Evolution and the Sex Drive
-
That's interesting, if you click on your link and then go to the MAIN ARTICLE on the HISTORY OF SCIENCE you find this: However, in Ancient Greece, towards the middle of the 5th century BC, some of the components of a scientific tradition were already heavily established. So uh, nice try, but not quite.
73Zeppelin wrote:
That's interesting, if you click on your link and then go to the MAIN ARTICLE on the HISTORY OF SCIENCE you find this: However, in Ancient Greece, towards the middle of the 5th century BC, some of the components of a scientific tradition were already heavily established. So uh, nice try, but not quite.
Pretty much our entire western civiliation is based on the Greeks. But even in all their brilliance, they did not come up with the scientific method, which is the foundation of modern science. If you read Plato, Aristotle, etc., you'll see that they approach the study of the natural world in a philosophical and not methodical way. That's what differentiates modern science from ancient philosophy. Pythagorus was the closest the Greeks got to science (as, if memory serves, he was the first person to describe the physical world with mathematics). The world probably would be a very different place if he wasn't slaughtered by a mindless foot soldier. But "science" did not spring forth from the Greeks. Philosophy did. Science sprang forth from Christian Europe.
-
73Zeppelin wrote:
That's interesting, if you click on your link and then go to the MAIN ARTICLE on the HISTORY OF SCIENCE you find this: However, in Ancient Greece, towards the middle of the 5th century BC, some of the components of a scientific tradition were already heavily established. So uh, nice try, but not quite.
Pretty much our entire western civiliation is based on the Greeks. But even in all their brilliance, they did not come up with the scientific method, which is the foundation of modern science. If you read Plato, Aristotle, etc., you'll see that they approach the study of the natural world in a philosophical and not methodical way. That's what differentiates modern science from ancient philosophy. Pythagorus was the closest the Greeks got to science (as, if memory serves, he was the first person to describe the physical world with mathematics). The world probably would be a very different place if he wasn't slaughtered by a mindless foot soldier. But "science" did not spring forth from the Greeks. Philosophy did. Science sprang forth from Christian Europe.
Red Stateler wrote:
Science sprang forth from Christian Europe.
From the END of Christian Europe. Specifically around the time of the Western Schism and the decline in the power of the church and the rise of humanism.
-
Red Stateler wrote:
I suppose you're right. But those foundations essentially died with the Greeks. A resurgence of Greek philosophy was led by Thomas Aquinas in the Church centuries before it found itself back into the study of the natural world.
The re-emergence of science came at the end of the Medieval High period (marked by the rule of the Church) and the beginning of the Renaissance(marked by a decline in the power and influence of the Catholic church (in the wake of the Western schism) and an emergence of humanism, yes, secular). The one and only thing the Church did in the name of science was to preserve copies of the ancient sources. However, they didn't even make a whole-hearted attempt at that as many of the old copies of the works of the classical Greek philosophers were scraped down and re-used as prayer and psalm books.
Red Stateler wrote:
The Church did suppress Galileo, but that was rather short-lived.
Short-lived? He was pardoned in the 1990's.... :rolleyes: Cardinal #1: "Duh, gee Mr. Pope, looks like he was right." Pope: "Ah nuts. Issue the apology then." -- modified at 10:50 Tuesday 12th June, 2007
The Church published[^] Galileo's works less than 100 years after the fact and he was recognized as being right at that point (actually well before then, but officially at that point). Science blossomed towards the end of the Renaissance (which was largely endorsed and funded by the Church). And classical humanism was not secular.
-
That's right. The entire premise of Creationism is that God created the universe in 6 literal days. Going by that belief, it's consistent to say simply that "God made it". It doesn't attempt to physically study the universe. Evolutionists, however, claim that their belief system is based on "logic" (intentionally in quotes) and science. Yet they frequently defy logic by making claims based in fantasy about evolutionary influences. By making such claims, you're immediately diluting the science with your religious attitudes in a fervent attempt to draw a storyline for your belief system. Doing so is every bit as absurd as proclaiming that banana peels were made for culinary convenience.
Red Stateler wrote:
Yet they frequently defy logic by making claims based in fantasy about evolutionary influences.
No, they make secondary theories based on the primary theory of evolution. Since you doubt the latter you automatically call the former "fantasy". It's your problem - not theirs.
Red Stateler wrote:
you're immediately diluting the science with your religious attitudes in a fervent attempt to draw a storyline for your belief system.
No - but that's a pretty good description of ID.
-
Red Stateler wrote:
Science sprang forth from Christian Europe.
From the END of Christian Europe. Specifically around the time of the Western Schism and the decline in the power of the church and the rise of humanism.
Per my reference below (link[^]):
It should be emphasised that the new ideals of humanism, although more secular
in some aspects, developed against an unquestioned Christian backdrop, especially
in the Northern Renaissance. Indeed, much (if not most) of the new art was
commissioned by or in dedication to the Church.[8] However, the Renaissance had a
profound effect on contemporary theology, particularly in the way people perceived
the relationship between man and God.[8] Many of the period's foremost theologians
were followers of the humanist method, including Erasmus, Zwingli, Thomas More,
Martin Luther, and John Calvin.The Church was behind the Renaissance and humanism was anything but secular. Secular humanism is about a century old. Visit an art museum sometime (I personally believe that art reflects historical culture quite well...And stop to take a look at modern art, which is the product of secular humanism) and see what was painted during the Renaissance. This was not a secular movement by any means and it certainly wasn't at the objection of the Church.
-
Red Stateler wrote:
Yet they frequently defy logic by making claims based in fantasy about evolutionary influences.
No, they make secondary theories based on the primary theory of evolution. Since you doubt the latter you automatically call the former "fantasy". It's your problem - not theirs.
Red Stateler wrote:
you're immediately diluting the science with your religious attitudes in a fervent attempt to draw a storyline for your belief system.
No - but that's a pretty good description of ID.
Mike Mullikin wrote:
No, they make secondary theories based on the primary theory of evolution. Since you doubt the latter you automatically call the former "fantasy". It's your problem - not theirs.
No, I call the frequent and arbitrary guesses about evolutionary specifics employed by evolutionists as "fantasy".
-
Mike Mullikin wrote:
No, they make secondary theories based on the primary theory of evolution. Since you doubt the latter you automatically call the former "fantasy". It's your problem - not theirs.
No, I call the frequent and arbitrary guesses about evolutionary specifics employed by evolutionists as "fantasy".
-
Mike Mullikin wrote:
OK... what do you call intelligent design and creationism?
If adherents to either attempt to offer any specific explanations of traits (such as why a banana has a peel), they are just BS-ing, just as somebody endorsing evolution is by doing the same. Ironically, you're willing to ignore the fact that evolutionists do this in order to explain evolution despite the fact that it's a complete fallacy.
-
Mike Mullikin wrote:
OK... what do you call intelligent design and creationism?
If adherents to either attempt to offer any specific explanations of traits (such as why a banana has a peel), they are just BS-ing, just as somebody endorsing evolution is by doing the same. Ironically, you're willing to ignore the fact that evolutionists do this in order to explain evolution despite the fact that it's a complete fallacy.
Red Stateler wrote:
Ironically, you're willing to ignore the fact that evolutionists do this in order to explain evolution...
No! I'm willing to accept that based on the theory of evolution it's OK to make intelligent guesses as to why certain traits exist.
-
Red Stateler wrote:
Ironically, you're willing to ignore the fact that evolutionists do this in order to explain evolution...
No! I'm willing to accept that based on the theory of evolution it's OK to make intelligent guesses as to why certain traits exist.
Mike Mullikin wrote:
No! I'm willing to accept that based on the theory of evolution it's OK to make intelligent guesses as to why certain traits exist.
That is the absolute height of absurdity. In your zeal encourage acceptance of evolution as ideology, you're diluting it.
-
Mike Mullikin wrote:
No! I'm willing to accept that based on the theory of evolution it's OK to make intelligent guesses as to why certain traits exist.
That is the absolute height of absurdity. In your zeal encourage acceptance of evolution as ideology, you're diluting it.
-
If I keep it up, I might be almost half as ridiculous as your idea that BSing is at the heart of science.
-
Sexual reproduction occurred long before parenting. In later organisms, yes, I would agree that this played a role.
There's an alternate theory that proposes NOTHING drove the rise of sexual reproduction - that it, merely being another way of doing things, and given enough time and the fact that sexual reproduction is not physically impossible, HAD to arise eventually merely through the laws of probability. A more interesting question is why it has been so successful, equally as successful as asexual reproduction, when sexual reproduction is so much more resource intensive. There's no a priori answer to this question, of course, because we weren't there, but the results seem self evident: sexual reproduction allows a far greater diversity over a shorter span of time. Instead of relying on chance genetic mutation, you ENCOURAGE mutation by mixing genes from disparate organisms. You effectively double the chance of increasing diversity with each generation. WHY it happened is irrelevant (although perhaps interesting, from an academic point of view, and may actually have some application for other things); THAT it happened is unquestionable. -- modified at 12:43 Tuesday 12th June, 2007 (fixed the stupid italics)
-
If I keep it up, I might be almost half as ridiculous as your idea that BSing is at the heart of science.
-
Sex drive was created when the first man saw the first woman bending over a creek washing clothes. Not only was she doing what women are supposed to do (domestic chore), but she was leaving herself in a pretty much indefensible position (kneeling down and bending forward, and her hands were full - it's difficult to get up and run in such an instance). Added to all that, she was probably naked. Now, our hero strolls by, and is pretty full of himself because he just single-handedly killed a wolly mammoth, and he's thinking that a perfect way to end the day would be to "get some". As he emerges from around a rock, he sees this chick with her ass in the air and doing something in the water (he doesn't notice what she's doing because all he sees is ass). This is, curiously enough, also where religion gets its start because he claps his hands together as if in prayer, looks up at the sky, and says to himself, "There IS a god!". Without so much as a how-do-you-do, he runs up behind the woman and begins fornicating. Thus, "sex drive" is realized, and as a side-note, so is religion.
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
-----
"...the staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - Jason Jystad, 10/26/2001 -
Red Stateler wrote:
your idea that BSing is at the heart of science.
I never wrote nor implied that, stop twisting things to feed your ego.
Mike Mullikin wrote:
I never wrote nor implied that, stop twisting things to feed your ego.
Mike Mullikin wrote:
it's OK to make intelligent guesses as to why certain traits exist
Any "intelligent guess" about why a particular trait evolved is anything but intelligent. It's 100% fabrication in order to put a story to the theory. It's the height of absurdity but nonetheless frequently employed by the so-called "logical". It's a joke. To so it's OK is also a joke.
-
Mike Mullikin wrote:
I never wrote nor implied that, stop twisting things to feed your ego.
Mike Mullikin wrote:
it's OK to make intelligent guesses as to why certain traits exist
Any "intelligent guess" about why a particular trait evolved is anything but intelligent. It's 100% fabrication in order to put a story to the theory. It's the height of absurdity but nonetheless frequently employed by the so-called "logical". It's a joke. To so it's OK is also a joke.
-
There's an alternate theory that proposes NOTHING drove the rise of sexual reproduction - that it, merely being another way of doing things, and given enough time and the fact that sexual reproduction is not physically impossible, HAD to arise eventually merely through the laws of probability. A more interesting question is why it has been so successful, equally as successful as asexual reproduction, when sexual reproduction is so much more resource intensive. There's no a priori answer to this question, of course, because we weren't there, but the results seem self evident: sexual reproduction allows a far greater diversity over a shorter span of time. Instead of relying on chance genetic mutation, you ENCOURAGE mutation by mixing genes from disparate organisms. You effectively double the chance of increasing diversity with each generation. WHY it happened is irrelevant (although perhaps interesting, from an academic point of view, and may actually have some application for other things); THAT it happened is unquestionable. -- modified at 12:43 Tuesday 12th June, 2007 (fixed the stupid italics)
OK, well said, and to go back to my original question then, it would be interesting to explore how the mating instinct evolved along with sexually reproducing organisms, given that the evolution of sexual reproduction per se is unquestionable.
-
Mike Mullikin wrote:
You're being obtuse
No. I'm pointing out the fact that BSing specific evolutionary stories is the norm among your ilk. You apparently don't deny it and even agree with the practice. That...is absolutely absurd.
-
73Zeppelin wrote:
First of all, the best historical evidence suggests the earliest gospel account of the life of Jesus was written 70 years after his existence.
Matthew:[^] Dated between 70 and 100 AD (40-70 years after Christ's death) Mark: [^] Late 60's to early 70's (30-40 years after Christ's death). Luke: [^] 50-100 (20-70 years after Christ's death) John[^]: 90-100 (60-70 years after Christ's death). All of these dates fall within the realistic lifetimes of their authors. Keep in mind also that the entire purpose of the First Council of Nicaea was to establish official documents, since numerous later documents were being recognized as first-hand gospel (like the Gospel of Judas).
Why were Thomas' and Phillip's books left out? The mere fact that the Council of Nicaea chose which APOSTLES' books to include leaves me suspect. To get a clear message from Jesus you'd need the interpretation of all the apostles. Thank goodness that some of them survived their purge of conflicting sects. Too bad that they had to KILL everyone who didn't share their view of the canon. The new testament is covered in blood.
This statement was never false.
