Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 50 (9181 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: joebialek123
Post Volume: Total: 918,278 Year: 5,535/9,624 Month: 560/323 Week: 57/143 Day: 0/19 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   morality, charity according to evolution
CACTUSJACKmankin
Member (Idle past 6392 days)
Posts: 48
Joined: 04-22-2006


Message 122 of 243 (312704)
05-17-2006 7:04 AM
Reply to: Message 114 by MarkAustin
05-15-2006 4:24 PM


Re: The altruism conundrum
While, I am not convinced that there is a "gay gene", I do think that if it is there that altruism is the best hypothesis for it. Let me be clear, homosexuality is absolutely biological, study after study shows that homosexual brains react much more like heterosexual brains of the opposite sex than their own. I think that homosexuality could be inborn like something congenital, not to suggest that it's a birth defect but that it could arise in much the same manner.
Scientific theories and facts are valueless, only their application can have value. The laws that govern genetics are valueless, use of that knowlege to make GE crops or human cloning is not valueless. Watch an animal documentary, any species that has more than handful of offspring at a time will lose many almost immediately... that's a fact of nature. The hardships of the young in nature have nothing to tell us about how to raise our children, it is simply the way it is.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by MarkAustin, posted 05-15-2006 4:24 PM MarkAustin has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 124 by EZscience, posted 05-17-2006 10:45 AM CACTUSJACKmankin has not replied

  
CACTUSJACKmankin
Member (Idle past 6392 days)
Posts: 48
Joined: 04-22-2006


Message 130 of 243 (312953)
05-17-2006 5:21 PM
Reply to: Message 126 by Hyroglyphx
05-17-2006 11:06 AM


Re: altruism and homosexuallity
quote:
Yeah, maybe homosexuality, pedophilia, beastiality, necrophilia, and rape is just an instance of a person expressing their normal and natural biological urges. I mean, for us to get mad about our children being raped is as valid as getting angry at someone born with blue eyes. There's no need to think of it as some squalid aberration, but rather embrace these notions with an abundance of smootches and huggles.
Do you really draw no line between consenting adults and the others which essentially amount to rape? Children are not psychologically ready for sex and it is essentially abuse from an adult who should know better, sex with animals is cruel to the animal which doesn't have the ability to properly comprehend what is going on, sex with a corpse is a desecration of a person who has died and who obviously isn't able to consent, and rape is a violent, traumatic event.
The only thing that these raping activities have in common with homosexuality is that you think they're immoral. But how moral is it to equate rape with consenting sex? why not equate prostitution with beastiality? or maybe S&M is no different from paedophillia! Get the differences yet? When sex is forced there is real harm, when it is consenting there is no harm!!!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 126 by Hyroglyphx, posted 05-17-2006 11:06 AM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 131 by Hyroglyphx, posted 05-17-2006 9:49 PM CACTUSJACKmankin has not replied

  
CACTUSJACKmankin
Member (Idle past 6392 days)
Posts: 48
Joined: 04-22-2006


Message 140 of 243 (313180)
05-18-2006 11:38 AM
Reply to: Message 136 by Hyroglyphx
05-18-2006 10:07 AM


Re: When rationalism fails
quote:
Evolution is the backbone of humanism, not the other way around which we might expect. Humanism is the foundation of racism. In modern times, the Darwinian alma mater has taken the reigns in propagating such an affront. Many Darwinists of long ago believed that the Negro race was not even human, but rather, some highly evolved simian. Humanist, Thomas Huxley, was coined as ”Darwins’ Bulldog’ for his aggressive tactics in propagating the evolutionary theory. He stated, “No rational man, cognizant of the facts, believes that the average negroe is equal, much less superior, of the white man.” If you do not already know, I implore you to make note of the full title of the Origins of Species. The full title is: ”The origin of species by means of natural selection: or the preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life.’
It is true that many early proponents of evolution used it to justify their racisms, not unlike southern baptist preachers who used their bible to justify their belief that the superiority of whites was God-given. However, the current data is clear, humans are far too closely related to justify any BS racism. All modern humans are decended from a single population about 70,000 years ago. The appearant differences between the races, such as skin color, are the result of a handful of genes. There is far more genetic variation within races than between them. So, people who are racists based on evolution aren't going on the science as it is now.
quote:
I reject it on the basis of its impotency to explain anything about anything.
If anything explains nothing it's God. Saying "God did it" relieves the person of having to give a mechanism, because God just went *POOF* and everything was here as is.
BTW Are you kidding? Evolution explains almost everything about biology. Why do flowers smell nice? It is an adaptation for reproduction, it increases the chances of reproductive success by attracting insects that move from flower to flower. How did land vertebrates arise? Hundreds of Millions of years ago, some fish started moving to land for short periods of time to escape predators. Over time they acquired ribs to support their internal organs which allowed them to go on land for longer periods of time, their lungs evolved from their swim bladders, and limds evolved for increased maneuverability. This is clear from fossils such as panderichthyes, tiktaalik, and acanthostega.
Evolution is the answer to one of the oldest questions asked by humanity, how did we get here. There is no significant biological reason that makes humans not animal, placental mammals, or primates. We are genetically, physiologically, and embryologically typical placental mammals. This is why we can conduct medical research on placentals. Reptiles are too distant from us. Diseases that affect only mammals, affect us. The version of AIDS we get is a primate disease. The only thing that really separates us from from other animals is our brains. This is where our creativity and intelligence come from that have allowed us to create modern society.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 136 by Hyroglyphx, posted 05-18-2006 10:07 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
CACTUSJACKmankin
Member (Idle past 6392 days)
Posts: 48
Joined: 04-22-2006


Message 195 of 243 (314930)
05-24-2006 4:52 PM
Reply to: Message 194 by Alasdair
05-24-2006 3:36 PM


Re: Some responses to NJ (some redundant)
quote:
If macroevloution were legitimate, then we should expect to see some type of evidence. Unfortunately, there is none.
You're right, there's no evidence for macroevolution at all... except for the fossil record, molecular biology, DNA, comparative anatomy, embryology, and almost every other field in biology.
The fossil record shows so much clear change across species over time. The fish to amphibian transition is very clear: lungs and gills occur simultaneously, fins show gradation into arms and hands with digits, the head separates from the shoulder which creates the vertebrate neck, rib formation to brace organs from gravity, and several others. There are at least five species in this transition each from rock that is in correct chronological order for this sequence including tiktaalik and acanthostega.
Then there is the molecular biological evidence. The code that rna uses to make the amino acids that make up proteins is redundant. Therefor different protein sequences can code for the same protein. Thus, you would expect that only related organisms would share the same protein sequences. That's exactly what we see. It has been calculated the protein Cytochrome c has a possible 10^93 (that's a 1 with 93 zeros after it) possible sequences. So, obviously species that share protein sequences such as this are related and that is among the strongest evidences that species come from other species, or macroevolution. BTW we share our cytochrome c with chimpanzees!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 194 by Alasdair, posted 05-24-2006 3:36 PM Alasdair has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 199 by Hyroglyphx, posted 05-24-2006 11:13 PM CACTUSJACKmankin has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024