Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 84 (8913 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-16-2019 3:40 AM
23 online now:
Minnemooseus (Adminnemooseus), PaulK, Tangle (3 members, 20 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Arnold Wolf
Post Volume:
Total: 853,785 Year: 8,821/19,786 Month: 1,243/2,119 Week: 3/576 Day: 3/50 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
1
23456
...
13NextFF
Author Topic:   A personal question
Delshad
Inactive Member


Message 1 of 193 (19944)
10-15-2002 3:13 PM


I hope you dont find this question that sily but I am intersted in your view.

There was nothing in my religion that argued against evolution and deep inside i`ve always believed that man was an ancestor to the ape.
But I guess I didnt find that fact to be that romantic for me to embrace .
And of course, we humans have been blessed with abilities such as, high intelligence, being able to use our hands to create things, and I guess we are the only specie that feels conserned with his spiritual life, and many other abilities such as bipedality.
However, all these traits seem to vanquish compared to the similarity between our genes, 2-5 %(why is that so, are there other factors that I dont know of?).
And morally, is it really in the nature of our dignity as humans to feel related with animals, no matter how good the evidence are( achhh, sweet ages of ignorance ).
Joke aside, I believe in evolution but perhaps its better not to fuss over it

Sincerely Delshad


Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by nos482, posted 10-15-2002 4:16 PM Delshad has not yet responded
 Message 3 by mark24, posted 10-15-2002 6:48 PM Delshad has responded
 Message 5 by Tranquility Base, posted 10-15-2002 8:20 PM Delshad has not yet responded

  
nos482
Inactive Member


Message 2 of 193 (19946)
10-15-2002 4:16 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Delshad
10-15-2002 3:13 PM


Originally posted by Delshad:

I hope you dont find this question that sily but I am intersted in your view.

There was nothing in my religion that argued against evolution and deep inside i`ve always believed that man was an ancestor to the ape.

That would be descended from. And no we aren't descended from apes, we share a common ancestor with the other primates.

And of course, we humans have been blessed with abilities such as, high intelligence, being able to use our hands to create things, and I guess we are the only specie that feels conserned with his spiritual life, and many other abilities such as bipedality.

All quite unimportant and the grand scheme of things.

However, all these traits seem to vanquish compared to the similarity between our genes, 2-5 %(why is that so, are there other factors that I dont know of?).
And morally, is it really in the nature of our dignity as humans to feel related with animals, no matter how good the evidence are( achhh, sweet ages of ignorance ).

Related to animals? We are animals.

Animal:
1. A living organism characterized by voluntary movement


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Delshad, posted 10-15-2002 3:13 PM Delshad has not yet responded

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 3357 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 3 of 193 (19954)
10-15-2002 6:48 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Delshad
10-15-2002 3:13 PM


Delshad,

quote:

However, all these traits seem to vanquish compared to the similarity between our genes, 2-5 %(why is that so, are there other factors that I dont know of?).

Yup, pretty much ALL the differences are accounted for in the small genetic difference between humans & chimps. I recently had to labour this very point to someone on another board, genetic differences are not necessarily linked in a linear fashion to behaviour & morphology. In fact, very small changes at the nucleotide level can cause enormous morphological change.

Even changes that increase intelligence can cause effect in a non-linear way. For example if you multiplied a severely impaired Downs syndrome childs IQ by 4 you would have a very, very talented individual. Going from someone that has trouble dressing to someone who has the capacity to be a brilliant scientist. That is to say, their intellectual capability has gone up by more than fourfold. I appreciate that IQ isn't the only measure of intelligence, but you get the picture. Small changes can = larger effects.

I've seen quotes of Gorillas with IQs of 70-ish (clever even for them), so for the sake of argument, let's call a chimps IQ 20, it only has to go up fivefold to be considered average human.

Now, of course, we are assisted with speech, & maybe other advantages that our brains give us over chimps, but it's not necessarily that much that separates us, & a chimp-on-the-edge-of-culture.

The intellectual aspect that ISN'T inherited, & therefore NOT due to the genetic difference is learned behaviour, ie passed on knowledge. We are not the only animals that have learned behaviour, either. Songbirds get most of their repertoires from other birds, with individuals raised in captivity having a much simplified range. Mammalian predators like dogs, wolves, lions etc learn their trade in the same way.

Mark

------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

[This message has been edited by mark24, 10-15-2002]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Delshad, posted 10-15-2002 3:13 PM Delshad has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by Delshad, posted 10-15-2002 7:15 PM mark24 has not yet responded

    
Delshad
Inactive Member


Message 4 of 193 (19955)
10-15-2002 7:15 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by mark24
10-15-2002 6:48 PM


Thanks for the reply Mark.
Appreciate it .

And thanks for the correction Nos, of course descendants not ancestor


This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by mark24, posted 10-15-2002 6:48 PM mark24 has not yet responded

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 5 of 193 (19961)
10-15-2002 8:20 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Delshad
10-15-2002 3:13 PM


My only point is regardless of linearity or non-linearity of genotype-phenotype relationships, genes do dictate phenotype so no-one is surprised at the genetic similarity of us to chimps - we are phsyiologically very similar. But that could be due to a common designer.

If God created man for his purposes but used some sort of evoltuion then that evoltuion is so far removed from purposeless evolution it should almost not be called evolution.

Delshad the type of evoltuion you are believing in is very different to that of the atheists here. And maybe they are wrong and we are simply seeing the signature of a common creator.

[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 10-15-2002]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Delshad, posted 10-15-2002 3:13 PM Delshad has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by mark24, posted 10-15-2002 8:25 PM Tranquility Base has responded
 Message 7 by Percy, posted 10-15-2002 8:46 PM Tranquility Base has responded
 Message 8 by nos482, posted 10-15-2002 9:10 PM Tranquility Base has not yet responded

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 3357 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 6 of 193 (19962)
10-15-2002 8:25 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by Tranquility Base
10-15-2002 8:20 PM


TB,

So why are non-morphological defining genes (cytochrome c, for example) so similar as well, then?

Mark

------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Tranquility Base, posted 10-15-2002 8:20 PM Tranquility Base has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by Tranquility Base, posted 10-15-2002 9:34 PM mark24 has responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 18470
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 7 of 193 (19964)
10-15-2002 8:46 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by Tranquility Base
10-15-2002 8:20 PM


TB writes:
Delshad the type of evoltuion you are believing in is very different to that of the atheists here.

Atheist and evolutionist are not synonyms. The evolutionists on this board are atheists, agnostics, deists and theists. No one classification seems to dominate from what I can see.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Tranquility Base, posted 10-15-2002 8:20 PM Tranquility Base has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by nos482, posted 10-15-2002 9:14 PM Percy has not yet responded
 Message 11 by Tranquility Base, posted 10-15-2002 9:38 PM Percy has responded

    
nos482
Inactive Member


Message 8 of 193 (19966)
10-15-2002 9:10 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by Tranquility Base
10-15-2002 8:20 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
My only point is regardless of linearity or non-linearity of genotype-phenotype relationships, genes do dictate phenotype os noone is surprised at the genetic similarity of us to chimps - we are phsyiologically very similar. But that could be due to a common designer.

If God created man for his purposes but used some sort of evoltuion then that evoltuion is so far removed from purposeless evolution it should almost not be called evolution.

Delshad the type of evoltuion you are believing in is very different to that of the atheists here. And maybe they are wrong and we are simply seeing the signature of a common creator.


I get it now. You want your life to have some sort of meaning. To be more than you truly are. So this is why you keep reaching.

BTW, it is spelled E V O L U T I O N.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Tranquility Base, posted 10-15-2002 8:20 PM Tranquility Base has not yet responded

  
nos482
Inactive Member


Message 9 of 193 (19967)
10-15-2002 9:14 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by Percy
10-15-2002 8:46 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Percipient:
TB writes:
Delshad the type of evoltuion you are believing in is very different to that of the atheists here.

Atheist and evolutionist are not synonyms. The evolutionists on this board are atheists, agnostics, deists and theists. No one classification seems to dominate from what I can see.

--Percy


What he is trying to do is re-define evolution to make it a product of his god. To separate evolution into atheistic/agnostic Evolution and theistic/deistic Evolution. You know how creationists are, they have their own little definitions for every term associated with this topic.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Percy, posted 10-15-2002 8:46 PM Percy has not yet responded

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 10 of 193 (19970)
10-15-2002 9:34 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by mark24
10-15-2002 8:25 PM


Phenotype does not have to be macroscopically morphological. Cytochromes will be used wherever required in respiration.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by mark24, posted 10-15-2002 8:25 PM mark24 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by mark24, posted 10-17-2002 4:55 PM Tranquility Base has not yet responded

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 11 of 193 (19971)
10-15-2002 9:38 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by Percy
10-15-2002 8:46 PM


Percy

I'm fully aware that not all atheists are evolutionists. I am saying exactly what I said - the evolution of an atheist is very different to that of some non-atheists. Perhaps that is a thought worth considering.

PS - that's a very nice quoting style.

[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 10-15-2002]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Percy, posted 10-15-2002 8:46 PM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by nos482, posted 10-15-2002 9:58 PM Tranquility Base has responded
 Message 13 by Percy, posted 10-15-2002 11:03 PM Tranquility Base has responded

  
nos482
Inactive Member


Message 12 of 193 (19973)
10-15-2002 9:58 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by Tranquility Base
10-15-2002 9:38 PM


[QUOTE]Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
Percy

I'm fully aware that not all atheists are evolutionists.

Shouldn't that read "not all evolutionists are atheists..."? Otherwise it would be kind of silly to be a Creationistic Atheist.

I am saying exactly what I said - the evolution of an atheist is very different to that of some non-atheists. Perhaps that is a thought worth considering.

Like micro and macro evolution there is no real difference between evolution of those who believe in a god or not since evolution doesn't deal with the question of how life got started.

[This message has been edited by nos482, 10-15-2002]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Tranquility Base, posted 10-15-2002 9:38 PM Tranquility Base has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by Tranquility Base, posted 10-15-2002 11:42 PM nos482 has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 18470
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 13 of 193 (19977)
10-15-2002 11:03 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by Tranquility Base
10-15-2002 9:38 PM


TB writes:
I am saying exactly what I said - the evolution of an atheist is very different to that of some non-atheists.

As Nos says, evolution is evolution. One's religious beliefs aren't a factor.

PS - that's a very nice quoting style.

Thanks! It'll be available to everyone as a new UBB code before the end of the year.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Tranquility Base, posted 10-15-2002 9:38 PM Tranquility Base has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by Tranquility Base, posted 10-15-2002 11:39 PM Percy has responded

    
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 14 of 193 (19980)
10-15-2002 11:39 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by Percy
10-15-2002 11:03 PM


If (for example) Delshad believes that God prodded evolution at arbitrary steps, at some point this begs the quesiton - maybe God just created everything. It is a slippery slope to that creationism thing!
This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Percy, posted 10-15-2002 11:03 PM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by Delshad, posted 10-16-2002 6:25 AM Tranquility Base has responded
 Message 17 by nos482, posted 10-16-2002 8:29 AM Tranquility Base has not yet responded
 Message 20 by Percy, posted 10-16-2002 8:28 PM Tranquility Base has not yet responded
 Message 70 by nator, posted 10-19-2002 1:50 AM Tranquility Base has not yet responded

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 15 of 193 (19981)
10-15-2002 11:42 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by nos482
10-15-2002 9:58 PM


Good point nos - I got that the wrong way around.

The creationist atheist is almost as funny as the idea of the ark getting launched but not making it through the flood.

See also my post to Percy.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by nos482, posted 10-15-2002 9:58 PM nos482 has not yet responded

  
1
23456
...
13NextFF
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019