That sir, is a lot of text.
Right, OK...
"But...what we're doing to the evolutionary chain ISN'T natural. It cannot be taken as simply a natural disaster, because we've obtained our position through unnatural means, and the damage we've done as humans is FAR greater than any disaster that has ever occurred unless you consider the global flood. (which, btw, if it happened would have erased and corrupted the time tables for everything that came during or before it, which would mean, if it did happen, we would have absolutely no way of accurately determining the age of our planet)
Plus, you have all the partial eradications, like the Grey Wolf in North America. We erased it from the land, which did a LOT of damage to our eco-system. Sure, we're trying to get it back, but it's not really going all that well 'cause people are idiots.
And without the wolf, forests got ravished by deer, cougar and coyote populations exploded. No wolves probably helped the wild bore and other evasive species flourish in America. Evolution implies that, for it to work, a species would have to have a reason to evolve; a weakness or a predator to overcome. But, without that motivation; that ingredient, if you will, wouldn't the Evolutionary process cease to exist?"
I'd like to take you up on a few points here. Firstly, I would dispute what natural is. By extension, the question I propose is, essentially, "what is natural?"
The expansion and growth of a population of a species is a phenomenon that occurs all the time. This, when the growth is big enough, can lead to it affecting the wider ecological system. This is what is occurring in humans (and deer etc.). This is not unusual (although shaping our environment in quite the way we have is unusual, it is merely an extension of practices we see in many species the world over), even if the growth effects of our existence is unsustainable, history has shown that those out of balance with the wider system will bring about a counter measure (such as a virus killing itself off by killing its host - a pattern some draw parallels with to humans as well, it's worth noting, and what I believe you are implying, which I agree with). So we will either pull ourselves back from the "brink" or not and one of two things will likely occur:
1. Nature gives us a major kick in the arse by nearly wiping us all out (read: plague, Bird-flu, air pollution etc.)
2. Our effect is so damaging that the ecological system we rely on totally collapses under our weight.
It is up to us to take control of the situation and get a handle on it. Easier said than done, though! Especially since some people now believe we aren't even doing any harm to the planet! According to sources cited in the wikipedia article, less than half of republican respondents to a survey on the issue were convinced of the issue even existing!!!
Are you linking small changes and the law of consequences bringing about large-scale change similar to the butterfly affect (thanks to human expansion) to a wider "ecological balance" on which EVERYTHING depends (or at least large sectors of life)? Again, I would be inclined to suggest that you're probably right. On the process and our increasing influence on it (for better or worse: probably worse).
I'm not an expert, but I find it quite hard to believe that there is absolutely no way that we could determine the age of the planet (aside from the fact that we already know) after a flood. Also, the global flood you mention (which I had to look up as I'd never heard of it!) apparently has little scientific validity outside of creationist circles. I can't really comment on this since whether it even happened (as you have acknowledged yourself) is doubtful.
"Also, human beings have demonstrated that they have the power to essentially control what lives and what survives. We could even wipe out ourselves if we so desired. (It's harder to do with non-lethal methods and big cities, but that does not mean we do not have the power). To me, because we humans possess that power, Evolution, if it did exist at one point, has stopped. As soon as we committed our first act of genocide, Evolution would have halted. Sure, nature would have done it's best to correct our power, but we are just too powerful."
I don't think we necessarily are. Niky, a few others and I were just discussing in this very thread the issue of superbugs. Cancer, HIV and other conditions seem to keep emerging. The human race has managed to prevail thus far and I am confident (although speculative) that we'll continue for many more years. But nature keeps throwing-up curveballs. Some of them (like the plague) really hammered the human population. But who knows, maybe we'll form some part of a "league" of 'things' that can exist in many places (like bacteria and water). But we'll certainly have to be very careful and respectful of the environment in which we exist to maximise our chances.
"No one can say for sure how this earth or the creatures on it got to where they are today because no one alive was there when it started. Not even prophets can see that far in the past. But, it has been stated many many many times in the past that human beings are powerful. Even in the Bible, God mentions that we are like gods (Gen. 3:22) and we have such great power that not even heaven is beyond our reach. (Gen 11:6) (And didn't the Greek gods eventually fall victim to the power of mortal men?)
There all sorts of things that we have done that would have decimated the flow of Evolution. Domestic dogs, domestic cats, cows, modern chickens and turkeys (which, by the way, can no longer breed on their own)....My point isn't that we've simply disrupted evolution, we've completely stopped it for MANY species. We, in our current form, would be the ultimate evolutionary specie because of our power."
Because of our dominance relative to our environment? Yes, I'd agree with that. Although our power isnt so all consuming (which relates to my point on super-bugs). I can't really comment on quotes from the good book though. I can only really deal with facts (and then create my own conjecture!) when trying to tie everything together into some form of understanding.
"If we can stop the evolutionary chain of events, if we are the fittest specie, then wouldn't "man-beasts" be the ultimate end to evolution. Then every specie would be on level ground. There would be no fittest specie anymore."
Not sure I follow you, here.
"(By the way, if you consider we are at our Evolutionary fittest point, then that means we would have arrived at this point BEFORE everything else, which would imply that the Evolutionary flow was out of balance from the beginning...and maintain it's out of balance ways through several mass extinctions if you believe in those. And correct me if I'm wrong, but that isn't how Evolution is supposed to work. I'm starting to see why Darwin himself had issues with applying his "theory" on much larger terms, 'cause when you REALLY start to think about it, it doesn't really...work. 'Cause humans don't entirely fit.)"
You are implying that everything that evolves does so to reach this specific point. It is worth noting that everything that evolves does so relative to its environment. So, fish evolving over the last few million years would have had a different set of goals than we would, for example. I agree, we don't fit though. Humans are still continually evolving. Although for us, our environment (and our skills at adapting) seem to be much more rapid than other species. So, we could be the first species to live by another set of rules (which is really just a complicated, sped-up version of the old processes, such as us being more flexible to our environments: driving, flying, swimming etc. Feral children are a good example of how adaptable we are. You don't see dogs learning to drive, do you?!
)
"Now...if one were to say humans were the caretakers of Evolution, then that makes more sense....but wait...weren't we called "caretakers of the land" somewhere already?
Oh yeah:
"And God blessed them. And God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over every living thing that moves on the earth." -- Genesis 1:28.
EDIT: P. S. I'm not saying the Bible is right or literal or anything like that. I'm just saying human beings are powerful enough that even the writers of the Bible acknowledged our power. As for the homosexuality thing....if you want to go with the Evolutionary theory, then it would simply be nature...which definitely isn't something most Christians want to acknowledge. As for me, I have no idea why homosexuality exists. A lot of naturalists believe it shows an extremely close bond between members of the same sex..."closer than family" if you will. And that maybe what it was, at one point, with humans, as well. But, as with all animals, we humans are pretty darn unpredictable and I think to answer the question as to why homosexuality exists in so many species, we would have to ask them, but, if we did ask them, we'd better be prepared for every specie to give us completely different answers."
Um, this is where we might differ concretely. I can't really take much theological text to help form my understanding of the world because it doesn't fit with my model for reliable information. Not saying it's worthless, but I have no reason to believe it to be anything of use to me personally. Since your whole point here is based on it, there's not much I can say...
...well, that and animals that can respond to our questions on homosexuality in a coherent fashion (or at all), to which there is also not much I can say...
Right, OK...
"But...what we're doing to the evolutionary chain ISN'T natural. It cannot be taken as simply a natural disaster, because we've obtained our position through unnatural means, and the damage we've done as humans is FAR greater than any disaster that has ever occurred unless you consider the global flood. (which, btw, if it happened would have erased and corrupted the time tables for everything that came during or before it, which would mean, if it did happen, we would have absolutely no way of accurately determining the age of our planet)
Plus, you have all the partial eradications, like the Grey Wolf in North America. We erased it from the land, which did a LOT of damage to our eco-system. Sure, we're trying to get it back, but it's not really going all that well 'cause people are idiots.
And without the wolf, forests got ravished by deer, cougar and coyote populations exploded. No wolves probably helped the wild bore and other evasive species flourish in America. Evolution implies that, for it to work, a species would have to have a reason to evolve; a weakness or a predator to overcome. But, without that motivation; that ingredient, if you will, wouldn't the Evolutionary process cease to exist?"
I'd like to take you up on a few points here. Firstly, I would dispute what natural is. By extension, the question I propose is, essentially, "what is natural?"
The expansion and growth of a population of a species is a phenomenon that occurs all the time. This, when the growth is big enough, can lead to it affecting the wider ecological system. This is what is occurring in humans (and deer etc.). This is not unusual (although shaping our environment in quite the way we have is unusual, it is merely an extension of practices we see in many species the world over), even if the growth effects of our existence is unsustainable, history has shown that those out of balance with the wider system will bring about a counter measure (such as a virus killing itself off by killing its host - a pattern some draw parallels with to humans as well, it's worth noting, and what I believe you are implying, which I agree with). So we will either pull ourselves back from the "brink" or not and one of two things will likely occur:1. Nature gives us a major kick in the arse by nearly wiping us all out (read: plague, Bird-flu, air pollution etc.)
2. Our effect is so damaging that the ecological system we rely on totally collapses under our weight.
It is up to us to take control of the situation and get a handle on it. Easier said than done, though! Especially since some people now believe we aren't even doing any harm to the planet! According to sources cited in the wikipedia article, less than half of republican respondents to a survey on the issue were convinced of the issue even existing!!!
Are you linking small changes and the law of consequences bringing about large-scale change similar to the butterfly affect (thanks to human expansion) to a wider "ecological balance" on which EVERYTHING depends (or at least large sectors of life)? Again, I would be inclined to suggest that you're probably right. On the process and our increasing influence on it (for better or worse: probably worse).
I'm not an expert, but I find it quite hard to believe that there is absolutely no way that we could determine the age of the planet (aside from the fact that we already know) after a flood. Also, the global flood you mention (which I had to look up as I'd never heard of it!) apparently has little scientific validity outside of creationist circles. I can't really comment on this since whether it even happened (as you have acknowledged yourself) is doubtful.
"Also, human beings have demonstrated that they have the power to essentially control what lives and what survives. We could even wipe out ourselves if we so desired. (It's harder to do with non-lethal methods and big cities, but that does not mean we do not have the power). To me, because we humans possess that power, Evolution, if it did exist at one point, has stopped. As soon as we committed our first act of genocide, Evolution would have halted. Sure, nature would have done it's best to correct our power, but we are just too powerful."
I don't think we necessarily are. Niky, a few others and I were just discussing in this very thread the issue of superbugs. Cancer, HIV and other conditions seem to keep emerging. The human race has managed to prevail thus far and I am confident (although speculative) that we'll continue for many more years. But nature keeps throwing-up curveballs. Some of them (like the plague) really hammered the human population. But who knows, maybe we'll form some part of a "league" of 'things' that can exist in many places (like bacteria and water). But we'll certainly have to be very careful and respectful of the environment in which we exist to maximise our chances.
"No one can say for sure how this earth or the creatures on it got to where they are today because no one alive was there when it started. Not even prophets can see that far in the past. But, it has been stated many many many times in the past that human beings are powerful. Even in the Bible, God mentions that we are like gods (Gen. 3:22) and we have such great power that not even heaven is beyond our reach. (Gen 11:6) (And didn't the Greek gods eventually fall victim to the power of mortal men?)
There all sorts of things that we have done that would have decimated the flow of Evolution. Domestic dogs, domestic cats, cows, modern chickens and turkeys (which, by the way, can no longer breed on their own)....My point isn't that we've simply disrupted evolution, we've completely stopped it for MANY species. We, in our current form, would be the ultimate evolutionary specie because of our power."
Because of our dominance relative to our environment? Yes, I'd agree with that. Although our power isnt so all consuming (which relates to my point on super-bugs). I can't really comment on quotes from the good book though. I can only really deal with facts (and then create my own conjecture!) when trying to tie everything together into some form of understanding.
"If we can stop the evolutionary chain of events, if we are the fittest specie, then wouldn't "man-beasts" be the ultimate end to evolution. Then every specie would be on level ground. There would be no fittest specie anymore."
Not sure I follow you, here.
"(By the way, if you consider we are at our Evolutionary fittest point, then that means we would have arrived at this point BEFORE everything else, which would imply that the Evolutionary flow was out of balance from the beginning...and maintain it's out of balance ways through several mass extinctions if you believe in those. And correct me if I'm wrong, but that isn't how Evolution is supposed to work. I'm starting to see why Darwin himself had issues with applying his "theory" on much larger terms, 'cause when you REALLY start to think about it, it doesn't really...work. 'Cause humans don't entirely fit.)"
You are implying that everything that evolves does so to reach this specific point. It is worth noting that everything that evolves does so relative to its environment. So, fish evolving over the last few million years would have had a different set of goals than we would, for example. I agree, we don't fit though. Humans are still continually evolving. Although for us, our environment (and our skills at adapting) seem to be much more rapid than other species. So, we could be the first species to live by another set of rules (which is really just a complicated, sped-up version of the old processes, such as us being more flexible to our environments: driving, flying, swimming etc. Feral children are a good example of how adaptable we are. You don't see dogs learning to drive, do you?!
)"Now...if one were to say humans were the caretakers of Evolution, then that makes more sense....but wait...weren't we called "caretakers of the land" somewhere already?
Oh yeah:
"And God blessed them. And God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over every living thing that moves on the earth." -- Genesis 1:28.
EDIT: P. S. I'm not saying the Bible is right or literal or anything like that. I'm just saying human beings are powerful enough that even the writers of the Bible acknowledged our power. As for the homosexuality thing....if you want to go with the Evolutionary theory, then it would simply be nature...which definitely isn't something most Christians want to acknowledge. As for me, I have no idea why homosexuality exists. A lot of naturalists believe it shows an extremely close bond between members of the same sex..."closer than family" if you will. And that maybe what it was, at one point, with humans, as well. But, as with all animals, we humans are pretty darn unpredictable and I think to answer the question as to why homosexuality exists in so many species, we would have to ask them, but, if we did ask them, we'd better be prepared for every specie to give us completely different answers."
Um, this is where we might differ concretely. I can't really take much theological text to help form my understanding of the world because it doesn't fit with my model for reliable information. Not saying it's worthless, but I have no reason to believe it to be anything of use to me personally. Since your whole point here is based on it, there's not much I can say...
...well, that and animals that can respond to our questions on homosexuality in a coherent fashion (or at all), to which there is also not much I can say...
Last edited:
