which cannot themselves be proved. God's version of events is far more plausible.
    There are plenty of examples of biological selection processes occurring. You can replicate it yourself in your garage if you want to. Buy yourself 100 mice, of an assortment of colours. Remove the ones that are black before they reach breeding age. Allow the rest to breed. Repeat with each new generation. How many black mice do you think you'll have in the remaining group after 20 generations?

    I know. Crass overly simplistic example... but it gets the point across. The idea that nobody has witnessed these processes is wrong. They can be recreated in your garage, or a lab, and have been witnessed in literal thousands of species of all kinds of creatures. If this is your objection, it is a particularly weak one. Do you have others?
    IN PATROCINIVM SVB MARENOSTRUM

  16. #36

    Default Re: On the morality of evolution

    Quote Originally Posted by basics View Post
    Well, for a start no-one has ever witnessed one kind changing into another. It's all assumption to suit the narrative and when that fails fall back on billions of years which cannot themselves be proved. God's version of events is far more plausible.
    Sniping at individual processes (gradual, not spontaneous) is hardly a good-faith way to address the issue. Plausibility can only be leaned on as far as you don't look into the details, since it is easier to believe something just happens than to believe that the universe is in fact quite complicated and subject to context.

    Wikis are like panthers. It's a good idea to feed them.

  17. #37
    conon394's Avatar hoi polloi
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Colfax WA, neat I have a barn and 49 acres - I have 2 horses, 15 chickens - but no more pigs
    Posts
    16,794

    Default Re: On the morality of evolution

    Quote Originally Posted by basics View Post
    Well, for a start no-one has ever witnessed one kind changing into another. It's all assumption to suit the narrative and when that fails fall back on billions of years which cannot themselves be proved. God's version of events is far more plausible.
    Whole lot Genetics who work with plants and fruit fly's would beg to differ. I do believe (and will try dig up the reference) it about maybe 6-10 generations of selection pressure to get a formally homogeneous fruit fly population to divided into two or more populations that will not interbreed. If you really free cash add a few more radiation and or chemicals and you get blind ones or ones with extra wings or legs etc. Now you create an environment where those mutations are advantages and well they wall breed more successfully. You demonstrate the same in plants just not quite as fast as in the fruit fly.

    Also your use of 'Kind' is I think deliberately vague and has no descriptive value. How do yo define a kind.
    IN PATROCINIVM SVB Dromikaites

    'One day when I fly with my hands - up down the sky, like a bird'

    But if the cause be not good, the king himself hath a heavy reckoning to make, when all those legs and arms and heads, chopped off in battle, shall join together at the latter day and cry all 'We died at such a place; some swearing, some crying for surgeon, some upon their wives left poor behind them, some upon the debts they owe, some upon their children rawly left.

    Hyperides of Athens: We know, replied he, that Antipater is good, but we (the Demos of Athens) have no need of a master at present, even a good one.

  18. #38
    basics's Avatar Vicarius Provinciae
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Scotland, UK.
    Posts
    11,280

    Default Re: On the morality of evolution

    Quote Originally Posted by antaeus View Post
    There are plenty of examples of biological selection processes occurring. You can replicate it yourself in your garage if you want to. Buy yourself 100 mice, of an assortment of colours. Remove the ones that are black before they reach breeding age. Allow the rest to breed. Repeat with each new generation. How many black mice do you think you'll have in the remaining group after 20 generations?

    I know. Crass overly simplistic example... but it gets the point across. The idea that nobody has witnessed these processes is wrong. They can be recreated in your garage, or a lab, and have been witnessed in literal thousands of species of all kinds of creatures. If this is your objection, it is a particularly weak one. Do you have others?
    antaeus,

    Yes, but they remain mice. Nobody has ever witnessed one kind turning into another kind naturally. Notice in the following two posts the argument is one of tinkering with a kind which only suggests that an intelligent Designer made each kind to be their kind.

  19. #39
    conon394's Avatar hoi polloi
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Colfax WA, neat I have a barn and 49 acres - I have 2 horses, 15 chickens - but no more pigs
    Posts
    16,794

    Default Re: On the morality of evolution

    Notice in the following two posts the argument is one of tinkering with a kind which only suggests that an intelligent Designer made each kind to be their kind.
    Not design simply applying experimental pressure on creature or plants so you can see the result in a human life time. The only problem is because of some geology of some iron age goat herders you do not allow the time necessary for slow change.

    Have you noticed the moon drifting away from earth at about 4 cm a year? Or how close it used to be (course you did not no humans than)
    Last edited by conon394; October 07, 2021 at 06:53 AM.
    IN PATROCINIVM SVB Dromikaites

    'One day when I fly with my hands - up down the sky, like a bird'

    But if the cause be not good, the king himself hath a heavy reckoning to make, when all those legs and arms and heads, chopped off in battle, shall join together at the latter day and cry all 'We died at such a place; some swearing, some crying for surgeon, some upon their wives left poor behind them, some upon the debts they owe, some upon their children rawly left.

    Hyperides of Athens: We know, replied he, that Antipater is good, but we (the Demos of Athens) have no need of a master at present, even a good one.

  20. #40
    basics's Avatar Vicarius Provinciae
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Scotland, UK.
    Posts
    11,280

    Default Re: On the morality of evolution

    conon394,

    The thing is ole fella that not any tinkering has ever changed one kind into another. You can tinker with plants and they will remain plants, tinker with dogs and they remain dogs, tinker with humanity and it remains humanity. So in the six thousand odd years of our existence the moon has moved away from the earth some 24,000 cm so what? There are 160,934 cm in a mile so your distance is nothing to worry about concerning the moon and the earth. But since you I think are trying to say that the moon and earth were one at one time in the past how is it that the moon is nothing like the earth?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •