[jtfanclub]

helene_t, on Sep 28 2007, 07:29 AM, said:

Hence I think that future humans will be:
1) Less healthy
2) Less fertile (except if sperm banks become popular)
3) Less homosexual
4) Women will be dumper
5) Men will be taller, smarter, more socially skilled and better looking.
6) More religious
7) Less prone to commit rape

Hmmm..I would have said...

1) Fertile much much later in life. Being able to have healthy kids at 50 is a huge advantage in today's society.

2) Able to survive for long periods in isolation.

3) Low metabolism with increased metabolic efficiency- able to eat less, and less nutritious food, for far longer than our ancestors. Able to "shrug off" poisons, drugs, and addictions over a period of days. When you eat vending machine food and take sleeping pills, your kidneys are your best friends.

4) True multitasking, maybe even pure parallelism. The ability to play a video game, talk on the phone, and think about your homework simultaneously. Did you know in the middle ages, not only did people's lips move when they read, but it was thought to be impossible to learn how to read without moving your lips? The ability to multitask has been improving for at least a millenium.

Interesting how some of these things show. I would argue that ADHD and Depression are not in fact "disorders", they are being selected by the requirements of our environment. Depressives tend to handle isolation far better than ordinary people, and have far lower metabolisms. ADHD is a rather wild form of being able to super-multitask.

Unfortunately, my fear is that we'll all eventually evolve into autistics, living in a cubicle by day, and a one bedroom apartment at night, unable to tell if the person next to you is happy or sad without an emoticon.

Oh, and I think homosexuality in males is expressed in crowded areas, a natural biological reaction to people having too many kids. I think therefore it will increase, not decrease.

[helene_t]

Interesting points, JTF. Yes, the ability for older women to have children is surely an advantage, and much more so than it used to be.

BTW, there have been some reports on the young generation's thumbs adapting to typing SMS's, but that is clearly not a genetic thing. As for girls entering puperty at younger age it is less clear, but I suppose that is not a genetic thing either.

Another example: disease genes are weaded out in cultures that favour cousin-cousin mariages (a popular misunderstanding is that the reverse is the case).

[Codo]

helene_t, on Sep 28 2007, 09:29 PM, said:

Hence I think that future humans will be:
1) Less healthy
2)Less fertile (except if sperm banks become popular)
3) Less homosexual
5) Men will be taller, smarter, more socially skilled and better looking.
6) More religious
7) Less prone to commit rape

In particular, future bridge events will be more male-dominated, the bridge will be better, and the commercial exploiters will emphasize the sex appeal of the contestants. The pregnancy rates of bridge cheer leaders will surge.

Okay I´m male and so I checked 1,2,3,5,6,7 and the latest sentence:

Everything is true. Weill everything besides one of course.
The future is mine....

[barmar]

Elianna, on Sep 26 2007, 07:09 PM, said:

Yes, I know that they're missing other points, but I find that making that point helps them get over the fact that their grandfather was a human.

But their great-great-great-...-grandfather, with enough greats (somewhere in the 10's or 100's of thousands), was not. Go a few million generations further and you have ancestors that were small mammals hiding from the dinosaurs.

We're all descended from a bacterium that lived a billion or so years ago.

What's difficult to do is point to a specific point where a non-human gave birth to a human. Evolution is very gradual, and closely-related species do not generally have hard dividing lines between them. The only reason we have no closely-related sister species is that they have all gone extinct.

A good book on this topic is The Ancestor's Tale: A Pilgrimage to the Dawn of Evolution by Richard Dawkins.

[Fluffy]

Winstonm, on Sep 26 2007, 11:03 PM, said:

What causes the fear of accepting evolution?

Same fear as accepting the Bible, when people believe in something they don't understand, they tend to lose their will to religious leaders, or famous scientists. Believing without asking yourself any questions is dangerous.

I kind of see something like this with bridge, people claim that (put your favourite expert name here) said something. And they belive it just because he/she said so. Well, humans are wrong kinda often, and blindly following will force you to repeat mistakes.

[Fluffy]

cherdano, on Sep 26 2007, 10:44 PM, said:

Fluffy, on Sep 26 2007, 03:42 PM, said:

You do not call Gravitation a Theory any more.

Yes, it is usually referred to as "Theory of Gravity". Fluffy you should stop this non-sense, I can accept if you believe there must have been a creator at some point, and that the world we live in isn't just some random outcome of the laws of physics, but claiming that evolution is a controversial or not completely accepted theory among biologists is just wrong. Not pretty much wrong or mostly wrong but just 100% wrong.

I believe in 'god' for several reasons, but I won't claim anything else is not possible, Truman's show (wich I had though about before seeing the movie, and I am not the only one), matrix, ultra advanced extraterrestrials designing the world and using us as pets. And of course evolution are all posible, and many more I guess.

I have a small problem with plain evolution, my survival instinct won't let me believe in it (meaning I'd rather suicide if it was true than exist for nothing).


All in all, I just say its a Theory because I hate people not to even think it is not the only posibility.

[matmat]

Fluffy, on Sep 28 2007, 06:11 PM, said:

I have a small problem with plain evolution,

what is "plain evolution"

[Winstonm]

Fluffy, on Sep 28 2007, 06:04 PM, said:

Winstonm, on Sep 26 2007, 11:03 PM, said:

What causes the fear of accepting evolution?

Same fear as accepting the Bible, when people believe in something they don't understand, they tend to lose their will to religious leaders, or famous scientists. Believing without asking yourself any questions is dangerous.

I kind of see something like this with bridge, people claim that (put your favourite expert name here) said something. And they belive it just because he/she said so. Well, humans are wrong kinda often, and blindly following will force you to repeat mistakes.

I think there is something to this argument; however, I am more of the mind that acceptance of evolution is based more on the science than the scien-t-i-s-t. Anyone who has taken a biology course should have no trouble accepting the science, no matter who wrote the book.

Which brings another question: can you believe something yet at the same time be open to questioning its validity?

[helene_t]

Fluffy, on Sep 29 2007, 01:04 AM, said:

Winstonm, on Sep 26 2007, 11:03 PM, said:

What causes the fear of accepting evolution?

Same fear as accepting the Bible, when people believe in something they don't understand, they tend to lose their will to religious leaders, or famous scientists. Believing without asking yourself any questions is dangerous.

I kind of see something like this with bridge, people claim that (put your favourite expert name here) said something. And they belive it just because he/she said so. Well, humans are wrong kinda often, and blindly following will force you to repeat mistakes.

True, but most biology teachers encourage students to ask questions, I suppose. I've yet to read in a biology textbook "you better believe uncritically in everything this book says or you'll go to hell".

Since skepticism is a necesary part of scientific thinking, one could say that "believing" ins science is paradoxical. Yet evolution is one of the least controversial ideas. As for the theory of gravity, for some reason you don't hear those preachers as Madison Campus saying that heavy stuff just falls to the ground because God wants it to (or even: "heavy stuff doesn't fall to the ground, it was always on the ground because God put it there", or "there is no heavy stuff on the ground, it's an illusion God created to test our faith"), yet that would be completele analogous to what they say about evolution. And I'm not exagerating at all.

winstonm said:

can you believe something yet at the same time be open to questioning its validity?

Not sure how strong the word "believe" is. Also, my degree of "openness" depends on context. At a philosophical drinking party I may be open to questioning anything. In my daily work routine I work within a strict theoretical framework without spending time on musing about the status of the different paradigms, theories, facts, hypotheses (whats-in-a-name) my work is based on.

[Fluffy]

I'd say you beleive in something when you base your acts upon it.

[Fluffy]

matmat, on Sep 28 2007, 11:14 PM, said:

Fluffy, on Sep 28 2007, 06:11 PM, said:

I have a small problem with plain evolution,

what is "plain evolution"

Maye wrong term, idea comes frem the 'joy to the world' post, evolution says humans come as a consecuence of a mutation from some other more simple animal, who comes from another and another to bacteries or whatever.

When universe is ownly governated (maybe wrong translation there) by physic laws, it turns out that everything is a consecuence of another fact (Gerben said something about randomness at quatum physics, but he didn't seem fully sure of it, and I bet nobody is).

If everything is a consecuence of another fact, means everything is predictable, the theory expands and the consecuences of it are not very entertaining, for me at least.



Those who believe in evolution, I wonder what is the purpose of life for you.

[matmat]

Fluffy, on Sep 29 2007, 07:46 AM, said:

Maye wrong term, idea comes frem the 'joy to the world' post, evolution says humans come as a consecuence of a mutation from some other more simple animal, who comes from another and another to bacteries or whatever.

When universe is ownly governated (maybe wrong translation there) by physic laws, it turns out that everything is a consecuence of another fact (Gerben said something about randomness at quatum physics, but he didn't seem fully sure of it, and I bet nobody is).

If everything is a consecuence of another fact, means everything is predictable, the theory expands and the consecuences of it are not very entertaining, for me at least.



Those who believe in evolution, I wonder what is the purpose of life for you.

wonder if you have the timeline of this right.

mutations happen all the time. some are advantageous to a species, some are not. the ones that are not are less conducive to the creature surviving, the ones that are beneficial, allow for longer life/more reproduction.

it's not that the climate changes and all of a sudden BAM a mutation happens that improves the species.



as far as the universe being a series of consequences, i think that's rather simplistic. modern physics is essentially statistics with meaning. fundamental uncertainties, distributions etc. there are certain guidelines that we call "laws," but to say that everything is deterministic in physics is just plain wrong.

and, as far as purpose of life? what is the purpose of life of those that do not believe in evolution? besides, the phrase "believe in evolution" or "not believe" in evolution makes no sense.

there are well documented instances of creatures adapting to their environment. there are fossil records of extinction events and of evolutionary changes. seems to me that if you "don't believe in evolution" you are denying established facts. in some sense evolution is more of a law of nature than many of the laws of physics are.

[luke warm]

Winstonm, on Sep 28 2007, 06:19 PM, said:

~~Which brings another question: can you believe something yet at the same time be open to questioning its validity?

i'd say no, but then again my understanding of the word 'knowledge' (or to know) comes from the works of plantinga, where knowledge is directly related to belief

[Winstonm]

luke warm, on Sep 29 2007, 09:01 AM, said:

Winstonm, on Sep 28 2007, 06:19 PM, said:

~~Which brings another question: can you believe something yet at the same time be open to questioning its validity?

i'd say no, but then again my understanding of the word 'knowledge' (or to know) comes from the works of plantinga, where knowledge is directly related to belief

This would mean, then, that those who used to "believe" that Earth was the center of the universe had that "knowledge"?

Edit: A little more on this subject.

My view is that belief is a choice and is not directly knowledge, although the choice can be based on current knowledge. The confusing of knowledge with choice-to-believe is the basis for intolerance. Tolerance is based on self-questioning, or the realization that personal beliefs may not be accurate - if what I chose to believe is wrong then your alternative ideas may be right - in this, we are equals, and thus I have no right to be intolerant of you or your beliefs.

However, if I construe my choice of beliefs to be knowledge itself, then I hold myself above those who are unknowledgeable and choose to believe differently.
A confusion of knowledge and belief also obviates moral criticism of my actions - if what I do is based on my belief/knowledge, then it must be correct and thus can only be criticized by the unknowledgeable.

This, to me, defines arrogance: that which I believe is knowledge, hence that which you believe if different must be ignorance.

[matmat]

Winstonm, on Sep 29 2007, 10:11 AM, said:

if what I do is based on my belief/knowledge, then it must be correct and thus can only be criticized by the unknowledgeable.

your eminence!

[skjaeran]

Fluffy, on Sep 29 2007, 02:46 PM, said:

Those who believe in evolution, I wonder what is the purpose of life for you.

Purpose?
Life doesn't need any purpose for me to live a good and happy life.

[Elianna]

Fluffy, on Sep 29 2007, 04:46 AM, said:

When universe is ownly governated (maybe wrong translation there) by physic laws, it turns out that everything is a consecuence of another fact (Gerben said something about randomness at quatum physics, but he didn't seem fully sure of it, and I bet nobody is).

If everything is a consecuence of another fact, means everything is predictable, the theory expands and the consecuences of it are not very entertaining, for me at least.

As an analogy, when a computer is asked for a random number, it has a set of rules with which to pick that random number. That doesn't mean that we can predict that number.

Random mutations happen in nature, but which mutation will occur is not predictable. Which mutation will survive in nature is more predictable (MatMat gave a basic explanation of that) but mutations themselves are not.

fluffy said:

Those who believe in evolution, I wonder what is the purpose of life for you.

Why does life have to have a purpose? And if so, why do we have to know it? Lastly, I still don't understand why believing in evolution precludes that life has purpose?

[matmat]

skaeran, on Sep 29 2007, 01:22 PM, said:

Purpose?
Life doesn't need any purpose for me to live a good and happy life.

yes. Yes it does!
i mean, no, no it doesn't!


aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

[han]

Elianna, on Sep 29 2007, 01:23 PM, said:

Why does life have to have a purpose? And if so, why do we have to know it? Lastly, I still don't understand why believing in evolution precludes that life has purpose?

Couldn't have said it any better.

[Al_U_Card]

Being a meaningful part of the universal process does not impede the enjoyment of your life and lifestyle, it just allows you to understand it.