Religion afirms that God created the man at its best and through religion rules nobody could do it better than God. Therefore, our evolution - that was caused by humankind itself and moved him from "hunting with a stick to driving a porche" - is nothing more than a regression while it couldn't improve the humankind ?
Is the human evolution a regression?
With or with out that God that argument doesn't hold water.
Evolution is about survival, those who can survive and have more children.
Its not about rules or superiority or inferiority or God.
Evolution is about survival, those who can survive and have more children.
Its not about rules or superiority or inferiority or God.
If anything, "God" as we know it is probably cause for a mass de-evolution.
I concur
Evolution is about survival but if you have all the genes in a given population (aka perfect state) to survive just by odds of death and repduction some genes are going to get lost, in sexual reproduction his genes or her's here. so any one male generation passes along 50% of its DNA.
The ONLY way genes would not get lost and evolution as we understand it is through asexual reproduction.
we are 'devolving'
Cool I just disproved evolution!
Evolution is about survival but if you have all the genes in a given population (aka perfect state) to survive just by odds of death and repduction some genes are going to get lost, in sexual reproduction his genes or her's here. so any one male generation passes along 50% of its DNA.
The ONLY way genes would not get lost and evolution as we understand it is through asexual reproduction.
we are 'devolving'
Cool I just disproved evolution!
I don't think the thread started has good support for his argument, but I too do not believe we are evolving. But this is based on what scientists and atheists would like you to think the word means. Most have a connotation that evolution means someday we'll be perfect. However, the true meaning of the word means we are constantly heading towards chaos. Complexity does not equal perfection. Even the second law of thermodynamics points out that everything is heading towards entropy. People will always adapt, but these adaptations are nothing more than accidental mutations which allow us to survive in the more-chaotic environment.
Evolution, as most know it, has yet to be observed or even proven.
From a scientific standpoint, evolution happens all around us, and there is no escape from the chaos.
Evolution, as most know it, has yet to be observed or even proven.
From a scientific standpoint, evolution happens all around us, and there is no escape from the chaos.
| Juparis wrote: |
| I don't think the thread started has good support for his argument, but I too do not believe we are evolving. But this is based on what scientists and atheists would like you to think the word means. Most have a connotation that evolution means someday we'll be perfect. However, the true meaning of the word means we are constantly heading towards chaos. Complexity does not equal perfection. Even the second law of thermodynamics points out that everything is heading towards entropy. People will always adapt, but these adaptations are nothing more than accidental mutations which allow us to survive in the more-chaotic environment.
Evolution, as most know it, has yet to be observed or even proven. From a scientific standpoint, evolution happens all around us, and there is no escape from the chaos. |
1. We are not evolving to be more complex, things only evolve to more complex forms when more complex forms are better at surviving. Being more complex dose not nearly make animals any batter at surviving. evolution is just as likely to make creature less complex as more.
2. Evolution dose not make anything any more "perfect", evolution is about adapting to the environment to make species better equipped to survive, it doesn't make anything any more or less "perfect".
3. Evolution is about adapting to the environment, if the environment is stable than it will become better adapted to that environment, if the environment is chaotic it will become better adapted to that environment.
I think most of these replies have put too much emphasis on the scientific understanding of evolution which is irrelevant. The original post referred to evolution wrought by human action, taking us from hunting with sticks to driving Porsches. Figuratively this is evolution, but a more accurate term would be "progress."
With that redefinition, I don't think that human progress is necessarily regressive. I think that humans can move both regressively and progressively. The use and misuse of technology is proof enough of that. Today we can feed more people than ever, thanks to increased agricultural technology. Yet we can also drop nuclear weapons that incinerate a large population in an instant. Human effort, manifested in both technological advances and more efficient social groupings, is a double-edged sword.
As to the religious argument, that depends on how perfect man was originally. From the standard Christian viewpoint (my upbringing), man was made in God's image in the Garden of Eden. He was, supposedly, perfect and innocent until he and Eve ate the apple, learned of Good and Evil, and were banished from the garden. Original sin lowered man to his savage condition and all human "progress" since then has been in pursuit of the original Edenic environment. After this, refer to the above statement about human effort and I believe that we can definitely develop a better society and become progressively "closer" to God.
My personal view, however, puts a philosophic spin on the Edenic story. Man was never perfect. He was created in the "image" of God. He was always nothing more than a shadow. Adam and Eve, like the prisoners in Plato's Allegory of the Cave, were unwhole. They didn't know it at first, but once exposed to knowledge (the apple, or being set free in the cave) they could not re-adjust. We were created with a kernel of perfection in us (God's image), but we were never perfect. Human progress and effort is the attempt to develop that kernel of perfection into true godliness, or in Plato's terms to leave the cave, see the sun, and spread the word to the other prisoners. Or, in Hegel's terms, the history of human "progress" is the history of the development of human freedom and consciousness.
Anyhow, that's my two cents. Perhaps it'll open up a more interesting thread for debate.
- Walkere
With that redefinition, I don't think that human progress is necessarily regressive. I think that humans can move both regressively and progressively. The use and misuse of technology is proof enough of that. Today we can feed more people than ever, thanks to increased agricultural technology. Yet we can also drop nuclear weapons that incinerate a large population in an instant. Human effort, manifested in both technological advances and more efficient social groupings, is a double-edged sword.
As to the religious argument, that depends on how perfect man was originally. From the standard Christian viewpoint (my upbringing), man was made in God's image in the Garden of Eden. He was, supposedly, perfect and innocent until he and Eve ate the apple, learned of Good and Evil, and were banished from the garden. Original sin lowered man to his savage condition and all human "progress" since then has been in pursuit of the original Edenic environment. After this, refer to the above statement about human effort and I believe that we can definitely develop a better society and become progressively "closer" to God.
My personal view, however, puts a philosophic spin on the Edenic story. Man was never perfect. He was created in the "image" of God. He was always nothing more than a shadow. Adam and Eve, like the prisoners in Plato's Allegory of the Cave, were unwhole. They didn't know it at first, but once exposed to knowledge (the apple, or being set free in the cave) they could not re-adjust. We were created with a kernel of perfection in us (God's image), but we were never perfect. Human progress and effort is the attempt to develop that kernel of perfection into true godliness, or in Plato's terms to leave the cave, see the sun, and spread the word to the other prisoners. Or, in Hegel's terms, the history of human "progress" is the history of the development of human freedom and consciousness.
Anyhow, that's my two cents. Perhaps it'll open up a more interesting thread for debate.
- Walkere
| The Conspirator wrote: |
| 1. We are not evolving to be more complex, things only evolve to more complex forms when more complex forms are better at surviving. Being more complex dose not nearly make animals any batter at surviving. evolution is just as likely to make creature less complex as more.
2. Evolution dose not make anything any more "perfect", evolution is about adapting to the environment to make species better equipped to survive, it doesn't make anything any more or less "perfect". 3. Evolution is about adapting to the environment, if the environment is stable than it will become better adapted to that environment, if the environment is chaotic it will become better adapted to that environment. |
That's everything I was trying to say--but the common misunderstanding is that evolution is a "good" action, or that it will lead to a "better" state of being. But with your 3rd point, that is impossible. Our environment is only capable of become more chaotic. Hence, our adaptations and mutations are doomed to multiplicity. That is not natural or wholesome, but it is evolution.
| Quote: |
| Our environment is only capable of become more chaotic |
No, the would has been more chaotic in the past and it can become more chaotic in the future or it could become more stable
What is stable for us and stable for the earth are two different things or stable is eviromentally is VERY specific all of life is, stable for the earh means the its not getting riped to ruble!
very diffent
very diffent
regression? i don't think the animal could play ball games, although we could not play their game, either.
we are improving our life, the work and the world everyday. this is we, as human being, are doing during our reproductoin.
for the god sake, we have still a lot of things and phenomenons waiting to be explained, and we are doing our best.
the science and the phylosophy themselves are part of the God, in my opion.
we are improving our life, the work and the world everyday. this is we, as human being, are doing during our reproductoin.
for the god sake, we have still a lot of things and phenomenons waiting to be explained, and we are doing our best.
the science and the phylosophy themselves are part of the God, in my opion.
| The Conspirator wrote: |
| No, the would has been more chaotic in the past and it can become more chaotic in the future or it could become more stable |
Sorry, but I don't see how the world could possibly become more stable.
I guess it all depends on what sense of the world you're talking about.
To say anything could stabalize is a large overgeneralization, imo.
| Juparis wrote: | ||
Sorry, but I don't see how the world could possibly become more stable. I guess it all depends on what sense of the world you're talking about. To say anything could stabalize is a large overgeneralization, imo. |
Do you know anything about the history of the earth? Things are in a constitstate of change and the rate of that chance changes. There have been times in history when things where mopre chaotic and times when they where stable.
Soo.... you talkin bout geography, climate, or what?
It all depends on which sense of stabilization you're talking about. I think that's where I keep getting confused... or something..
It all depends on which sense of stabilization you're talking about. I think that's where I keep getting confused... or something..
Of course geology and climate, thats (along with the sun) determines the environment. Thats what determines a stable environment from chaotic environment.
In my mind things are as they have allways been... Some are poor some are rich and then there are the people who just get by.
Human bodys whont become perfect and no matter what it will just keep adapting to its sorrundings.
Thing is though.. The sorrundings evolve too and if we just protect ourselves with technological breathroughs we migh end up with bodys that will only perform well in a shell of technology.
Take pigs forexample. Most farmers pump different drugs into these animals to ensure that they earn more money. They keep them away from diseases and supply the best conditions such as heat and food.
Take such a pig and put it together with wild pigs and it would surely become sick and die.
Heck we can see it on humans too... People die of aids if they dont get some kind of drug to help them but in africa there are actually people who developed a natural resistance to the disease. Why?. because they were exposed for a long time. Same goes for malaria..
We are not subject to any kind of de evoulution. Id rather think that we are removing ourselves from our roots and is becoming something outside nature. We are building our own environments and nature has become an enemy.
Human bodys whont become perfect and no matter what it will just keep adapting to its sorrundings.
Thing is though.. The sorrundings evolve too and if we just protect ourselves with technological breathroughs we migh end up with bodys that will only perform well in a shell of technology.
Take pigs forexample. Most farmers pump different drugs into these animals to ensure that they earn more money. They keep them away from diseases and supply the best conditions such as heat and food.
Take such a pig and put it together with wild pigs and it would surely become sick and die.
Heck we can see it on humans too... People die of aids if they dont get some kind of drug to help them but in africa there are actually people who developed a natural resistance to the disease. Why?. because they were exposed for a long time. Same goes for malaria..
We are not subject to any kind of de evoulution. Id rather think that we are removing ourselves from our roots and is becoming something outside nature. We are building our own environments and nature has become an enemy.
| moonblade wrote: |
| In my mind things are as they have allways been... Some are poor some are rich and then there are the people who just get by.
Human bodys whont become perfect and no matter what it will just keep adapting to its sorrundings. Thing is though.. The sorrundings evolve too and if we just protect ourselves with technological breathroughs we migh end up with bodys that will only perform well in a shell of technology. Take pigs forexample. Most farmers pump different drugs into these animals to ensure that they earn more money. They keep them away from diseases and supply the best conditions such as heat and food. Take such a pig and put it together with wild pigs and it would surely become sick and die. Heck we can see it on humans too... People die of aids if they dont get some kind of drug to help them but in africa there are actually people who developed a natural resistance to the disease. Why?. because they were exposed for a long time. Same goes for malaria.. We are not subject to any kind of de evoulution. Id rather think that we are removing ourselves from our roots and is becoming something outside nature. We are building our own environments and nature has become an enemy. |
Wow--I think I'd have to agree 100% with what you just said.
Simple rules and laws in the playhouse show you the change in times--most places don't allow games such as Red Rover, Tag, or even Dodgeball, because the students might get hurt. But that's half the fun!
Someday it may come to keeping our children in germ-free bubbles, but then a single tear would insure death, because their immune system has had no exercise.
I think human adaptation has been like cuts and scabs. The cut area adapts by forming a scab, to protect the make-shift cells growing underneath. Afterwards, your defensive skin is whole once more, but you still have the area of white skin cells--and those skin cells themselves aren't even perfect. They constrict over time, but most of us never notice because they are so small. Our human adaptation is not a leap towards perfection. It has been mutating ourselve to better suit the growingly chaotic environment, but then technology took its own leap.
Instead of adapting ourselve, humans try to adapt the environment (by which I mean the way we live, since the actual environment is still degrading around us). Is is as you said; We have become something outside nature--in our quest to control our environments, nature has become our enemy.
| codenameshypher wrote: |
| Religion afirms that God created the man at its best and through religion rules nobody could do it better than God. Therefore, our evolution - that was caused by humankind itself and moved him from "hunting with a stick to driving a porche" - is nothing more than a regression while it couldn't improve the humankind ? |
The following article will be able to clear your mind.
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000D4FEC-7D5B-1D07-8E49809EC588EEDF&pageNumber=1&catID=2
Frankly first Man created God then God created Man !!!
 |