"Sir David Attenborough says humans have stopped evolving"

[savagewind]

T

And if he thinks humans are a plague, why does't he just kill himself?

Seriously? It is the overuse of resources that is plaguing Earth. One man down won't make a bit of difference.

 

[savagewind]

If only we could make all children sterile at birth... then require that they pass a test to qualify to have children again ...

Ok, I jest... but seriously... we do need to address the serious lack of education to most of the world... Perhaps that would shift the balance of natural selection that me have manually adjusted...

There are two things in the making that will help educate most of the world. One is computer distribution. I am sorry I do not remember what the organization is that wants to make the www avaliable to everyone. I also heard there is another organization making college courses free on the internet.

 

[dust1n]

Probably not necessary, but certainly something which facilitates the process.

So is murder, rape and a bunch of other things; just because they are factors which facilitate evolution does not mean that a morally normal person would consider them desirable.

Sure... but it's the low infant mortality that stops evolution... it's the proliferation of infant mortality that increases evolution... a notion that runs rather on the contrary to the OP.

 

[Monotheist 101]

We can never stop evolving.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Stopped evolving? I didn't know we started in the first place.

 

[philbo]

Stopped evolving? I didn't know we started in the first place.

..unless you're being subtle enough to suggest that we didn't start evolving: what evolved into humankind doesn't count as "us"?

 

[dust1n]

It would be impossible to start evolving as a human, since all living things were evolving (or not evolving in parts where conditions hardly change, like the deep ocean) before humans started evolving. The only thing that has ever started evolving is the first RNA.

 

[InformedIgnorance]

Sure... but it's the low infant mortality that stops evolution... it's the proliferation of infant mortality that increases evolution... a notion that runs rather on the contrary to the OP.

How is that contrary to the OP? I just do not see it myself.

Are you perhaps referring to support for family planning being something that would limit evolutionary forces? If so I would agree, but by the same token that I doubt he is supportive or murder and rape for the simple fact that they might facilitate evolutionary pressure at the same time I think it not at all contradictory to observe and even bemoan the lack of likely evolutionary direction whilst maintaining a preference to avoid those pressures that might contribute to providing such direction; of course that means that evolution would indeed likely be stifled to some extent, but natural evolutionary pressures do not necessarily need to be the only such drivers of evolution (artificial selection through breeding programs, artificial modification through gene manipulation, artificial augmentation through technology etc) as such there is no inherent clash between support for family planning and a desire to facilitate human evolution.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

..unless you're being subtle enough to suggest that we didn't start evolving: what evolved into humankind doesn't count as "us"?

Dogs produce dogs, cats produce cats, fish produce fish, bears produce bears, snakes produce snakes, birds produce birds. There has never been an exception to the rule throughout the history of mankind, yet, to negate the existence of an intelligent designer, it is cool to believe such a thing, I guess

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

Dogs produce dogs, cats produce cats, fish produce fish, bears produce bears, snakes produce snakes, birds produce birds. There has never been an exception to the rule throughout the history of mankind, yet, to negate the existence of an intelligent designer, it is cool to believe such a thing, I guess

Except that's not how evolution works. A dog wouldn't produce a cat, not only because they aren't the same species they are not the same Genus.

I suppose you take Genesis 1 literally, and if so, where exactly do fungus fall in creation? Or protists?

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Except that's not how evolution works. A dog wouldn't produce a cat, not only because they aren't the same species they are not the same Genus.

Regardless, a dog will never produce a non-dog. That is my only point. If you believe that the dogs of today came from a non-dog of yesterday, then you are relying on faith..the unseen. And not to mention the fact that evolutionists believe that we all share a common ancestor, and our common ancestor was not the same kind of "creature" that we all are. So obviously, animals began producing different kind of animals, which contradicts observation. If you believe that a mouse and a blue whale share a common ancestor, then you are obviously relying on faith because to get from a mouse to a whale is light years. There is just no evidence for it whatsoever.

I suppose you take Genesis 1 literally, and if so, where exactly do fungus fall in creation? Or protists?

I don't know, but I can also ask the evolutionists/naturalist where does consciousness fall in the big bang event? And just for the record, I am a bible believing Christian, however, as far as Genesis is concerned, I am open to the evidence. On some days I am a YEC (young earth creationist) and on some days I am a OEC (Old earth creationists).

Kent Hovind and Hugh Ross (two Christians) debated this subject on the John Ankerburg show, and it was a very engaging and informative debate as each side presented their case well. I am not sure where I stand, but right now I am leading towards OEC.

 

[metis]

Evolution is just plain old common sense: everything changes, nothing stays the same.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

He sounds a bit like a Malthusian. Just another rich white male hypocrite who doesn't want more poor people harshing his extravagant style. That's the real reason why such types want others to lessen their numbers, but say nothing about themselves. They're just greedy and want more for themselves. Screw him.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

Regardless, a dog will never produce a non-dog. That is my only point. If you believe that the dogs of today came from a non-dog of yesterday, then you are relying on faith..the unseen. And not to mention the fact that evolutionists believe that we all share a common ancestor, and our common ancestor was not the same kind of "creature" that we all are. So obviously, animals began producing different kind of animals, which contradicts observation. If you believe that a mouse and a blue whale share a common ancestor, then you are obviously relying on faith because to get from a mouse to a whale is light years. There is just no evidence for it whatsoever.



I don't know, but I can also ask the evolutionists/naturalist where does consciousness fall in the big bang event? And just for the record, I am a bible believing Christian, however, as far as Genesis is concerned, I am open to the evidence. On some days I am a YEC (young earth creationist) and on some days I am a OEC (Old earth creationists).

Kent Hovind and Hugh Ross (two Christians) debated this subject on the John Ankerburg show, and it was a very engaging and informative debate as each side presented their case well. I am not sure where I stand, but right now I am leading towards OEC.

You are free to believe what you want, but I think you're just being dishonest about the validity of Evolution. The science is sound, the evidence is there. If you choose not to believe in it simply because it goes against the Bible by all means go ahead, but do understand that the arguments that you are trying to use really hold no water. Statements such as "Cats make cats" so on and so forth, really just show you don't understand how evolution works. Wouldn't it just be better to say "I don't believe in evolution because of the bible" rather then saying things that do not at all forward your argument?

 

[philbo]

You are free to believe what you want, but I think you're just being dishonest about the validity of Evolution. The science is sound, the evidence is there. If you choose not to believe in it simply because it goes against the Bible by all means go ahead, but do understand that the arguments that you are trying to use really hold no water. Statements such as "Cats make cats" so on and so forth, really just show you don't understand how evolution works. Wouldn't it just be better to say "I don't believe in evolution because of the bible" rather then saying things that do not at all forward your argument?

From his responses in other threads, I would say it's clear that he doesn't know enough about evolution to make a value judgment about it, but disbelieves because that's what he has been told, and doesn't want to learn enough in case it disturbs his cast-iron certainties about what has happened.

 

[InformedIgnorance]

Dogs produce dogs, cats produce cats, fish produce fish, bears produce bears, snakes produce snakes, birds produce birds. There has never been an exception to the rule throughout the history of mankind, yet, to negate the existence of an intelligent designer, it is cool to believe such a thing, I guess

I would point out two things here.

1. You make an intersting reference to the 'history of mankind'; now we might argue specifics but this probably refers to the recorded history of mankind correct? In which case even if we consider proto languages we are talking at maximum a period of a couple tens of thousands of years.

For the mouse and whale (note that both are mammals, they give birth to live young and suckle them - there is actually quite a bit of similarity in terms of their skeletal structure and reproductive systems for example) one does not get from a mouse to a whale (or vice versa); instead, some very distant ancestor of a mouse was also the very distant ancestor of a whale. Yet never did a non-whale give birth to a whale or a non-mouse give birth to a mouse. Every individual has the same species as their offspring and of their parent (with rare exception, such as through hybridization), it is humans who have defined a 'species' categorization scheme consisting of sets of characteristics, these characteristics are heircachical (getting into that might be a bit involved and isnt central to this discussion) since evolution result in minor changes over time being propagated, the build up of changes in characteristics can one day lead to differences in the categorisation scheme we call species.

Evolution that would suffice for your 'kinds' argument (though I have not yet seen kind defined) would take millions of years to propagate sufficient characteristics changes as to result in a change in categorisation, therefore it would be highly unreasonable to assume that we would have witnessed evolution of the type you are describing during recorded human history, much less during the period in which we have developed the scientific method.



2. One can still believe in an intelligent designer, while recognizing the validity of evolution.

edit: edited last line as I used the term belief to refer to acceptance of evolution which seems to suggest it is a belief position, which it is not.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

You are free to believe what you want

And you are too. You can believe that longggg ago, far and wide, when no one was around to see it occur, animals began producing different kind of animals. You can believe that all day long, but that isn't science. That hasn't been observed.

, but I think you're just being dishonest about the validity of Evolution. The science is sound, the evidence is there.

What observational evidence is there? We observe animals producing their own kind. Dogs produce dogs, cats produce cats, etc. There is just no good reason to think otherwise unless you are trying to postulate some kind of theory that would negate the existence of God.

If you choose not to believe in it simply because it goes against the Bible by all means go ahead, but do understand that the arguments that you are trying to use really hold no water. Statements such as "Cats make cats" so on and so forth, really just show you don't understand how evolution works.

I understand it, I just don't accept it. That is what you people fail to realize. I don't accept the theory of evolution. Not only do I find it unscientific, but I find it borderline impossible. The theistic explanation is more plausible and makes more sense.

Wouldn't it just be better to say "I don't believe in evolution because of the bible"

If I said that, then it wouldn't be true. I do consider myself an honest man. I don't believe in evolution because the observation doesn't support the theory. I thought observation was a big part of the science method, but I guess when it comes to evolution we can sweep things like actual observation under the rug so that the theory can hold water.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

From his responses in other threads, I would say it's clear that he doesn't know enough about evolution to make a value judgment about it, but disbelieves because that's what he has been told, and doesn't want to learn enough in case it disturbs his cast-iron certainties about what has happened.

All I see is dogs producing dogs, and cats producing cats. I am going by what I observe. You people are going by any theory that will allow you to negate the existence of Intelligent Design. That is what evolution is all about. It is the only game in town once God is negated. No matter how irrational the idea is, as long as it doesn't have God in it, that makes it just fine, right?

When you die and you find out that instead of Charles Darwin, you will have to stand before Jesus Christ and be judged, maybe then you will know. I guess that is what it will have to take.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

And you are too. You can believe that longggg ago, far and wide, when no one was around to see it occur, animals began producing different kind of animals. You can believe that all day long, but that isn't science. That hasn't been observed.



What observational evidence is there? We observe animals producing their own kind. Dogs produce dogs, cats produce cats, etc. There is just no good reason to think otherwise unless you are trying to postulate some kind of theory that would negate the existence of God.



I understand it, I just don't accept it. That is what you people fail to realize. I don't accept the theory of evolution. Not only do I find it unscientific, but I find it borderline impossible. The theistic explanation is more plausible and makes more sense.



If I said that, then it wouldn't be true. I do consider myself an honest man. I don't believe in evolution because the observation doesn't support the theory. I thought observation was a big part of the science method, but I guess when it comes to evolution we can sweep things like actual observation under the rug so that the theory can hold water.

Your continuous usage of Kind is exactly what I mean. So what Kind is a fungus? There is nothing wrong with admitting that you don't understand something, you've even admitted that you haven't even actually read up on the material. Which is fine.

You continue to say that a dog will make a dog, why yes that is what Evolution says. So I'm not sure where exactly you agree with the theory besides you just not agreeing with it.

As for observation, what has not been observed?

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

I would point out two things here.

1. You make an intersting reference to the 'history of mankind'; now we might argue specifics but this probably refers to the recorded history of mankind correct? In which case even if we consider proto languages we are talking at maximum a period of a couple tens of thousands of years.

Yup, but evolution takes sooooo long to occur. Even the smallest change, right?

For the mouse and whale (note that both are mammals, they give birth to live young and suckle them - there is actually quite a bit of similarity in terms of their skeletal structure for example) one does not get from a mouse to a whale (or vice versa); instead, some very distant ancestor of a mouse was also the very distant ancestor of a whale.

See, right there!! Stop right there!!! It happens every single time...and I've said this exact same thing to about 5 different people on here. Did you just see what happened?

You went from

"...the mouse and the whale are both mammals, there are similarities to their skeletal structure"

to

"some very distant ancestor of a mouse was also the very distance ancestor of a whale".

Did you see how just left science and stepped right in the the religous realm? It happened so fast, you didn't even see it From the time you fixed your fingers to start typing the sentence about ancestry, you started to walk away from science and right into the religious realm.

First off, if they have very distant ancestors, what is the process in between? How does one distant species branch off in to a "mouse" kind and a "whale" kind? You can't scientifically prove that. That is a presupposition you had going IN, and you made your pressupposition fit the evidence.

Yet never did a non-whale give birth to a whale or a non-mouse give birth to a mouse.

There had to be the very first whale, and the very first mouse, right? Both had to come from something other than their own kind if they were the very first. On the evolution theory, they both had to come from a non-whale and a non-mouse. Just like the very first human beings had to come from a non-human. You can't get to a final product unless the final product came from previous different products.

Evolution that would suffice for your 'kinds' argument (where kind is some sort of psuedo grouping of species which is NEVER properly defined) would take millions of years to proopogate sufficient characteristics changes as to result in a change in categorisation, therefore it would be highly unreasonable to assume that we would have witnessed evolution of the type you are describing.

And that is part of the entire scam. We are told that it takes millions of years to occur. You are telling me that no one that is alive today ever saw it happen, nor no one that is alive today will EVER see it happen. You don't see the scam involved in that? "We never saw it happen, nor will we ever see it happen, but trust me, it happens". I feel like I am getting conned.

2. One can still believe in an intelligent designer, while believing in evolution.

Well, yeah you can. But at least that person will recognize that the entire process is orchestrated by an external mind, than some mindless and blind process that is doing all of this cool stuff despite the fact that it can't see or think. My goodness, we got our eyes, brains, and consciousness from a process that is blind, mindless, and unconscious? I am at a loss at how anyone could believe that, but hey, I don't make the irrational arguments, I just point them out.