For things that do not necessarily have to do with religion. Because life is varied, and so should this group be!

Some of us believe in evolution, but since the rise of medicine and social services there hasn't been much of natural selection going on in Homo Sapiens species. Without selection the species may succumb to reverse process — devolution. We may be dooming future generations by tolerating and accepting our weaknesses.

I think it's not moral toward future generations that we stepped off the evolution train.

3447391 That is a fair enough statement, and an accurate one too, in my thought.

3447391 I think that would beg the question, "What do we do about it?" Certainly we can't just stop using medicine and say, "Let nature take its course." But you do see us living longer even with numerous diseases and disorders that would make us vulnerable on a catastrophic scale should we just let nature take its course. It is an interesting thought and something to think about regardless of your views of evolution. Should we continue this "devolution" for the sake of life or should we allow the weak to die out for the sake of improving the species?

3447391 don't forget the whole thing about the Big Bang Theory.
My response to it, is what caused it? And what caused what caused it? and so on.

3447665 A funny thing is that just recently, it was discovered that the Big Bang just might not have even occurred. (I am not even joking ether.)

3447688 annoying scientists.

3447690 I tend to think they are correct. I mean, the Quran speaks about evolution.

3447722 to me, evolution can only be possible, because some one created everything.

3447722 I never knew the Quran talked about evolution. That's pretty interesting. The more you know I guess.

3447729 What strikes me is that even scientists can agree that the statistical probabilities involved in evolution are astronomical, reaching into near impossible if not outright impossible. So when you take into consideration the chance of certain things happening, like the size, position, and orbit, of the Earth and compound those probabilities with the chance of other things, like our organs ending up the way they do, where they do, even their function, you end up with enormous probabilities. Added together, the probabilities of all that happening at once are impossible, or at least such an astronomical improbability it could not have occurred especially not all in one place.

3447830 seven days

3447890 Six. God rested on the seventh. Six days of creation, one day of rest.

3447900 which equals seven

3447901 I thought you were saying the creation was seven days. I misunderstood you.

3447906 no worries.

Of little relevance, but I love Dubai.

3447543

"What do we do about it?"

Natural selection is brutal and most would find it immoral. I think we should keep the medicine and social services. Along with that, however, we could implement artificial selection without hurting anyone in any way.

A regulation of reproduction can be achieved, just look what Chinese managed to do (1 child per couple).

Should we continue this "devolution"

You can not devolve forever. At one point you find yourself extinct. We either stop the process or parish. I see no other alternatives.

3447665

what caused it? And what caused what caused it? and so on.

Nobody knows the answer to the infinite regression question. The cause of god is especially hard to explain since she's even more complex than the Universe.

3447729

to me, evolution can only be possible, because some one created everything.

We can recreate evolution in our laboratories. Obviously we need to have laboratories, just like evolution that occurred needs a planet. If you can assume, that a planet with life does exist, then evolution is a logical thing to occur on that planet.

3447830

Added together, the probabilities of all that happening at once are impossible

The thing is, evolution didn't happen at once.

It's like building a car. You can just throw all the pieces in the air, but the probability of a car forming at once is almost non-existent. Yet, we do have cars. How can there be cars, if the probability of them forming at once is so astronomically small? The existence of cars should be impossible!

The point is, that if you do small upgrades you end up with an evolved animal. Or a car.

3447890

Seven days

The only way we can know that is because a human wrote it in the Bible. That's the only origin of that information. What if that human was fallible? What if he meant something else by it?

3448443

The thing is, evolution didn't happen at once.

That's why it requires billions of years in order to make it possible. True you can't throw the pieces of a car in the air and watch a car fall down (I have heard the same argument used against evolution) but you also can't expect a car to pop out of the ground on its own by letting the source materials work their way into a car over ten million years. Going back to probabilities, there is an equation to predict the probability for life on other planets. According to the theory, life should be everywhere, or at least in far more places than just Earth. But if that is true, is 13.5 (-ish) billion years enough for that?

We can recreate evolution in our laboratories.

Someone might use that argument to say that aliens put us here on earth. See the ancient alien theory for more craziness on that. But is the laboratory made evolution real evolution according to the theories if evolution is natural selection. Lab evolution sounds like artificial selection to me.

a human wrote it in the Bible

Physically, the Bible was written by several people over a span of several hundred years. God did not write it directly or hand it down out of the sky but worked his inspiration through those that wrote it. And yet, the words written coincide very well with the rest of the writings and even with history and known science when those are mentioned. This is debated, granted, so a discussion for another time.

What if that human was fallible?

Humans are fallible. Even science is constantly being rewritten and rediscovered because we are imperfect and so is our understanding of things. It's debated but the Bible has remained consistent since the words, "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth." were written. Even the New Testament has remained true for the past 2000 years. Again, debated so a discussion for another time.

3449291

but you also can't expect a car to pop out of the ground on its own by letting the source materials work their way into a car over ten million years.

I don't agree with you. With the help of selection, cars would form. If a whole planet was riddled with car parts and there were creatures that would constantly throw pieces into the air, but would leave those pieces that coincidentally fit together and have a function greater than individual pieces, then in a few million years we would see cars emerging.

When you have life and a selection process, then evolution naturally follows.

The first life, however, is not the domain of evolution, just like producing paper for books isn't in the domain of a librarian. We understand evolution very well, but we still don't understand how life begun. Since those two are completely different sciences, this ignorance does not present any problem for the evolution.

Because we don't understand how life begun, we can not estimate how widespread it is in the universe. Even if it's rare, you shouldn't just take 13.7 billion years into account. You should multiply that with the number of systems that could harbor life. Just in our solar system, the life could survive on more places than just our Earth (Mars and the moon Europe are among those places). There are 400 000 000 000 stars in our galaxy alone and there are 200 000 000 000 galaxies out there. When you multiply all these numbers, even the rare events start occurring. And even if that wouldn’t be enough, there is more and more evidence, that ours is not the only universe. There may be infinite amount of them.

But is the laboratory made evolution real evolution according to the theories if evolution is natural selection. Lab evolution sounds like artificial selection to me.

Yes, it’s artificial selection. The only difference is, that you can observe evolution in the span of years with artificial selection in place, where you would have to observe for hundred or thousand of years if you wanted to observe evolution caused by natural selection. There is not much difference between one and the other, however. If you have a selection of any kind, you will get evolution from it. It wouldn’t make sense if you wouldn’t get it with a selection process in place.

A request for anyone that knows how to do this...

Can someone find/make a good formatted banner for the group? I would be very grateful.