Oh Mr Darwin, care to explaing why evolution doesn't reverse the aging process?

Because it would be self defeating?

Wow, fundies are idiots.

They do not start this way, but over time they believe, uncritically what they are told, and bit by bit they build walls in their minds to prevent anything but forgone conclusions in.

"Survival of the fittest" would be self defeating? My, what a strange theory, where did Darwin come up with this thing anyway, found it as a prize in a box of Cracker Jacks maybe?

Why should it? What is the logic underlying the question?

There is no mind controlling evolution, the theory is just a si/fy joke on the scientifically illiterate. That's why I can't help playing with it's believers, just trying to help them figure it out.

Last Edited by DGN on 12/13/2010 02:35 AM

Bit by bit, the man learns.

Punisher has outed himself recently as a role-player. I have to wonder if DGN is a Poe himself.

Ok.... what is a Poe.... like this isn't taking the bait?

So, death is succeeding?

Evolution has lead us to stem cell research. That shit will make man immortal IMHO.

Uh, no, science did that, by means of actual living human brains doing real research, which no one can locate for 'evolutions' elusive claim.














uh

wrinkly monkey skin?

hey, I never thought of that.

UI
That is why they are scientifically called " After their kind " in scripture.

Last Edited by Sword of mercy on 12/23/2010 11:07 AM

Why go blind ?. Why not evolve an infra red antenna or a torch on its Head to see in the dark or attract dinner like those deep sea creatures.

It doesnt need to. It found an alternative called reproduction. Works just as good.

Natural selection would fail without death.

If all generations stayed alive and interbred then evolution would be a non-starter.

This is plain silly, the title should be "Care to explain why God doesn't reverse the aging process?"

After all it is written in the bible that whoever shall believe shall receive everlasting life.
It also states the kingdom of heaven is at hand.
So if heaven is here and now and there is an intelligence behind everything in the universe, why let people suffer and die.
Mindless evolution has the excuse it is mindless, and doesn't know what is happening, thus doesn't care, what is your Gods excuse?
Is it that he is love, and compassion?

Why cant we build cars that don't age could be a good thread.
Then people could explain to you how oxygen(required for life, and the internal combustion engine) a element required for the operation of many chemical reactions breaks down and destroys almost any material if given enough time.

Or you could study the decay of some other random object organic or not and find the cause of said decay and put your new found research into the context of the structure of organic life and look for patterns between the two.

No that would be too scientific for you.

No, living long enough to breed is. After that, evolution doesn't care about you.

(In a very general sense...our species, for instance, is a social one, where the elders past breeding age are still useful to the active breeding pool as caregivers and repositories of lore. In many other species, the adult still has to live long enough to raise the child to full independence. If humans died the day after they gave birth we'd go extinct quite rapidly).

We would also go extinct pretty quick if there was only one mating couple (lets call them Adam and Eve) and they only had offspring of one sex (lets call them Kane, Abel and Seth).

Some do. There is no killer strategy in an ecosystem.

Think of the game Roshambo. Someone is already playing Rock. You don't want to play Rock; then you just butt up against another Rock and neither of you succeed. So instead you come up with Paper, and exploit that unique strategy for success. Until Scissors comes along...

So some fishes will discover that bottom feeding doesn't require vision (but can be aided by some nice tendrils to aid the sense of touch), and predators are best evaded by being mud-colored. Others may chose to become light sources (rather, in the case of many phosphorescent animals, enter into a commensual relationship with another organism) and move into the niche of apex predator. Both are viable strategies for continuing to maintain a breeding population.

It is a common and silly misconception that survival of the fittest means survival of who is best able to win a cage match. Just by breeding too rapidly to be stamped out, many species do just fine without the slightest hint of tooth or claw about them.

It is a good job that Kane got himself a wife from the next village then.

Well, yeah. There's genetic evidence we might have gone down to a population of as low as 70 breeding individuals at some point (other people don't draw the same conclusions from that evidence). Consensus does seem to be there was a bottleneck in the human evolutionary record where the breeding pool became almost unimaginably small. Consensus is also that a pool of 120-200 individuals is necessary to present sufficient genetic diversity for long-term survival (barring intelligent selection of those individuals).

But down to, say, the sons (adopted or not) of one 700-year old man, and their wives, is not much of a pool. But then, this is the same fairy-tale where not only do two "dogs" breed and thrive, but they also split into all the living and recently extinct species that look even slightly like dogs, from Jaguars to groundhogs.

Was this the same village Adam's sons were shopping at?

Bah, sorry. Read "Kane" and started thinking Noachians instead of translating it to "Cain."

They had a Starbucks and McDonalds too.

OP, try reading about the "disposable soma". It might help you understand the answer to your question.

Plants, animals, bacteria and all living life forms are just a by-product of the replication of DNA. There is no mind behind evolution. DNA strands that replicate better because they give rise to a lifeform that is better able to extract energy and chemical resources from the environment last longer in that environment. The world is populated with such organisms because DNA combinations that give rise to organisms that fail to extract enough resources to ensure that the DNA they contain is replicated cease to exist. It's really that simple.

Best of the Season to You DGN....may the goodwill you have extended others be rewarded by True Grace and Prosperity and Peace....

Hi Nines

Nice safe ground with you DGN....I wanna thank you for that...

I often call you to mind...and as well...I would thank you for that....

The only thing you ever ask any of us is to Trust God...and again, I thank you for that.
Have ablessed day...and yeah....keep on Kuboating along!!

This claim makes little sense. Most women are unable to reproduce by the age of 45 or so. Death is absolutely not a requirement to ensure that a lot of interbreeding does not go on, in fact, one might argue that social behaviors and morals coupled with menopause are plenty enough to do the job.

I do not see where "death" is necessarily the path of least resistance in the situation you described.

On the other hand, I can see where "death" would be a necessary requirement (to a certain point anyway) whenever reproduction is present (its an issue of space and natural resources), but it could be argued that once life has attained the ability to expand out into the infinite universe "death" would no longer be a necessary factor.

Of course, we can only be speaking of "natural death", for life feeds on life so "death" is actually a requirement though it is only required to be a possibility that occurs through action and not merely decay.




Frankly, my view of evolution involves Intelligent Design and/or guidance merely because it is evident that all life (and non-life) works in cooperation to support all other life. If this were merely a consequence of randomness then something "funny" is going on. How did such a large scale of randomness get to the point of cooperation on a large scale?

This actually goes back to the ancient philosophical debate of monism versus pluralism, IMO. In other words, if several elements are working in conjunction with one another they must have a singularity, or a single unifying force or factor behind them that is orderly, as "singularity" automatically implies order ("oneness"), especially in a universe with multiple factors that are working together (observe the food chain and even how a solar system works together to create order).

As much as life seems to be pitted against life they all most certainly have all the common factors across the board that helps preserve the life of the other, whether directly or indirectly. One could argue that this is because it all comes from the same place, and hence the same building blocks or foundational materials, but that does not answer things like CO2 scrubbing vegetation aiding mammals, and other such factors. Now, most certainly one could say that trees (for example) came first, so mammals are just using the natural bi products of the trees, but that does not answer the question of why mammals would then return to the earth and become useful nutrients for the trees, having come later in the evolution of life, and furthermore, why mammals actually help the trees in so many other ways during the course of their life. It could be random, but it does appear as if it could also be a conscious decision to do so.

When you add all such factors up around the whole board of things (even things like our Sun, the earth, the rest of the solar system, water bond angle, tilt of the earth, etc.) the "coincidences" of randomness just become too great for people like myself to believe, so people like myself, find the theory of Intelligent Design and/or guidance attractive. This is especially the case when you go to the root of the question as the ancient philosophers did. If you have these fundamental forces from which all things come then what in the world made it so those fundamental forces "work together" to allow for any of this? That is the argument of monism versus pluralism. What unifies them? Does there need to be a singularity somewhere? I think there does need to be a singularity, hence the reason I hold to I.D. Theory.