Evolution and Humans
- Thread starter stockrex
- Start date
- Status
There was a time when humans who were mentally or physically unable to survive to adulthood were allowed to die. Those days are long gone. Now, we save every child, no matter the cost, add to that, the successful people tend to have less offspring while the poor, the weak, the less successful have more offspring. The population as a whole is drifting toward the less successful.
Originally Posted By: hattaresguy
Things are to safe now, idiots are not killing themselves at the needed rate.
A couple thousand years ago if you poked the sleeping lion with a stick you were being dumb and the lion would kill you for it.
Now if your texting and speeding and crash into a pole chances are you will be OK, and can still reproduce.
lol, actually texting and speeding leads to the death of an innocent bystander (jenner car crash) and the jello brain walk away without a scratch.
Things are to safe now, idiots are not killing themselves at the needed rate.
A couple thousand years ago if you poked the sleeping lion with a stick you were being dumb and the lion would kill you for it.
Now if your texting and speeding and crash into a pole chances are you will be OK, and can still reproduce.
lol, actually texting and speeding leads to the death of an innocent bystander (jenner car crash) and the jello brain walk away without a scratch.
Originally Posted By: Oldmoparguy1
There was a time when humans who were mentally or physically unable to survive to adulthood were allowed to die. Those days are long gone. Now, we save every child, no matter the cost, add to that, the successful people tend to have less offspring while the poor, the weak, the less successful have more offspring. The population as a whole is drifting toward the less successful.
Idiocracy realized.
There was a time when humans who were mentally or physically unable to survive to adulthood were allowed to die. Those days are long gone. Now, we save every child, no matter the cost, add to that, the successful people tend to have less offspring while the poor, the weak, the less successful have more offspring. The population as a whole is drifting toward the less successful.
Idiocracy realized.
Originally Posted By: OneEyeJack
Today there are pills for just about everything except stupid.
If only the pharmaceutical industry could develop an anti-stupid pill for criminals and politicians life would certainly be better.
I don't want the low life getting any smarter at their occupation.
Today there are pills for just about everything except stupid.
If only the pharmaceutical industry could develop an anti-stupid pill for criminals and politicians life would certainly be better.
I don't want the low life getting any smarter at their occupation.
Originally Posted By: Brad_C
I've not seen any evidence at all that as a race we are getting more intelligent. Unfortunately I see the tide of dumb rising.
Now, that's not a bad thing because it makes me look better, but on the whole it's just sad.
I agree that 'dumbing down' is taking place and I think it's by (human) design.
Think of who benefits most from stupidity...I'll give you a hint....Washington DC....
I've not seen any evidence at all that as a race we are getting more intelligent. Unfortunately I see the tide of dumb rising.
Now, that's not a bad thing because it makes me look better, but on the whole it's just sad.
I agree that 'dumbing down' is taking place and I think it's by (human) design.
Think of who benefits most from stupidity...I'll give you a hint....Washington DC....
All of this has been discussed before by social darwinists for a couple hundred years, who used concepts of evolution and "survival of the fittest" as justification for their policies you'd consider morally abhorrent, but sounds good if you get caught up in speeches and rhertoric.
Tread lightly.
Tread lightly.
MolaKule
Staff member
Originally Posted By: javacontour
Yes, largely by those inside the system.
Trigger zones, microaggressions and all sorts of nonsense that stifles, critical debate.
It used to be, you were exposed to all sorts of ideas in college and learned to sift through the good and the bad.
Today, if it's not pre-approved by the PC police, it's not in the classroom.
People think they are so enlightened. Some day, they'll wake up (I hope) and realize they've been brainwashed and ripped off.
Originally Posted By: Alfred_B
You need people with bellies full and heads empty.
To counter the availability of knowledge, we see the dismantling of the education system to keep the heads empty.
For sure.
Propaganda is prevalent in the school systems and especially in higher education.
I am on the inside of the University system and see first hand how the 60's and 70's leftist hippys in the liberal arts departments, and some of the sciences, really mess up students' heads.
There are some real winner profs in the Biology, Ecology, Social Sciences, Legal/Justice, and Journalism.
WRT to Journalism, Journalism is supposed to be:
Quote:
The gathering, processing, and dissemination of news, and information related to news, to an audience. The word applies to the method of inquiring for news, the literary style which is used to disseminate it, and the activity (professional or not) of journalism.
"Just the facts mam," and let me form my own opinion through critical thinking (another topic).
However, Advocacy Journalism – writing to advocate particular viewpoints or influence the opinions of the audience, seems to be tbe main thrust of journalism education these days.
And in my view, science has been politicized and corrupted by agendas.
I was taught that hypotheses only become scientific laws through repeatable and observable experimentation, and I still believe that to be true. Results of computer modeling is now being touted as scientific reality, which it is not.
So, it is any wonder students are coming out of the colleges and universities have such a warped sense of reality?
Yes, largely by those inside the system.
Trigger zones, microaggressions and all sorts of nonsense that stifles, critical debate.
It used to be, you were exposed to all sorts of ideas in college and learned to sift through the good and the bad.
Today, if it's not pre-approved by the PC police, it's not in the classroom.
People think they are so enlightened. Some day, they'll wake up (I hope) and realize they've been brainwashed and ripped off.
Originally Posted By: Alfred_B
You need people with bellies full and heads empty.
To counter the availability of knowledge, we see the dismantling of the education system to keep the heads empty.
For sure.
Propaganda is prevalent in the school systems and especially in higher education.
I am on the inside of the University system and see first hand how the 60's and 70's leftist hippys in the liberal arts departments, and some of the sciences, really mess up students' heads.
There are some real winner profs in the Biology, Ecology, Social Sciences, Legal/Justice, and Journalism.
WRT to Journalism, Journalism is supposed to be:
Quote:
The gathering, processing, and dissemination of news, and information related to news, to an audience. The word applies to the method of inquiring for news, the literary style which is used to disseminate it, and the activity (professional or not) of journalism.
"Just the facts mam," and let me form my own opinion through critical thinking (another topic).
However, Advocacy Journalism – writing to advocate particular viewpoints or influence the opinions of the audience, seems to be tbe main thrust of journalism education these days.
And in my view, science has been politicized and corrupted by agendas.
I was taught that hypotheses only become scientific laws through repeatable and observable experimentation, and I still believe that to be true. Results of computer modeling is now being touted as scientific reality, which it is not.
So, it is any wonder students are coming out of the colleges and universities have such a warped sense of reality?
Last edited:
MolaKule
Staff member
In biological education, no one seems to want to discuss the issue or ask the question regarding the fact that biological evolution is really a series of improbable "singularities," or improbable events.
A singularity is a unique event that can happen only once. Things that have common causes produce common events; they do not produce singularities.
deDuve further used the word singularity to describe the many barriers in the development of life for which there are currently no known naturalistic causes.
Improbable events are divorced from physical reality. Probability is only a mathematical tool, a construct, and has no driving force to make or create anything.
A singularity is a unique event that can happen only once. Things that have common causes produce common events; they do not produce singularities.
deDuve further used the word singularity to describe the many barriers in the development of life for which there are currently no known naturalistic causes.
Improbable events are divorced from physical reality. Probability is only a mathematical tool, a construct, and has no driving force to make or create anything.
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: MolaKule
In biological education, no one seems to want to discuss the issue or ask the question regarding the fact that biological evolution is really a series of improbable "singularities," or improbable events.
A singularity is a unique event that can happen only once. Things that have common causes produce common events; they do not produce singularities.
deDuve further used the word singularity to describe the many barriers in the development of life for which there are currently no known naturalistic causes.
Improbable events are divorced from physical reality. Probability is only a mathematical tool, a construct, and has no driving force to make or create anything.
Got to say, you're living in the dark ages. People have discussed events causing evolution time and time again. One example is: http://www.technologyreview.com/view/528781/cosmic-rays-neutrons-and-the-mutation-rate-in-evolution/
And, "no naturalistic causes" is a bit naive, don't you think? Just because we can't see or know the underlying mechanisms, doesn't mean they aren't real or natural.
In biological education, no one seems to want to discuss the issue or ask the question regarding the fact that biological evolution is really a series of improbable "singularities," or improbable events.
A singularity is a unique event that can happen only once. Things that have common causes produce common events; they do not produce singularities.
deDuve further used the word singularity to describe the many barriers in the development of life for which there are currently no known naturalistic causes.
Improbable events are divorced from physical reality. Probability is only a mathematical tool, a construct, and has no driving force to make or create anything.
Got to say, you're living in the dark ages. People have discussed events causing evolution time and time again. One example is: http://www.technologyreview.com/view/528781/cosmic-rays-neutrons-and-the-mutation-rate-in-evolution/
And, "no naturalistic causes" is a bit naive, don't you think? Just because we can't see or know the underlying mechanisms, doesn't mean they aren't real or natural.
Last edited:
I don't think people are naturally born increasingly dumber. I think we humans have increasingly been replacing the need for having multifaceted skills and varied common knowledge, traditionally serving our survival as an individual and as a species, with available technology and with becoming blinkered one-track specialists. Many who find themselves in such a convenient rut lack the drive or interest to be more receptive to doing and learning things other than the ones with which they earn their bread. Our world has gotten much smaller with instant access to anything we need or where we want to go, but our horizons have also gotten smaller.
MolaKule
Staff member
Originally Posted By: ExMachina
Got to say, you're living in the dark ages. People have discussed events causing evolution time and time again. One example is: http://www.technologyreview.com/view/528781/cosmic-rays-neutrons-and-the-mutation-rate-in-evolution/
And, "no naturalistic causes" is a bit naive, don't you think? Just because we can't see or know the underlying mechanisms, doesn't mean they aren't real or natural.
And I think this proves my point about accepting theories naivetively without critical analysis and proof. And of course, "time" will prove their point as always.
We have known for quite some time that highly energetic radioactive particles influence DNA structure(s) and can cause muitations, so this is not new either.
Quote:
Another implication from this work is that background neutron radiation could be an important trigger for cancer in higher animals, such as humans. That makes sense but will need some looking into since there are other sources of spontaneous mutations that could also be responsible, such as the inhalation of radioactive elements like radon and who-knows-what other chemical processes that can disrupt DNA and its repair mechanisms.
Interesting work and another small step on the path to better understanding the origin of mutations in evolution...
Mutations are not in question. What is in question is the improbabilities of singularities, on which Evolution is based.
And BTW, this is noting new,
Quote:
...Indeed, back in 2004, a group of researchers from IBM measured the flux of neutrons from cosmic ray collisions and used their results to predict the error rate in computer memories another electronic logic devices. Their predictions closely matched the observed rate of error, suggesting that neutrons are indeed an important source of problems in computing...
I was working on Neutron Induced computing errors in Silicon on Sapphire Insulated (SOS, SOI) CMOS semiconductors back in 1981 for the Military.
Got to say, you're living in the dark ages. People have discussed events causing evolution time and time again. One example is: http://www.technologyreview.com/view/528781/cosmic-rays-neutrons-and-the-mutation-rate-in-evolution/
And, "no naturalistic causes" is a bit naive, don't you think? Just because we can't see or know the underlying mechanisms, doesn't mean they aren't real or natural.
And I think this proves my point about accepting theories naivetively without critical analysis and proof. And of course, "time" will prove their point as always.
We have known for quite some time that highly energetic radioactive particles influence DNA structure(s) and can cause muitations, so this is not new either.
Quote:
Another implication from this work is that background neutron radiation could be an important trigger for cancer in higher animals, such as humans. That makes sense but will need some looking into since there are other sources of spontaneous mutations that could also be responsible, such as the inhalation of radioactive elements like radon and who-knows-what other chemical processes that can disrupt DNA and its repair mechanisms.
Interesting work and another small step on the path to better understanding the origin of mutations in evolution...
Mutations are not in question. What is in question is the improbabilities of singularities, on which Evolution is based.
And BTW, this is noting new,
Quote:
...Indeed, back in 2004, a group of researchers from IBM measured the flux of neutrons from cosmic ray collisions and used their results to predict the error rate in computer memories another electronic logic devices. Their predictions closely matched the observed rate of error, suggesting that neutrons are indeed an important source of problems in computing...
I was working on Neutron Induced computing errors in Silicon on Sapphire Insulated (SOS, SOI) CMOS semiconductors back in 1981 for the Military.
Last edited:
All these problems appear to start from the beginning of life. The two parent family, mother and father with kids is a well proven system. The society our government and the media is promoting is in many ways the exact opposite. Where local control works best our government wants and takes federal control. The government performance as a parent, a guardian, a caretaker is a complete flop. There answer, instead of commonsense is more money. Their competence in such matters amounts to deliberate and willful sabotage.
Originally Posted By: Brad_C
I've not seen any evidence at all that as a race we are getting more intelligent. Unfortunately I see the tide of dumb rising.
You must not be looking very hard. Because only 208 (25 year) generations ago, mankind learned to communicate via writing (not just pictures) . Only 84 generations ago, mankind discovered the engineering "arch" and put it to good use building bridges, structures, and more. Only 5 generations ago, mankind mastered powered flight.
To claim that mankind is not evolving, or getting smarter, is patently absurd.
Yes, we have a nation of idiots too. And, yes, they are reproducing at an absurd rate. Even so, each generation is more capable than the last.
I've not seen any evidence at all that as a race we are getting more intelligent. Unfortunately I see the tide of dumb rising.
You must not be looking very hard. Because only 208 (25 year) generations ago, mankind learned to communicate via writing (not just pictures) . Only 84 generations ago, mankind discovered the engineering "arch" and put it to good use building bridges, structures, and more. Only 5 generations ago, mankind mastered powered flight.
To claim that mankind is not evolving, or getting smarter, is patently absurd.
Yes, we have a nation of idiots too. And, yes, they are reproducing at an absurd rate. Even so, each generation is more capable than the last.
MolaKule
Staff member
It is obvious that as the population of the world increases, the percentage of ignorant and non-sensical people necessarily increases as well.
I think we advance technologically because we build upon the knowledge and curiosity of previous generations.
I think what is happening today is an "only me is important" attitude and what we lack today is patience and empathy.
I think we advance technologically because we build upon the knowledge and curiosity of previous generations.
I think what is happening today is an "only me is important" attitude and what we lack today is patience and empathy.
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: raytseng
All of this has been discussed before by social darwinists for a couple hundred years, who used concepts of evolution and "survival of the fittest" as justification for their policies you'd consider morally abhorrent, but sounds good if you get caught up in speeches and rhertoric.
Tread lightly.
Happens a lot on this forum.
All of this has been discussed before by social darwinists for a couple hundred years, who used concepts of evolution and "survival of the fittest" as justification for their policies you'd consider morally abhorrent, but sounds good if you get caught up in speeches and rhertoric.
Tread lightly.
Happens a lot on this forum.
Originally Posted By: Cujet
Originally Posted By: Brad_C
I've not seen any evidence at all that as a race we are getting more intelligent. Unfortunately I see the tide of dumb rising.
You must not be looking very hard. Because only 208 (25 year) generations ago, mankind learned to communicate via writing (not just pictures) . Only 84 generations ago, mankind discovered the engineering "arch" and put it to good use building bridges, structures, and more. Only 5 generations ago, mankind mastered powered flight.
To claim that mankind is not evolving, or getting smarter, is patently absurd.
Yes, we have a nation of idiots too. And, yes, they are reproducing at an absurd rate. Even so, each generation is more capable than the last.
Are you saying that people today have more brain power than people 100 or 1000 years ago? You're confusing ignorance with intelligence. Never mind that the ancient civilizations did some amazing things with very crude tech. Modern humans have all those generations to build on. There's nothing special about modern folks other than they live now.
Originally Posted By: Brad_C
I've not seen any evidence at all that as a race we are getting more intelligent. Unfortunately I see the tide of dumb rising.
You must not be looking very hard. Because only 208 (25 year) generations ago, mankind learned to communicate via writing (not just pictures) . Only 84 generations ago, mankind discovered the engineering "arch" and put it to good use building bridges, structures, and more. Only 5 generations ago, mankind mastered powered flight.
To claim that mankind is not evolving, or getting smarter, is patently absurd.
Yes, we have a nation of idiots too. And, yes, they are reproducing at an absurd rate. Even so, each generation is more capable than the last.
Are you saying that people today have more brain power than people 100 or 1000 years ago? You're confusing ignorance with intelligence. Never mind that the ancient civilizations did some amazing things with very crude tech. Modern humans have all those generations to build on. There's nothing special about modern folks other than they live now.
It's just dumb people are more likely to make the news and or have their own TV show.
Originally Posted By: Cujet
Originally Posted By: Brad_C
I've not seen any evidence at all that as a race we are getting more intelligent. Unfortunately I see the tide of dumb rising.
You must not be looking very hard. Because only 208 (25 year) generations ago, mankind learned to communicate via writing (not just pictures) . Only 84 generations ago, mankind discovered the engineering "arch" and put it to good use building bridges, structures, and more. Only 5 generations ago, mankind mastered powered flight.
To claim that mankind is not evolving, or getting smarter, is patently absurd.
Yes, we have a nation of idiots too. And, yes, they are reproducing at an absurd rate. Even so, each generation is more capable than the last.
Absurd you say.
So you're essentially saying that the person that first put meat on fire is less intelligent than today's chef using the oven.
The people that first domesticated animals are dumber than today's farmers.
People that built the pyramids were less intelligent than people that built the Empire State building.
They guy that invented the vacuum tube was dumber that the guy that invented the transistor.
Is that the gist of your reasoning?
Originally Posted By: Brad_C
I've not seen any evidence at all that as a race we are getting more intelligent. Unfortunately I see the tide of dumb rising.
You must not be looking very hard. Because only 208 (25 year) generations ago, mankind learned to communicate via writing (not just pictures) . Only 84 generations ago, mankind discovered the engineering "arch" and put it to good use building bridges, structures, and more. Only 5 generations ago, mankind mastered powered flight.
To claim that mankind is not evolving, or getting smarter, is patently absurd.
Yes, we have a nation of idiots too. And, yes, they are reproducing at an absurd rate. Even so, each generation is more capable than the last.
Absurd you say.
So you're essentially saying that the person that first put meat on fire is less intelligent than today's chef using the oven.
The people that first domesticated animals are dumber than today's farmers.
People that built the pyramids were less intelligent than people that built the Empire State building.
They guy that invented the vacuum tube was dumber that the guy that invented the transistor.
Is that the gist of your reasoning?
Last edited:
- Status
Similar threads
