Childen have rocks, and sticks, and the ability to kill each other with them, yet do so a lot more seldom then adults. And the attention spann of half an hour. You cant make much war in that time-
Okay, that flows well into the theory that there are defects that will be corrected on a DNA level. But what if an organism, without any defects, replicates on its own? Then there's no way for defects to be introduced, are there? It simply puts code out and the resultant offspring is a perfect copy of its forefathers, readily able to deal with existing circumstances. However, let's say that circumstances change, as they are well known to do. Do you think that the variation from a single source has more of an opportunity to overcome these changes, or does a more complex interaction between two sources have the advantage?
Yeah kids can be pretty violent. They just haven't learnt yet how to use deadly force in a reliable manner. Besides, the majority of murders are commited by angry young men. Its a hormonal thing.
See it like this. If you got 3 lottery tickets. Would you have the best chance of winning (passing on you genes) if you had 3 tickets with exactly the same numbers, or 3 tickets with diffrent numbers? You would want the tickets with diffrent numbers right? Because then you would have a higher chance of one of the tickets being a winning number. You sexual partner/s thinks the same thing. So you take your DNA, and instead of making an exact copy yourself you scramble together you numbers to make kids with different sets of DNA and hope some of them will be winners. Additionally. Each and every one of us have a few mutations, moslty in the DNA that deals with the immune system. Part of the dna that often needs adapting moreoften are more prone to mutation then others. Most minor mutations do absolutely nothing, but every now and then the changes will stumble over something that will increase or decrees you chances of winning th lottery of life. But lets say you got an a set of DNA. The chances is that your DNA isn't perfect, and isn't perfectly adapted to well EVERYTHING that possibly could happen. Your partners isn't perfect either, but by mixing it together you got the chance of making a random combination thats better then what the two of you got as individuals.
The point of my thread topic was let's discuss this without getting too ugly. Simple as that. Wasn't meant to cause an adults are worse than children debate. But feel free to go there, if you wish.
No worries, just my thoughts anyway. I was trying to describe the potential of an organsim to continue onward. Basically, if you have to bet money on the changes of one, self-replicating, organsim to come up with the right answer for what is next versus two independent organisms managing to come up with the right answer, where is your money placed?
The thing about evolution is that there isn't any "right answer". It about coming up (as a species) with enough variation to handle changes in the environment and finding new opportunities, and enough stability to benefit from what tried and true at the moment. EDIT: Think about it as a sport team. It not about finding "the right player" it about having a team that good both against the tactics they normally encounter and a team that can adapt in the field, find goal oppertuneties and handle any new tactics they might encounter.
Defects can be introduced any time a cell divides, cell division being fundamental to all but the simpliest lifeforms. Radiation from the sun makes cell mutuation unavoidable. This can be very beneficial as it allows useful mutations to occur, which via natural selection, make a species better suited to a changing habitat.
I was a Mormon for eighteen years, whilst I have some issues these days, doctrinally I still like the main basis, also have some Buddhist/Pagan leanings. Not sure where I am going this year has been odd, I have always been religious - wanted to be a nun when i was 15 (not sure whether buddhist or Roman Catholic). This has been the least religious I have ever been. Christmas was really bizarre and empty all it was about was putting a tree up, buying the kids presents and making a roast dinner. Trying to explain the cat dying without definite answers to the children was weird as well. When my dog died I was confident she was safe whatever happened. My own general beliefs centre around taking each day at a time, finding the good in every situation however horrible (think Corrie Ten Boom thanking God for the fleas), I meditate when I can, tend to think along Feng Shui ideas and letting the energies flow round the house when putting my home together, generally think you don't have to be Christian to obey the main Christian commandments (love God, yourself and each other) - think you can be any religion and do that so I guess its about finding the path you can grow most on.
In addition to my thoughts above, I would just like to add my personal motto: "The meaning of life is to give life meaning."
Well, evolution is not just driven by the environment. Sometimes it driven by the species, itself, not by an outside change. I wanted my answer to encompass both.
There you go. And that's why I feel modern religion is nothing more than an auspice to garner power over your fellow man. It's the simple statement that they are different than us, and thus they are less than us. It helps those in power draw lines, and gather those to them. It helps their adherents to justify themselves in their endeavors and the subjugation of others. Ah . . . the "opiate of the masses," *Grin* This doesn't mean that I feel this is a complete chance, what we are experiencing now.
I'm a science geek. I spend at least 15 hours a week, reading, watching or listening to lectures or books on pretty much any scientific subject. As long as the book or lecture go deep enough into the subject. Linguistics, genetics, history, biopsycology... thats just a list what e been through the last 2 weeks. I don't believe in anything unless: It seems reasonable from what I think I know or have experienced at the moment. And I'm always willing to be proved wrong. My family and friends is the same. Bunch of masters of Science, doctors etc. well educated scientific people. Atheist mostly... yet... But then on the other side I'm am a spiritual person, form a family where psychic experinces always been a part of life for many family members, as well as friends, as well having thous experience as in a part of the country where there still is an old acceptance of this. Yet this isn't at odds with the science. We have had experiences, who we from our experience can't prove is not real. But thats okay. Sooner or later scince might sort it out, but at the moment we accept that it might be real because it more practical than not to consider thouse experiences.
W176 do you not find though the more science you read, learn and discover the more questions you have? The more I learn in a variety of subjects the less I know and the more holes my religious beliefs had to fill in lol I am all at sea with both right now so will just see where things go from here.
... Not really. But I always had the perspective that were endless supply of awesome things to learn.
For me, I don't need to fill the gaps with religion. I'm comfortable just admitting to myself that I don't know, and leaving it at that.
Pantheism, the idea that God and the universe are the same thing, doesn't really make sense to me. Calling the universe God seems like comparing an apple to a orange. The classic definition of a god is one who creates the universe. It seems to me that a pantheist isn't much different than an athiest.
Don't know if its pantheism exactly well its not its a mix between montheism and pantheism lol When I was a child the only way I could see God being one and everywhere was if we were inside his belly. I have been writing that idea in my books that we are god because we are in god. The universe = god. However god is the Universal Father and is one well assuming there isn't another one with a universe inside him.
