Why discuss evolution as only a historical event? What obstacles to the next evolutionary step do we find in living things that exist today?
Subscription Note:
Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.
Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.
Religion.
Religion.
Atheists like @Breezy who think they have all the answers.
I would say the biggest obstacles to most living things evolving are humans and the rapid change we bring to the environment.
Indeed. And for homo sapiens it is a rapid advance in technology and, consequently, a rapid change in lifestyles. Whereas other creatures are affected by the environment that we affect, we are affected by that environment plus a whole new way of living. Should it remain like this or advance as it has been advancing for a significant amount of time I expect us to evolve in ways that are unprecedented. Perhaps we become more intelligent still, but with less physical prowess as our focus of survival becomes more and more about what we can do with our brains and less about what we can do with our bodies. At this particular juncture however, intellectual selection doesn't seem to be very selective. It may change in time.
Full disclosure: This is entirely speculative.
Evolution has traditionally been thought to be driven by survival of the fittest or most adaptable. Modern medicine and the welfare state have made these drivers moot. If civilization continues I see little to effectively cause further evolution. If it collapses as Hawking predicts, evolution may return but so will buckle shoes, witch burnings and other Medieval practices.
My OP is essentially asking any purveyors of intelligent design to pinpoint some "incomplete" organ on an animal living today - the equivalent of half an eye - and try to predict what this organ will become. Any takers? Any weird growths on animals that appear useless but may become the next advancement in phenotype design?
I'll save your thread Chimp3, I'll give you a good answer. I still have some brainpower left from the theistic days.
The biggest obstacle to our evolution is sex. We simply have it too much, too early. As a result many diseases such as Alzheimer's, heart disease, cancer, and everything else that's correlated with old age, escapes selection. If we make it illegal to have children before the age of 35, we'll start to see disease and disorders remove weak people before they reproduce. We can make the gene pool stronger this way, end plenty of health problems, perhaps even elongate our lifespan.
Why is people living past their reproductive years and then dying of degenerative diseases like Alzheimers an obstacle to evolution?
Duh because the next evolutionary step is immortality.
Then eventually the genes for immortality and hopefully immortally long reproductive lives would become dominant in the gene pool. But then, nobody would die and there would not be room to grow food.
@Atheist Breezy :Were you pretending to be a seventh day Adventist for the past two weeks or did you realize the flaws in your arguments and decide that there's no reason to believe in god? If you were pretending then I give you lots of credit for making it seem realistic. If not congratulations for your new found freedom.
John has been with us for awhile. When he gets frustrated arguing he adopts - as do I - a sarcastic tone. Trust me, he is not an atheist!i
Thanks.
I found a study on google that showed religious people have on average lower IQ's than atheists. So I thought to myself: why don't I just switch to atheism? That's an easy way to raise my IQ. Sure, intelligence is supposed to be genetic and heritable, but facts are facts. I can become more intelligent just by switching to atheism. So I converted. Now I'm a free-thinker.
Believer that you are and in spite of it, sarcasm is a sign of smart. Sometimes!
@Atheist Breezy: "religious people have on average lower IQ's than atheists."
LOL. Atheists are also better looking and have nicer cars.
Holy shit I think he is broken quick somebody pray for him!!!
@breezy
No need. I've already gone ahead and pressed the Confirmation Bias button for all posts made by fellow atheists.
...Oops, not the Confirmation Bias button, I meant the Agree button. Sorry I get the two mixed up sometimes.
@Breezy, I guess you have evidence for that, because now that I've reconverted, I take offense on such an ugly comment. My IQ, sir, is better than ever... now that I dedicate my free time to praise the Lord, instead of wasting my time reading and writing as I used to. Ok, you smarty pants, where's the scientific evidence? That's what you atheists are always claiming, to have all the answers and all the proof for everything, right?
Aren't you all the true followers of Darwin? Come on, quote word by word the 'Origin of the Species' if you dare.
P.S. I pray for you and also for the people of Puerto Rico. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iKxZdA8_bPY
"I'll save your thread Chimp3, I'll give you a good answer. I still have some brainpower left from the theistic days.
The biggest obstacle to our evolution is sex. We simply have it too much, too early. As a result many diseases such as Alzheimer's, heart disease, cancer, and everything else that's correlated with old age, escapes selection. If we make it illegal to have children before the age of 35, we'll start to see disease and disorders remove weak people before they reproduce. We can make the gene pool stronger this way, end plenty of health problems, perhaps even elongate our lifespan."
Your grasp of evolution is execrable. Does this residue of theistic "intelligence" grant you the foresight to ask why a deity claimed to be "perfectly merciful" would allow diseases like cancer in the first place? The usual woeful apologetics involves an omniscient being sulking over the fruit of a carelessly placed tree being eaten after he'd expressly forbidden it, you can't dent that kind of "reasoning".