Creation vs. Evolution

Inverse Tiger · **Posted:** Wed Aug 23, 2006 3:52 am

OK, let's look at this from an evolutionary point of view. If you are killed in a terrorist attack, what is being selected against? Immediately, being in that place at that time. Then the question is, what traits of those people led them to be in that place at that time? Did their intelligence have anything to do with it? Was there some choice they made or failed to make that made them more likely to be killed? The people killed were just at work, or on a plane. Or when people blow themselves up in markets, people are just shopping. Are people stupid for working, traveling, or shopping? I guess "smarter" people would have got enough money to live in a bunker 50 feet underground and pay their underlings to do all their work, travel, and shopping for them.

In other news, trolls smell bad. Where's the febreze?
Oh yeah, I left it behind the can of paint next to the toaster...

furrykef · **Posted:** Wed Aug 23, 2006 1:23 pm

godonlyknows wrote:

I maintain that when you kill a large group of people, the majority of them are going to be stupid, unless it's a Mensa convention.

That's a matter of statistics, not natural selection. Natural selection would be if they died because they were stupid. Having walked into a building that a terrorist happened to blow up or knock down isn't particularly stupid (unless maybe there were big flashing signs that said "HEY FILTHY AMERICANS, WE'RE GONNA BLOW THIS UP").

Also, by your logic, if killing any random population would improve the gene pool, wouldn't that apply to any arbitrary sample of people?... for example, the entire human population? Killing everybody won't improve the gene pool (unless you're a cynic

), therefore, your argument is incorrect. (In fact, statistically, killing a random population has no effect on the gene pool. Or, more accurately, there will be an effect, but there's no telling whether it will be positive or negative, not even an estimate or a tendency.)

- Kef

fahooglewitz1077 · **Posted:** Wed Aug 23, 2006 2:04 pm

godonlyknows wrote:

I maintain that when you kill a large group of people, the majority of them are going to be stupid, unless it's a Mensa convention.

I have to agree with furrykef on this one. (Remember that old, old rivalry?) It seems to me you lack any proof.

ed 'lim' smilde wrote:

When they attacked the World Trade Center, do you think more dumb people died than smart people? I doubt it.

godonlyknows wrote:

Do I think more dumb than smart people died?

yes.

Now, honestly, how do you plan to back that up? Even to me, a relatively gifted person, that argument sounds completely absurd. You might as well be trying to prove to me that paper is made from monkeys.

When you pick a lost cause, you really stick to it!

Ninti · **Joined:** Sat Nov 12, 2005 5:35 pm **Posts:** 3094

Godonlyknows, you're posts are completely ridiculous. The terrorist's had selected the Twin Towers because of how intelligent the people there were- They thought it would be a huge blow to America. They were wrong, but whatever. The only people who died who deserve a Darwin Award are the terrorists.

Also, terrorism is not natural selection. If you reply with something like "yes it is" like you probably will, please explain your opinion.

The Noid · **Posted:** Wed Aug 23, 2006 2:38 pm

nintendogs123 wrote:

Godonlyknows, your posts are completely ridiculous. The terrorist's had selected the Twin Towers because of how intelligent the people there were- They thought it would be a huge blow to America. They were wrong, but whatever. The only people who died who deserve a Darwin Award are the terrorists.

I completely agree with Ninti.

godonlyknows · **Joined:** Mon Aug 14, 2006 1:49 am **Posts:** 41

nintendogs123 wrote:

Godonlyknows, you're posts are completely ridiculous. The terrorist's had selected the Twin Towers because of how intelligent the people there were- They thought it would be a huge blow to America. They were wrong, but whatever. The only people who died who deserve a Darwin Award are the terrorists.

Also, terrorism is not natural selection. If you reply with something like "yes it is" like you probably will, please explain your opinion.

Wait...they picked the WTC because everyone in there was smart? They were office workers, not unlike officer workers in high rises all over the world.

Stop thinking that the people who died were somehow exemperlery. They weren't.

let's put this into perspective, people. the US occupation of Iraq has lead to a minnimum 40592 and maximum 45144 deaths. US lead forces did 37% of the killing (source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Body_Count_project)

3000 is nothing compared to that.

how do I know more unintelligent people died?

ratio.

on this IQ chart 90-110 is average.

After that it slides, meaning more people of lower IQ died as the bulk of IQ's are "average".

You're all right in saying that it's not natural selection. I already know that. But the discussion since has disturbed me somewhat as some of you seem to be living in a fairyland.

bless xx

Ju Ju Master · **Joined:** Wed Jul 06, 2005 1:01 am **Posts:** 6245

I agree that if you went into any place and blew up the building, you'd be killing more unintelligent people due to, as you said, ratio and percentage. But that means it's not natural selection, it's simply odds. You'd end up with the same percentage of unintelligent to intelligent people before and after the attack. if the percentage stays the same, it's not natural selection.

What's Her Face · **Posted:** Wed Aug 23, 2006 3:07 pm

But you said that the majority of people who died on Sept 11th were "stupid". An average level of intelligence is not "stupid". And that's such a rediculously subjective term, it's almost laughable.

But this has nothing to do with anything, so why are we even discussing it?

Didymus · **Posted:** Wed Aug 23, 2006 3:08 pm

Okay. That's enough. Back on the main topic now. No more discussion about the intelligence levels of the WTC workers.

Toastpaint.

kickflipthecat · **Joined:** Fri Feb 16, 2007 10:41 pm **Posts:** 2

furrykef wrote:

AgentSeethroo wrote:

I wonder...If we originally came from monkeys, why haven't we changed into something else throughout the past couple thousand years of recorded history?

Because it isn't enough time. 1000 years is a blink of an eye compared to the 4.57 billion year history of Earth that scientists suggest. According to this theory, the first single-celled life appeared around 3.6 billion years ago, and it took two more billion years just for that to evolve into more complex single-celled life. Of course, things sped up as dramatically as life proliferated, populations spread apart, conditions changed, and so on, so it needed only one more billion years to get to multicelled life. But it never sped up so much that a population like ours would evolve greatly in a couple thousand years. Though I'd suggest that in some ways we have evolved, but not to the point we became a different species. We've been evolving all this time after all, bit by bit. It's a gradual process; it's not like someday we just give birth to a superman.

Now if there were something more like 20,000 years of detailed, recorded history, perhaps we could actually see such change.

Don't forget, our society has become so supportive of the weak that evolution is nearly impossible to occur in civilized humans. Evolution and natural selection only work if the genetically inferior do not get the chance to procreate. That means that, as time goes on, our species should get progressively hotter, smarter, and nicer, but unfortunately drugs and alcohol (and the fact that many people are willing to settle for an inferior mate) have made it such that the ugly, stupid, and mean will still breed. In addition, many of the most genetically superior do not want children, so they use birth control and abortions to acoid being bound to raise the next generation, and as a result, our population could potentially be getting uglier, stupider, and nastier.

Also, don't forget that pity sex may lead to more than just pity sex.

furrykef · **Posted:** Fri Feb 16, 2007 11:17 pm

kickflipthecat wrote:

Don't forget, our society has become so supportive of the weak that evolution is nearly impossible to occur in civilized humans.

I don't think that would cause evolution to stop. Natural selection is the process through which changes become widespread, but even the absence of natural selection won't keep changes from happening. They'll still happen, it's just that which changes propagate will be more random.

How our current civilization affects the process of natural selection in humans is a difficult question to answer, really. It's fun to speculate, of course, but our speculation doesn't necessarily mean much.

- Kef

Didymus · **Posted:** Sat Feb 17, 2007 2:47 am

Sooner or later, someone will probably come up with the bright idea of eugenics breeding, using only the genetically superior, and trying to eliminate the populations of genetically inferior people. They'll probably start claiming that certain racial traits (perhaps even certain hair and eye colors) are signs of genetic superiority, and will systematically persecute those who do not bear those traits. Those less fortunate will probably find themselves under constant regulation concerning where they can go and what they can do. Their populations will probably be cut down with involuntary abortion, birth control, etc. They might even be put into special camps to help control them.

Einoo T. Spork · **Posted:** Sat Feb 17, 2007 2:53 am

Didymus wrote:

Sooner or later, someone will probably come up with the bright idea of eugenics breeding, using only the genetically superior, and trying to eliminate the populations of genetically inferior people. They'll probably start claiming that certain racial traits (perhaps even certain hair and eye colors) are signs of genetic superiority, and will systematically persecute those who do not bear those traits. Those less fortunate will probably find themselves under constant regulation concerning where they can go and what they can do. Their populations will probably be cut down with involuntary abortion, birth control, etc. They might even be put into special camps to help control them.

Hmmmmmm. This sounds familiar, but I can't remember where from!

That was sarcasm. I know perfectly well why this is familiar.

Ju Ju Master · **Joined:** Wed Jul 06, 2005 1:01 am **Posts:** 6245

Didymus wrote:

Sooner or later, someone will probably come up with the bright idea of eugenics breeding, using only the genetically superior, and trying to eliminate the populations of genetically inferior people. They'll probably start claiming that certain racial traits (perhaps even certain hair and eye colors) are signs of genetic superiority, and will systematically persecute those who do not bear those traits. Those less fortunate will probably find themselves under constant regulation concerning where they can go and what they can do. Their populations will probably be cut down with involuntary abortion, birth control, etc. They might even be put into special camps to help control them.

Why exactly do you bring this up? Seems like an unnecessary tangent.

Besides, that's why we learn history.

What's Her Face · **Posted:** Sat Feb 17, 2007 2:08 pm

kickflipthecat wrote:

Don't forget, our society has become so supportive of the weak that evolution is nearly impossible to occur in civilized humans. Evolution and natural selection only work if the genetically inferior do not get the chance to procreate. That means that, as time goes on, our species should get progressively hotter, smarter, and nicer, but unfortunately drugs and alcohol (and the fact that many people are willing to settle for an inferior mate) have made it such that the ugly, stupid, and mean will still breed. In addition, many of the most genetically superior do not want children, so they use birth control and abortions to acoid being bound to raise the next generation, and as a result, our population could potentially be getting uglier, stupider, and nastier.

Also, don't forget that pity sex may lead to more than just pity sex.

Lawdy - it sounds like you're just one step away from advocating eugenics here. :eek:

Eugenics = The Lunatic's Genetic Engineering.

Adding to what Kefferson said, the most important thing to say here is that genetics is not the only thing that makes us what we are. Surroundings and upbringing plays a hugely important part (maybe the most important part). Meanness and stupidity (using your words) are taught behaviours for the most part - no one's born mean or stupid. (Though your use of those words leaves a looooooooot of unanswered questions.)

And even a person's appearance can be affected badly by surroundings and/or upbringing - i.e. poor diet, lack of exercise, lack of self-esteem leading to apathy about their appearance, blah, blah, blah.

bwave · **Posted:** Sat Feb 17, 2007 11:50 pm

kickflipthecat wrote:

Stuff.

Just about half the stuff you wrote is based on demographics, assumptions, and false information.

You seem to be making the assumption that attractive people are the only ones procreating. Not true.

Also, not all attractive people feel the need to go have sex every hour. Most people base their mating habits on personal traits, rather than looks. And your definition of attractive would be relevant. Some people find different people attractive, and have different preferences.
Whether or not a person is nice has NOTHING to do with genetics. It can be a mixture of your rational decisions, your upbringing, environment, etc.

And btw: the "inferior" can still evolve.

ed 'lim' smilde · **Posted:** Sat Feb 17, 2007 11:57 pm

Quote:

You seem to be making the assumption that attractive people are the only ones procreating.

I think... that's the exact opposite of what his post is saying, mostly in the second half after the 'but unfortunately'.

bwave wrote:

Whether or not a person is nice has NOTHING to do with genetics.

I doubt that. For one, if rational decisions affect how nice you are, rational decisions have to do with genetics (for example, how smart you are and your personal interests), so they are for sure related somehow.

What's Her Face · **Posted:** Sun Feb 18, 2007 6:32 pm

ed 'lim' smilde wrote:

bwave wrote:

Whether or not a person is nice has NOTHING to do with genetics.

I doubt that. For one, if rational decisions affect how nice you are, rational decisions have to do with genetics (for example, how smart you are and your personal interests), so they are for sure related somehow.

Actually, I think pretty much every reputable psychologist would be on bwave's side there. There's definately more compelling evidence that personality and the ability to make rational decisions is linked with upbringing, not genetics.

furrykef · **Posted:** Sun Feb 18, 2007 6:58 pm

This is the "nature versus nurture" question. I think both play a factor, it's a question of how much. I mean, is there any particular reason why genetics couldn't play a role? But certainly the environment has an effect, too.

- Kef

What's Her Face · **Posted:** Sun Feb 18, 2007 7:19 pm

furrykef wrote:

This is the "nature versus nurture" question. I think both play a factor, it's a question of how much. I mean, is there any particular reason why genetics couldn't play a role? But certainly the environment has an effect, too.

- Kef

It's certainly not impossible. Though there's a huge amount of difficulty in determining which of the two causes what, and it seems the nuture theory is winning the burden-of-proof battle at this stage. (Though I did psychology at uni, so I would say that.);)) But genetics is still in its infancy, so....... yeah....... the link may exist, but it's not been fully proven yet.

Lol - it's fun to be a fake scientist.

ed 'lim' smilde · **Posted:** Sun Feb 18, 2007 7:22 pm

furrykef wrote:

This is the "nature versus nurture" question. I think both play a factor, it's a question of how much. I mean, is there any particular reason why genetics couldn't play a role? But certainly the environment has an effect, too.

Yeah, I'm not saying that the way we behave is due to genetics, but it certainly doesn't deserve a bold, italic, underlined, and capitalized 'NOTHING'.

What's Her Face wrote:

nuture theory

lol, you combined them, was that on purpose?

xawakeandalivex · **Posted:** Sun Feb 18, 2007 8:08 pm

I think that it isn't worth spending time you could be using loving others wondering about such. Sure, you should seek the truth, but too much debate is a bad thing. I'm not referring to this conversation at all, but to the general debate. I personally believe in creation because I have felt God's presence and the evolution theory doesn't seem to hold much water (to me!) but do not judge others for believing anything if they have good reason for it.

Just thought I'd add my 2 cents.

What's Her Face · **Posted:** Sun Feb 18, 2007 10:27 pm

ed 'lim' smilde wrote:

What's Her Face wrote:

nuture theory

lol, you combined them, was that on purpose?

Would I look very smart if I say that it was?

Lol no - I meant to say nurture.

Quote:

but too much debate is a bad thing

BOOOOOOOOO! MOAR debate! MOAAAAAR!

PianoManGidley · **Posted:** Sun Feb 18, 2007 11:35 pm

xawakeandalivex wrote:

...and the evolution theory doesn't seem to hold much water (to me!)

May I ask what about the theory of evolution that doesn't hold water with you?

Did he sell eggs? · **Posted:** Mon Feb 19, 2007 12:50 am

Ah, I need to get my Youth Leader to type something up on this. He completely got rid of any doubt I had on Creation. (Another mistake of a lot of evolution people: Natural Selection has been basically proved wrong by people who believe in evolution.)

Inverse Tiger · **Posted:** Mon Feb 19, 2007 1:00 am

Did he sell eggs? wrote:

(Another mistake of a lot of evolution people: Natural Selection has been basically proved wrong by people who believe in evolution.)

Did you get this information from your youth leader? I'm no biologist (and he probably isn't either...), but I'm pretty sure the entire theory of evolution completely depends on natural selection. If natural selection has been "proved wrong" by people who believe in evolution, either 1) no one should believe in evolution or 2) the study was wrong or 3) whoever told you this was interpreting some study way incorrectly.

Also, I'd think if you actually heard a real biologist talk about this, they'd be just as convincing as your youth leader. Everyone's honed their arguments to the point where it's very hard for the average person to disprove anything. I'm not saying you're wrong, just don't take what your youth leader says for granted. See all the sides.

Mr. Sir · **Joined:** Fri Feb 16, 2007 2:30 pm **Posts:** 17

GO DARWIN!
GO DARWIN!

IT'S YO BIRTHDAY!
IT'S YO BIRTHDAY!

Simon Zeno · **Posted:** Mon Feb 19, 2007 2:09 am

I really don't see how natural selection is even disputable...

I can see how evolution as a whole might be disputed, but I can't for the life of me think of a reasonable objection to "survival of the fittest".

My position has always been that regardless of whether or not evolution is responsible for the origin of life, it is currently in effect, a view that I believe to not be in conflict with most religions.

StrongRad · **Posted:** Mon Feb 19, 2007 2:17 am

Mr. Sir wrote:

GO DARWIN!
GO DARWIN!

IT'S YO BIRTHDAY!
IT'S YO BIRTHDAY!

Yeah..... Can't argue with that.
Guess you've pretty much won the debate...

Beyond the Grave · **Posted:** Mon Feb 19, 2007 2:45 am

StrongRad wrote:

Yeah..... Can't argue with that.
Guess you've pretty much won the debate...

Give him a break, he's new. He will learn.

Simon, I share the same beliefs. I have tried and tried to think of a way for evolution not to be possible and I can't. In my opinion, the whole Creation Story is a metaphor of how this world came to be.

Homestar Runner Wiki Forum

Creation vs. Evolution

Who is online