How long will religion survive human growth?

Originally posted by twhitehead
I was rather trying to point out that poor people tend to be less educated and in the case of extreme poverty less intelligent. The lower intelligence is mostly due to malnutrition. I am not saying less education equals lower intelligence but rather that the two are statistically likely to be found together and that a higher number of children is also sta ...[text shortened]... intelligence gene appear there is no reason to believe it would be selected for and thus spread.

I understand the point you're trying to make, but I still think your notion that poverty somehow correlates to low intelligence is flawed.

Originally posted by amannion
That's exactly the same thing with evolution!
Small changes in one area can have unforseen effects somewhere else in an organism.

Remember, if you take a genetic deterministic view of the development of an organism, all aspects of that organism are controlled by its genes. If that organism can run faster than another, if it has a longer nose than anothe ...[text shortened]... s all of the genes.
This macro micro stuff that keeps getting brought out here is just crap.

"This macro micro stuff that keeps getting brought out here is just crap."

Not hardly, the macro micro stuff is what systems are all about, you
do not get to tweak parts of a system and not see how other parts
change, many times for the worse depending on how balanced the
systems are. The main reason I reject evolution taking life from the
simple single cell to the multi-cell creatures that fill the earth today.
Kelly

Originally posted by amannion
I understand the point you're trying to make, but I still think your notion that poverty somehow correlates to low intelligence is flawed.

Do you agree that malnutrition correlates to low intelligence? Would you also agree that many of the societies experiencing the highest population growth also have the highest incidence of malnutrition?
I don't think there is any failsafe test for intelligence by in my school the poorest children were both malnourished and less intelligent.
Of course there are always exceptions and I did try to emphasize that it was statistically speaking.

Originally posted by ivanhoe
Religion is a product of evolution. Why should evolution create religion and then decide it was a mistake after all and get rid of it ?

Which do you think are the reasons for evolution to create religion ? Aren't these reasons valid anymore ?

You talk about evolution as though it has forethought, or a consciousness. It would "get rid of" religion if it were heritable (it isn't, at least directly) and its reproductive fitness "cost" outweighed its reproductive "benefit".

Originally posted by KellyJay
"This macro micro stuff that keeps getting brought out here is just crap."

Not hardly, the macro micro stuff is what systems are all about, you
do not get to tweak parts of a system and not see how other parts
change, many times for the worse depending on how balanced the
systems are. The main reason I reject evolution taking life from the
simple single cell to the multi-cell creatures that fill the earth today.
Kelly

Of course evolution can tweek parts of a system. There are millions of organisms, each one genetically different to every other (in sexual species, with the exception of identical twins).

Originally posted by scottishinnz
You talk about evolution as though it has forethought, or a consciousness. It would "get rid of" religion if it were heritable (it isn't, at least directly) and its reproductive fitness "cost" outweighed its reproductive "benefit".

Doesn't natural selection involve some sort of cost vs benefit decision process of some kind?

Originally posted by jaywill
Doesn't [b]natural selection involve some sort of cost vs benefit decision process of some kind?[/b]

No. Organisms either live or die based upon their fitness.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
No. Organisms either live or die based upon their fitness.

Because organisms live or die based upon their fitness, this caused the dinosaurs to gradually become today's birds?

Originally posted by KellyJay
"This macro micro stuff that keeps getting brought out here is just crap."

Not hardly, the macro micro stuff is what systems are all about, you
do not get to tweak parts of a system and not see how other parts
change, many times for the worse depending on how balanced the
systems are. The main reason I reject evolution taking life from the
simple single cell to the multi-cell creatures that fill the earth today.
Kelly

But this is exactly what evolutionary biology says: small changes produce chaotic results in living organisms which are usually for the worst. You could think of it as a set of scales. The normal organism is nicely balanced. A mutation in a gene causes changes in the organism that throws the scales out of balance - the organism dies. Order is restored to the species.
But, occasionally, once in a while, instead of the balance being thrown out, a new better balance is reached.

My problem with the macro and the micro is that there is no difference. You and others have argued that one is okay but not the other; that we can see one but not the other.
But there is no one or the other.
There's just evolution.

Originally posted by jaywill
Because organisms live or die based upon their fitness, this caused the dinosaurs to gradually become today's birds?

Yes.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
Yes.

You believe that to be true, or is it a fact?
Kelly

Originally posted by amannion
But this is exactly what evolutionary biology says: small changes produce chaotic results in living organisms which are usually for the worst. You could think of it as a set of scales. The normal organism is nicely balanced. A mutation in a gene causes changes in the organism that throws the scales out of balance - the organism dies. Order is restored to th ...[text shortened]... t we can see one but not the other.
But there is no one or the other.
There's just evolution.

"But this is exactly what evolutionary biology says: small changes produce chaotic results in living organisms which are usually for the worst."

I agree a normal organism is nicely balanced, changing small things
can have very bad result in a hurry. Yet, many believe not only did
an extremely large number of changes occur slowly over time, they
did it in such a way to have new organs appear when at some point
in time they didn't exist. For example if life started as something less
complex than a single cell creature, there were no hearts, livers, and
so on. You 'believe' they came into being over time, a leap of faith
in my opinion.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
"But this is exactly what evolutionary biology says: small changes produce chaotic results in living organisms which are usually for the worst."

I agree a normal organism is nicely balanced, changing small things
can have very bad result in a hurry. Yet, many believe not only did
an extremely large number of changes occur slowly over time, they
did it ...[text shortened]... so on. You 'believe' they came into being over time, a leap of faith
in my opinion.
Kelly

No, you see it as a leap of faith because you're looking at the final result - a heart or liver or whatever.
That's of course how we work when we design and build something.
But nature doesn't build hearts and livers from single cells in one step, or in two steps, or in a million steps. It does it in billions and billions of steps over unimaginable expanses of time.

Originally posted by KellyJay
You believe that to be true, or is it a fact?
Kelly

Based upon the copious amounts of evidence there is, yes, I conclude that I feel it is the best explanation for the data.

Originally posted by KellyJay
"But this is exactly what evolutionary biology says: small changes produce chaotic results in living organisms which are usually for the worst."

I agree a normal organism is nicely balanced, changing small things
can have very bad result in a hurry. Yet, many believe not only did
an extremely large number of changes occur slowly over time, they
did it ...[text shortened]... so on. You 'believe' they came into being over time, a leap of faith
in my opinion.
Kelly

Evidence is the difference Kelly, and you know it.

And guess what? Evolutionists are holding all the aces.