Question for evolutionists.

[Matthitjah]

Grace to you,

CW,

Your whole premise would make sense. Except, that we are now killing off the weak at a faster clip than we have ever done in the short 6,000 year history of our Creation.

Peace,

Dave

[cwcrenshaw]

hey, "survival of the fittest", right? that's what makes social darwinism such an evil religion, and creates monsters like Hitler, with no conscience

it also "justifies" euthanasia and abortion in the monds of some...it's just highly evolved cells, right? then they pull out of the embryo pictures and start talking "evo devo" and sex with no commitment makes all the sense in the world if you're a social darwinist...spread your DNA around to anyone willing! all good!

what a messed up society on so many levels

Darwinism does not equal Social Darwinism...they borrowed the term "Darwinism" but it is not related.

[cwcrenshaw]

Grace to you,

CW,

Your whole premise would make sense. Except, that we are now killing off the weak at a faster clip than we have ever done in the short 6,000 year history of our Creation.

Peace,

Dave

Well, the original poster stated that we should assume mankind is still around in 100 million years. Even so, I doubt we are killing people off faster than the Holocaust, Crusades, Spanish Inquisition, etc.

[cwcrenshaw]

Darwinism does not equal Social Darwinism...they borrowed the term "Darwinism" but it is not related.

disagree....the average joe may not understand all the technical aspects of Darwinism, but they understand the basic philosophy/message, which is "do what thou will" (same creedo of the satanic church btw)...no consequences, no accountability

I don't know where you get this stuff, honestly.

[Matthitjah]

Grace to you,

CW,

Your whole premise would make sense. Except, that we are now killing off the weak at a faster clip than we have ever done in the short 6,000 year history of our Creation.

Peace,

Dave

Well, the original poster stated that we should assume mankind is still around in 100 million years. Even so, I doubt we are killing people off faster than the Holocaust, Crusades, Spanish Inquisition, etc.

CW,

Check the worldwide abortion statistics sometime.

Peace,

Dave

[cwcrenshaw]

Grace to you,

CW,

Your whole premise would make sense. Except, that we are now killing off the weak at a faster clip than we have ever done in the short 6,000 year history of our Creation.

Peace,

Dave

Well, the original poster stated that we should assume mankind is still around in 100 million years. Even so, I doubt we are killing people off faster than the Holocaust, Crusades, Spanish Inquisition, etc.

CW,

Check the worldwide abortion statistics sometime.

Peace,

Dave

i'm not going to get into another silly debate so we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one

[Matthitjah]

Grace to you,

CW,

Your whole premise would make sense. Except, that we are now killing off the weak at a faster clip than we have ever done in the short 6,000 year history of our Creation.

Peace,

Dave

Well, the original poster stated that we should assume mankind is still around in 100 million years. Even so, I doubt we are killing people off faster than the Holocaust, Crusades, Spanish Inquisition, etc.

CW,

Check the worldwide abortion statistics sometime.

Peace,

Dave

i'm not going to get into another silly debate so we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one

Why is it silly?

Is killing millions of unborn defenseless weak children really silly?

You asked for something much more drastic than the Holocaust or even the Crusades. I suppose because presumably these events were done in God's name.

However it is an event and it counters your assumption about evolution no matter how deeply we try to bury it with assumptions of silliness.

Peace,

Dave

[cwcrenshaw]

Why is it silly?

Is killing millions of unborn defenseless weak children really silly?

You asked for something much more drastic than the Holocaust or even the Crusades. I suppose because presumably these events were done in God's name.

However it is an event and it counters your assumption about evolution no matter how deeply we try to bury it with assumptions of silliness.

Peace,

Dave

the killing of unborns is not silly, the debate we would have about who is right and who is wrong and "who's facts are actually credible" would be silly though.

And the amount of people killed in one event or another has nothing to do with the factual correctness of evolution. You're grasping at straws.

[cwcrenshaw]

And the amount of people killed in one event or another has nothing to do with the factual correctness of evolution. You're grasping at straws.

philosophy does intersect with science, especially in 2007, when scientists are lauded as demi-gods, with all the answers

the fact of adaptation/speciation/genetic drift has nothing to do with origins or ultimate questions, the latter is strictly religious/philosophical belief, no matter what spin you try to put on it

darwinists are always trying to blur the line where the true science of their beliefs ends, and religious speculations begin

You just called a statistic philosophy...nowhere did i mention anything about philosophy...its amazing, you will take every chance you get to take a swing at Darwinism even if the subject at hand is completely different. That borders on obsessive.

[KeilanS]

Well, I choose to ignore the debate that has sprung up and respond (and I admit, ask more questions ) about the responses I have received. I found them fascinating and I appreciate all who answered the question.

Ollkiller

1. We'll lose the appendix with time as we don't eat grass anymore

2. The cocyx or tailbone will eventually go.

3. Depending on how hot or cold it will be will determine if we lose or gain more pigmentation in our skin.

4. More genetic diseases will arise but advances in medicine will help us overcome today's modern illneses.

5. Not evolutionary but maybe we'll learn form the mistakes of the past, get along better with each other. See the citizens of earth not as people from different countries but as fellow humans. Peace and tolerance while having a bit of crack at the same time

This all seems like microevolution to me (correct me if I'm wrong) and none of it seems like an actually improvement. What kind of things could still happen on the scale of something like instinct becoming conscious thought or four legged travel becoming two? Is there anything major still left to happen or do you think we have finished with macroevolution and are simply in a cycle of lifestyles affecting which organs we use and temperature effecting our skin?

Oh, and by the way, I really like the idea of evolving superpowers.

Davem,

you seem to be suggesting that we have stopped evolving (or nearly stopped), am I right in thinking that? I also found two of your ideas fascinating and would like to probe you a bit more on them.

5) Very long term, we will acquire the knowledge to evolve pretty much as we please. If you want to fly, you will be able to grow wings and fly. Social pressures may well prevent this, of course.

6) Very shortly (next decade or so) we will be able to replace faulty body parts.

For point 5, isn't evolution a very slow process that occurs over time through mutations? How could we decide to evolve something like wings and have them show up in our lifetime in us? I thought evolution was carried out through offspring.

For point 6, do you mean we will be able to replace body parts through medical advances (like grow a human leg in a test tube and attach it) or do you mean they will simply grow back, like the tails on lizards who can lose their tails as defence and grow new ones? If you mean we can actually grow our own new body parts without medical aid, then I do not understand how it could happen so quickly. Isn't evolution a process that takes millions of years, not a decade?

Cwcrenshaw, would it be fair to say that you think evolution has essentially reached it's peak in humanity now that survival of the fittest is not really applicable? You had said that the intelligent take better care of their bodies, but would this really affect the passing on of intelligence? While they might be healthier, they probably won't have more children (in fact, I would suggest that would have fewer children as they understand the need for caution when sleeping around) so their increased healthiness really wouldn't affect the evolution of the species.

Thank you to everyone who answered my question.