The only flaw I see in the theory of evolution has to do with man, and just what the heck it is he's doing here? For of all the creatures on this planet he's the only one that seems incapable of living in accord with Mother Nature. And rather than show any adaptation evolutionary wise, for example a beaver develops a broad tail to swab mud, he shows a total disregard for his environment while getting nature to succumb to his every whim. Does that even sound close to living in harmony with nature? Not even the apes, our nearest relatives, are capable of perpetuating such a legacy. In fact there's nothing about them to suggest they live outside of the constraints of their environment.

So, is it possible that there's any merit to what the book of Genesis says, that man is a fallen creature which, as a consequence, puts him at odds in an environment where he doesn't belong? Whereas prior to the fall, he was given complete ascendency over the earth but now, he's continually at odds with it. Doesn't that sound the least bit plausible?


P.S. I originally intended to post this on the thread, A wonderful speech by Douglas Adams, but since it has more to do with my own ideas on evolution, and less to do with Douglas Adams' material, I decided I would be better off posting it here. Thanks.

__________________
So when the body dies, and consciousness departs, where do "we" go? ... Off to define another "reality" perhaps?

Um...so the flaw in evolution is that you are ignorant of the evidence?

try www.talkorigins.org and look around for a bit. Like several days. It will do you a world of good.

DC

The only problem I see here is that man is living in an inorganic and artifical world. Which doesn't reflect anything about how Mother Nature operates. And if you don't consider that evidence of something which has gone awry, then by all means, bring on the bulldozers!

All it takes is a few minutes to destroy what it took thousands of years for Mother Nature to create.

__________________
So when the body dies, and consciousness departs, where do "we" go? ... Off to define another "reality" perhaps?

Could you please explain the relation between your "only flaw I see" and your "only problem I see"? The first, I gathered, was the result of ignorance about natural selection. The second, I confess, I do not understand.

Did you check out the link? Yes or No?

It's not a flaw in the theory of evolution. It may be that it's a flaw in humanity. Or it may be that we have learned how to manipulate the usual natural controls.

I think this perspective suggests that all non-human species live in harmony with nature. I can't see this as being correct. Successful species adapt to their environment. Very successful species adapt to diverse environments and even changing environments.

Yet only 1% of all species that have been catalogued are still in existence today. The other 99% are extinct, precisely because they failed to live in harmony with their environment.

By any evolutionary measure humanity is a very successful species. But we don't live outside the constraints of our environment either, in spite of out technological mastery over nature. Five times in the history of the earth, events have triggered a mass extinction of most of the earth's species. We are currently in the early stages of a sixth mass extinction. And the event in this case is our own existence and careless exploitation of the earth's natural resources.

If we care enough to act intelligently, we may stop this extinction before irreversible damage is done. If we don't, we may engineer our own extinction.

Either result would be consistent with the theory of evolution.

The second post is just a reiteration of my first post, in response to your (continued) accusation about my ignorance. I just thought maybe a little clarification might help.

As for checking out the link, no I haven't had a chance, not to mention my inclination might currently be lacking in that department as well. Ignorant huh? ...

Hey did you know that when I was a little kid I was enthralled with dinosaurs and the evolution of man from the apes? In fact more so than the other kids. Neither do I remember any of them taking an interest in it. And yet now forty years later I just know better. And if you don't understand what I'm saying here, let's just say I've had a lot of time to think about it. Of course I still don't know how that constitutes my being ignorant?

__________________
So when the body dies, and consciousness departs, where do "we" go? ... Off to define another "reality" perhaps?

Such a fine specimen is man, adapted to creation (evolution) at the very last moment, with all the trials and tribulations of the eons built into his genes. Such a fine specimen is man, that he might have complete mastery over the environment and live in harmony with it as well. Why shouldn't he, the epitome of evolutionary genius that he is? So you think Mother Nature would have endowed him with the finest of qualities and traits necessary to entrust him with her most prized possession, the earth. However, this is not how our fairytale ends, for his behavior has been nothing but atrocious, comparable to say, the lowliest of virsuses and scum to infest the earth ...

__________________
So when the body dies, and consciousness departs, where do "we" go? ... Off to define another "reality" perhaps?

Hi gluadys. Welcome aboard! I can see we might have few things to discuss here.

If man is that highly evolved, why doesn't he behave any differently?

What, to the point of changing the whole eco-system?

Are you sure you're not referring to natural disasters here? Say like when the asteroid or comet allegedly smacked into the earth and desroyed the dinosaurs? I fail to see how this counts as a strike against their ability to live survive, not if it pertains to something which was out of their control.

Well we certainly don't live in balance with nature. It's almost as if man has been given an unfair advantage over the whole affair, almost as if -- like the asteroid or comet -- his introduction to the environment was foreign and unexpected. Hmm ...

If we understood from whence we came, that man is a fallen creature, we might be willing to give up some of our materialistic ways.

__________________
So when the body dies, and consciousness departs, where do "we" go? ... Off to define another "reality" perhaps?

What makes you think humanity is Mother Nature's prized possession. Given our impact on the earth, she may consider us a cancer to be rooted out.

The question assumes that evolution is a ladder of progress toward an ideal perfection. It is not. All living creatures are equally evolved. Humanity is no more highly evolved than mushroom. Although humans are presumably more intelligent. Of course, I don't know how to measure the intelligence of a mushroom.


Yes, as a matter of fact. Photosynthetic bacteria, for example, created our oxygen rich atmosphere. And in doing so they destroyed the possibility of continued abiogenesis.

Not entirely. Such disasters have generally preceeded a mass extinction. But there are many species which have gone extinct without that stimulus. They may have succumbed to a virus, a loss of habitat, a cooling or warming trend or a new predator or competitor they could not cope with. And evolution is never controlled by the species who are evolving or failing to evolve when necessary. It is not a conscious process.



Yep. Agreed.

No, I'm saying that the earth is Mother Nature's prized possession, that in effect man is very much like the cancer you're speaking about. And, while I may have referred to him as the epitome of evolutionary genius, that was just to illustrate -- for the sake of certain evolutionists -- the disparaging differences between the two. In other words if he was this highly evolved (advanced) there should be no conflict with Mother Nature.

__________________
So when the body dies, and consciousness departs, where do "we" go? ... Off to define another "reality" perhaps?

Um...there is a difference between ignorance and stupidity. You have, in this very post, admitted your ignorance; that is, you have not checked out the link, nor have you, in forty years (if I am to believe your writing) done more than thought about natural selection. Your words (e.g. "evolution of man from the apes") also demonstrate your ignorance (more correctly, it is "evolution of humans and apes from a common ancestor"...and despite your claims in earlier posts, there is considerable evidence for this, of which you are ignorant).

Ignorance merely means that you do not know; perhaps you have never had the opportunity to learn, perhaps you never took advantage of an opportunity that did present itself. I fully admit my ignorance in many different areas, like law, economics, European history...the list is very long. Stupidity (which I am not accusing you of) is rather a bit more.

I invite you to follow the curiosity you had as a child, and to take the opportunity to combat your ignorance; go to the talkorigins site. Your brain will thank you. If you are currently disinclined to do so...now we would be proceeding from innocent igorance to something more intentional...whether that would be considered stupidity or merely self-defensive denial, or perhaps something else...I am ignorant of the answer.

Am I to take it that you're ignorant of the expressions of Jesus? ... "Forgive them Father for they know not what they do."

Tell me, is it possible to be ignorant of things which are spiritual in nature?

__________________
So when the body dies, and consciousness departs, where do "we" go? ... Off to define another "reality" perhaps?

I am wondering why you might think I am ignorant of this book. Please show me anything I have written here which makes you think I have not read and understood it. I most certainly have read it, I have understood it, and at one point believed it to be true. I have re-read passages fairly recently, too--I like to explore views beyond my usual "current inclinations".An excellent question. Those things are "known" through faith, not evidence. There is nothing you can point to to demonstrate the truth of any spiritual matter (you could point to a book, but any number of others could point to other books which are equally valid). So there is no evidence to be ignorant of, as there is with science. Even if you and another person both profess to believe "X", there is literally no way we can be certain that you both mean the same thing (certainly, we can show great agreement between you, but the devil, as they say, is in the details). So, arguably, each of us is ignorant of everything that is spiritual in nature, save our own spirituality (for lack of a better term--if we cannot be certain of it, how can we give it just one name in billions of people?) Or...since it is a faith-based thing, perhaps no one is ignorant of spiritual things; each person's knowledge is as good as any other's.

Another unresolved question. Seems like the faith business is full of them.

For anyone who needs to know, I started a new thread called, Faith vs Spirituality, in the What's Wrong with the Christian Church section. Thanks!

__________________
So when the body dies, and consciousness departs, where do "we" go? ... Off to define another "reality" perhaps?

But wouldn't it be fair to say that mankind is at the top of the food chain? What's the difference between that and saying he's more highly evolved?

However, do you think this would have happened if life had become more diverse, to the point to where it could have held such a thing in check?

And what is abiogenesis?

Yes, but if man decided to get off his rear end and do something about it, then it would be a conscious process now wouldn't it? ... And yet another thing that doesn't add up?

Well, I think we're pretty much in agreement overall here, there's just one or two points about evolution that may need to be tweeked a bit.

__________________
So when the body dies, and consciousness departs, where do "we" go? ... Off to define another "reality" perhaps?

LOL! Any carnivore is at the top of the food chain. Many carnivores are also the prey of other carnivores and all can be. A human, for example, may be attacked and eaten by a lion or a bear. We are intelligent enough to avoid that sort of fate most of the time, but that's different story.

Also, what about parasites? They also feed on us and other carnivores? Even lowly viruses attack us. Doesn't that put them at the top of the food chain?

One's place on the food chain is obviously not strongly connected with one's evolutionary complexity or intelligence.

But back to the basics. To speak of a species as being "more highly evolved" suggests some sort of criterion by which we measure "higher" and "lower". But such criteria simply don't apply to evolution. Evolution is a matter of species change as a species adapts to successive environmental changes. All species alive today have been undergoing such species change for over 3 billion years. So from an historical point of view they are all equally evolved.

Another point to consider is that evolution does not have a unidirectional arrow. An environment can change from humid to dry to humid again. Both plant and animal species will respond to these changes with concurrent changes. Plants that respond well to humidity will flourish in the humid climate, retreat during a dry spell, and flourish again when humidity returns to its previous level. Animals respond similarly, as the finches of the Galapagos changed beak size to correspond with the prevailing food supply, which in turn was dictated by the climate changes. Are they more evolved with heavier beaks that manage the dry climate seed supply or with the narrower beaks that explore flowers during the humid climate?

Or did they evolve and de-evolve and re-evolve again?

The question is meaningless. Both changes are adaptations which are right for their time. One is not better or more evolved than the other.

And it is equally meaningless to ask whether a pine tree, an eagle or a mountain goat is "more evolved". They are all equally unique and precious species.


I don't understand the question. It happened because life had become more diverse. Several types of bacteria had diversified to the point of becoming photosynthetic. And as life continued to diversify, photosynthetic abilities also appeared in both unicellular and multi-cellular eukaryotes.

Abiogenesis is the term given to the process by which non-living matter develops into living cells by natural means. It is currently a hot-bed area of biological research.

The process of photosynthesis released so much oxygen into the air, that abiogenesis became chemically impossible. One needs an atmosphere with a much lower proportion of atmospheric oxygen to generate the building blocks of life by chemical means.


Well we have to be a little cautious in saying what humans can do. Perhaps after 2 or 3 centuries we will have enough grasp of evolutionary processes to handle them according to our own purposes.

But that would not do us too much good unless those purposes were in harmony with the capacities of physical reality.

Do we have anywhere near the level of knowledge about reality that would be necessary for successful interventions?

Yeah, and when we pull up in our Land Rovers with our rifles bearing down on them, who do you think's going to win? And with the odds at 99 times out of 100 I don't think I should have to answer that.

No, because they haven't evolved beyond the stage of the blood sucking little critters that they are.

On the contrary, look at man.

And yet over the eons some things have just not changed. And haven't evolved beyond the scum that was originally here in the first place.

However, I have a discerning mind and I beg to differentiate.

No, but I do agree that the only way the planet is going to survive is by maintaining its diversity. So in that respect everything does have its place.

Well I have to admit that I'm not a tree hugger, however, I am willing to give nature its due respect.

Do you think it's possible it could have happened 100 years ago, with the diversity of the environment we had back then?

Got it ...

And yet all I think we need to do is focus on the best of our technologies (cleanest and efficient) and learn how not to be so greedy and materialistic. It would definitely call for a change in lifestyle though.

Sure we do. All we have to do is realize why we were put here in the first place.

__________________
So when the body dies, and consciousness departs, where do "we" go? ... Off to define another "reality" perhaps?

It seems to me, that like many humans, you have a deep psychological need to identify our own species as "top dog" among species. And therefore, you find it hard to let go of the pseudo-scientific notion that evolution is a game of "king on the hill" which we have won--at least for the time being.

Do you know anything of the wide-spread concept in American indigenous spirituality that places humans in the same circle as all other created entities and refers to the wolf, the corn, the lakes and mountains, etc, as "all my relations"? That concept is much more scientific than the arrogance of the typical western faith.


Not true. Some of the scum that is here today has evolved into a very different scum than was here 3 billion years ago.

And the theory of evolution does not require that things change over time. Natural selection can be a very conservative force, acting to repress the impact of mutations more often than not. Genetic mutations happen all the time; but they have to pass muster with natural selection before they are permitted to change the species. Once a new species has stabilized, natural selection more often than not, conserves the status quo rather than adopting novel traits. This is what provides the many examples of long-term stasis in biological history.


Oh, technologically we certainly have the capacity now. But the question arises as to how to apply the technology. Right off the bat, as you mention, is the question of greed and materialism. How do we assure that they do not direct the application of the technology?

Then there is the second obstacle. Even sincere, spiritually-minded, generous and compassionate human beings have significantly different perspectives on "why we were put here in the first place". These differences in perspective would lead to different directions in our interventions. We can, after all, be sincerely wrong. Look at how the initial success of the green revolution has not only failed to deliver on its promises, but has made the lives of many people poorer and more insecure, damaged millennia old bread-baskets like the Punjab, and exposed major sources of human nutrition (rice especially) to possible disaster due to the mono-cropping of single non-diverse species.

Golden rice, (biogenetically engineered to boost its Vitamin A content) sounds like a good idea at first glance. But is it a better idea than re-distributing farm-land so that peasants can supply their own Vitamin A by growing their own carrots and spinach and apricots? There are even naturally occurring strains of red rice in some parts of the world that have much more Vitamin A than the bio-engineered types. What about expanding the range of their cultivation and/or cross-breeding them with other strains? A combination of such measures would signifcantly improve the health of millions at a much lower cost than bioengineering. But also at a much lower profit. You see the dilemma.

Finally, even if we eliminate negative values like greed, and come to a consensus on the evolutionary changes we find desirable in ourselves and other species we do not, by a long shot, have the deep knowledge of how gene interactions affect species. Occasionally we can intervene in the expression of a single gene. But most of the time genes do not act independently of each other. Twitch one gene and you are likely to affect a dozen others as well with unforeseen consequences.

On a more macro scale consider the failure of Biosphere II. In spite of applying the best of our ecological knowledge, covering all the bases we knew of, it proved impossible to maintain either a balanced ecology or a balanced social order within the Biosphere.

When we look to the past, our accumulation of knowledge even over that of a century ago looks very impressive. But in comparison with all we would need to know to control evolution without disaster it is a tiny pebble on a 100 mile-long coast line of pebbles. We need to be extremely humble and extremely cautious in dealing with the basic stuff of life.

It would appear from your post, Iacchus, that you really did not understand a word of what Gluadys said. Too bad, it was said very well. Otherwise you would not still be speaking of "evolving beyond the stage" of anything. Some of these parasites are extraordinarily well evolved.

Your criteria of success are very short-sighted--look at how long the various dinosaur species filled ecological niches, and look at how briefly we have. When we have been around a couple more million years, then maybe you can start feeling superior.