I'm not too sure where to post this ridiculous question I've been thinking about. Biology is my best guess. There is a theory that humans evolved from apes. (I myself am a Catholic, and don't believe this theory, but that's besides the point) If this is so, why are there still apes? I know it sounds so stupid and there's probably an easy logical explanation, but I never claimed to be a genius:) Just something I wonder from time to time.

We ivolved from a certain type of ape, other species were left behind and are still evolving, but very slowly.

I know the creation theory for catholics is beautiful and I would like to think about that too but I have read too much and studied too much to believe that I came from adam and eve, etc.

Victorians, before Darwin, believed that they were conceiving because god wanted it so; I really have a problem with that. I am so glad Darwin straightened them out !

So... lets hear it from the peanut gallery!! Or the Victorian peanut gallery, whatever...

Tickle doesn't have it quite right.

Both we and modern day apes are evolved from a common ancestor which was an ape which is now extinct. Here we branched from one another, evolving under different conditions which forced us to end up looking different.

Be sure to realise that evolutionary theory is one of the most solid and far reach theories in science. It has applications in many of the sciences and has been altered over the years to fit new evidence (scientific theories are not static like religious theories).

I see no reason to suppose that other species are evolving very slowly, what brings you to that conclusion tickle? Why are they any slower at evolving than us?

Wow. Thanks guys for all the input! It all makes sense to me. I am Catholic and my beliefs are firm, but I enjoy learning and I don't ever discriminate or lecture people who have different beliefs. Heck, my husband is an atheist that believes in evolution:) I'm going to try to attach a document that is quite an interesting read that my husband sent to me. It's pretty long but I thought someone might find it as interesting as I did. Reading this document is actually what got me wondering this in the first place! If anyone has some downtime and would care to read it. Anyway, thanks again!

Oh my, there are glaring holes all over that document.
There is no premise of duality.
The 'student' description of heat/cold made no sense and proved nothing except create FUD (fear/uncertainty/doubt). Making the night darker? What does that prove? Absolute 0 is when activity in atoms ceases to happen, what's the argument about it getting colder than that? Please explain it to me.
Making the argument that one has not observed evolution with one's own eyes is no different than belief in a book written 2000+ years ago, except... the scientists has evidence of evolution.

NeedKarma- I didn't say I wrote it or could explain it. Again, I never claimed to be a genius. I just thought it was an interesting read. I appreciate and respect any beliefs and opinions. And I also appreciate and respect people who know what they're talking about, as it seems you do:)

Cap was correct in his explanation but I'm going to dumb it down a bit. Lets talk about dogs. The dogs in our homes are "canine domesticus" but they started as wolfs "Canis lupus" we still have wolfs because they are still successful in their environment even though some of them took a different path. This is called divergence when group of a species adapts to take advantage of a environmental niche that the whole species can't take advantage of. This happens most often some members of a species get left on an island separated from the main population. Life is always changing every generation is slightly different than the one before and these slight differences over millions of years make the amazing difference we have today.

Actually, capuchin, I realize that Humans did not evolve from monkeys. Humans are more closely related to modern apes than to monkeys, but we didn't evolve from apes, either. Humans share a common ancestor with modern African apes, like gorillas and chimpanzees. Scientists believe this common ancestor existed 5 to 8 million years ago. Shortly thereafter, the species diverged into two separate lineages. One of these lineages ultimately evolved into gorillas and chimps, and the other evolved into early human ancestors called hominids.

Why would we not suppose that chimpanzees are learning more over time and they actually have us to assist them, therefore the process would be shortened. Chimpanzees born in captivity show amazing intellilgence and problem solving skills.

I probably used the wrong teriminology in 'very slowly'.

There is a theory that humans evolved from apes. (I myself am a Catholic, and don't belive this theory, but that's besides the point)

I suggest you try reading Darwin's book On the Origin of Species (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Origin_of_Species)or at least a synopsis of it.

If you don't believe in the Theory of Evolution, then what do you believe in? Creationism as detailed in the Bible? If so, that's fine, but do you understand that there is almost no scientific evidence to support it? That religious people who believe in creationism do so out of pure faith in the Bible? On the other hand, there is a good deal of scientific proof behind Darwin.

ScottGem- Yes I do believe in Creationism as detailed in the Bible. And I understand that my beliefs are based on faith and there is very little or no evidence to support my beliefs. I may not be that academically advanced but I am not totally nieve. Thank you for the wikepedia link about Darwin. It's been a while since science class and who couldn't use a brush up? I have found myself questioning my religion from time to time, because there is so much scientific proof behind Darwin. However, in the end, I find more comfort in my faith in God. I will never ever try to push my beliefs on someone and as I stated earlier, I enjoy learning about things and have an open mind. The original question I asked was not a challenge, it was a very simple question that I had been wondering about. Michaelb 'dumbed it down' and it made perfect sense. Like I said, I felt silly for asking in the first place.

Don't feel silly for asking anything - if you can't do that on an anonymous internet discussion board where can you do it? :)

Tickle doesnt have it quite right.

Both we and modern day apes are evolved from a common ancestor which was an ape which is now extinct. Here we branched from one another, evolving under different conditions which forced us to end up looking different.

Be sure to realise that evolutionary theory is one of the most solid and far reach theories in science. It has applications in many of the sciences and has been altered over the years to fit new evidence (scientific theories are not static like religious theories).

I see no reason to suppose that other species are evolving very slowly, what brings you to that conclusion tickle? Why are they any slower at evolving than us?

Doesn't it seem odd that the "ape" that you claim we evolved from is now extinct? When did it become extinct? Why are we as humans still not evolving into bigger and bigger and completely different beings? Or did evolution of humans just stop?

Mountainman, we are still evolving. Why do you think we are not?

It doesn't seem odd that the ape is now extinct, no. Their offspring, by definition of the theory of evolution, were more fit to compete for food and mates. Leaving any that do not evolve to be better to become less numerous and eventually extinct.

You contend that we are still evolving in the biological sense? I don't see any proof of that!

Well you're probably not looking in the right places for proof. How about all the different homo- species fossils that have been found?

I have found myself questioning my religion from time to time, because there is so much scientific proof behind Darwin. However, in the end, I find more comfort in my faith in God.

See the thing is I don't believe there is a direct conflict between creationism and evolution. The only time such a conflict exists is when one subscribes to a totally literal interpretation of the Bible. I believe that one can maintain and find comfort in their faith in God without disputing the findings of Darwin.

Have you ever seen or read Inherit the Wind? I believe that some intelligent force created our universe. Did that intelligence specifically create an Adam and Eve? Did that intelligence create the flora and fauna as they exist today? I don't believe that because science doesn't support it. But I believe that intelligence create a framework of biological, chemical and physical laws that shaped a figurative Adam and Eve.

So my point is that you don't have to feel conflicted between your faith in God and what science has proven. You just have to understand that the Bible need not be taken totally literally.

Capuchin, I am not the expert on the evolution theory.. how have we evolved in say the last 2000 years or does only minor occur every say million years?

It is indeed interesting to contemplate whether man will continue to evolve, and if so, in what way? The theory of evolution is all about "survival of the fittest" - that is, those individual creatures who have a particular modification in their genes that give them an advantage in surviving long enough to have more babies than the other creatures will have a better chance of passing their genes on to subsequent generations. For animals this typically means that those who are better able to out-run predators, or who are better able to find food, or who are better able to survive the elements, or who ar more disease-resistant, will tend to have more babies than those who aren't, and so their positive traits are passed on.

But for modern humans our ability to survive to the age of 20 or 30 and have babies has little to do with these things any more. Consequently the tendency for "strong" traits to be passed on over "weak" ones in humans in the future will be tremendously diminished. For example, diabetics who used to not survive past childhood can now live to have plenty of children with the help of modern medicine. Consequently we may find the percentage of people who have diabetes increasing over time. Same thing with asthma. The leading cause of death among teenagers is accidents - so perhaps those who are most daring (careless?) will have fewer babies. Put all this together and it may be that the human race could become a bunch of sickly wimps!

It is indeed interesting to contemplate whether man will continue to evolve, and if so, in what way? The theory of evolution is all about "survival of the fittest" - that is, those individual creatures who have a particular modification in their genes that give them an advantage in surviving long enough to have more babies than the other creatures will have a better chance of passing their genes on to subsequent generations. For animals this typically means that those who are better able to out-run predators, or who are better able to find food, or who are better able to survive the elements, or who ar more disease-resistant, will tend to have more babies than those who aren't, and so their positive traits are passed on.

But for modern humans our ability to survive to the age of 20 or 30 and have babies has little to do with these things any more. Consequently the tendency for "strong" traits to be passed on over "weak" ones in humans in the future will be tremendously diminished. For example, diabetics who used to not survive past childhood can now live to have plenty of children with the help of modern medicine. Consequently we may find the percentage of people who have diabetes increasing over time. Same thing with asthma. The leading cause of death among teenagers is accidents - so perhaps those who are most daring (careless?) will have fewer babies. Put all this together and it may be that the human race could become a bunch of sickly wimps!

But is this more adapting than biologically evolving?

Just something interesting:

"Lincoln was 6 feet 4 inches tall, at a time when the median height of adult men in the United States was 5 feet 6 inches."

President Abraham Lincoln : Health & Medical History (http://www.doctorzebra.com/prez/g16.htm)

"The average male American mens height is 177 cm, which is 69.7 inches, which is approximately 5 foot - 10 inches tall. (for white males*)."

Mens average height chart (http://www.halls.md/chart/men-height-w.htm)

Hmmmmm... :)

Just something interesting:

"Lincoln was 6 feet 4 inches tall, at a time when the median height of adult men in the United States was 5 feet 6 inches."

President Abraham Lincoln : Health & Medical History (http://www.doctorzebra.com/prez/g16.htm)

"The average male American mens height is 177 cm, which is 69.7 inches, which is approximately 5 foot - 10 inches tall. (for white males*)."

Mens average height chart (http://www.halls.md/chart/men-height-w.htm)

Hmmmmm..... :)


I am not sure why this is so interesting and what it points to?

So my point is that you don't have to feel conflicted between your faith in God and what science has proven. You just have to understand that the Bible need not be taken totally literally.

I do not feel conflicted between my faith in God and science and I have never disputed the findings of Darwin. Perhaps I was being unclear when I said I question my religion from time to time. There was never a time when I didn't have faith in God. I should've been more specific. Just because I believe one thing, I still like to learn about and understand other beliefs and theories. Another thing, my religion teaches to take the bible totally literally. Do I personally? No, not quite. But it doesn't matter how good or bad of a Catholic I am. I feel that people have the right to take the Bible totally literally if they so chose and I respect them. I apologize if I was at all rude or misleading as that was not my intent. And no I have not even heard of 'Inherit the wind' but it certainly sounds like something that would interest me:) I appreciate all your comments and input, and I'd like to make it clear that I never meant to challenge scientific evidence. Maybe I shouldn't have posted that God vs. Science thing. I had a legitimate question (silly as it may be), and I realize it was my fault God got brought into this in the first place. I probably should have thought of that before I clicked submit. Again, my apologies.

I am not sure why this is so interesting and what it points to?

It's a joke mountain_man...

You said you haven't seen evidence of evolution in the past 2000 years. I pointed to the median height of a man during Abe Lincoln's life and the median height of a man in present day. Notice, the median height is now higher. Evolution at work. Get it? Simple thing that is probably caused by other factors, but it's funnier given this thread if we call it evolution.

It's a joke mountain_man....

You said you haven't seen evidence of evolution in the past 2000 years. I pointed to the median height of a man during Abe Lincoln's life and the median height of a man in present day. Notice, the median height is now higher. Evolution at work. Get it? Simple thing that is probably caused by other factors, but it's funnier given this thread if we call it evolution.


Well alrighty then!! ;)

but is this more adapting than biologically evolving?

My point was that the agent of evolution in modern man may be different than the agent of evolution in other animals and plants; not that evolution in man won't happen.

In an earlier post you asked whether there was any evidence of human evolution in the past 2000 years. I think probably not. An important part of evolution is that natural boundaries such as oceans and deserts serve to isolate animal and plant populations, so that they can evolve in separate paths without co-mingling genes. Hence the isolation of Australia, for example, is responsible for the vastly different wildlife there than, say, in Asia. However, given the ability of man to travel and share genes easily across natural boundaries, I doubt that there is much significant differentiation between humans today and humans of even a few thousand years ago. But go back several hundred thousand years and the evidence for evolution is clear.

What evidence besides I assume archaeological supports the theory of evolution in the past several hundred thousand years? And based off the evolution theory where/when did everything begin?

My point was that the agent of evolution in modern man may be different than the agent of evolution in other animals and plants; not that evolution in man won't happen.

In an earlier post you asked whether there was any evidence of human evolution in the past 2000 years. I think probably not. An important part of evolution is that natural boundaries such as oceans and deserts serve to isolate animal and plant populations, so that they can evolve in separate paths without co-mingling genes. Hence the isolation of Australia, for example, is responsible for the vastly different wildlife there than, say, in Asia. However, given the ability of man to travel and share genes easily across natural boundaries, I doubt that there is much significant differentiation between humans today and humans of even a few thousand years ago. But go back several hundred thousand years and the evidence for evolution is clear.

Don't forget natural selection doesn't really exist today. Medical advances allow us to keep people alive for much longer and allow them to reproduce. Genetic disorders can carry on and on and on because we have medication to keep people around, whereas back when Caveman Zorg and his wife Cavewoman Zorga had a baby with a life-compromising disorder (like a heart condition), it would have died. Or if the baby was born with a genetic disorder (like dwarfism) it might have survived, but would have been less likely to reproduce. Now we medicate people, shock people back to life, keep them alive on ventilators and so on. BTW, I'm not saying this is a bad thing, just pointing out that natural selection doesn't occur in the same way it used to. Personally, I like that if I get an infection a 10-day round of antibiotics keeps me alive instead of becoming septic and dying... :)

What evidence besides I assume archaelogical supports the theory of evolution in the past several hundred thousand years? And based off the evolution theory where/when did everything begin?

There have been several new species evolve within our life times. For instance the evolution of anti-biotic resistant bacteria in our hospitals. There's also a bacteria which digests nylon - a synthetic man-made fabric, so that must have evolved in the past few hundred years. There are many more evidences which are not archaeological.

The theory of evolution starts with a single self replicating organism or chemical. It doesn't attempt to explain how that organism got there.

Human evolution is much less natural then is used to be. Even the weakest members of the species can pass on their genes. Also we are losing some of our hard earned evolutionary advantages. Our sense of smell used to be highly honed for keeping track of tribe members in the dark of night and to keep vigil against predators, but now we have absolutely no use for our sense of smell, and it is slowly diminishing (this is why there is a big disparity in the ability to recognise smells, some people are better than others because now the smelling genes are not selected for).

I've been saying for years the birth control pill is bad for evolution. The people that should be using it don't and the people that really should be having lots of kids don't. There is a movie call Idiocracy that is a comedy that shows this point really well.

Neanderthals and Cro-Magnons (modern humans) both had the same ancestors, but are two different animals. The Cro-Magnons were better suited for their environment and lived on, while the Neanderthal race died out. Try looking it up some time for interesting information.

[QUOTE=mountain_man]What evidence besides I assume archaeological supports the theory of evolution in the past several hundred thousand years? /QUOTE]

Here is some good information on the evolution of the Genus Homo:

Human evolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolution)

Why do you want to exclude archaeological evidence?

See the thing is I don't believe there is a direct conflict between creationism and evolution. The only time such a conflict exists is when one subscribes to a totally literal interpretation of the Bible. I believe that one can maintain and find comfort in their faith in God without disputing the findings of Darwin.

Have you ever seen or read Inherit the Wind? I believe that some intelligent force created our universe. Did that intelligence specifically create an Adam and Eve? Did that intelligence create the flora and fauna as they exist today? I don't believe that because science doesn't support it. But I believe that intelligence create a framework of biological, chemical and physical laws that shaped a figurative Adam and Eve.

So my point is that you don't have to feel conflicted between your faith in God and what science has proven. You just have to understand that the Bible need not be taken totally literally.

An interesting read..
------------------------------
http://www.islamtomorrow.com/science/
Is There Creation? Or Evolution? Or Both?

Quran Teaches - BOTH!

It says, "Allah is - Al Khaliq" (The Creator)
It also says, "Allah is - Al Bari" (The Evolver)

For the Muslim there is no need for separation between religion and science. It is understood from the Quran, revealed over 1,400 years ago, that there is both; "Creation" and "Evolution." And in both instances, it is only Allah who is "Able to do all things." In fact, it was the Muslim scientists, more than 1,000 years ago, who set the stage for the adancement of learning, technology and disciplines in science that we know today.

Allah has explained how He created everythng in the universe and brought all life out of water. He created humans from earth (not monkeys) and there is no need to attempt fabrications of "links" to the animal world in Islam.

Origin of man in Islam: Creation or Evolution

ISLAM EVOLUTION CREATION

The Christian Bible says that Adam & Eve were both created here on Earth, less than 10,000 years ago. The Quran says that Adam & Eve were created in Heaven, and NOT on Earth. When they disobeyed God, He expelled them from Heaven, down to Earth. The Quran does not say when this happened. Also the Quran does not say whether Adam & Eve were physically transported from Heaven to Earth, or just their souls were put into the already living homo sapiens.

Muslims believe that souls are assigned to humans 40 days after the human inception. The Quran says that angels retrieve human souls on two occasions. One occasion is when humans die. The other occasion is every time humans fall asleep. When humans wakeup, the angels release those souls back to them:

(Quran 39.42) It is Allah that takes the souls (of men) at death; and those that did not die, during their sleep: those on whom He has passed the decree of death, He keeps back, but the rest He sends (to their bodies) for a term appointed. Verily in this are Signs for those who reflect.

So, according to the Quran, humans can be alive, breathing, with fully functional bodies (hence perfect DNA), but still without souls.

Homo sapiens had the same bodies and DNA as humans, but what about their souls? Were the souls of the first humans (Adam & Eve) put into those evolved homo sapiens? To answer this question, we need more information about souls and spirits. But Allah clearly bans all information about souls and spirits:

(Quran 17.85) And they ask you about the Spirit, say: "The Spirit concerns only my Lord: The knowledge of which only a little is communicated to you"

So all the information that will answer whether the souls of the first humans were put into homo sapiens, is banned. Muslims don't venture into this topic simply because God ordered them not to.

However, this is not the case concerning animals. The Quran agrees with science that all life started in water, and not on dry land:

(Quran 24.45) And Allah has created every animal from water; of them there are some that creep on their bellies; some that walk on two legs; and some that walk on four. Allah creates what He wills: for verily Allah has power over all things.

So the Quran agrees with science on the evolution of animals. But for humans, the Quran stops short of answering whether it was transportation from heaven or just homo sapiens with human souls.

DNA research point to the later scenario; but why couldn't God use for Adam & Eve the same DNA as homo sapiens? Isn't this DNA of His own creation in the first place? And how difficult is it to copy?
------------------------------------------------

Well, I'm not a biologist, but as I understand it, humans are not believed to have evolved from what we know as the modern ape. Instead, humans and modern apes are thought to have shared a common ancestor. Scientists estimate that, between 5 and 8 million years ago, the earlier species split into two at least two lineages, one of which were the human or human-ike species. The other evolved into the African great ape species we know today.

Well after looking around at the mess man has made of this world are we sure that apes did not evolve from man?

Well after looking around at the mess man has made of this world are we sure tht apes did not evolve from man?

Hehe. "Evolved from" does not mean "Better for our planet" :)

I'm coming in late on this thread, but I wanted to comment. I thought the original question was a good one, not "silly" at all. A lot of evolution is about one species branching into several. So even though we are descended from something that might resemble an ape, that exact kind of ape might have evolved into 6 different ape like animals over several million years. They are all related, like cousins in a big family.

As for whether human beings are still evolving, they definitely are. Evolution just means change with a genetic basis. It doesn't mean getting better, and it doesn't matter whether the change is caused by competition or by lack of competition or anything else. The existence of medical advances etc. doesn't prevent us from changing over time. Also, the fact that we are taller than in Lincoln's time is more likely a result of better nutrition than genetic change. Not all change is genetic. We are MUCH fatter than we were in the 1950s, but that's not because we evolved in 50 years. It's because we eat, on average, an extra 800 calories a day more than we did in the 1950s. Hope this helps. (And I AM a biologist! :) )
Cheers,
JustAsking

Its more biological than religious
We shudnt bring them both together
Otherwise we won't end the debate going on.



Evolution is taking place all thetime
That's another thing that its span is very hard to find out... takes more than ten million years for just a micro change...

My friend told me he read that chimpanzees and humans were able to mate as little as one million years ago. Just an interesting piece of knowledge. I'm not completely sure if it is true but I imagine that it would have been possible around that long ago, whether it would create fertile offspring or not.

Here is something you may find interesting: Can you find the similarities between a great ape's teeth and a vampire's? The vampire was invented to strike fear into people. It's teeth are considered scary and dangerous. An apes way of threatening something is by bearing it's teeth, which look exactly like a vampire's. Is it possible that we have a left over survival instinct? I saw it on a show once, I thought it was cool. Also, why did God give us these silly tail bones and hands suited for climbing trees?

Our so called " tail bone" or coccyx is the anchoring point of many of our pelvic and pubic muscles, so that when we stand or cough our innards don't herniate out. So it has a functional purpose and is not a vestigial "tail."

Same can be said for our hands. They are suited not only for climbing trees, but for typing, grip, using tools, etc... perhaps God knew how much we would depend on our hands.

Just curious -- what is the common ancestor that humans have in common with apes and other primates? Where is this ancestor in the fossil record?

If modern man, especially Americans are taller, heavier [ some would say fatter ] etc.. This is evidence of micro-evolution, not macro evolution.

What has always been humans evolutionary advantage has been our ability to reason, use tools, alter our environment, so in that respect we are "evolving." { iuse that term very loosely ]





Grace and Peace

Our so called " tail bone" or coccyx is the anchoring point of many of our pelvic and pubic muscles, so that when we stand or cough our innards don't herniate out. So it has a functional purpose and is not a vestigial "tail."

Same can be said for our hands. They are suited not only for climbing trees, but for typing, grip, using tools, etc...perhaps God knew how much we would depend on our hands.

Just curious -- what is the common ancestor that humans have in common with apes and other primates? Where is this ancestor in the fossil record?

If modern man, especially Americans are taller, heavier [ some would say fatter ] etc.. this is evidence of micro-evolution, not macro evolution.

What has always been humans evolutionary advantage has been our ability to reason, use tools, alter our environment, so in that respect we are "evolving." { iuse that term very loosely ]

The Americans aren't evolving to take into account changes in the abundance of food in their environment, they still have the primitive "eat as much high fat food as you can" mentality. But really it's not evidence against it, as the fat americans are having less children and dying earlier, leaving the more fit ones to survive. But it hasn't been long enough to see if there are any effects here. Our medicine interupts evolution, making humans a tricky thing to study the evolution of.

I personally see no difference between micro and macro evolution. Micro leads to macro, and by believing that one happens, we must conclude that the other does too.

There are plenty of things that we have that are vestigial, muscles to move our ears? (some people can move their ears, others can't, because it's a useless trait and we are no longer selected for it). Same with our sense of smell. These things we used in prehistory, but now have no use for because predators are such a small threat so they are diminishing. Surely god would not let these things diminish, in case we needed them in future? Right?

I was just wondering,
Has the "tail bone" or coccyx been found in many humans from the past?
I mean where the whole skeleton is not found, has only the coccyx ever been found?

Just curious...

I was just wondering,
has the "tail bone" or coccyx been found in many humans from the past?
I mean where the whole skeleton is not found, has only the coccyx ever been found?

Just curious...

I'm wondering why you would expect to see such a thing?

I personally see no difference between micro and macro evolution. Micro leads to macro, and by believing that one happens, we must conclude that the other does too.


Considering mice and man have DNA 97% the same meaning in the millions of years that animals like mice have been around there has only been a 3% change seems like a pretty minor change. The fundies will never concede that point though.

The Americans arent evolving to take into account changes in the abundance of food in their environment, they still have the primative "eat as much high fat food as you can" mentality. But really it's not evidence against it, as the fat americans are having less children and dying earlier, leaving the more fit ones to survive. But it hasnt been long enough to see if there are any effects here. Our medicine interupts evolution, making humans a tricky thing to study the evolution of.

I personally see no difference between micro and macro evolution. Micro leads to macro, and by believing that one happens, we must conclude that the other does too.

There are plenty of things that we have that are vestigial, muscles to move our ears? (some people can move their ears, others can't, because it's a useless trait and we are no longer selected for it). Same with our sense of smell. These things we used in prehistory, but now have no use for because predators are such a small threat so they are diminishing. Surely god would not let these things diminish, in case we needed them in future? Right?


Our sense of smell is linked to taste. Ask anyone with a cold how anything tastes.
Also our sense of smell is interconnected with memory and emotion, thus the perfume industry. There are studies showing a correlation between a loss of smelll and neuropsychiatric illnesses like alzheimer's and schizophrenia.

So the sense of smell is far from vestigial or useless.




Grace and peace

The sense of smell isn't useless, a sense of smell like a blood hound is. I think what Cap was referring to was some data I remember seeing(don't remember where) That either speculated or had evidence(again don't remember the article that well) that humans once had a much better sense of smell and that moving into large groups and starting to farm, we lost our keen sense of smell because it wasn't needed for survival

I think the article was in New Scientist, I remember reading something like it anyway.

Our sense of smell is linked to taste. Ask anyone with a cold how anything tastes.
Also our sense of smell is interconnected with memory and emotion, thus the perfume industry. There are studies showing a correlation between a loss of smelll and neuropsychiatric illnesses like alzheimer's and schizophrenia.

So the sense of smell is far from vestigial or useless.

Grace and peace

Michaelb has what I meant, it isn't exactly vestigial, but we just don't use it anymore. We don't encounter rotting food enough for the smell part of taste to be selected for.

You're right that there are uses for smell, I never claimed there wasn't, just that it's no longer a life or death situation, and that there is evidence that it is diminishing because it's no longer being selected for.

Something doesn't have to be useless for it to be energetically inefficient.

michaelb has what i meant, it isnt exactly vestigial, but we just don't use it anymore. We don't encounter rotting food enough for the smell part of taste to be selected for.

You're right that there are uses for smell, i never claimed there wasn't, just that it's no longer a life or death situation, and that there is evidence that it is diminishing because it's no longer being selected for.

Something doesn't have to be useless for it to be energetically inefficient.

Is it possible that at the rate humans are depending on electronic gadgets like computers to do all the brainwork,
Then could we be already "killing" parts of our brain?

Is it possible that at the rate humans are depending on electronic gadgets like computers to do all the brainwork,
then could we be already "killing" parts of our brain?

I would imagine that we are getting smarter, because electronics are taking the place of physical labor, not mental labor.

I would imagine that we are getting smarter, because electronics are taking the place of physical labor, not mental labor.

Smarter?
Or dependent and lazy?:)

How about this: 50% evolve because they use technology to its full potential and the rest don't because they are dependent. :D

We are definitely making it easier for those of us that lets just say aren't the brightest crayon in the box to breed and I think we are already starting to see the ill effects of this in the United States. Very few don't make it to breeding age because they are too dumb so no natural selection there and then we give well fare based on the number of children you have which encourages those that are not able to support themselves encouragement to breed more. It's like selecting those that are worst suited to fend for themselves and artificially making sure there are more of them. I'm not saying that everyone on well fare is less suited to breed and you could make the argument that some of those people are only on well fare because other people keeping them down but I think more than a few fall into the should not breed category.

michealb,
You are making humans sound...
Less human:)

I agree with him fully though

michealb,
You are making humans sound.....
less human:)
He's making us sound perfectly human.

michealb,
You are making humans sound.....
less human:)

I agree which is one of the problems with being an atheist. You have to understand that you are no different than any other animal just a little smarter and because of this you have to understand their rules. Their rules are evolve or die off. So if you remove natural selection in the human world how do you ethically add a form a selection, so that the most fit breed. You can't add natural selection back or restrict breeding rights so how to prevent a downward spiral?

I agree which is one of the problems with being an atheist. You have to understand that you are no different than any other animal just a little smarter and because of this you have to understand their rules. Their rules are evolve or die off. So if you remove natural selection in the human world how do you ethically add a form a selection, so that the most fit breed. You can't add natural selection back or restrict breeding rights so how to prevent a downward spiral?

Smarter with a conscience!:)
Does that not make a difference even if we have evolved?

I agree which is one of the problems with being an atheist. You have to understand that you are no different than any other animal just a little smarter and because of this you have to understand their rules. Their rules are evolve or die off. So if you remove natural selection in the human world how do you ethically add a form a selection, so that the most fit breed. You can't add natural selection back or restrict breeding rights so how to prevent a downward spiral?


Humans are no different than any other animal? Human life is equivalent or not to be valued anymore than any other species?
That is why I asked about cows and humans.

Hitler, and Margaret Sanger believe in a "fit breed" breed under the auspices of evolution and eugenics.

This is the reason I have a problem with evolution.
The major 3 monotheistic religions value humans over animals. That is an "evolved" belief.



Grace and Peace

Humans are no different than any other animal? Human life is equivalent or not to be valued anymore than any other species?
That is why I asked about cows and humans.

Hitler, and Margaret Sanger believe in a "fit breed" breed under the auspices of evolution and eugenics.

This is the reason I have a problem with evolution.
The major 3 monotheistic religions value humans over animals. That is an "evolved" belief.



Grace and Peace

we are very different from other animals, and should be valued more because impreety sure the cows don't give a damm about us

What scientific theory is there that states that humans are any more important than cows or trees or the oceans?

Even pagans acknowledge a higher power.




Grace and peace

I didn't say they were more important

Humans are no different than any other animal? Human life is equivalent or not to be valued anymore than any other species?
That is why I asked about cows and humans.

Hitler, and Margaret Sanger believe in a "fit breed" breed under the auspices of evolution and eugenics.

This is the reason I have a problem with evolution.
The major 3 monotheistic religions value humans over animals. That is an "evolved" belief.

Grace and Peace

Humans are more important only to other humans. Just as a cow doesn't care about you we don't really care about the cow. You don't see cow going around randomly killing other cows why is that? It's not because the cow has a commandment that says thou shalt not kill other cows. It's because life is better for the cow if they don' kill just like life is better for people if we don't go around killing each other.
Yes Hitler and Sanger (never heard her) were bad people and I don't support eugenics. Because as I said the trick is to find an ethical way to evolve mankind.

Humans are more important only to other humans. Just as a cow doesn't care about you we don't really care about the cow. You don't see cow going around randomly killing other cows why is that? It's not because the cow has a commandment that says thou shalt not kill other cows. It's because life is better for the cow if they don' kill just like life is better for people if we don't go around killing each other.
Yes Hitler and Sanger (never heard her) were bad people and I don't support eugenics. Because as I said the trick is to find an ethical way to evolve mankind.

Cows are not carnivorous,maybe they do not kill,but other canivores do kill.
Even a cat will play, kill a mouse and not even eat it in the end.

About humans killing, that is part of the free will of the human species.

Cows are not carnivorous,maybe they do not kill,but other canivores do kill.
Even a cat will play, kill a mouse and not even eat it in the end.

About humans killing, that is part of the free will of the human species.

Mmmm why free will? Does the cat also have free will? :/ I'm confused.

mmmm why free will? does the cat also have free will? :/ I'm confused.

Cats?
Not that I know of:)

Free will in humans is a God given thing which many abuse to their own gains or their own fall.(That would be a whole new thread... you know how it will go:))

How can you say that when humans kill things, it's free will, but when cats kill things, it isn't?

Cap,
Maybe I was a bit hasty in my answer.

Animals have limited free will(their belief in a creator is not part of their free will as per my beliefs),but I guess you are right, animal instinct is part of their free will.

Well that wasn't the direction I was trying to push the discussion. I think that it's fairly plain to see that both animals and humans have evolved to kill other animals in order to provide food for themselves and their families.

It has nothing to do with free will, as far as I can see. We can choose what to kill, just like lions pick out the weakest antelope or whatever, but we have to kill to survive.

About human killing,
I am answerable for any killings I might do,whether it be animal or human.

If this instinct was evolved or not I do not know, I have a conscience like all other humans and I can choose to kill or not to kill.
Cap, I know it was not the direction you were taking the discussion,but everything I understand is/will be through my belief.:)

Killing for survival I can understand,but would it not be different since humans have a conscience and morals very different from animal survival instincts?

About human killing,
I am answerable for any killings I might do,whether it be animal or human.

If this instinct was evolved or not I do not know, I have a conscience like all other humans and I can choose to kill or not to kill.
Cap, I know it was not the direction you were taking the discussion,but everything I understand is/will be through my belief.:)

Killing for survival I can understand,but would it not be different since humans have a conscience and morals very different from animal survival instincts?

Could you really have chosen to kill or not to kill 10000 years ago? Could you survive like many tribes in africa do if you chose not to kill or eat anythign gotten from killing? Even in winter when only other animals are able to exploit the gains of the earth? It's only our technology that enables people to survive as vegitarian now a days, as little as 10000 years ago or less, you would have had no such choice. It's not about free will.

Cats might kill mice but they rarely kill other cats because most higher level species have found it's counter productive to kill others in their species. Unless of course they give you a reason to do so.

Cats might kill mice but they rarely kill other cats because most higher level species have found it's counter productive to kill others in thier species. Unless of course they give you a reason to do so.

Some cats do kill other cats(I do not know how common this is)
I have seen tom cats kill the kittens of the female cat it is pursuing to mate.

And I have also seen female cats killing their kittens too.

From what I know bigger cats like lions etc fight each other when pursuing mates too.
I am not sure if they kill during these fights.

There must be reasons as you said for these killings,but it does happen.


Could you really have chosen to kill or not to kill 10000 years ago? Could you survive like many tribes in africa do if you chose not to kill or eat anythign gotten from killing? Even in winter when only other animals are able to exploit the gains of the earth? It's only our technology that enables people to survive as vegitarian now a days, as little as 10000 years ago or less, you would have had no such choice. It's not about free will.

Cap,
I am not vegetarian.
Far from it I love meat products.:)
And I am allowed to kill animals for food.

I said rarlely, they do it just as we do. When one of them feels it's to their advantage to kill another of their kind.

Michaelb is right, animals (humans included) do not want to further their species. They want to further their genes. That's how evolution works.

I never said you were vegetarian, I was merely questioning whether, if you were a vegetarian (ie you wanted to avoid killing, excercising your free will as "given by god"), it would be a possibility for you to survive with no modern technology (farming techniques).

michaelb is right, animals (humans included) do not want to further their species. They want to further their genes. That's how evolution works.

I never said you were vegetarian, I was merely questioning whether, if you were a vegetarian (ie you wanted to avoid killing, excercising your free will as "given by god"), it would be a possibility for you to survive with no modern technology (farming techniques).

Do not get me wrong, I am not totally against the evolution theory just some parts of it is confusing and has not really made me a total believer in the whole process.

I am still waiting for what science discovers next on this theory.:)

I am not against technological advancements as such,but I still appreciate those who cannot afford technology and still use the old methods of farming.

We still use the old painless method of slaughtering animals(cows,sheep etc) for food.

Cap,michealb,
You have to explain a bit more on that, "not furthering the species but the gene"?

Basically every animal(humans too) has the desire to make sure that it has off spring and that those off spring do well. Which places your off spring at a higher level than other peoples off spring. Which is why people make sure their own children are fed and clothed but aren't going to sacrifice their own child's well fare for some one else's even if it would be a great help to someone else child but only minor injury to their child(generally there are certain exceptions but generally this is true). At the same time though you want to make sure that others in your species are around because you will need some of them later. To do that you need to either have total control over them like a lion does over his pride or you need to have an understanding with your neighbors that you won't hurt their kids if they don't hurt yours(the human approach). In short others of your kind are important but your kids(or genes) are more important.

Um. I've been out with the flu. ( A virus was using my cells to make LOTS more viruses. But my immune system prevailed, lucky for me.) I'm not sure exactly what the discussion is about (evolution? Free will?), but I'll address a couple of things that seem that came up.

I agree that individuls do not work for the good of whole species. That's a misunderstanding of evolution that was taught by K-12 teachers in the 60s and 70s. It was never right. (Biologists didn't say that.) But saying that it's all driven by individual genes is wrong too. (And unfortunately, some biologists who are not evolutionary biologists do sometimes say that.) Natural selection operates on individuals and populations. Richard Dawkins was making a good point with his "Selfish Gene" book. But people shouldn't literally think that a human being (or a fish or a tree) is just a gene's way of making another gene. There's a lot more to life and evolution than that!

Also, some people here were talking earlier as if natural selection was something that could be turned on and off or wasn't operating on humans anymore--since we've reduced the death rate among children (something I'd hope we'd be glad about). You can't turn off evolution by natural selection. It's here to stay. (And you can't make our entire species dumber by "allowing" some people to breed whom you don't happen to like or who don't happen to have gone to Harvard. There are 6.6 billion of us, mostly extremely smart primates, a healthy amount of genetic diversity. As a species, we have nothing to worry about in terms of "bad genes.")

If lots of individuals of a certain type die off (lets say, all the foxes with white tails), then you get fewer of those in the next generation. Or if people with green eyes have .0002% more children than people blue eyes, then, over a long time, the green eyes will gradually increase in numbers relative to the blue eyes (all other things being equal, which they almost never are!). Even if every person had exactly the same number of children and their children had the same number of children, that doesn't mean evolution has stopped. It means that selection is selecting for sameness ("stabilizing selection"). It's "saying" "Don't change a thing."

Evolutionary theory includes the idea of "stasis," very little change over long periods. For example, horseshoe crabs look about the same as the ones that lived more than 300 million years ago. In other words, they've hardly changed at all in all that time because your basic horseshoe crab model is just fine and changes haven't given any of them any advantage in all that time. Which is pretty cool to think about.

Finally, evolution can happen slowly or very fast. Biologists used to think it had to be really slow, but that's not always true. In Galapagos finches, for example, changes in beak size can happen in just a few years when dry weather forces them to switch to eating different bigger or smaller seeds. In fact, the evolve back and forth--bigger beaks, smaller, bigger. You can't predict which way they'll end up. In some plants, a new species can appear in just one year. Some insects that specialize on fruits can form a whole new species just by switching from apples to pears, or some other fruit. Once they start breeding on the new fruit, they gradually become different from their ancestors still living and dying on apples... There are many different kinds of evolution.
Asking

At the same time though you want to make sure that others in your species are around because you will need some of them later. To do that you need to either have total control over them like a lion does over his pride or you need to have an understanding with your neighbors that you won't hurt their kids if they don't hurt yours(the human approach). In short others of your kind are important but your kids(or genes) are more important.

Hi MichealB. I agree. Evolution and ecology are full of examples of cooperation. E.g. vampire bats share blood meals with total strangers (other bats they aren't related to) because they know that they can count on another bat doing the same for them if they have a bad night hunting. "Tit for tat" in game theory.

One thing I wanted to say here though is that lions are not in "total control" of a pride of lionesses. If anything, the males are totally dependent on female lions to catch food, because a male lion is often too slow to catch enough to eat. On their own, males sometimes starve to death. (I have a friend who studies African lions.) A male in a pride uses his large size to push his mates and cubs off a kill so he can get something to eat. But the females do virtually all the hunting and I doubt they would put up with the male if they didn't want to. The male's job is to chase off other male lions, which will kill all his cubs and take over his (lucrative!) pride if he doesn't fight to keep his place.
Asking

Also, some people here were talking earlier as if natural selection was something that could be turned on and off or wasn't operating on humans anymore--since we've reduced the death rate among children (something I'd hope we'd be glad about). You can't turn off evolution by natural selection. It's here to stay. (And you can't make our entire species dumber by "allowing" some people to breed whom you don't happen to like or who don't happen to have gone to Harvard. There are 6.6 billion of us, mostly extremely smart primates, a healthy amount of genetic diversity. As a species, we have nothing to worry about in terms of "bad genes.")

The difference between us and horseshoe crabs is birth control. Birth control has given us a safe and easy way to prevent pregnancy. This has given an advantage to the bottom end of the bell curve by increasing the number of offspring they have and decreasing the offspring of those at the higher end of the curve. Even a 1% increase in birth rate in people at the bottom end of the bell curve could spell disaster for our species.

michealb,
Could you explain how this would be a disaster?

The difference between us and horseshoe crabs is birth control. Birth control has given us a safe and easy way to prevent pregnancy. This has given an advantage to the bottom end of the bell curve by increasing the number of offspring they have and decreasing the offspring of those at the higher end of the curve. Even a 1% increase in birth rate in people at the bottom end of the bell curve could spell disaster for our species.


This is a retread of eugenics.

One group decides they are "genetically" superior and thus those that don't meet their certain standard are not fit, or should not reproduce, and in the extreme, should not live.

Who determines "fitness?"

One can argue that those who reproduce more [ have 5 kids with 2 mates for example ], though their progeny may not go to an ivy league school, are "fitter" than those intellectually eggheads that have one or no kids.

Besides is not intelligence more than a GPA or degrees obtained?

Maybe those that reproduce at a higher rate and that you consider at the low end of the curve, are physically stronger, or better mechanically, or have a stronger will to live, or are better critical thinkers, or have higher emotional or social intelligence.





Grace and Peace

e[QUOTE=Capuchin]michaelb is right, animals (humans included) do not want to further their species. They want to further their genes. That's how evolution works.



Is this rational thought by humans and other species?

Dog to a B.. ch, "lets get it on and further our genes."
B.. ch to dog, " your slower, weaker, and a dauchsand....I don't think so."

Or is it instinct, lust, or whatever you want to call it. If it is instinct, where does this instinct to reproduce come from?







Grace and Peace

Is this rational thought by humans and other species?

Dog to a B..ch, "lets get it on and further our genes."
B..ch to dog, " your slower, weaker, and a dauchsand....I don't think so."

Or is it instinct, lust, or whatever you want to call it. If it is instinct, where does this instinct to reproduce come from?

Grace and Peace

No thinking, just instinct. The instinct comes from their genes. Animals that don't have the instinct to reproduce don't and so don't pass on their genes. So eventually only animals with the instinct to mate exist.

Animals who don't have the instinct to mate with the stronger individuals mate with weaker ones from which the offspring invariably die before mating, so only the genes that make them mate with strong individuals survive.

Uum there is no way that is right.

No one really knows how we came a about on this earth.but like katie said,why is there still apes?and if we came from 2 people,wouldn't we all be (forgive me)metally wrong.

[QUOTE=inthebox]e

No thinking, just instinct. The instinct comes from their genes. Animals that don't have the instinct to reproduce don't and so don't pass on their genes. So eventually only animals with the instinct to mate exist.


What if they want to "reproduce" so to speak, and have no luck?

This should select for the good looking, rich, smooth talking, romantic.:D





Grace and peace

[QUOTE=Capuchin]

What if they want to "reproduce" so to speak, and have no luck?

This should select for the good looking, rich, smooth talking, romantic.:D

Grace and peace

Well, that's a different gene that also gets selected for, fertility ;)

Sorry I edited my earlier answer to talk about why strongest individuals are selected.

This is a retread of eugenics.

One group decides they are "genetically" superior and thus those that don't meet their certain standard are not fit, or should not reproduce, and in the extreme, should not live.

Who determines "fitness?"

One can argue that those who reproduce more [ have 5 kids with 2 mates for example ], though their progeny may not go to an ivy league school, are "fitter" than those intellectually eggheads that have one or no kids.

Besides is not intelligence more than a GPA or degrees obtained?

Maybe those that reproduce at a higher rate and that you consider at the low end of the curve, are physically stronger, or better mechanically, or have a stronger will to live, or are better critical thinkers, or have higher emotional or social intelligence.

Grace and Peace

Inthebox,

I don't support eugenics. I don't think anyone has the right to tell anyone else what they do or don't do with their bodies. I am a libertarian. Which means I put personal liberty above everything else.

I also agree that intelligence is much more than gpa or degree obtained. The point that I'm trying to make though is that we live in an artificial world created by our intelligence. The downside of that is we no longer need our intelligence to survive. While some may not see this as a problem, I think far ahead when we are no longer smart enough to run the machines that keep us alive.

Firmbeliever,

The reason I see it as a disaster for the human race is because if the bottom of the bell curve gets even a 1% advantage that is huge in evolutionary terms. This could have two possibilities that I can think of as far evolutionary terms for humans goes. One would be that the entire curve starts to shift towards the lower end. Meaning that the population as whole gets evenly mixed and the entire race moves toward the bottom or what would be the new middle soon enough. The other option is divergence which means the curve would spilt into two. One large hump near the bottom then it tapers and goes in to a small hump before it tapers off again. Although I think divergence is the best of the two possible outcomes I'd prefer to think of a ethical way to solve this problem before it becomes a problem.

Firmbeliever,

The reason I see it as a disaster for the human race is because if the bottom of the bell curve gets even a 1% advantage that is huge in evolutionary terms. This could have two possibilities that I can think of as far evolutionary terms for humans goes. One would be that the entire curve starts to shift towards the lower end. Meaning that the population as whole gets evenly mixed and the entire race moves toward the bottom or what would be the new middle soon enough. The other option is divergence which means the curve would spilt into two. One large hump near the bottom then it tapers and goes in to a small hump before it tapers off again. Although I think divergence is the best of the two possible outcomes I'd prefer to think of a ethical way to solve this problem before it becomes a problem.

Thanks for the explanation.

Not to sound dumb,but I still do not understand.

The human species branched off from apes something big probably happened like the human species were separated from the ape species or a genetic mutation occurred in some apes but not in others. The same thing happened with the marsupials (Kangaroos and Koala's) in Australia, Koalas were probably just regular bears or something when Australia was separated and then they evolved seperatly in to a whole new species based on there surroundings.
Try reading some of the stuff from Darwin, it excplains some of his ideas.

Thanks for the explanation.

Not to sound dumb,but I still do not understand.

Let me take a stab at this, and Micheal, if I got this totally wrong, sorry. :)

Think of the population like an apartment building. You own this building (Hey! You can pretend to be god! :)) Apartments at the bottom of the building are less desirable, whereas the penthouse is ideal, thus, lower levels rent for less. The closer you are to the top, the better off you are (in people; smarter, faster, stronger, etc) and closer to the bottom, the worse off you are (in people, less intelligent, slower, weaker, etc). Where do you want to be? Where do you want your kids to be? Closer to the top, right? You want to be in the best apartment possible, and the more people in good apartments, the more money you, as the owner, makes (more productive society). So what happens if the apartments on the bottom floors start to fill up, much more rapidly than the ones on the top floors? That's not good for you, because you make less money. It's not good for people because we bring the less intelligent, slower and weaker people into society. So what can happen? One possibility, the cost of ALL your apartments drops, so the penthouse which was on the 100th floor now goes for a rate of an apartment on maybe the 80th floor. Not good for your profits! OR, you get segmented - your upper levels and bottom levels are the most populated (the bottom moreso), there's a clear line in the middle floors, and not many people living there.

Now, this is a very basic comparison. In reality you can't stick people into such easy assignments because we all have things we are good at or bad at. You have people who are very, very smart, but who have little physical strength. Or who have diseases that in general, you don't want in your population. Take Stephen Hawking, for example. He's very, very smart, and also very, very handicapped. Now, his disease is not always caused by genetics, but let's just say it is. What floor do you put him on? On the one hand, he's desirable because he's smart, but on the other hand, he's weak and has bad genes. This is where civilization comes in. We don't get rid of people because they aren't perfect. When a child is born with a genetic disorder, we don't get rid of her because she will later poison the human race. But as far as natural selection is concerned, she wouldn't have the same opportunities as others who are "normal". So civilization has taken natural selection out of the equation. People with fertility problems can reproduce now with help from technology. From a natural selection standpoint, if you can't reproduce, you die out, because the ones who CAN take over.

So we have a problem. How do you further the human race without getting rid of the people someone deems as "undesirable"? Who gets to decide who is "undesirable"? That would be eugenics - you have X wrong with you, you don't get to live or reproduce because I said so. You can't have that in civilized society (as a side note, Cuba has forced abortions when there is something wrong with the fetus, we don't want that way of thinking to spread). So what do you do? How do you get the "best" to have more kids, and the "not so goods" to have fewer, and do it ethically?

Thanks Jill,
That made more sense.

I am also thinking that all intelligence is not genetics, there is the nature nurture debate.

Very intelligent/healthy parents have ill/less intelligent kids, who later on become productive through rehabilitation of different sorts.

And from what I have noticed, the very intelligent productive citizens of many societies are working half their life amassing wealth.Then in their middle ages find some medical assistance or other to conceive.
I am not sure if I am factually right,but I have heard of twins and triplets being born due to some fertility treatments,which I am guessing does not really help the babies in being healthy.(Am I wrong in my assumption?).

About getting rid of "undesirables".How can we know if a baby born will be less intelligent than the existing population?I know that physically some deformities can be accurately known before birth,but intelligence is totally different.
As you said each of us has something to contribute into the society and before a child grows up into an adult (I mean mentally,not chronologically),we cannot really assume how productive or unproductive a person will be to the society.

Natural selection in animals I can understand because I watched two of my cats kill their newlyborn kittens,one was born too small to survive while the other had a bleeding umbilical cord.
When it comes to human population I cannot put aside the humane factor and conscience and talk about humans in the same level as animals.

EDIT:::Sometimes I have seen less healthy babies do not survive for long in this world.

About getting rid of "undesirables".How can we know if a baby born will be less intelligent than the existing population?I know that physically some deformities can be accurately known before birth,but intelligence is totally different.
As you said each of us has something to contribute into the society and before a child grows up into an adult (I mean mentally,not chronologically),we cannot really assume how productive or unproductive a person will be to the society.


Cuba currently preforms abortions and lets infants die if they appear to have medical problems so they can keep the government run health care cheap. (funny how Michael Moore didn't mention that, different topic though). I don't want to get rid of existing babies, fetuses or even restrict peoples rights to breed because I don't feel any of those things would be ethical. I am doing something that I try not to do in my life which is point out a potential problem but offer up no solution. I won't lose much sleep over this right now though it may not even be a real issue for another 1000 or more years, so we don't really need to come up with a solution anytime soon. We have time to think about it. Rent the movie Idiocracy for a humorous view point of it. Idiocracy (2006) (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0387808/) or don't it has some crude humor in it and I don't know how you feel about that stuff.



Natural selection in animals I can understand because I watched two of my cats kill their newlyborn kittens,one was born too small to survive while the other had a bleeding umbilical cord.
When it comes to human population I cannot put aside the humane factor and conscience and talk about humans in the same level as animals.


One of the great things about mankind is we don't all think the same. If we did we would have died out a long time ago. I don't like to think of us on the same level as animals either but I do it as a way to recognize problems that we might not normally see, by thinking outside of ourselves we might be able to avoid problems before we have to take drastic actions to correct them.

Glad I helped you understand. :)

Intelligence is not solely based on genetics, at least that's not the prevailing thought right now. There are contributions from nature and nurture, of course. And yes, two smart people are not guaranteed to have smart kids, but when speaking on such mass scales, those are the assumptions that are made; smart people give their kids smart genes, and nurture intelligence throughout childhood allowing the child to thrive. Less smart people give their kids less smart genes and don't nurture in the same way. Of course this is a generalization, there are always exceptions.

The point you make about people working their lives away and not having kids until later (if at all) is a excellent one, and reinforces the original point - the hardworking, intelligent people are having less children than the "undesireables", that drives the demand for bottom floor apartments up, and demand for top floors down. Of course then we have to get into who is an "undesirable" and who is not; is anyone who doesn't work 80 hours a week and earn 6 figures a year and "undesirable"? I don't think so. But in general, you want society to be populated with people who work hard, not people who sit on their bums and contribute nothing (or almost nothing) of value to society. In the US we have a program which gives people money when they are too poor to support themselves. It's great if it's a temporary thing, but many people abuse it and choose not to work and earn a living because the govt gives them money. On top of that, the more kids you have, the more money you get. So you sit at home, have lots of kids and collect govt money. Does that sounds like a parent who is providing their child with a thriving environment? Fertility treatments do sometimes result in multiple births, but it doesn't always compromise the health of the children. My point with fertility treatments and how anyone can have babies is that if natural selection (god, whatever) is saying, "you really shouldn't reproduce" science is allowing them to do so. It works both ways.

You're right about not knowing intelligence levels at birth or before, that's impossible. But if you make the assumption that smart people have smart babies and dumb people have dumb babies (to put it bluntly!), you see how someone might be put into the "undesirable" category. Think about the advancements medical science and other technologies have made and how they've changed our need for survival. We can keep people with compromised immune systems and organs around for YEARS now, whereas without those advancements it wouldn't happen that way. Things like sanitation, easy access to clean drinking water and better nutrition also change who gets to live and who dies. In the past, if you drank diseased water, and your neighbor was smart enough to find clean water, you die and he lives. That means he has kids who are also smart enough to find clean water, you don't.

It's the ethical component for humans that changes all of this. What makes us different from animals is that we are civilized, they are not. Your cat killed her kittens because they were not fit for survival; would you do the same to your child? Of course not! We are civilized, we understand that even people who have a defect have a right to live, and that it will destroy society to start killing those who don't make "the cut". To consider natural selection and how it would work in humans, remove civilization from the equation. Take away your toilet, your electricity, your car; imagine we all live in caves or mud huts and in our community if someone can't pull their weight it puts the whole community at risk. If you believe that at one point in time we were cavemen (I don't remember if that is part of your belief system or not), you can see where natural selection can take place. Even in tribal areas, and some third world regions you might get a little bit of it. If, in a remote village in India a baby is born with medical complications, she will likely die with no access to a hospital. That means you have stopped the reproduction of someone who is "defective". My previous point about Cuba; they are, in effect, manipulating natural selection. If they detect a problem with your child, they eliminate it, it never gets to join the gene pool. If every baby you ever get pregnant with has this defect, you never have an offspring that contributes to the gene pool. What they are doing is wholly unethical and disgusting, but look at it objectively and you can see their intent (not that I endorse it at all!). They don't want sick people in their country. Sick people cost more and make more sick people. Sick people are bad, healthy people are good.

No one here is saying we should label one person as smart and allowed to reproduce and another as too dumb to have kids, that would be reprehensible. Perhaps a way to make more demand for upper level apartments is to better education, offer more resources, I don't know. The answer is certainly not to tell people they aren't allowed to reproduce.

About sick people (maybe off topic)..
What about the mentally sick but healthy ones who escape these selective abortions?

About sick people (maybe off topic)..
what about the mentally sick but healthy ones who escape these selective abortions?

Do you mean in Cuba? Assuming you do...

First the abortions aren't selective, they are forced. You have no choice. Beyond that, and this is my speculation, I would guess those individuals don't get the same quality of care as the healthy. If you have seen the movie Sicko (I haven't, just report after report on it), Michael Moore takes some 9/11 volunteers who are suffering from health problems to Cuba because the US won't care for them. He goes on and on about how great Cuba's system is and the US is horrible. Anyway, the hospital he takes them to is the same hospital the elite in Cuba go to - not anyone who lives in the country. Cuba, and other nations with national healthcare systems are very concerned with how much you cost them. If you will cost them $100K to "fix" and will only live another 3 months, they might not treat you. Instead, they spend $100K on 30 people who if they "fix" they will live for 50 years. So my guess is, people in Cuba (and possibly other countries) who are "unfixable" simply don't get treatment.

Here's an article you might be interested in:
ABC News: Michael Moore to John Stossel: 'Little Debate' About Health Care in Cuba (http://abcnews.go.com/2020/Story?id=3568278&page=1)

I am no fan of Michael Moore... and he is not really important from where I stand because I am too far away to be really bothered about him.. :)

I am wondering are we not taking over this thread?
Why not start a new one, so we can get this one going longer without anyone feeling bad about us taking over this thread.

I feel bad for the OP.

I agree, we are taking over. If you want to keep the conversation going, feel free to start a new thread, I'll join in! :)

Sorry OP! :)

https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/other-science/evolution-anyone-121890.html
I already have asked it here.

All those evolution theories are absurd to the highest degree. Christianity and, agreeing with katieperez, Creationism are right. I'm not one of those weirdos who thinks everything I say or think is correct. I'm basing this all on the Bible. I know that the Bible is correct. That's not my opinion either. It's a fact.

All those evolution theories are absurd to the highest degree. Christianity and, agreeing with katieperez, Creationism are right. I'm not one of those weirdos who thinks everything I say or think is correct. I'm basing this all on the Bible. I know that the Bible is correct. That's not my opinion either. It's a fact.

Eh been debated before. I'm not going to be able to reason with you but feel free to read all of my previous posts so you know exactly what I have to say about your opinion and if you come up with something new or some evidence to support your "facts", let me know and I'll be happy to discuss it with you but if your just going to say it's a fact without evidence I grow tired of that argument.

Here is a good web site that explains evolution so can least understand something before you disagree with it. Understanding Evolution (http://evolution.berkeley.edu/)

All those evolution theories are absurd to the highest degree. Christianity and, agreeing with katieperez, Creationism are right. I'm not one of those weirdos who thinks everything I say or think is correct. I'm basing this all on the Bible. I know that the Bible is correct. That's not my opinion either. It's a fact.
Sooooooo you were there or did somebody tell you it is