4 Questions To Ask An Evolutionist

[Lunar Shadow]

Four Questions To Ask An Evolutionist

 

1. Do you know the difference between Creation and Evolution?

 

Evolutionists think people have bacteria as an ancient ancestor.  Creationists think bacteria and people can only come from people.  Creation is supported by genetics and biochemistry.

 

2.  Do you know the difference between microevolution and macroevolution?

 

Microevolution (variation or natural selection):  You are taller than your grandpa (true). Macroevolution: your great, great, great grandpa was bacteria (false).

 

3.  Where are the Missing Links?

 

If we have bacteria as ancestors, there should be 1000's of living missing links and 1000's of fossilized missing links.  If macroevolution is true, where is the evidence?

 

4.  Which Theory of Evolution do you believe is true?

 

There are many theories.  Gradualism (slow evolution), Punctuated Equilibria (fast evolution), and Theistic Evolution (caused by God).  If it is true, why are there so many theories?

 

 

Any thoughts on this?

[Lunar Shadow]

P.S. This was on the reverse side of the bookmark that IvyFairy posted on "5 Questions to ask an Atheist". Just an FYI.

[Cerise]

ONE QUESTION TO ASK A CHRISTIAN:

 

Do you really think I care enough about what you think to answer your silly questions?

 

ONE ADDITIONAL QUESTION TO ASK A CHRISTIAN:

 

Why don't you just ask your God to tell you the answers and then you wouldn't have to ask me questions?

[IvyFairy]

ONE QUESTION TO ASK A CHRISTIAN:

 

Do you really think I care enough about what you think to answer your silly questions?

 

ONE ADDITIONAL QUESTION TO ASK A CHRISTIAN:

 

Why don't you just ask your God to tell you the answers and then you wouldn't have to ask me questions?

 

 

good one there Cerise

[Guest Joseph]

Four Questions To Ask An Evolutionist

 

1. Do you know the difference between Creation and Evolution?

 

Evolutionists think people have bacteria as an ancient ancestor.  Creationists think bacteria and people can only come from people.  Creation is supported by genetics and biochemistry.

 

DNA demonstrates that within our genetic codes contain the same fallacies as near primates along with the incorporation of outside genetic material into a specific point. This demonstrates a common ancestor. The statement that "creation is supported by genetics and biochemistry" is an outright lie with zero evidence to back it, nothing more than dogma.

 

2.  Do you know the difference between microevolution and macroevolution?

 

Microevolution (variation or natural selection):  You are taller than your grandpa (true).  Macroevolution: your great, great, great grandpa was bacteria (false).

 

There is no such thing as a line that divides "micro" and "macro" evolution. The small changes within a given species given time will generate another species. The common forces of natural selection and genetic variance are what causes evolution. The false division between "macro" and "micro" evolution is invented by the creationist at their own peril, because there is little point to attempting to draw species lines which tend to blur.

 

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/macroevolution.html

Antievolutionists argue that there has been no proof of macroevolutionary processes. However, synthesists claim that the same processes that cause within-species changes of the frequencies of alleles can be extrapolated to between species changes, so this argument fails unless some mechanism for preventing microevolution causing macroevolution is discovered. Since every step of the process has been demonstrated in genetics and the rest of biology, the argument against macroevolution fails.

 

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

Introduction: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-intro-to-biology.html

 

3.  Where are the Missing Links?

 

If we have bacteria as ancestors, there should be 1000's of living missing links and 1000's of fossilized missing links.  If macroevolution is true, where is the evidence?

 

http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/feb98.html

 

Another ploy, also dogma driven tripe of the creationist. The "missing link" has never been missing.

 

4.  Which Theory of Evolution do you believe is true?

 

There are many theories.  Gradualism (slow evolution), Punctuated Equilibria (fast evolution), and Theistic Evolution (caused by God).  If it is true, why are there so many theories?

 

Any thoughts on this?

 

There are various theories because there are various processes. And it is not "this or that" it could be various theories working together at any given time. There could be "gradualism" but then a particular genetic trait that gives a great advantage to a given sub-population and we have a "jump" take place. There is also the sudden change of environment which remove entire genetic traits from the track of time. But granted, there are various theories because life finds a way. (To steal from Jurassic Park.) Granted however the advent of various theories does not remove from the evidence of evolution at all, especially the biological and genetic proof (as well as fossil record proofs).

[Lunar Shadow]

thanks Joseph for the great links... I am gonna have a fucking field day with these muther fucking fundies

[Ouroboros]

Four Questions To Ask An Evolutionist

 

1. Do you know the difference between Creation and Evolution?

 

Evolutionists think people have bacteria as an ancient ancestor.  Creationists think bacteria and people can only come from people.  Creation is supported by genetics and biochemistry.

What? Bacteria can only come from people?

 

The difference is that Creation has no evidence, and evolution has some evidence. I rather trust the theory that has some foundation rather than the one that doesn’t have any foundation.

 

The evidence is in the DNA, we share same pseudo genes as many other species. If the knowledge we have of DNA, mutations and genetics wasn’t true and didn’t work, then the flu shot you get every year is just bogus.

 

If we came from Adam & Eve, then where did all the extra alleles in the populace come from? Either it had to be mutations from A&E, and there’s not enough time for that to happen, or God had to create a whole family of people in Eden to give us all the alleles we have today.

 

If A&E was created and evolution happened after that to give us all the alleles, then where are the missing links from A&E to us?

 

2.  Do you know the difference between microevolution and macroevolution?

 

Microevolution (variation or natural selection):  You are taller than your grandpa (true).  Macroevolution: your great, great, great grandpa was bacteria (false).

Then the development of society, law, politics, international collaborations are all non-existent too, because they represent a macro-development of the human mind and ideas. So I guess we don’t live in a country with social structures…

 

3.  Where are the Missing Links?

 

If we have bacteria as ancestors, there should be 1000's of living missing links and 1000's of fossilized missing links.  If macroevolution is true, where is the evidence?

Which one? There’s plenty. There’s a whole lot of missing links between Adam and Even and every person alive today. So where are you family tree going back to A&E to prove that they existed?

 

4.  Which Theory of Evolution do you believe is true?

 

There are many theories.  Gradualism (slow evolution), Punctuated Equilibria (fast evolution), and Theistic Evolution (caused by God).  If it is true, why are there so many theories?

First of all, the word theory is misused most of the time. Theory in casual talk is not the same as theory in science. What we call a theory in casual terms are more like the scientists hypothesis. A scientific theory is a hypothesis that has been supported with evidence and validated tests.

 

Theory:

1. A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.

2. The branch of a science or art consisting of its explanatory statements, accepted principles, and methods of analysis, as opposed to practice: a fine musician who had never studied theory.

3. A set of theorems that constitute a systematic view of a branch of mathematics.

4. Abstract reasoning; speculation: a decision based on experience rather than theory.

5. A belief or principle that guides action or assists comprehension or judgment: staked out the house on the theory that criminals usually return to the scene of the crime.

6. An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.

There are many definitions of the word “theory”. If it is true, why are there so many definitions?

 

I personally believe the classic music theory of evolution, it was rather complex, but it all played out!

 

Evolution doesn’t follow a strict linear timeline, it goes back and forth, and jumps now and then.

 

The beauty of scientific thinking is that a person can maintain several theories in their head at the same time, and if one is proven to be wrong, a scientist can drop the theory and move on.

 

Why is Theistic Evolution accepted by some Christians, when evolution as a process and theory is not? Didn’t point 1 state that evolution believe that man came from bacteria, so how can a Theistic Evolutionist claim to believe in evolution? Why does religion have so many creation stories, if God told you the truth, why don’t you stick to the story he told you?

[I Broke Free]

ONE QUESTION TO ASK A CHRISTIAN:

 

Do you really think I care enough about what you think to answer your silly questions?

 

ONE ADDITIONAL QUESTION TO ASK A CHRISTIAN:

 

Why don't you just ask your God to tell you the answers and then you wouldn't have to ask me questions?

 

 

Here is another one.

 

Why do you base your answers on “science” when your cohorts have already proven to your satisfaction that science is biased and unreliable?

[Amanda]

If we came from Adam & Eve, then where did all the extra alleles in the populace come from? Either it had to be mutations from A&E, and there’s not enough time for that to happen, or God had to create a whole family of people in Eden to give us all the alleles we have today.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

And may I suggest to you that Adam and Eve may be no more representative of a single person than the crowmagnum man is?

I personally believe the classic music theory of evolution, it was rather complex, but it all played out!

 

Evolution doesn’t follow a strict linear timeline, it goes back and forth, and jumps now and then.

 

The beauty of scientific thinking is that a person can maintain several theories in their head at the same time, and if one is proven to be wrong, a scientist can drop the theory and move on.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

HanSolo and others here, I too believe in evolution, natural adaption and natural selection seem obvious to me. I basicly believe we come from the same ancestory, and the idea of an original ancester that gave life to everything seems it could be credible to me. I have one question for you all, and it is not to debate, but to gain insight. It seems that many of you are well informed on this subject.

 

That primordial soup contained the amino acids... and I have read here where some suggest that perhaps there were other constituents besides the amino acids, then couldn't there have been other diverse life forms initiating in the same time era? My more significant question is... why don't we see things such as fish evolving into amphibians, and amphibians into reptiles, ...monkeys and apes evolving into people? .....just curious...

[Poonis]

Any thoughts on this?

 

Creationists would have never known about bacteria if it wasn't for the evolutionist.

[Skankboy]

That primordial soup contained the amino acids... and I have read here where some suggest that perhaps there were other constituents besides the amino acids, then couldn't there have been other diverse life forms initiating in the same time era? My more significant question is... why don't we see things such as fish evolving into amphibians, and amphibians into reptiles, ...monkeys and apes evolving into people? .....just curious...

 

I'm certainly no expert, but I'd be willing to try...

 

My understanding was that there was a tremendous variety of lifeforms in the earliest days. Several mass extinctions followed, leaving only a few types. It was from these few remaining that the rest of life evolved, hence the seeming conformity of form found in nature (symmetry, head/body/limbs config, etc.)

 

We don't see evolution? Well yes and no. The lungfish is certainly a candidate for a fish turning into an amphibion. The bigger issue here is one of time. On a geological scale, our observations cover a mere slice of the history of life on the planet. In short, we don't see this happening in front of us because the time scale is too long for us to notice. If we could live for thousands upon thousands of years, or indeed if our observations continue for thousands of years to come, we may indeed have the opportunity to observe a transition like you mentioned.

 

And to fair, monkey's probably wouldn't become humans. We evolved from a common ancestor of the ape family, not the monkey family...

 

[Thurisaz]

Any thoughts on this?

 

Yeah. Shoot everyone who believes this crap.

[Thurisaz]

What? Bacteria can only come from people?

 

I bet those cretinists had some human ancestors somewhere, but judging them by what little intellect they demonstrate...

 

Kind of similar to "The cretinists don't have evidence against evolution, they are evidence. They clearly didn't evolve for at least 500,000 years"

[Thurisaz]

My more significant question is... why don't we see things such as fish evolving into amphibians, and amphibians into reptiles,  ...monkeys and apes evolving into people?  .....just curious...

 

First, depending on the lifespan of a given species, it can be hard to literally "see" evolution in action. There's just a little bit of difference between the time needed for humans (average lifespan, say, 70 years) to evolve, and that of bacteria (1 generation = 15 minutes or even less) to evolve.

Second, today pretty much every ecological niche is already occupied, and the occupants might object to someone sneaking into their house, so to say.

I guess you'd find some nice info and links to outside literature on that topic at goo' ol' the talk.origins archive.

[Ouroboros]

I bet those cretinists had some human ancestors somewhere, but judging them by what little intellect they demonstrate...

 

Kind of similar to "The cretinists don't have evidence against evolution, they are evidence. They clearly didn't evolve for at least 500,000 years" 

Good one!

[Ouroboros]

And may I suggest to you that Adam and Eve may be no more representative of a single person than the crowmagnum man is?

If the Bible is correct, A&E lived only 6000 years ago, and that is not enough time for evolution to mutate 50-60 more alleles into the human populace. So the basic knowledge of DNA is enough to counter the argument for A&E 6000 years ago. Creationist have to bring in some addition and un-Biblical excuses to explain DNA, that A&E wasn’t 6000 years ago, or evolution did work in spurts since then, or God created one or two families in Eden. Creationists have some ‘splaining to do…

 

HanSolo and others here, I too believe in evolution, natural adaption and natural selection seem obvious to me. I basicly believe we come from the same ancestory, and the idea of an original ancester that gave life to everything seems it could be credible to me. I have one question for you all, and it is not to debate, but to gain insight. It seems that many of you are well informed on this subject.

 

That primordial soup contained the amino acids... and I have read here where some suggest that perhaps there were other constituents besides the amino acids, then couldn't there have been other diverse life forms initiating in the same time era?

Yes, it most likely did.

 

My more significant question is... why don't we see things such as fish evolving into amphibians, and amphibians into reptiles,  ...monkeys and apes evolving into people?  .....just curious...

Let’s compare it to a painting. If you go really close to the painting and use a microscope you will see the small dots and specks that the painting is made off, but you can’t see the whole painting. That’s us in time; we can only in our time and place see one little speck of the whole painting.

 

Because evolution takes time, and included a smaller or larger number of subjects in interaction with the environment and other subjects, it’s not easy to see evolution in our daily life.

 

Let’s say you have a mutation you don’t know about and is going to be passed on, and maybe it’s a non-important trait now, but for your grand-grand children, who inherited the mutation from you, it will be a beneficial trait and they will survive some situation that no one else would.

 

Can you see today that this unknown mutation in you actually will evolve mankind somehow? You can’t, because you have to travel in time to do it. If they see this trait 200 years from now, and try to look back in time where the mutation came from, they might not find you or your name anywhere, and people will say God created it, because the link is missing. So maybe you are god right now for your grand-grand-children, and maybe for the whole future mankind!

[Amanda]

If the Bible is correct, A&E lived only 6000 years ago, and that is not enough time for evolution to mutate 50-60 more alleles into the human populace.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Han, where does it say or imply 6000 years ago in the Bible? I know it is popular belief, but we know about popular belief... I don't see this in the Bible, so are you just basing that on a personal pontification that has been passed down for generations?

Because evolution takes time, and included a smaller or larger number of subjects in interaction with the environment and other subjects, it’s not easy to see evolution in our daily life.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

My beliefs lean toward evolution, yet I would think that there would be more of evidence of a transition that more closely identifies this process making that crossover. I suppose that is the 'missing link' many refer? Then again, maybe the premordial soup had a diversity of life forms initiating, and perhaps maybe more diverse than that commonly thought of today. Is there any recent literature that you have read that would support or discredit that idea?

 

Hey, as I see it, the whole Bible is about man evolving... so I'm definitely into the evolution camp. As I see it, its all there and written long ago, just as we are learning today. I know, I know... go ahead and laugh... I can take it now.

[Guest Joseph]

(snip)

Let’s compare it to a painting. If you go really close to the painting and use a microscope you will see the small dots and specks that the painting is made off, but you can’t see the whole painting. That’s us in time; we can only in our time and place see one little speck of the whole painting.

 

Because evolution takes time, and included a smaller or larger number of subjects in interaction with the environment and other subjects, it’s not easy to see evolution in our daily life.

 

Let’s say you have a mutation you don’t know about and is going to be passed on, and maybe it’s a non-important trait now, but for your grand-grand children, who inherited the mutation from you, it will be a beneficial trait and they will survive some situation that no one else would.

 

You should have that copyrighted.

No joke. It is that clearly and importantly written.

 

Can you see today that this unknown mutation in you actually will evolve mankind somehow? You can’t, because you have to travel in time to do it. If they see this trait 200 years from now, and try to look back in time where the mutation came from, they might not find you or your name anywhere, and people will say God created it, because the link is missing. So maybe you are god right now for your grand-grand-children, and maybe for the whole future mankind!

 

Wonderful episode of Next Generation (Star Trek) inwhich they find a crashed ship with a lone survivor. This survivor has a strange disease which they think is killing him. His DNA is undergoing significant change. They find out that anyone who demonstrated this "disease" from his population/home world was being killed by the government. At the very end he evolves into a higher level life form. It could very well be that our advancements are taking place now and that there are various demonstrators of such advancements. What is called "ADD" is the human mind developing the ability to process information quicker or to perhaps think in entirely different ways.

 

Various cancers could turn out to be the genetic mutations needed to advance mankind at some distant time. In fact, much of the time bad mutations are such only because they have been misapplied by the body...as tends to happen through chance. And it is just such "chance" that will end up someday in an advancement that is noticeable perhaps. Let us hope that our social advancement will notice it before it attempts to destroy such advancements, heh.

[♦ ficino ♦]

4.  Which Theory of Evolution do you believe is true?

 

There are many theories.  Gradualism (slow evolution), Punctuated Equilibria (fast evolution), and Theistic Evolution (caused by God).  If it is true, why are there so many theories?

 

 

 

I'd love to answer: "Which Christian denomination do you believe is true? There are thousands of Christian denominations, and they've been anathematizing each other since the second century. If Christianity is true, why are there so many competing versions?"

[Ouroboros]

Han, where does it say or imply 6000 years ago in the Bible? I know it is popular belief, but we know about popular belief...  I don't see this in the Bible, so are you just basing that on a personal pontification that has been passed down for generations?

Actually very simple; you go through the genealogies and write down when someone gave birth to someone, and when they gave grew up and gave birth to someone else. You get an estimate of 4000 years BCE.

 

I did it myself once, many years ago, and took only the years from the Bible.

But there were some problems, with some missing data, so you had to estimate some of it. To bad I don't save that paper...

 

Look at this, from Genesis 5:

And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, and after his image; and called his name Seth: 4 And the days of Adam after he had begotten Seth were eight hundred years: and he begat sons and daughters: 5 And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died. 6 And Seth lived an hundred and five years, and begat Enos: 7 And Seth lived after he begat Enos eight hundred and seven years, and begat sons and daughters: 8 And all the days of Seth were nine hundred and twelve years: and he died. 9 And Enos lived ninety years, and begat Cainan:

Adam to Seth : 130 years

Seth to Enos: 105 years

Enos to Cainan: 90 years

So from Adam to Cainan: 130+105+90 = 325 years.

And so forth…

 

 

My beliefs lean toward evolution, yet I would think that there would be more of evidence of a transition that more closely identifies this process making that crossover. I suppose that is the 'missing link' many refer? Then again, maybe the premordial soup had a diversity of life forms initiating, and perhaps maybe more diverse than that commonly thought of today. Is there any recent literature that you have read that would support or discredit that idea?

The missing links will always be there. We can’t find the skeletons to each and every individual that ever existed, since many bones have been eaten by animals or destroyed by volcanoes or other reasons. DNA is like a map that shows us the track that goes back in time. We don’t need the individual corpses, DNA shows the path backwards.

 

Hey, as I see it, the whole Bible is about man evolving... so I'm definitely into the evolution camp. As I see it, its all there and written long ago, just as we are learning today. I know, I know... go ahead and laugh... I can take it now.

He he. I laughed there.

 

I don’t think you’re silly for believing that God used evolution. My opinion is that I don’t know if there is a God or not, but I’m sure as hell that even if he does, evolution still happened.

 

If the Bible can support evolution, that’s a concept I can’t buy into, sorry, but that’s just me.

[Ouroboros]

You should have that copyrighted.

No joke.  It is that clearly and importantly written.

… Thank you… that meant a lot to me…

 

Wonderful episode of Next Generation (Star Trek) inwhich they find a crashed ship with a lone survivor.  This survivor has a strange disease which they think is killing him.  His DNA is undergoing significant change.  They find out that anyone who demonstrated this "disease" from his population/home world was being killed by the government.  At the very end he evolves into a higher level life form.  It could very well be that our advancements are taking place now and that there are various demonstrators of such advancements.  What is called "ADD" is the human mind developing the ability to process information quicker or to perhaps think in entirely different ways.

Very interesting!

 

I never thought of it that way, but you might be quite right. ADD doesn’t really disable a person, but makes a person to receptive and “too” multitasked. I have a slight ADD, not severe, but some, and two of my kids too. I get easily interrupted, can’t focus on one thing, sometimes need distraction to be able to focus, skip between thoughts, but I’m not really good in concentrating on all tasks at once. Like someone said, when you multitasking, it’s nothing more doing several things crappy instead of one thing good.

 

But in our new society with information overload, TV playing while radio plays music, browsing two-three websites, instant messaging popping up, and cell phone rings! Maybe that’s what’s needed to survive?

 

Various cancers could turn out to be the genetic mutations needed to advance mankind at some distant time.  In fact, much of the time bad mutations are such only because they have been misapplied by the body...as tends to happen through chance.  And it is just such "chance" that will end up someday in an advancement that is noticeable perhaps.  Let us hope that our social advancement will notice it before it attempts to destroy such advancements, heh.

Cancer is an interesting topic, because the cancer cells beat the regular cell death. It’s in a sense “fountain of youth”.

 

There have been research in how we could prolong our life span, and one thing is that our cells lose information in the DNA each time they divide, and eventually the DNA is so corrupt it can’t be divided into a functioning cell anymore. We slowly die, even without sickness. But some cancers actually the DNA doesn’t get corrupt, so it can be divided infinitely. So the key to eternal life might be in a deadly decease!

[Guest Joseph]

… Thank you… that meant a lot to me…

Very interesting!

 

It was the perfect simplistic description of the vast time required for the evolution of a species that would work even with children. That is why I liked it so much.

 

I never thought of it that way, but you might be quite right. ADD doesn’t really disable a person, but makes a person to receptive and “too” multitasked. I have a slight ADD, not severe, but some, and two of my kids too. I get easily interrupted, can’t focus on one thing, sometimes need distraction to be able to focus, skip between thoughts, but I’m not really good in concentrating on all tasks at once. Like someone said, when you multitasking, it’s nothing more doing several things crappy instead of one thing good.

 

I'd say it depends on the person. I have know people who can't do more than one thing at a time right, and others that can multitask perfectly. When I worked for a bank a long time ago I could multitask with the best of them but years later I found myself in great difficulty trying to multitask due to having jobs which did not require it.

 

But in our new society with information overload, TV playing while radio plays music, browsing two-three websites, instant messaging popping up, and cell phone rings! Maybe that’s what’s needed to survive?

 

Evolution is many times led by demands the environment places upon a given species. Now it isn't knowledgeable changes that it does in response to the environment, it is just that those who have better setups already (or have perhaps a slight advantage) lead the genetic move toward environmental conformity. Our minds having a tendency toward ADD may not be based upon any genetic change but based upon medical reasoning to "label" children being children. The requirements placed upon kids has decreased over time and the urge to learn has been pushed further and further back in time (so is the idea of "maturity" been pushed backwards as life expectancy has increased).

 

I would say that humanity has some persons who are genetically setup to learn better than others (and so will also their descendants) while a large percentage of the population are simply being labeled by their doctors and the changes of modern society (multitasking being taught as children are doing more at any given time: video games, tv, computer, ect.).

 

Cancer is an interesting topic, because the cancer cells beat the regular cell death. It’s in a sense “fountain of youth”.

 

There is currently an award setup to find this fountain of youth. The test is to see if through whatever means science can extend the length of a lab rats life beyond 4.9 years (which I believe is the record, something like 150 human years to a mouse).

 

http://www.kevsplace.net/cabinet/Webcatche...%20Contest.html

"Nature reports a contest that was launched in Britain today, to produce the oldest laboratory mouse. Current record in 5 years -- 150 in human years. From the page : ``Researchers can use any technique to boost longevity, including genetic manipulation and stem-cell therapy''. Winners will receive cash for every day beyond the current record. The Methuselah Mouse contest was created in an effort to boost research into human longevity."

 

Also: http://www.methuselahmouse.org/

 

There have been research in how we could prolong our life span, and one thing is that our cells lose information in the DNA each time they divide, and eventually the DNA is so corrupt it can’t be divided into a functioning cell anymore.

 

There is the problem also of the "ends" of the DNA. Think of shoe strings. The "plastic caps" at the end and how they fray over time. Our DNA has a "cap" of sorts and over time they wear out. At present it is thought that you would have to invent some sort of ability to regenerate these before lifespans could progress beyond say 120-150 years. I have read about nano-technology and it seems that they now think the micro-machines which sci-fi loves to write about may not be possible. I like to hold out hope however because most things that are extremely cool were at one point "impossible." Think four minute mile, getting to the moon and back in a lifetime, and other "impossible" things. So I hold out hope even if do not think that we will reach the "age of choice" in my lifetime.

 

"Age of Choice" is an idea that has been around for a long while. It is the age inwhich science has developed the means to maintain life indefinitely and thus you could decide to be immoral (to some degree or in some manner) if you CHOOSE to. This raises all kinds of theological issues, but I'm better that atheistic person would have little argument about this being a good thing, HEH. I can hear it now as the theologians start bringing up scriptures in Revelation about men wanting to die but not being able to...heh.

 

We slowly die, even without sickness. But some cancers actually the DNA doesn’t get corrupt, so it can be divided infinitely. So the key to eternal life might be in a deadly decease!

 

Yes, perhaps. However I think that more than likely we will simply discover the means to fight free radicals and/or invent nano-tech which has the ability to take over some of the demands on our natural systems. Perhaps even (in the exceedingly distant future) have some type of medical devices which can go to a point of damage and setup a time-field and heal the wound quickly outside our time-space. With genetic medicine, nan-tech, genetic manipulation, cloning, and the other such fields (as well as perhaps someday cracking the code to stem cells and "growing" organs) we will of course extend life much beyond what nature entended for those lucky enough to be born with the resources to do it.

 

I always remember this quote when I start talking about this subject however:

 

Your scientists were so busy trying to figure out a way to do this, and then to bring it about that they never took the time to decide if they should do this.

{Paraphrased from the Chaotician in Jurassic Park}

[Guest Slayer-2004]

2.  Do you know the difference between microevolution and macroevolution?

 

Microevolution (variation or natural selection):  You are taller than your grandpa (true).  Macroevolution: your great, great, great grandpa was bacteria (false).

 

Oh....my....god...

 

This is why its so hard to make parody fundy christian sites . They really are that stupid .

[Ouroboros]

I'd say it depends on the person.  I have know people who can't do more than one thing at a time right, and others that can multitask perfectly.  When I worked for a bank a long time ago I could multitask with the best of them but years later I found myself in great difficulty trying to multitask due to having jobs which did not require it.

Maybe the age has affected it too. I used to be better on multitasking, but with age I’m getting more scatterbrained instead.

 

Evolution is many times led by demands the environment places upon a given species.  Now it isn't knowledgeable changes that it does in response to the environment, it is just that those who have better setups already (or have perhaps a slight advantage) lead the genetic move toward environmental conformity.  Our minds having a tendency toward ADD may not be based upon any genetic change but based upon medical reasoning to "label" children being children.  The requirements placed upon kids has decreased over time and the urge to learn has been pushed further and further back in time (so is the idea of "maturity" been pushed backwards as life expectancy has increased).

I would say that humanity has some persons who are genetically setup to learn better than others (and so will also their descendants) while a large percentage of the population are simply being labeled by their doctors and the changes of modern society (multitasking being taught as children are doing more at any given time: video games, tv, computer, ect.).

True. I would have been labeled ADD when I was kid, but it didn’t exist as a diagnosis. ADD might have existed as a fringe trait since forever, but it starts to get more attention. And of course it could be the other way around, that kids are getting the ADD syndrome as an effect of society and the stress in contains.

 

There is currently an award setup to find this fountain of youth.  The test is to see if through whatever means science can extend the length of a lab rats life beyond 4.9 years (which I believe is the record, something like 150 human years to a mouse).

I rather would have mice die faster, because they bug me when they get into the attic. Chew on my network cables. Damn rats!

 

There is the problem also of the "ends" of the DNA.  Think of shoe strings.  The "plastic caps" at the end and how they fray over time.  Our DNA has a "cap" of sorts and over time they wear out.

Yeah, that’s what I meant. I wasn’t sure if I remembered right, so I called it something else.

 

  At present it is thought that you would have to invent some sort of ability to regenerate these before lifespans could progress beyond say 120-150 years.  I have read about nano-technology and it seems that they now think the micro-machines which sci-fi loves to write about may not be possible.  I like to hold out hope however because most things that are extremely cool were at one point "impossible."  Think four minute mile, getting to the moon and back in a lifetime, and other "impossible" things.  So I hold out hope even if do not think that we will reach the "age of choice" in my lifetime.

Hmmm. To repair the already damaged DNA… I haven’t heard that before, that’s a pretty good idea. It will take some time before we get Nanobots to do it, but who knows, the computer technology revolution went incredible fast.

 

"Age of Choice" is an idea that has been around for a long while.  It is the age inwhich science has developed the means to maintain life indefinitely and thus you could decide to be immoral (to some degree or in some manner) if you CHOOSE to.  This raises all kinds of theological issues, but I'm better that atheistic person would have little argument about this being a good thing, HEH.  I can hear it now as the theologians start bringing up scriptures in Revelation about men wanting to die but not being able to...heh.

I had forgotten about that part in Revelation. I remember one or two sermons where this was brought up. That science would make us live forever, and we couldn’t die, and people would scream for death…

 

Yes, perhaps.  However I think that more than likely we will simply discover the means to fight free radicals and/or invent nano-tech which has the ability to take over some of the demands on our natural systems.  Perhaps even (in the exceedingly distant future) have some type of medical devices which can go to a point of damage and setup a time-field and heal the wound quickly outside our time-space.  With genetic medicine, nan-tech, genetic manipulation, cloning, and the other such fields (as well as perhaps someday cracking the code to stem cells and "growing" organs) we will of course extend life much beyond what nature entended for those lucky enough to be born with the resources to do it.

True.

 

I’m just hoping for some nano-tech to repair and re-grow spinal nerves, for my son, and/or exoskeleton with mind-remote.

[Flyby Stardancer]

At present it is thought that you would have to invent some sort of ability to regenerate these before lifespans could progress beyond say 120-150 years.  I have read about nano-technology and it seems that they now think the micro-machines which sci-fi loves to write about may not be possible.  I like to hold out hope however because most things that are extremely cool were at one point "impossible."  Think four minute mile, getting to the moon and back in a lifetime, and other "impossible" things.  So I hold out hope even if do not think that we will reach the "age of choice" in my lifetime.

Hmmm. To repair the already damaged DNA… I haven’t heard that before, that’s a pretty good idea. It will take some time before we get Nanobots to do it, but who knows, the computer technology revolution went incredible fast.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Actually, the body already has a protein coded into the DNA that can repair the "caps" on the ends of DNA. It's used when we're fetuses (which is how we can grow so fast without the DNA wearing out). Basically, each time the DNA is recopied, it looses a bit of junk DNA at the ends of the chromosomes (the "caps"). Telomerase (sp? I can't remember off the top of my head) goes and adds more junk DNA to the ends so that replication doesn't eat so far in as to actually start taking out DNA for the genes we use. However, it becomes deactivated and the body stops using it very early on. If we could safely activate it again, then that would open a door to very long lifespans, possibly even immortality.

 

Though it's a double-edge sword. Some believe that the reactivation of this protein is the cause, or aids in the formation of some cancers, and is why they can grow so quickly.