I Like Soup Posted November 28, 2007 Share Posted November 28, 2007 (edited) good god. this is here's a question for you evolution whackos ... since this mega thread has not shook your faith, put your naturally-selected cognitive ability towards answering this ... if indeed our ability to compose symphonies and construct intricate intellectual exercises such as fantasy football did originate from a mass of protoplasm that today you would scrape off your shoe, then we must still be evolving. i doubt that if you held that spoo in your hands 13 billions years ago, you would be able to fathom that it would evolve via random processes into beings that could travel to the moon or make a pizza. here we stand today on the brink of another 13 billion years, but we now have the advantage of self awareness and, despite how good-looking we are, we will serve as the goo for the more evolved creatures that will inhabit our planet in the future. what will we evolve to be next? go ahead and make the obligitory cracks, but then do honestly take a stab at just what will happen to us ... Well, I do think we are evolving. I believe the appendix, wisdom teeth, and the cocyx are good examples of this from an anatomical standpoint. But, I do also think we will devolve to a point. Why? Because modern medicine allows for the passing on of genetic defects that would otherwise kill off an individual (read: science saves lives). http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/probe/docs/evil.html You can read more here. Thanks soup and ursa, for driving the truck through that argument in the space of 14 words. While I have been known to be verbose, I can be pointed as well! Edited November 28, 2007 by I Like Soup Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Irish Doggy Posted November 28, 2007 Share Posted November 28, 2007 But, I do also think we will devolve to a point. Why? Because modern medicine allows for the passing on of genetic defects that would otherwise kill off an individual (read: science saves lives). Well yes, and no really. There isn't any such thing as "devolving" AFAIK. I doubt we're going to go back to smaller brains and hunter-gathering behavior.... Regarding medical science's impact, the areas of most concern are only those diseases which may affect our time as reproductive individuals. Remember, evolution is about passing on genetic information - our traits. Once a woman has the "great change", as far as evolution is concerned, if she has a predisposition to diseases which typically strike late in life like cancer, Alzheimer's, osteoporosis, etc., it doesn't matter. So long as her offspring can get through the reproductive years too, the genes are passed on to the next generations. For men, while they can produce sperm late in life, they don't often mate with reproductive females, so the same reasoning applies to them, although to a slightly lesser degree. You are right in that there are surely a hugh number of things which we are able to correct or treat that a century ago may have killed us off as children. I'm sure that I would have died years ago from this piss-poor airway and allergies I inherited. I've had every kind of "itis" you can imagine. Without antibiotics, I wouldn't have made it past 12. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGrunt Posted November 28, 2007 Share Posted November 28, 2007 Well yes, and no really. There isn't any such thing as "devolving" AFAIK. I doubt we're going to go back to smaller brains and hunter-gathering behavior.... Regarding medical science's impact, the areas of most concern are only those diseases which may affect our time as reproductive individuals. Remember, evolution is about passing on genetic information - our traits. Once a woman has the "great change", as far as evolution is concerned, if she has a predisposition to diseases which typically strike late in life like cancer, Alzheimer's, osteoporosis, etc., it doesn't matter. So long as her offspring can get through the reproductive years too, the genes are passed on to the next generations. For men, while they can produce sperm late in life, they don't often mate with reproductive females, so the same reasoning applies to them, although to a slightly lesser degree. You are right in that there are surely a hugh number of things which we are able to correct or treat that a century ago may have killed us off as children. I'm sure that I would have died years ago from this piss-poor airway and allergies I inherited. I've had every kind of "itis" you can imagine. Without antibiotics, I wouldn't have made it past 12. Pneumonia is another great example of a killer of yesteryears, but no longer today. I got pneumonia in recruit training for the marines and was only on bed rest for two days before getting back in the game. Just ten years ago that would sideline an individual for weeks. In either case, once stem cell research breaks though we'll see an even greater number of survivors in the medical world, and not to mention a decrease in the need for organ transplants from one individual to another. Sheesh... the positives from stem cell research are limitless at this point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I Like Soup Posted November 28, 2007 Share Posted November 28, 2007 Well yes, and no really. There isn't any such thing as "devolving" AFAIK. I doubt we're going to go back to smaller brains and hunter-gathering behavior.... Regarding medical science's impact, the areas of most concern are only those diseases which may affect our time as reproductive individuals. Remember, evolution is about passing on genetic information - our traits. Once a woman has the "great change", as far as evolution is concerned, if she has a predisposition to diseases which typically strike late in life like cancer, Alzheimer's, osteoporosis, etc., it doesn't matter. So long as her offspring can get through the reproductive years too, the genes are passed on to the next generations. For men, while they can produce sperm late in life, they don't often mate with reproductive females, so the same reasoning applies to them, although to a slightly lesser degree. You are right in that there are surely a hugh number of things which we are able to correct or treat that a century ago may have killed us off as children. I'm sure that I would have died years ago from this piss-poor airway and allergies I inherited. I've had every kind of "itis" you can imagine. Without antibiotics, I wouldn't have made it past 12. Well, I guess you are right...devolving isn't quite the right word. How about...we are becoming weaker genetically then? The point is, weaker traits of individuals are passed on regardless, thereby making us weaker genetically. Take diabetes, for instance (no offense meant to diabetics...this is purely for arguments sake),...that trait can be passed on now with the advent of insulin allowing those people to lead relatively normal lives, reproduce, etc. I would imagine in historic times, this was something that killed rather quickly and people with diabetes didn't procreate...it was simply a genetic defect that showed up here and there...now it is simply passed on. I don't think I'm explaining this quite as well as I'd like but hopefully you get the gist of my thought (you know, I'm at work...). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonorator Posted November 28, 2007 Share Posted November 28, 2007 But, I do also think we will devolve to a point. i was hoping for something like what we are seeing on 'heroes' ... assuming we would devolve would suggest that maybe we've reached some sort of peak. there's no argument that compared to the dumb cells we've started from, we have become quite powerful. why wouldn't we get more powerful as we move forward. surely we haven't peaked? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGrunt Posted November 28, 2007 Share Posted November 28, 2007 i was hoping for something like what we are seeing on 'heroes' ... assuming we would devolve would suggest that maybe we've reached some sort of peak. there's no argument that compared to the dumb cells we've started from, we have become quite powerful. why wouldn't we get more powerful as we move forward. surely we haven't peaked? The dinosaurs probably thought the same thing. However, they were around a lot longer than us, so their dominance did have some justification. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted November 28, 2007 Share Posted November 28, 2007 The dinosaurs probably thought the same thing. However, they were around a lot longer than us, so their dominance did have some justification. What? Is this an admission that Adam and Eve were NOT riding triceratops to church? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Codwagon Posted November 28, 2007 Share Posted November 28, 2007 Hey Pope, my short take on evil...it only exists while humans do. It is a human construct. Evil does not exist in nature :doneheavylifting: You must have never seen a cat play with a mouse until it dies. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGrunt Posted November 28, 2007 Share Posted November 28, 2007 What? Is this an admission that Adam and Eve were NOT riding triceratops to church? Wait... wouldn't Adam and Eve have been the only one's to attend church if they did take the triceratops-bus? In either case, I believe they found a nice fruit tree to offer those sweet succulent juices they crave every Sunday morning. So maybe they just missed the triceratops-bus ride and gorged themselves on desirable food to help them live just one more day longer? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted November 28, 2007 Share Posted November 28, 2007 You must have never seen a cat play with a mouse until it dies. You shouldn't mix instinct with evil......the evil you perceive is a result of hard wiring, not behavior of choice, IMO. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whomper Posted November 28, 2007 Share Posted November 28, 2007 You shouldn't mix instinct with evil......the evil you perceive is a result of hard wiring, not behavior of choice, IMO. Cats are pure evil Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonorator Posted November 28, 2007 Share Posted November 28, 2007 The dinosaurs probably thought the same thing. However, they were around a lot longer than us, so their dominance did have some justification. dinos were powerful physically, but they couldn't design an iphone. compared to them and all other animal life, we are gods. there's no reason to believe that we will not continue to evolve into something that will be god-like to us, right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I Like Soup Posted November 28, 2007 Share Posted November 28, 2007 i was hoping for something like what we are seeing on 'heroes' ... assuming we would devolve would suggest that maybe we've reached some sort of peak. there's no argument that compared to the dumb cells we've started from, we have become quite powerful. why wouldn't we get more powerful as we move forward. surely we haven't peaked? Tonormanondog...please see my post above your as my true thoughts about "devolving"...I meant getting weaker genetically... dinos were powerful physically, but they couldn't design an iphone. compared to them and all other animal life, we are gods. there's no reason to believe that we will not continue to evolve into something that will be god-like to us, right? But, dinosaurs were a much more diverse group of animals and lived on the earth some 160 million years. That is much more successful as a species than the reign of man/predecessors 2 millions years or so. From a time perspective, anyway if you believe in the dating methods you yourself question. I would say, in counter to your god-like statement, dinosaurs far exceeded us in sheer physical size, speed, etc...therefore they were god-like physically, we are god-like mentally...in comparison. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cre8tiff Posted November 28, 2007 Share Posted November 28, 2007 (edited) You shouldn't mix instinct with evil......the evil you perceive is a result of hard wiring, not behavior of choice, IMO. Some would argue the concept of evil is man's attempt to explain his primordial instincts, the savage remains of our species' fight for survival in a deadly world. We classify it as evil in an attempt to give it a different name than what it is in animals -- instinct. The choice is whether to answer the call of the wild or not. Edited November 28, 2007 by cre8tiff Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Irish Doggy Posted November 28, 2007 Share Posted November 28, 2007 Heck, all those single cell organisms may be dumb, but there way more of them than us. They are found in the most extreme climates from the ocean floor to mountains to icey Antarctica. You can have all kinds of different measuring sticks, but for evolution, again its all about passing genes to the next generation. No once species is necessarily superior to another unless it survives and the other does not. If Asian Bird Flu mutates and kills off a third of the planet, would one still consider humans as the most powerful? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexgaddis Posted November 28, 2007 Share Posted November 28, 2007 (edited) Replies = 666 Edited November 28, 2007 by alexgaddis Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted November 28, 2007 Share Posted November 28, 2007 (edited) You shouldn't mix instinct with evil......the evil you perceive is a result of hard wiring, not behavior of choice, IMO. so when a human does something destructive it isn't hard wiring? only in humans is it evil? that sounds like a creationist, humans-are-privileged type of argument. fwiw, my take on good and evil is essentially like that of light and darkness. they are not so much binary opposites, but one (darkness) is the lack of the other (light). "good" is order, harmony, love....evil is the natural state where those things are lacking: emptiness, chaos, despair. good would have no meaning AS good if we also didn't encounter its absence (evil). just as faith would have no meaning without anxiety and uncertainty. Edited November 28, 2007 by Azazello1313 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I Like Soup Posted November 28, 2007 Share Posted November 28, 2007 so when a human does something destructive it isn't hard wiring? only in humans is it evil? that sounds like a creationist, humans-are-privileged type of argument. Well, I think it is more of a "man has the capacity for reason and the consequences of action"...therefore, knowingly taken a course of action that hurts another or could be construed as an evil act, is why it is considered evil. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted November 28, 2007 Share Posted November 28, 2007 Well, I think it is more of a "man has the capacity for reason and the consequences of action"...therefore, knowingly taken a course of action that hurts another or could be construed as an evil act, is why it is considered evil. well....let's take the example of a male lion who murders the cubs of his rival. on some level, i assume this lion knows what he is doing. is that evil? i just think these bright lines between (human) consciousness and (animal) instinct would logically lead more to the religious "man is in god's image (but with sin), unique among all creation" theory than to the naturalistic "man is just the most mentally evolved animal" type theory. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGrunt Posted November 28, 2007 Share Posted November 28, 2007 You shouldn't mix instinct with evil......the evil you perceive is a result of hard wiring, not behavior of choice, IMO. When you say "hard wiring" I'll assume you are referring to environmental influences and your own DNA. According to Determinism, it's possible we really don't have "free will" in our choices at all. For example, if you have to choose from either A or B, and choose B, the act of choosing B can be predicted based on environmental and natural DNA influences from your history. If your character is the result of all previous environmental and DNA influences, then it's conceivable to reason that choosing B over A has offered you no real choice at all -- depending on the person, your past events in life are what dictated the decision to choose B. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I Like Soup Posted November 28, 2007 Share Posted November 28, 2007 well....let's take the example of a male lion who murders the cubs of his rival. on some level, i assume this lion knows what he is doing. is that evil? i just think these bright lines between (human) consciousness and (animal) instinct would logically lead more to the religious "man is in god's image (but with sin), unique among all creation" theory than to the naturalistic "man is just the most mentally evolved animal" type theory. Well, the male lion is more dominant than the one he deposed, so he is taking the other's offspring out of the gene pool. Survival of the fittest...not evil. When you say "hard wiring" I'll assume you are referring to environmental influences and your own DNA. According to Determinism, it's possible we really don't have "free will" in our choices at all. For example, if you have to choose from either A or B, and choose B, the act of choosing B can be predicted based on environmental and natural DNA influences from your history. If your character is the result of all previous environmental and DNA influences, then it's conceivable to reason that choosing B over A has offered you no real choice at all -- depending on the person, your past events in life are what dictated the decision to choose B. I think from "hard wiring" Ursa is referring to the animals in the animal kingdom (well, not man) that react on instinct, not with thought and realization of consequences, etc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGrunt Posted November 28, 2007 Share Posted November 28, 2007 I think from "hard wiring" Ursa is referring to the animals in the animal kingdom (well, not man) that react on instinct, not with thought and realization of consequences, etc. Makes sense. Although, while we consider ourselves "human" and not animal-like, instincts are made up from environmental influences and your DNA structure. So, if given option A or B to choose from, I'm going to choose the option that best dictates how my character has formed with the experiences I've had in my life. If I'm not mistaken, it's this claim that argues we might not really have a "choice" in our decisions at all; our choices are dictated by our past, our history. dinos were powerful physically, but they couldn't design an iphone. compared to them and all other animal life, we are gods. there's no reason to believe that we will not continue to evolve into something that will be god-like to us, right? I wouldn't go as far to say we are "Gods" compared to other animals, only that our capabilities to perceive the things around us are enhanced by our senses and brain power abilities. But I do believe we'll continue to evolve to fit our ever-changing environment. One things humans have that most other animals do not is an imagination - a mind capable of reason. Also luckily for us humans, we also share a selfish-gene associated with survival of the fittest. So it is in our best personal interest, our instinct, to want to spread our DNA so that a part of us lives on. Sure, there are the rare situations where people don't want kids (and which their DNA will die off), but the majority of human beings are selfish when it comes to survival and reproduction. Which according to Darwin is a good thing for humanity. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McNasty Posted November 29, 2007 Share Posted November 29, 2007 You must have never seen a cat play with a mouse until it dies. The evil is in yer head, not in the cat. "Who is the master that makes the grass green?" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bushwacked Posted November 29, 2007 Share Posted November 29, 2007 "Who is the master that makes the grass green?" The Puppet Master? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Savage Beatings Posted November 29, 2007 Share Posted November 29, 2007 I think some of you are getting tripped up on the word "evil" being distinctly human. Maybe "suffering" would serve the discussion better. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.