 |
|
|
Scifi and Fantasy Forum: Speculation: Can science hurt more than help?
Can science hurt more than help?
We have moved to new forum software and posting here is closed!
PLEASE BOOKMARK THE NEW FORUMS
or i just wanted to add my theory; we do not evolve however we adapt to our surroundings. quite a difference.
Posted By:  fiftytwo Jul 04, 2003 - 02:10 am |       | jcbn: You don't appear to know anything about your subject. I mean that in a constructive sense. Stephen Jay Gould might be a good starting point.
The roman alphabet goes from A to Z... We've got Z's now, why are the A's still there?!
The arabic numeral digits go from 0 to 9. Now that we've got 9's...why are the 0's still there?!
Deep philosophical questions.
;;sighs and shakes head;; 'cause alphabet is not a biological thing. but it's stupid to believe we evolved from monkeys when they monkeys are still there. i mean, what the hell? how? how the hell are they still there if we were them and then got a whole hella lot better. answer me that and maybe i'll believe in evolution.
but darwin showed to us his 'proof' as a crap load of bugs with different traits all coming from the same insect. well because they adapted to their situations.
| Posted By: Bmat Jul 04, 2003 - 02:07 pm | | I understand that it isn't that we evolved from monkeys but that monkeys and humans had a common ancestor.
Yes that's what they say Bmat, but most creationists (bible believing sciencists), say there is no prove what so ever of a common ancestor....
(And no I'm not going to get into a big discussion)
is there proof though? just tell me where i can find it.
| Posted By: fiftytwo Jul 04, 2003 - 11:47 pm | | jcbn: Learn your subject, first.
jcbn -- One evolutionary theory is that all current lifeforms evolved from the same common ancestral species...the first single-celled organisms.
You believe that humanity is the supreme life-form, 'a whole hella lot better', and that since we exist, all lesser life forms should be extinct by now.
But if there were no plants and animals, we would have no food (nor any symbiotic bacteria in our intestines to help us digest it), therefore we would be extinct.
We're not extinct. We're here. So are the other life forms. Therefore, the earth must be capable of supporting more than one life form at a time. In fact, they frequently evolve to take advantage of, and depend on each other.
Parasites and symbiotes are excellent examples. If their partners died off just because they were 'better' than their partners, then they would die off too, and therefore wouldn't be any better off.
As a side note, some recent scientists believe that parsites, symbiotes, and similar relationships may have a greater effect on evolution than either genetic crossover or random mutation. Multiple species interacting to help or challenge each other to get better.
To drag myself back on topic, what harm can the theory of evolution do? Other than to the political power of the church? It can certainly help us, the evolutionary design model is a great way to create better things and understand natural changes.
Could the seemingly good scientific progress of eliminating diseases and parasites come back to haunt us in the future? Already the use of antibiotics has resulted in 'superbugs' which have evolved immunities to the antibiotics. But is that really a worse situation than not having used the antibiotics on the diseases that they could kill? If we avoided the use of antibiotics to avoid creating these things, we'd still be beset by a host of diseases that are routinely cured now.
I think we're reaching a point where our own evolution is slowing to a stop. We're using technology and society to make the world safe and prevent or minimize all the natural pressures that cause evolution. But within the next few centuries, I think we'll have control of our own destiny, and be able to choose our evolutionary path(s). Will that be good or bad? I'm optimistic.
| Posted By: Hyperion Jul 05, 2003 - 05:09 am | | jcbnfulks:
Man relax first 
The fact that we evolved from monkeys/apes is not disputed by any scientific agency or group other than the various religious scientists, which are not objective scientists at all because their views are already biased right from the get-go, their very belief systems and way of thought makes them biased and not true objective scientists.
You asked why the monkeys are still there if we evolved from them, well you have to really read about the evolutionary process, and then you would come to understand that when something alive evolves to another level of complexity, the original species does not just disappear, what happens is the original species carries on within it's preferred habitat doing what it's always done, and the evolving species, which is [and this is the important bit so take it in] 'A SUB SPECIES' -GET THAT- 'SUB SPECIES' breaks away from the original and begins to live a separate life from the original, mastering the conditions, or whatever made it break away from the original species and evolve.
What happens in evolution is a SUB SPECIES breaks away from the core species, and the break away is down to whatever biological or physical factor started the trigger for another round of evolution.
Usually something either makes it harder or less desirable to do something the way its always been done and genes begin to mutate over time maybe in jumps of 1 or 3 generation gaps, creating a SUB SPECIES that has been dealt a better hand from nature to deal with what ever situation was threatening or vexing the original.
It doesn't automatically mean that the original species dies out as a species, it just means a breakaway sub species has been created by Mother Nature to deal with whatever kneaded dealing with.
And that break-away evolutionary process is not always successful, and more often than not the break away sub species is the one that dies a death and mother nature tries again with a different go at the new sub species via mutating from the original stock all over again.
Evolution is just fact, it's as simple as that.
Hyperion out
| Posted By: RongFo Jul 05, 2003 - 11:27 am | | Humans are (partially) domesticated primates. Whether we share a common ancestor with monkeys or not, we do share a lot of genetic traits. Technically, human male and female DNA are almost as different as human and chimpanzee DNA (less than three percent different). Whether or not we like to admit it, we are more similar to chimpanzees than chimpanzees are to (say) gorillas. However you think this happened and however it affects your beliefs, the above can't really be denied. For much interesting exploration of this and other subjects, see The Naked Ape and The Human Zoo by Desmond Morris. Fascinating stuff.
You believe that humanity is the supreme life-form, 'a whole hella lot better', and that since we exist, all lesser life forms should be extinct by now.
now wait a minute he never said that! he just said MONKEYS
Actual superbugs de-evolved, it has been shown that, where the antibiotics lock on has changed, there is nothing new there, but something missing....
Religious scientists from the get go point out there bias.....
But other scientists are bias too, they try to fit there data to the evolution model....say something is a different SPECIES or sub-species, when it could be the same species, just a bit different.....
You say SUB SPECIES, so everything is a SUB SPECIES of a single cell life form?????......of course you would point out that eventually a SUB SPECIES would evolue into a SPECIES right?
Acutally RongFo what you say can be denied, the study of DNA is still in it's infancy, and the percentages depend on which genes you compare. Now I'm not say that we don't have some of the same genes, of course we do, but we also have genes that bananas have, now I'm not a banana.....(which has been put at 50%)
New reports come out and the percentages change, depending on which genes they compare....
The fact that can't be denied is that the human genome has at least 30,000 genes, and in a recent study they compare about 0.3% of the total, to come up with there concluisons...which where 99.4%, but a 2002 study put it at 95% Chimp/human DNA similarity....
Now I'm not saying anything about the book you mention, I don't know anything about it......
| Posted By: Hyperion Jul 06, 2003 - 11:21 am | | It's all down to which scientific data you respect the most, and that fits in with your own beliefs or belief system.
Dark Knight - Your corect -I do believe that every SUB SPECIES eventually over time and many many mutations and evolutionary jumps, gets so far passed its original species as to become a species in it's own right; just as single cell life forms created complex multy cell life forms through the evolutionary process, as those single cell life forms found it more complex to live in various situations, and had to rely on evolution to build them the tools to deal with the complexities of life.
Evolution never stops and it can take millions of years to creat the perfect SPECIES out of SUB SPECIES stock from the Original Species.
But as you say, even evolutionary scientists can be biased if thats all they are willing to base their data results on, and if evolution is what they have their mind set on, then more often than not thats what they will find.
BUT for me personaly, Evolution just makes the most sense - I guess thats the best way I can put it into words, it just makes the most sense to me.
Hyperion out
You sum it up nicely Hyperion, I agree it is down to what you belief, and which scientific data you respect the most....
So my next post should try to get back on topic....
Superbugs: It is not the problem of antibiotics that caused Superbugs, they say it is the mis-use/over use of antibiotics, that cause the superbugs.......
So a lot of problems come from miss-use...
| Posted By: Alex_S Jul 18, 2003 - 02:39 am | | Hyperion is right.
Imagine a large forest containing a species of monkey. Then it gets split in two (perhaps by the creation of a mountain range or wide river). One side remains forest, the other side becomes a prairie. The monkeys in the forest are already well-adapted to their environment but the others have a strong pressure to change their bodies, behaviours and eating habits. There is more walking on the ground and less trees to climb. Also, new predators and new problems to solve so intelligence needs to increase. Now you can see why humans are here and so are monkeys. It is just that WE evolved more quickly due to more evolutionary pressure.
Hope it makes it slightly clearer. It always annoys me when people who do not understand a subject at all try to argue to the death. Just to be pretentious about it, I AM a scientist and evolution is my thing... ;-)
| Posted By: Adam Jan 06, 2004 - 11:10 pm | | Science can not hurt. People using science can hurt.
Overuse of antibiotics speeds up the process, but the end result of "superbugs" would have been the same.
As with anything (if you accept the theory of evolution), bacteria will have individuals with mutations among their population. In some cases, the individual has a specific mutation that allows it to resist the antibiotic - i'll call it mutant x heheheh - so it survives and passes the mutation to its offspring, which is the only offspring since the rest have died off. Thus creating a whole new antibiotic-resistant strain of bacteria. That's part of why the doctor gives you a newer antibiotic when an older one doesn't work.
However, if you don't beleive in the evolutionary theory or mutations, then its all the scientists' faults.
By the way, Alex, when you say that evolution is your "thing" - is that the official scientific term? I only ask because if it is, I'll use it to impress all my sciencey-type friends 
| Posted By: Magus Nov 20, 2004 - 07:43 am | | I actually saw an episode of The Outer Limits concerning technology and being worth the risk. It was a good episode, two part flash back episode. It revolved around the trial of a woman who came from the past with a time machine. I liked it. It left you with something to think about, like most episodes of the show have a tendency to do.
|
|
|
|
|
Discussion
