|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,902 Year: 4,159/9,624 Month: 1,030/974 Week: 357/286 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Evolution is a basic, biological process | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Soplar Inactive Member |
Thanks for your welcome. So far I've enjoyed the discussions; however, not too much debate yet. Since, according to most news reports I've read, 40% of the people should disagree with me completely and another 40% should disagree with me rather strongly, I am hoping for someone to write in a say "you are wrong because...." and I hope they don't, but probably will, quote the bible as I don't recognize it as source of information re the process of evolution.
Soplar
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Soplar Inactive Member |
Hi Quetzal
From your kind remark
I have little or no quibbles with anything Soplar has written thus far, can I conclude that you include my rather lengthy response to The Literalist? Reflecting on that reply, I left out a detail worth mentioning. During the race, and it was a race, to be the first to deduce the structure of DNA, the initial findings suggested a helical form, but only a single helix (Pauling championed this idea and lost the race). Eventually the superior efforts of the X-Ray spectroscopist Crick and mathematician Watson conclusively demonstrated that DNA is a double helix and won for them the prize and the Nobel. In retrospect, the double helix is the logical structure as it facilitates the all important cell division. The double helix merely unzips into two single helices which join the two halves of the divided cell. Then the double helix is rebuilt. It is in the rebuilding where the mutations creep in. Soplar
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 9004 From: Canada Joined: |
I think that whole post was good background to the question but I don't think you have yet answered the question as to why biology is unintelligable without evolution
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1496 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
think that whole post was good background to the question but I don't think you have yet answered the question as to why biology is unintelligable without evolution Probably for the same reason that a dictionary is unintelligble unless it's in alphabetical order.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Parasomnium Member Posts: 2224 Joined: |
What if the host dies only after the virus has prepared billions of replicas of itself in the cells of its victim. The bursting of the cells - i.e. the death of the host - to release the multitude of new viri might be just another step in the reproductive cycle of the virus. So the death of the host is not necessarily a bad thing from the virus' point of view.
We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further. - Richard Dawkins
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
What I gather from your posts, Soplar, is that you are puzzled as to why there should be a Creationist movement in the first place, and you were wondering if there is any decent argument out there, other than references to the Bible, to explain why so many people do not believe in evolution.
I would say this: 1. There is confusion in the popular mind between evolution and abiogenesis. There is plenty of evidence for evolution but only plausible ideas about abiogenesis. 2. There is, IMVHO ("im my VERY humble opinion")a crucial part of evolution that is problematic: the evolution of "mind."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 9004 From: Canada Joined: |
The host must certainly not die too quickly. The virus must have time to spread. I think (someone will correct me) that one can demonstrate that a virus and host will co-evolve until the viralence is less. After all a virus that doesn't kill the host at all can become as ubicquitous as is possible.
Are HERV's just the terminal point of this?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Parasomnium Member Posts: 2224 Joined: |
Ned,
I found the following here:
quote: It seems the jury is still out on that. We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further. - Richard Dawkins
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
1.61803 Member (Idle past 1533 days) Posts: 2928 From: Lone Star State USA Joined: |
Evolution of the mind? Why in your opinion is this problematic?
The brian is a organ that has devleoped to process the sensory information of the body, the mind is a by product of the brain. It stands to reason that the more intelligent the organism the more devolped congnitive processes will be and hence the illusion of a self/mind. "thinking substances" do not exist IMO. Dualism is an attempt to infer supernatural orgins and mechanisms that have yet been explained naturally. Why infer the mind as separate? Evolution of the stomach or evolution of the lungs do not pose a problem because we can explain much of the physiology and mechanisms that these organs operate on. But not to long ago it was thought that the brains purpose was to cool the blood. I guess this is what you mean by problematic, that people can not understand how the mind can exist given that it is not composed of matter.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
1.61803 writes: hence the illusion of a self/mind. I am just wondering who or what has this "illusion"? Does the mind have an illusion of itself? Don't you have to have a mind to have an illusion?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1496 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
There is, IMVHO ("im my VERY humble opinion")a crucial part of evolution that is problematic: the evolution of "mind." What's problematic about it? Surely you can see the survival/reproductive benefit of having a mind?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
It's not the evolutionary reason that puzzles me, Crashfrog: it's the process by which mind could have developed.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1496 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
It's not the evolutionary reason that puzzles me, Crashfrog: it's the process by which mind could have developed. The process seems completely clear to me, I guess. Given the continuum of mind that we find in nature, from the brightest human minds, to the dumbest human dolts, to the surprising mental faculty of our cousin apes, to the complex behavior from the simple neurology of insects, I see nothing problematic about the gradual development of mind, nor any fundamental quality of the human mind that is not also possessed, to some degree, in other species. It's honestly not that puzzling to me, and I wonder why it would be to you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
Answer my question in message #40, Crashfrog, and set my mind at ease.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1434 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
sexual selection is probably the reason for the greatly expanded ability of the human brain compared to other creatures -- it is the peacock tail of brains.
the theory is that sexual selection involved complex courtship rituals, with song and dance and body adornments, and the individuals that were the most creative got reproduction rights. this ends up as a positive feed-back loop with greater awareness and appreciation of {creativity\complexity} requiring even more {creativity\complexity} in the next generation. this also explains music dance and art and their importance in human culture even today (the rock-band-groupies phenomena). and this awareness of creativity leads to all other awareness issues. we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024