Do Bad Mutations Kill People?

[james bond]

I was wondering what evolutionary science has to say about the horrendous shooting at Parkland High School in Florida? If we evolved from apes, then is the gunman more an animal than a human being? If he's found guilty, then is it okay based on evolution that he be terminated by lethal injection? If an ape killed humans, even if for food, then it would be shot or euthanized. If Nikolas Cruz is a human being, then what does it say about evolution? For what reason does a mentally disabled man become a crazed killer showing no mercy and killing students at random? This man or animal fooled those closest to him enough for them to think he didn't have guns, but he did. He had numerous run ins with the law. Even if he was mentally ill, shouldn't we think that he was a bad mutation, i.e. more ape than human, and be put in jail like a killer animal to be euthanized if found guilty?

Some may say evolution has nothing to do with this. If evolution has nothing to do with this, then what purpose does it serve if we cannot apply it to today's society? We still have apes. We have humans. Thus, can we have bad mutations?

 

[Buddha Dharma]

Some may say evolution has nothing to do with this. If evolution has nothing to do with this, then what purpose does it serve if we cannot apply it to today's society?

I think this comes close to the same fallacy thinkers like Sam Harris engage in. They think evolution is a standard for ethics or societal rules. Evolution is an observed process by science. Science makes no moral or ethical judgments.

It is arguably unreasonable to demand evolution must be able to be applied in some kind of societal context. What other scientific principles can we call into question if we are unable to do so?

 

[Subduction Zone]

The fact that we are evolved beings has nothing to say on morality. So you start with quite a non sequitur in this thread. Second we are apes. You need to remember that. For some strange reason creationists will not admit this obvious fact. Strangely enough they have no problem that we are mammals. That we are tetrapods, four limbed for the uneducated. That we are vertebrates. That we are chordates. Even that we are eukaryotes, once they learn what a eukaryote is. Each of these is a bigger group than apes. Why they have a problem with being an ape makes no sense.

And of course we are animals too.

To answer the question that is not properly asked, yes a bad mutation can kill a human being. Luckily the vast majority of mutations are benign. Which is a good thing since we have from 50 to 150 of them apiece.

 

[Buddha Dharma]

Second we are apes

I don't know how anyone could ever doubt it

 

[HonestJoe]

If we evolved from apes, then is the gunman more an animal than a human being?

Human beings are a type of animal. The distinction between humans and other animals isn’t any lack of aggressive violence (if anything, the opposite) but out level of self-awareness and consciousness.

If he's found guilty, then is it okay based on evolution that he be terminated by lethal injection? If an ape killed humans, even if for food, then it would be shot or euthanized.

If he was deemed less than human, there wouldn’t even need to be a trial. That isn’t how it works though and evolution has nothing to do with that.

For what reason does a mentally disabled man become a crazed killer showing no mercy and killing students at random? This man or animal fooled those closest to him enough for them to think he didn't have guns, but he did. He had numerous run ins with the law. Even if he was mentally ill, shouldn't we think that he was a bad mutation, i.e. more ape than human, and be put in jail like a killer animal to be euthanized if found guilty?

We obviously don’t know in this specific case but in general terms such incidents can be a result of physical damage, psychological crisis, developmental problems or birth defect (often a combination of several inter-related elements). Only the latter two could be directly related to some kind of genetic mutation but that’s far from the only possible physiological cause. That wouldn’t make a person “more ape than human” any more than a genetic mutation which leads to blindness or missing limbs would.

If evolution has nothing to do with this, then what purpose does it serve if we cannot apply it to today's society?

Why do a concept have to apply in a specific situation to have purpose? Why does a concept need a purpose at all? Evolution just is (probably), like gravity, respiration or radioactivity.

 

[Augustus]

If he's found guilty, then is it okay based on evolution that he be terminated by lethal injection?

That's a bit like saying is it ok based on thermodynamics that he be terminated by lethal injection.

It's a question of moral philosophy.

Even if he was mentally ill, shouldn't we think that he was a bad mutation, i.e. more ape than human, and be put in jail like a killer animal to be euthanized if found guilty?

Violence is part of our nature, it doesn't take a 'bad mutation' or 'more ape than human' to become a killer. We are an unusually violent species all in all.

 

[Altfish]

I was wondering what evolutionary science has to say about the horrendous shooting at Parkland High School in Florida?

I would imagine that evolutionary science would say that the killings were horrendous.

If we evolved from apes, then is the gunman more an animal than a human being?.

Humans ARE animals, so that question makes no sense

If he's found guilty, then is it okay based on evolution that he be terminated by lethal injection? If an ape killed humans, even if for food, then it would be shot or euthanized.

As a humanist I don't agree with the death penalty. But hey-ho this is the US so revenge is still an accepted form of punishment.

If Nikolas Cruz is a human being, then what does it say about evolution?

Is there any doubt that he is a human being? I don't think it says anything about evolution apart from there are plenty of variations brought about by mutations.

For what reason does a mentally disabled man become a crazed killer showing no mercy and killing students at random? This man or animal fooled those closest to him enough for them to think he didn't have guns, but he did. He had numerous run ins with the law. Even if he was mentally ill, shouldn't we think that he was a bad mutation, i.e. more ape than human, and be put in jail like a killer animal to be euthanized if found guilty?

It could be mutations, it could be upbringing, indoctrination, whatever... If he is 'terminated' then his genes are taken out of the gene pool, so his mutations cannot be passed on. However, if he is kept locked up for life (and we assume he can't breed jail) then his genes will again not be passed on.

Some may say evolution has nothing to do with this. If evolution has nothing to do with this, then what purpose does it serve if we cannot apply it to today's society? We still have apes. We have humans. Thus, can we have bad mutations?

Evolution possibly has something to do with incident. Of course we have bad mutations.


I'm not sure where you are heading with this. Evolution is true, it explains life on earth. It had good traits and it has bad traits.
Bad traits do NOT make evolution false.

Why didn't your god do something, surely in your world view he must take responsibility

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I was wondering what evolutionary science has to say about the horrendous shooting at Parkland High School in Florida? If we evolved from apes, then is the gunman more an animal than a human being? If he's found guilty, then is it okay based on evolution that he be terminated by lethal injection? If an ape killed humans, even if for food, then it would be shot or euthanized. If Nikolas Cruz is a human being, then what does it say about evolution? For what reason does a mentally disabled man become a crazed killer showing no mercy and killing students at random? This man or animal fooled those closest to him enough for them to think he didn't have guns, but he did. He had numerous run ins with the law. Even if he was mentally ill, shouldn't we think that he was a bad mutation, i.e. more ape than human, and be put in jail like a killer animal to be euthanized if found guilty?

Some may say evolution has nothing to do with this. If evolution has nothing to do with this, then what purpose does it serve if we cannot apply it to today's society? We still have apes. We have humans. Thus, can we have bad mutations?

1) the only statement about evolution this makes is that you seem confused as to it's mechanisms and outcome
2) we are both human and animal
3) 'bad mutations' happen to humans. Not sure why you link that to this, but sure.

 

[Father Heathen]

I was wondering what evolutionary science has to say about the horrendous shooting at Parkland High School in Florida?

Probably the same thing that gravitational science has to say about it, which is nothing, because neither has anything to do with ethics. Your post is nothing more than a bizarre non sequitur. If you don't understand what exactly evolution is or how it works, you really have no business attempting to debate the subject. And it's one thing to be ignorant and misinformed, but when people like you cling to misconceptions even after being corrected multiple times shows that you have no real interest in learning or understanding anything. It's a desperate and futile attempt to prop up an untenable narrative.

 

[David T]

I think this comes close to the same fallacy thinkers like Sam Harris engage in. They think evolution is a standard for ethics or societal rules. Evolution is an observed process by science. Science makes no moral or ethical judgments.

It is arguably unreasonable to demand evolution must be able to be applied in some kind of societal context. What other scientific principles can we call into question if we are unable to do so?

not only that if you go back an read the op it says "evolved from" and it then has the duality human being or animalainani the structure. So notnonly did you point out a false initerpretation i am pointing out where its eminating from. It goes to a singular region of neurology the self's labeled by neurology itself "higher functioning". Its an interpreted world view as opposed to an interpersonal view. Its that particular region thats problematic. Evolution "everything is interconnected" is self evident not "scientific" specifically. I think that at some level ancient metaphysics wrestles with this, while tending to manifest it over time in communal forms. Is buddha clear to Buddhists? Is jesus clear to Christians? I know for a fact the later certainly is not clear. The Christian text has a lot of qualities that are opaque to the original poster. I cant comment on Buddhism in this regard.

 

[james bond]

I think this comes close to the same fallacy thinkers like Sam Harris engage in. They think evolution is a standard for ethics or societal rules. Evolution is an observed process by science. Science makes no moral or ethical judgments.

It is arguably unreasonable to demand evolution must be able to be applied in some kind of societal context. What other scientific principles can we call into question if we are unable to do so?

Sorry, this only answers my question about evolutionary thinking being applied in a societal context. You state we cannot apply it that way. Yet, we had Social Darwinists and Nazis do exactly just that. The racists killed millions. Maybe billions. Even Darwin and his cronies thought there were lesser humans due to evolution. It was pseudoscientific racism. This was one of the products of evolutionary thinking.

What we have then are the social sciences to pick up the pieces for hard science's lack of "science." And we still have apes and we still have humans.

 

[james bond]

I don't know how anyone could ever doubt it

One is a chimp and not an ape ha ha. They do not look alike at all except they're mimicking each other. I'm glad this is such a fine example of evolutionary thinking ha ha ha ha.

 

[james bond]

Probably the same thing that gravitational science has to say about it, which is nothing, because neither has anything to do with ethics. Your post is nothing more than a bizarre non sequitur. If you don't understand what exactly evolution is or how it works, you really have no business attempting to debate the subject. And it's one thing to be ignorant and misinformed, but when people like you cling to misconceptions even after being corrected multiple times shows that you have no real interest in learning or understanding anything. It's a desperate and futile attempt to prop up an untenable narrative.

Oh great. Another internet atheist taking pot shots.

Can someone else give me some answers on why we still have apes and we have humans? That's just like what creation science states. We do not have any mutations. So, evolutiion happened maybe just once millions of years ago and we have no other evidence of mutations?

 

[james bond]

1) the only statement about evolution this makes is that you seem confused as to it's mechanisms and outcome
2) we are both human and animal
3) 'bad mutations' happen to humans. Not sure why you link that to this, but sure.

I'm glad you state mutations continue to happen which is the basis for my questions. To cut to the chase, we know how to distinguish humans from animals. How do we distinguish a mutation from a human or another animal? I picked Cruz because he just happens to be all over the news.

 

[Father Heathen]

Oh great. Another internet atheist taking pot shots.

I'm agnostic, actually. I don't have a problem with god, just with the goofy things that silly mortals have made up about 'him.'

Can someone else give me some answers on why we still have apes and we have humans?

This is yet another question that has already been answered a thousand times. Humans are apes, as are chimpanzes, gorillas, etc. We haven't evolved from any contemporary primate species, but we share a common ancestor, from which different species have branched off of.

That's just like what creation science states. We do not have any mutations. So, evolutiion happened maybe just once millions of years ago and we have no other evidence of mutations?

Evolution is continual and very gradual, and mutations happen all of the time, but most are not beneficial and don't provide a survival/adaptation advantage.

 

[Father Heathen]

I'm glad you state mutations continue to happen which is the basis for my questions. To cut to the chase, we know how to distinguish humans from animals.

One, Humans are animals. We're mammals, obviously. Primates specifically.

How do we distinguish a mutation from a human or another animal? I picked Cruz because he just happens to be all over the news.

This question is completely nonsensical. Did you not have biology class in school? I guess RF isn't just a 'religious education forum', but now a remedial education forum as well...

 

[Subduction Zone]

Sorry, this only answers my question about evolutionary thinking being applied in a societal context. You state we cannot apply it that way. Yet, we had Social Darwinists and Nazis do exactly just that. The racists killed millions. Maybe billions. Even Darwin and his cronies thought there were lesser humans due to evolution. It was pseudoscientific racism. This was one of the products of evolutionary thinking.

What we have then are the social sciences to pick up the pieces for hard science's lack of "science." And we still have apes and we still have humans.

This is an equivocation fallacy on your part and indicates that you do not even know how language works. Let's correct this so that you do not make this mistake again:

Social Darwinism has as little to do with evolution as the Jesus Alou fan club has to do with Christianity. Just because the name is the same does not mean anything.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I'm glad you state mutations continue to happen which is the basis for my questions. To cut to the chase, we know how to distinguish humans from animals. How do we distinguish a mutation from a human or another animal? I picked Cruz because he just happens to be all over the news.

Humans are animals. What is so hard to understand about this concept?

Let me help you:

"Animals are eukaryotic, multicellular organisms that form the biological kingdom Animalia. "

Let's see, are you eukaryotic? Every other human on the Earth is. Do you have more than one cell in your body? Every other human on the Earth does. Are you an organism? In other words are you alive? There may be some debate on this point. And do you belong to the biological kingdom of Animalia, At lest every other human on the face of this Earth belongs.

 

[Darkstorn]

Maybe JB is a plant.

 

[Skwim]

Oh great. Another internet atheist taking pot shots.

Can someone else give me some answers on why we still have apes and we have humans?

Certainly. Read HERE. Essentially pages 251-257.

.