View Poll Results: Do you belive in Evolution

Voters
175. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    128 73.14%
  • No

    47 26.86%
Page 33 of 35 FirstFirst ... 232829303132333435 LastLast
Results 321 to 330 of 347

Thread: Do You Believe in Evolution?

  1. #321

  2. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Bernhard For This Useful Post:


  3. #322
    Senior Member
    Aelfgar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Last Online
    Sunday, November 18th, 2018 @ 10:27 AM
    Ethnicity
    English
    Ancestry
    8/16 English, 1/16 Scott. English, 3/16 Irish English, 4/16 Irish
    Country
    United Kingdom United Kingdom
    Location
    England
    Gender
    Politics
    Nationalist / Eclectic
    Religion
    Agnostic
    Posts
    549
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    440
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    400
    Thanked in
    244 Posts
    Evolution is simply adaptation to changes in the environment. It has no morality (which I think is Bernhard's point). I believe in it but I am not one of those social Darwinists who seem to think the purpose of life is to just to survive and reproduce. Cockroaches and other little creatures can do that better than us!

    Does evolution say race-mixing is right or wrong? It says nothing - it could not care less! I am (generally) against race-mixing because I want to preserve variety and identity. Exactly why I hold these values is a deep question, but there they are.

  4. #323
    Bloodhound
    „Friend of Germanics”
    Funding Membership Inactive
    Jäger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Last Online
    @
    Ethnicity
    German
    Ancestry
    Atlantean
    Gender
    Posts
    4,404
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    21
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    73
    Thanked in
    44 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Bernhard View Post
    Does evolutionary theory even tell us that it's better to live than to die?
    No, we do, but because of evolution. That is because:

    Quote Originally Posted by Bernhard View Post
    Evolution, as advancement, is already a man-made concept.
    Men are evolution-made.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bernhard View Post
    Nature does not select who is to stay, but takes away who isn't.
    Nature as in men as well.

    Edit:
    Additionally, "natural selection" (Darwinism) is the theory part of Evolution.
    "Nothing is more disgusting than the majority: because it consists of a few powerful predecessors, of rogues who adapt themselves, of weak who assimilate themselves, and the masses who imitate without knowing at all what they want." (Johann Wolfgang Goethe)

  5. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Jäger For This Useful Post:


  6. #324
    Senior Member
    Theunissen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Last Online
    2 Days Ago @ 01:36 AM
    Ethnicity
    Germanic
    Ancestry
    North Western Europe
    Country
    South Africa South Africa
    State
    Transvaal Transvaal
    Location
    South Africa
    Gender
    Posts
    672
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    277
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    383
    Thanked in
    222 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Aelfgar View Post
    Evolution is simply adaptation to changes in the environment. It has no morality (which I think is Bernhard's point). I believe in it but I am not one of those social Darwinists who seem to think the purpose of life is to just to survive and reproduce. Cockroaches and other little creatures can do that better than us!
    ... Or "change over time". But that's not what is meant within the debate about the Darwinian Theory of Evolution.
    What's meant there is that first non-living molecules turned into a primitive organism, which could survive and reproduce (Abiogenesis). Second that from this organism all other organisms descended in some way. The change is supposedly done through the method of mutation and selection.

    There is no doubt that mutations occur (reproductive defects on genes, which are also the cause of ageing) or that selection occurs (those individuals weakened by mutational load die off). What is in question is whether that is sufficient to produce viable conceptually new blueprints of organisms. Genetic loss can explain variety within a broader type of organisms to some extend, but it fails to explain the total scope of variety of all organisms.

  7. #325
    Member
    albert's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Last Online
    Friday, March 8th, 2019 @ 10:10 AM
    Status
    Available
    Ethnicity
    Swedish
    Ancestry
    Nordic
    Country
    European Union European Union
    State
    Ostrobothnia Ostrobothnia
    Location
    Nordic Europe
    Gender
    Age
    42
    Zodiac Sign
    Aquarius
    Family
    Single with reservations
    Occupation
    Researcher
    Politics
    Imperialist
    Religion
    Spiritual but not religious
    Posts
    25
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    3
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    13
    Thanked in
    10 Posts
    Hi All,

    It seems I can hardly hope to read all of this thread, so there is a chance my point has already been made by someone else.

    I believe a bit in evolution, but "degeneration" is a better word for most of it.

    I believe in mutations. However, in my view, mutations always corrupt the gene, whether wholly or partially. If the gene is harmful in its unaltered form, then this corruption is a good thing.

    I believe random processes never (or so exceedlingly rarely that it is virtually irrelevant) create anything of the sort that an intelligence can create. A post such as even this simple one, would never be borne out of random (or semi-random) disturbances in Internet connectivity.

    It is a matter of data vs. information. You can search Google for this for further information (pun not intended). Basically, data can be anything, including random junk, of the kind random mutations create, whereas information is data of a meaningful kind, and is generated by some kind of intelligence, either directly or indirectly (such as the intelligence -- a programmer -- behind a computer program).

    Now, perhaps nature itself is intelligent. If, and only if, that is so, then evolution is possible.

    Cheers,
    Albert.

  8. The Following User Says Thank You to albert For This Useful Post:


  9. #326
    Senior Member
    Aelfgar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Last Online
    Sunday, November 18th, 2018 @ 10:27 AM
    Ethnicity
    English
    Ancestry
    8/16 English, 1/16 Scott. English, 3/16 Irish English, 4/16 Irish
    Country
    United Kingdom United Kingdom
    Location
    England
    Gender
    Politics
    Nationalist / Eclectic
    Religion
    Agnostic
    Posts
    549
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    440
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    400
    Thanked in
    244 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Theunissen View Post
    ... Or "change over time". But that's not what is meant within the debate about the Darwinian Theory of Evolution.
    What's meant there is that first non-living molecules turned into a primitive organism, which could survive and reproduce (Abiogenesis). Second that from this organism all other organisms descended in some way. The change is supposedly done through the method of mutation and selection.

    There is no doubt that mutations occur (reproductive defects on genes, which are also the cause of ageing) or that selection occurs (those individuals weakened by mutational load die off). What is in question is whether that is sufficient to produce viable conceptually new blueprints of organisms. Genetic loss can explain variety within a broader type of organisms to some extend, but it fails to explain the total scope of variety of all organisms.
    Why are mutations necessarily bad if they increase adaptability?

    Is there a theory which better fits the facts for the creation of life? Assuming there is a god behind it just complicates things.

  10. #327
    1. So we can say that to consider life as advancement from an evolutionary perspective cannot be objectively established (it's not 'desired by evolution'), but subjectively: as we are subjects of evolution and alive, we posit the continuity of life as advancement.

    2. In doing so we turn is into ought.
    It's the famous problem of Hume. But then the question arises in response to the following:

    Quote Originally Posted by Jäger View Post
    Nature as in men as well.
    When men select (on the basis of knowledge gained by studying evolution) where do their criteria come from? Since they go beyond what is and start to determine what ought to be by themselves, they cannot simply take these criteria from the process of evolution, which only establishes what is. So the telos is derived from somewhere else even though it is realized by way of evolution.

  11. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Bernhard For This Useful Post:


  12. #328
    Member
    albert's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Last Online
    Friday, March 8th, 2019 @ 10:10 AM
    Status
    Available
    Ethnicity
    Swedish
    Ancestry
    Nordic
    Country
    European Union European Union
    State
    Ostrobothnia Ostrobothnia
    Location
    Nordic Europe
    Gender
    Age
    42
    Zodiac Sign
    Aquarius
    Family
    Single with reservations
    Occupation
    Researcher
    Politics
    Imperialist
    Religion
    Spiritual but not religious
    Posts
    25
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    3
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    13
    Thanked in
    10 Posts
    Hello All,

    I thought of something else that I did not address in my previous post to this thread.

    It occurred to me, that mutations can only be passed on to the offspring if they affect germline cells. Now, how likely is that? And I've never heard of "sperm cancer", if you see what I mean.

    Cheers,
    Albert.

  13. #329
    Bloodhound
    „Friend of Germanics”
    Funding Membership Inactive
    Jäger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Last Online
    @
    Ethnicity
    German
    Ancestry
    Atlantean
    Gender
    Posts
    4,404
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    21
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    73
    Thanked in
    44 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Bernhard View Post
    1. So we can say that to consider life as advancement from an evolutionary perspective cannot be objectively established (it's not 'desired by evolution'), but subjectively: as we are subjects of evolution and alive, we posit the continuity of life as advancement.
    Furthermore: most of us want to stay alive quite badly. Since many religions promise advancement/relief/virgins/etc. in the afterlife, life is a theological problem and the obvious answer is suicide. Thus Christianity had to make suicide a sin, and Islam put strict conditions on it.

    So I wouldn't say that it is our subjective judgement to call life advancement, but there is objectively no other way to advance without assumptions about an afterlife. We can only observe life, not not-life. So:

    Quote Originally Posted by Bernhard View Post
    When men select (on the basis of knowledge gained by studying evolution) where do their criteria come from?
    From observation, logic and instinct.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bernhard View Post
    Since they go beyond what is and start to determine what ought to be by themselves, they cannot simply take these criteria from the process of evolution, which only establishes what is. So the telos is derived from somewhere else even though it is realized by way of evolution.
    I am not sure what your point is though. As it is with all knowledge we gain: we might be wrong.
    "Nothing is more disgusting than the majority: because it consists of a few powerful predecessors, of rogues who adapt themselves, of weak who assimilate themselves, and the masses who imitate without knowing at all what they want." (Johann Wolfgang Goethe)

  14. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Jäger For This Useful Post:


  15. #330
    Munchkin
    „Friend of Germanics”
    Funding Membership Inactive
    LillyCaterina's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Last Online
    @
    Status
    Available
    Ethnicity
    English/Irish/French
    Ancestry
    England/Ireland/France
    Country
    United States United States
    State
    Indiana Indiana
    Gender
    Zodiac Sign
    Gemini
    Family
    Married
    Occupation
    Deli Shift Leader/Manager
    Politics
    Centrist
    Religion
    Christian
    Posts
    604
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    1,629
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    902
    Thanked in
    481 Posts
    No, I do not believe in evolution involving humans or other living things.

  16. The Following User Says Thank You to LillyCaterina For This Useful Post:


Similar Threads

  1. Evolution by Cultural Changes
    By Halldorr in forum General Anthropology
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: Monday, December 26th, 2011, 08:02 PM
  2. What is the value of evolution?
    By SouthernBoy in forum General Anthropology
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: Tuesday, February 22nd, 2005, 01:57 PM
  3. Human Evolution: Evolution and the Structure of Health and Disease
    By Frans_Jozef in forum Paleoanthropology
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: Saturday, November 6th, 2004, 07:39 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •