1. 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!

Evolution vs. Creation: Are we overpopulating?

Discussion in 'Evolution Vs. Creationism' started by Heidi, Aug 25, 2005.

  1. Fatmop

    Fatmop Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2005
    Messages:
    651
    Ratings:
    +64
    The spirit of adventure always seemed to begin with wild and crazy discoveries. "WHAT?? Gold and diamonds in Africa? I am SO there!!" "There's a New what?? WORLD???"
    Do we have the capacity to start living in cities above or below the sea? How about on the moon, or another planet? I'd say, with current technology, the costs far exceed what perceived benefits there are. If any. Sure, colonizing Mars is a nice idea, but who would WANT to?
     
  2. Majikthise

    Majikthise Guest

    Ratings:
    +0
    Maybe we just should have stayed in the trees, or better yet, never left the oceans.
     
  3. Ryan2065

    Ryan2065 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2005
    Messages:
    2,034
    Ratings:
    +174
    Everyone is jumping on the "Oh we are overpopulating" bandwagon and no one is actually analyzing the data here.. So I guess I will do that. Here we go, here are many logical mistakes people have recently made in this thread...

    Here we have someone stating that population has some role in how much money one makes. While this is true in some respects, it is not true to the extent of "overpopulation." As far as countries go, there is only a finite number of jobs and money out there for the country. To go over the ideal population for a country means they will see an increase in poverty, which is a bad thing for any country. So the businessmen and the church people and all these people, while they do want to have alot of people on their side, they more want a % of the population on their side, because if they try to keep the population increased, it is bad for them.

    Here it is stated that the US wants to destroy others cultures. While this isn't true, it is true that the US wants to make money and that currently the best way to do that is to destroy someones culture. Trust me, if we could make 10 times the amount of money in another country by not destroying their culture we would do it in a heartbeat.

    I see, so your experience in Mexico and America makes you an expert when it comes to the US and their overseas agendas? Also you say that because you lived in Mexico you know that the United states wants to go overseas and ruin other peoples cultures? So even if we lose money and know we will lose money to ruin another culture we will do that just for the sake of ruining the culture? I am sorry, but that seems pretty bogus to me.

    I am sorry, this is a down right lie. All of the population of the world can fit in texas and have a pretty sizeable chunk of land. (not huge, like umm... the size of a normal room I'd say.) We have the resources to feed the world, we just don't do it. To look at the United States and say that we are overpopulated is bogus, becasue we are not. The correct statement here is "We are overpopulated in some areas, but not as a species."

    Here you seem to want us to draw the conclusion that we have bigger lungs due to overpopulation and us cutting down trees. It takes thousands of years for a change to take place in the whole of a species and I would be willing to bet that it was over 10 thousand years ago that the lung change was made (probably way more than 10 thousand years ago...) This has nothing to do with overpopulation or the current state of the forests and shouldn't have even been included here.

    Just making one quick point here... No landfills are swelling and we are not running out of space to throw away our trash. One landfill 35 miles x 35 miles and 200 feet high can house all our trash for 1000 years into the future. So I would like to stop hearing that argument of us running out of landfill space, it is just an outright lie.

    I would be willing to argue that we have stopped evoloving due to technology (at least we aren't evoloving as drasticaly as we were when we were in caves.) The weak are now cared for and not killed off as they would be in natural selection and survival of the fittest so it is harder for evolution to work its way through humans.

    Please name me 3 explorers who moved from where they were due to population growth. I am just asking because most explorers go in search of new lands for greed or to start a new country or what not. I must say I have never heard of people finding new territories when they are faced with population growth.

    So many people complaining about population growth and that other people don't have alot and that our country should do something. Well what have you done for these people recently? See that nice computer that you own thats sitting right in front of you. If you sold that computer and sent that money to some charity that was feeding starving children, you would at least prolong a childs life. So many people say that our government should do something about overpopulation and the starving yet when they are given opportunities to do something they just turn to greed and get something for themselves. This is the way it has been, and I am pretty positive this is the way it will always be.
     
  4. Fade

    Fade The Great Master Bates

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2005
    Messages:
    639
    Ratings:
    +39
    But then we wouldn't have our swanky digital watches :(
     
  5. Fade

    Fade The Great Master Bates

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2005
    Messages:
    639
    Ratings:
    +39
    I have to disagree with this observation. What drastic evolutionary change took place that marks a difference between our cave dwelling ancestors and us?
    Our technological development is a very recent advance and for this reason I would say that evolutional changes haven't really had a chance to set in.
    In fact I would argue that we are now heading into a brave new world where we are the agents of our own evolution. Ethics/Morality aside we will select the genetic traits we feel are beneficial to our continued survival. We are on the cusp of kicking our evolution into high gear. Our population explosion is evidence that our technology is in fact kick starting evolution not stopping it.
     
  6. Fatmop

    Fatmop Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2005
    Messages:
    651
    Ratings:
    +64
    Got to watch out with those eugenics. If that kind of power fell into the wrong hands, humanity might try to eliminate every last trace of 'black' or 'jew' from the genome! Don't try to tell me no one ever thought of anything like that before.

    I do agree that Ryan's statement in that regard was careless. Show me how we've 'stopped evolving.' Show me how generational changes have stopped happening.
     
  7. Ryan2065

    Ryan2065 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2005
    Messages:
    2,034
    Ratings:
    +174
    Well, lets actually go over what I said, not what you say I said...
    So if you say that natural selectiong and survival of the fitest are the main proponents of evolution, then how can you think that it hasn't slowed down? When I typed the thing saying that we stopped evolving I realized that a more correct way of stating it is we have slowed down our rate of evolving drastically. If a winter comes thats colder than before we just get heavier coats. The idea of evolution is that a change comes in the environment that will basically kill creatures that do not exhibit the characteristic needed to survive. Or will give other animals more of a chance to surivive in the environment. While we have technology we have the means to care for the weak, so they do not die off and are able to have children and continue with the "bad genes" therefore slowing or even stopping evolution.
     
  8. Majikthise

    Majikthise Guest

    Ratings:
    +0
    Ryan , I absolutely agree with everything you said, good post!
    I am not a gloom and doomer that believes we're near the end of our space and resources on this planet. I'm just a lover of the dream of future colonization of space trying to inject some thought on the subject into this gloomy thread. I realise that the exploration of bodies in this solar system are weak to some people, but , we've got to start somewhere.:)
    Explorers usually need funding to carry out their expeditions so they ultimately must turn to those with the cash to equip them. These people will want to gain something for their trouble (which is fair enough), but I don't think this changes the hearts of those who are truely passionate about their search for knowledge.
    I do beleive that a a lot of exploration is born out of neccessity for many reasons. When game animals in a certain area grew scarce, early man had to move on and find new areas with more game. If someones ideas where not popular with the tribe they might strike out on their own (or be thrown out) and start a new tribe far away. A group might grow too large for the area to support them all and some would voluntarily move to new lands to make it easier for the base colony and themselves. Some might just be bored hanging around the same place and simply crave something new.
    Exploration is part of the search for knowledge just like science and religion.
    People who move to new areas because of over crowding are not seeking to make a name for themselves, they are doing it out of neccessity.
    So sorry, I got no names for ya.:eek:
     
  9. Fade

    Fade The Great Master Bates

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2005
    Messages:
    639
    Ratings:
    +39
    I wasn't trying to imply that it was an original idea :)
    anyhoo, don't try to tell me that something like that isn't likely to happen again. Just look at Michael Jackson. :eek:
     
  10. Fatmop

    Fatmop Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2005
    Messages:
    651
    Ratings:
    +64
    Genes mutate in offspring, whether that offspring survives or not. Now that more offspring are surviving, one could argue that the rate of evolution is increasing, not vice versa. More genetic variance due to a high survival rate means more evolution.

    You did say that technology was 'kick starting' evolution, relating to my response to Ryan above. That I agree with. As for manipulating our own genes, the closest I've heard is 'gene therapy,' and that seems to be decades off (if ever).
     
  11. Fade

    Fade The Great Master Bates

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2005
    Messages:
    639
    Ratings:
    +39
    Time is all it takes. :)
     
  12. huajiro

    huajiro Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2004
    Messages:
    1,625
    Ratings:
    +115
    You seem to think you know everything, yet you don't ever start by forming your own opinion, you just criticize others' views. As for the Oh we are overpopulating bandwagon", I don't jump on any bandwagon. My views are mine, and not just some adaptation of someone else's opinion. I resent that remark.

    The only explanation for politicians and businesses not trying to control population, is the fact that they do benefit from it, as do the Churches. If you are going to debate this, please give some reason that I am wrong (I think it will be difficult, unless you have found some way to avoid paying taxes).

    As far as the US destroying cultures.....you basically proved me right, but fail to see the truth behind it. As the US is a new country, our businesses have found it much easier to do away with cultural differences and languages and promote business. I have a degree in International Business, I do know this. Our businesses are now trying to play catch-up.

    I have lived in other countries as well, and I have seen how the US affects other countries. If you are going to debate this, please do a little more than criticize how I have said something and pay attention to what I have said.

    If your goal is to criticize people, I am the wrong person. If you want to debate with me, please do a little more than give the impression that I am wrong "just because".
     
  13. Fade

    Fade The Great Master Bates

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2005
    Messages:
    639
    Ratings:
    +39
    I take it from the above vitriol that you didn't actually read his post. :rolleyes:
     
  14. huajiro

    huajiro Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2004
    Messages:
    1,625
    Ratings:
    +115
    I take it from your comment, you didn't read it either
     
  15. michel

    michel Administrator Emeritus
    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2004
    Messages:
    28,667
    Ratings:
    +2,656
    Religious Forums : "Our mission is to provide a civil, respectful and decent environment where people of diverse beliefs can discuss religion, compare religion and debate religion"

    Ahem!
     
  16. Fade

    Fade The Great Master Bates

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2005
    Messages:
    639
    Ratings:
    +39
    Really?

    Lets do some back tracking shall we...

    firstly, you said

    please provide me with a quote of him criticizing YOU. He gave the impression that you are wrong by providing a counterpoint to your argument...to wit.



    That doesn't strike me as being 'just because'. :tsk:
     
    • Like Like x 1
  17. Ryan2065

    Ryan2065 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2005
    Messages:
    2,034
    Ratings:
    +174
    This is only true if the gene turned is a dominant gene... If the mutation is not a dominant gene then this statement is completely false. Just in general this statement is bogus. Evolution comes about from less variation, not more. You know this because in order for a species to evolve, survival of the fittest says that a change must come about that kills off all of the species that doesn't have a certain trait... Hense you have less traits and the species becomes more "specilized"

    Except they have already made blind dogs be able to see with gene therapy, and have cured humans with certain diseases with gene therapy. Currently when gene therapy is done it is thought that the patient gets cancer easier... so they are still doing lots more tests on it. So its in the testing stages basically =)
     
  18. huajiro

    huajiro Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2004
    Messages:
    1,625
    Ratings:
    +115
    I really don't see where you come into this.....wasn't this between Ryan and myself?
     
  19. Ryan2065

    Ryan2065 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2005
    Messages:
    2,034
    Ratings:
    +174
    Ok, I ask you exactly what Fade asked you... =)
     
  20. JerryL

    JerryL Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2005
    Messages:
    2,601
    Ratings:
    +311
    I'm not clear on which factual claim you are disagreeing with.

    Since when? Evolution is about the process by which new morphologies arise from old ones.

    Natural selection (what you refer to as "survival of the fittest") is an attrition process, yes; though it's not about "killing off" neccessairily. It essentially says that critters with more traits benificial to reproducing are more likely to reproduce.

    But natural selection is only part of the equasion. You also have a mechanism which introduces new variety into the pool... mutation.

    It's not "less" or "more". Say, for example, that you've a bunch of birds with 3" beaks. One has a defective growth gene and its beak becomes 6". Now, it turns out that there's more food that can be reached at 6" than 3" (or maybe the female birds just find it mroe attractive) and natural selection kicks in. In a few hundred generations, there are no birds left with 3" beaks.

    Was a trait gained or lost? Neither, it was just changed. The concept of "loss" and "gain" is mostly ours. Mutation is just about changes.
     
Loading...