• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Death and Evolution

FearGod

Freedom Of Mind
Explain to me how every organism ever created could fit onto a finite earth.

Which means that death was planned from the beginning?
I'm not speaking about God or religion but my point that the
scene says that someone is behind it.
 

SomeRandom

Still learning to be wise
Staff member
Premium Member
We're better in many ways and the bad deeds is our fault.
No we're not. We cannot see as well as a chameleon, cannot fly as well as a bird, cannot run as fast as a cheetah, cannot see in the dark as well as a lion, cannot swim as well as a seal, cannot climb as well as a mountain goat or chimpanzee. We're hairless apes with hubris.

But if you can choose, will you prefer being other animal than human?
Well some days I wouldn't mind being a non human animal. A domesticated one. All you have to do is eat and lie around. Sounds better than working, honestly.

Don't you think we look like an invention, the way our hearts work, our lungs,
our brains ....etc, or it just happened that we look like an invention.
LOL god no! We all have a blind spot, each of us have our own inherent biological flaws. I mean whoever invented us did a such a shoddy job, they should refund the poor sod who ordered it. Like jeez.
 

FearGod

Freedom Of Mind
No we're not. We cannot see as well as a chameleon, cannot fly as well as a bird, cannot run as fast as a cheetah, cannot see in the dark as well as a lion, cannot swim as well as a seal, cannot climb as well as a mountain goat or chimpanzee. We're hairless apes with hubris.

We can do better with our minds, we fly and we run faster than any animal on earth.

Well some days I wouldn't mind being a non human animal. A domesticated one. All you have to do is eat and lie around. Sounds better than working, honestly.

Domesticated, so still you love humans to care about you.

LOL god no! We all have a blind spot, each of us have our own inherent biological flaws. I mean whoever invented us did a such a shoddy job, they should refund the poor sod who ordered it. Like jeez.

Do you think we can do better than the brains we got? do you think we can
make a tiny thing that can fly as mosquitoes do?

I think the right thing that you said is "humans are arrogant animals"
 

SomeRandom

Still learning to be wise
Staff member
Premium Member
We can do better with our minds, we fly and we run faster than any animal on earth.
Lol no we can't. We cannot swim in the deepest oceans relying on our bodies, we will drown. We cannot fly, we have no wings. The fastest man in the world cannot run faster than a cheetah, which runs at twice his speed.
Animals can do all that without cheating, relying on only their wits and senses and do so far better than any human with a computer can. Either way you look at it, they can do things far superior than us. Naturally. In order for us to be even half as good, we have to even the playing field by cheating. They don't, so they still win.

Domesticated, so still you love humans to care about you.
LOL clearly you've never met a house cat.

Do you think we can do better than the brains we got? do you think we can make a tiny thing that can fly as mosquitoes do?
Maybe. But in doing so, does that technically make us better than God? I mean making a tinier more efficient mosquito, doesn't that kind of one up God's creation? So does that make us better "designers" than God?
 

FearGod

Freedom Of Mind
Lol no we can't. We cannot swim in the deepest oceans relying on our bodies, we will drown. We cannot fly, we have no wings. The fastest man in the world cannot run faster than a cheetah, which runs at twice his speed.
Animals can do all that without cheating, relying on only their wits and senses and do so far better than any human with a computer can. Either way you look at it, they can do things far superior than us. Naturally. In order for us to be even half as good, we have to even the playing field by cheating. They don't, so they still win.

We can make things that go faster than any animal and fly higher than
any bird by using our brains.

LOL clearly you've never met a house cat.

Why you think so?

Maybe. But in doing so, does that technically make us better than God? I mean making a tinier more efficient mosquito, doesn't that kind of one up God's creation? So does that make us better "designers" than God?

But the fact is, that we can't design a better brain than ours or a tiny thing
that can fly as mosquitoes do.
 

A Vestigial Mote

Well-Known Member
I read a book once that went into theoretical ideas pinpointing life-span as an evolutionary trait. Well, basically that ALL aspects of a creature's life stages were evolutionary in nature. A horse can walk at birth - due to the form of the horse this is basically necessary, a horse can't do like other animals and carry its baby on its back, as an example. Humans have an extremely long period during which we are basically helpless - which may have come about because our intelligence made caring for our young for that long quite possible - we didn't need to be viable right out of the womb, and so this aspect of our being slipped from generation to generation. Rabbits give birth to many young all at once, and have a short gestation period (only 31 days!) - they are a small, mostly defenseless creature, and a lot of them are eaten, they need the numbers and speed in reproduction in order to stay around. And the book posited that even the term of our lives was evolutionary in nature. That an optimal time-period for each creature to live is imparted in our make-up. Or rather, the durability of our bodies, the processes by which our parts regenerate, at what frequency that happens, and down to what details - all of those items are coded in our DNA - to the point that our DNA holds many of the keys to our species' average life-span.
 

SomeRandom

Still learning to be wise
Staff member
Premium Member
We can make things that go faster than any animal and fly higher than
any bird by using our brains.
Yeah, make. As in we can't do these things physically, so we cheat. Animals still can do these things far superior to humans because they do so naturally. Without any help whatsoever. We still loose.

Why you think so?
If you met one, then you would know automatically.

But the fact is, that we can't design a better brain than ours or a tiny thing
that can fly as mosquitoes do.
You just said that it's possible for us to do so, now you're saying we can't.
Make up your mind.
You've been saying that we can design things that can fly higher than birds, and run faster than any animal. So if we can design these things, that does things better than God's creations, does this mean we are better designers than God?
 

FearGod

Freedom Of Mind
Yeah, make. As in we can't do these things physically, so we cheat. Animals still can do these things far superior to humans because they do so naturally. Without any help whatsoever. We still loose.

We win with the power of thinking.

If you met one, then you would know automatically.

I met, but don't get what your point is.

You just said that it's possible for us to do so, now you're saying we can't.
Make up your mind.
You've been saying that we can design things that can fly higher than birds, and run faster than any animal. So if we can design these things, that does things better than God's creations, does this mean we are better designers than God?

Yes computers can do better than us, but that doesn't mean the computers
are better than us because of doing specific jobs designed by us.
 

Ponder This

Well-Known Member
Is becoming old and die was good for the species?

Evolution would not exist without death. It would not be needed if there weren't deaths.

Which means our planet is designed otherwise life will be impossible.

Evolution happens due to mutations and natural selection, eternal living will still bring new kinds

Then you don't understand evolution. Death is the driving process.

So death was made for a purpose.

Explain to me how every organism ever created could fit onto a finite earth.

Which means that death was planned from the beginning?

I read a book once that went into theoretical ideas pinpointing life-span as an evolutionary trait.

the book posited that even the term of our lives was evolutionary in nature. That an optimal time-period for each creature to live is imparted in our make-up

The immortal Jellyfish:


Why cancer cells don't die
More long living organisms that haven't died yet or might not die

Death is an assumption.
Evolution is not driven by death; things die because they evolved that way.
I know it's a subtle difference, but think about it carefully.
There is no reason to assume that we won't attain immortality.
You might say that you can always kill something, but death by "old age" is not guaranteed and that is the essential point here.
Maybe death serves a purpose, maybe not. But to say death is the cause of evolution is strange. It's really the other way around. The fact that many organisms die doesn't mean they need to evolve. They could choose not to evolve and keep the exact same DNA for generations if they wanted. The fact that they don't isn't death's fault... it's evolution's fault, or rather it's the fault of whatever causes our DNA to mutate. Death doesn't in any way cause mutations to occur, so it can't be the driving force of evolution.
And since some organisms appear to have evolved to be immortal (or essentially immortal from our perspective), it doesn't appear that death is a necessary outcome of evolution. It just happens to be how things have turned out for us so far. I guess we can chalk it up as another one of those great design flaws that purport to prove God is evil: it's wrong to kill yourself, but you are going to die anyways and since God designed you, it means he decided when you would die, which means He's already decided to kill you. So now He's the world most notorious serial killer. "Logic"
 

LuisDantas

Aura of atheification
Premium Member
Which means that death was planned from the beginning?

No. More like it can't be avoided.

It seems to me that you are much too attached to a presupposition of intent.

Do you see intent on the existence of gravity? Of magnetism?
 

Guy Threepwood

Mighty Pirate
Is becoming old and die was good for the species?
Death is good for earth and for more species to come which is a sign that someone
has planned for it, living for some years and giving birth for new comers.

What do you think? was it just a coincidence or a programmed death mechanism?

It's a good point, according to ToE, a fully functional eye can spontaneously materialize by pure chance

But the vast advantage a species could gain by merely shutting off that pre-programmed life span limit... somehow remains off limits to this same 'unguided' process.


As with many things in evolution, staggering coincidence is not technically impossible, but I think there are far less improbable explanations. Because life on Earth is designed for so much more than mere survival
 

LuisDantas

Aura of atheification
Premium Member
It's a good point, according to ToE, a fully functional eye can spontaneously materialize by pure chance

Wrong. "Pure chance" is not involved. Selective pressure is.

There are good texts on the evolution of the eye out there, for those willing to learn.

But the vast advantage a species could gain by merely shutting off that pre-programmed life span limit... somehow remains off limits to this same 'unguided' process.
Uh... that is utter fantasy with no connection to reality. It is also completely oblivious to the basics of ecology biology, let alone of evolution.

There is no "pre-programmed life span limit", let alone a way of "shutting it off".
 

Guy Threepwood

Mighty Pirate
Wrong. "Pure chance" is not involved. Selective pressure is.

There are good texts on the evolution of the eye out there, for those willing to learn.

'random mutation' if you prefer

Irreducible complexity; a fully functional eye is too great a leap by random error, and half an eye offers nothing to selective pressure.

It's an old problem yes, but one that has never been solved

Uh... that is utter fantasy with no connection to reality. It is also completely oblivious to the basics of ecology biology, let alone of evolution.

There is no "pre-programmed life span limit", let alone a way of "shutting it off".

You'd have to debate that claim with many biologists, our maximum life span depends on the mutation/decay rates of DNA, and varies considerably between organisms.

biological immortality is not only theoretically possible, but already exists in some animals, it's just very rare and only exists where other forms of death prevent domination of the species.


From the larger perspective, the point is that creating a rich diversity and balance of life requires, like everything else we know about the universe, very finely tuned engineering- without which you get a fairly dull homogeneous blob- in physics or life
 

Akivah

Well-Known Member
How we aren't better? [sic: than monkeys]

Just watch any survival-type of show (e.g. naked and afraid) that has humans trying to survive in a jungle. The humans are on the edge of starvation while the monkeys in the trees are thriving.
 

A Vestigial Mote

Well-Known Member
The immortal Jellyfish:

Death is an assumption.
Evolution is not driven by death; things die because they evolved that way.
Even the "immortal jelly fish" came to its current, stable configuration (the configuration by which these animals now live potentially indefinitely) by a series of generations that evolved to that state. Death is both an evolved attribute, and what allows gene "selection" to be directed by a "survival of the fittest" process. "Unqualified"/non-fittest members dying off is paramount to a true "evolutionary" process (without it you could only observe "mutation" alone) - which is an excellent segue into my next point...

There is no reason to assume that we won't attain immortality.
There is a very simple reason to believe we humans will not only never achieve immortality, but that we likely will never again see any significant, advantageous changes to our species. Put simply: everyone lives. Not literally everyone, obviously - but people with previously deadly defects to their person are now able to survive (and pass on those sullied genetic traits) due to modern medicines and procedures. So, people with bad vision survive easily, and pass bad vision on to their progeny. People predisposed to diseases like heart problems, diabetes, cancer - people with bone density issues, cerebral anomalies, etc. etc. etc. - people with all of these afflictions survive and get a chance to procreate under our modern condition. It is no longer "survival of the fittest" at all with humanity. The best we're going to see are individual mutations, a sort of diffusion of bad genes throughout humanity, and the eventual advent of a singular skin color.

Maybe death serves a purpose, maybe not. But to say death is the cause of evolution is strange. It's really the other way around. The fact that many organisms die doesn't mean they need to evolve. They could choose not to evolve and keep the exact same DNA for generations if they wanted. The fact that they don't isn't death's fault... it's evolution's fault, or rather it's the fault of whatever causes our DNA to mutate. Death doesn't in any way cause mutations to occur, so it can't be the driving force of evolution.
I'm sensing a bit of misunderstanding in the role people are saying death plays in evolution. Death certainly does not drive evolution. Death, in evolutionary terms, is the mechanism by which unstable or outmoded versions of an organism are not able to live long enough to procreate, and therefore, the genes that cause them to be unstable or outmoded no longer proliferate into new organisms. An organism dying because it isn't fit is all it takes to break off the potential lineage of that organism, and stops its DNA from propagating.
 
Last edited:

LuisDantas

Aura of atheification
Premium Member
'random mutation' if you prefer

Selective pressure is not purely random, though. Nor is it "designed".

Irreducible complexity; a fully functional eye is too great a leap by random error, and half an eye offers nothing to selective pressure.

It's an old problem yes, but one that has never been solved

That is entirely wrong, if not an outright lie. Google is your friend.

Evolution of the eye - Wikipedia

You'd have to debate that claim with many biologists, our maximum life span depends on the mutation/decay rates of DNA, and varies considerably between organisms.
I am sure they would not subscribe to your odd wording.
 

A Vestigial Mote

Well-Known Member
Irreducible complexity; a fully functional eye is too great a leap by random error, and half an eye offers nothing to selective pressure.
This is very misguided information you have here. There are organisms with simplistic eyes that do nothing more than sense light. Even this "feedback" mechanism can be extremely helpful. Think of heliotropism in many plants. Sunflowers, for instance - they turn their "face" to the sun and track it as it moves across the sky. "Half and eye" is a misnomer. But an eye of very little complexity can give its owner a whole host of new abilities.

Take a look at this single-celled creature upon which they have found an "eye" as one of its internals:

single-celled bug has the world’s most extraordinary eye

The eye does nothing but detect polarized light, and it uses this detection to go after prey that is otherwise nearly invisible. The creature, being a single cell, obviously has no nerves, nor brain, and yet its eye - arguably far less than "half" of one of our eyes - offers it tremendous advantage.
 

Guy Threepwood

Mighty Pirate
Selective pressure is not purely random, though. Nor is it "designed".

Of course not, but you do have to have a design worth selecting first- where does that come from? random mutation according to the ToE

again, randomly mutating a fully functional eye is mathematically problematic.


That is entirely wrong, if not an outright lie. Google is your friend.

Evolution of the eye - Wikipedia

I don't think you are a liar, you sound very sincere and passionate about your beliefs, as was I when I shared them.
Sorry if you were looking for a more heated discourse, but having been on both sides- makes one a little more dispassionate!

Google appears to be my friend and ally from your link

"Complex eyes appear to have first evolved within a few million years, in the rapid burst of evolution known as the Cambrian explosion. No evidence of eyes before the Cambrian has survived....It is difficult to estimate the rate of eye evolution because the fossil record, particularly of the Early Cambrian, is poor."

So they appeared suddenly in the record as fully functional eyes... we can speculate about how they might have gradually formed through random mutation and natural selection-

But I'm a bit of a stickler for direct observation, measurement. repeatable experiment, quaint old fashioned scientific principles like that, before I declare something proven!


I am sure they would not subscribe to your odd wording.

in other words you do acknowledge the substance of what I said :D
 
Last edited:

Guy Threepwood

Mighty Pirate
This is very misguided information you have here. There are organisms with simplistic eyes that do nothing more than sense light. Even this "feedback" mechanism can be extremely helpful. Think of heliotropism in many plants. Sunflowers, for instance - they turn their "face" to the sun and track it as it moves across the sky. "Half and eye" is a misnomer. But an eye of very little complexity can give its owner a whole host of new abilities.

Take a look at this single-celled creature upon which they have found an "eye" as one of its internals:

single-celled bug has the world’s most extraordinary eye

The eye does nothing but detect polarized light, and it uses this detection to go after prey that is otherwise nearly invisible. The creature, being a single cell, obviously has no nerves, nor brain, and yet its eye - arguably far less than "half" of one of our eyes - offers it tremendous advantage.

eyes that do nothing more than sense light.

For starters, even the article refutes your claim:

"There is no need for such a large, complex structure just to tell if it’s light or dark. What’s more, his videos of Erythropsidinium reveal that it can point its ocelloid in different directions"

"....unique and sophisticated eye, called the ocelloid..."

(from wiki)The ocelloid.... is in fact one of the most complex known subcellular structures

Ocelloids contain subcomponents analogous to eye structures including the lens, cornea, iris, and retina.[2] It can be divided into two substructures, the translucent, roundish hyalosome and the heavily pigmented melanosome, also known as the retinal body or pigment cup.[5] The hyalosome serves as the refractive lens of the ocelloid; it is surrounded by a layer of mitochondria serving as the cornea and has constrictive rings analogous to the iris. The retinal body has internal structure reminiscent of thylakoid membranes in chloroplasts and contains proteins related to bacteriorhodopsin, a light-sensitive protein found in some archaea.[2][5]

Using single-cell genomics and electron microscopy techniques, the ocelloid has been shown to consist of multiple membrane-bound organelles with distinct endosymbiotic origins deriving from multiple lineages of peridinin-containing plastids.[2]

yes, how simple!- and this doesn't even begin to get into how this collected information is connected,sent, processed and utilized to an advantageous physical response- without which it is utterly useless

So again it's a fully functional and highly sophisticated eye, fully integrated into the organism. Even if not as sophisticated as ours. And all the literal digital DNA code required to implement this extremely complex system, all spontaneously blundered into existence by lucky random mistake?, hundreds of millions of years ago. Can we observe, measure, test or reproduce in any way.. ?

Of course not, rather it is concluded that it must have happened, purely because that's what the 19th century theory demands, not the 21st century evidence
 
Last edited:

FearGod

Freedom Of Mind
No. More like it can't be avoided.

It seems to me that you are much too attached to a presupposition of intent.

Do you see intent on the existence of gravity? Of magnetism?

What is the relation between evolution, death and gravity?
 
Top