im really interested in this, i know why it should evolve but i am interested how did it evolve, can anyone help me out?
im really interested in this, i know why it should evolve but i am interested how did it evolve, can anyone help me out?
The short answer is that no-one knows. Since sexual reproduction is a method used even by unicellular organisms, and an abbreviated form even in bacteria, it is probable that it evolved very early in the history of life on Earth. It may even have been present in crude form in the very first proto-cells, with nucleic acid particles spreading from one cell to another.
Hmm, because sex pili were used in bacteria indeed. I don't know if fungi have sexual reproduction though, i'm guessing that some can fuse it's cell together in times of stress. But under normal circomstances i'd say fungi don't sexually reproduce.
The origin of sexual reproduction in multicellular eukaryotes, is probably a wide guess. But evolutionary, anemones from the sea, probably started the first actual sexual reproduction, in multicellular eukaryotes.
As some anemones use huge amounts of spores and eggs to get offspring. Some anemones connect to the ones from the opposite gender to sexually reproduce, and secrete already fertilised eggs. Even some secrete motile offspring.. Then there is the male parasitism from the fish from the deep sea, which can be a next step. Where the male and female joined bodies in a motile way. Then it could probably have evolved to be 2 separate, but seemingly equal sexes..
Not really referenced, but i think i may have a point here ..
A great question. I was hoping there'd be more research into this but, as skeptic says, whatever happened was very early on, so we have no way to determine how things got started. Zwolver, I'm glad you mentioned fungus because they are really amazing. Almost every fungus can reproduce sexually, not just asexually. Some fungi have limitations to mating partners, like humans (you wouldn't really call them "male" and "female" but the idea is roughly the same) while other kinds can reproduce with any other member of their kind! And there are still phyla that we don't know about--meaning fungi we have observed reproducing asexually, but have not observed reproducing sexually, and so are still in the dark about them. Hm...still in the dark. I feel a joke in here somewhere. Maybe something about bioluminescence.
Hey, you're in the Netherlands, so you're near the Centraalbureau voor Schimmelcultures! I don't know if they have a public face, but it would be worth checking out. Maybe there's a tour or something.
Yeah, i know people who work there. But it doesn't really come over as something really interesting. They mostly just store the fungi, where they can grow and send it to other labs..
Ah, that's too bad. I thought maybe they had some interesting projects going on. Seems like these kinds of "simple" life forms would be a good way to study the evolution of sex. ACTUALLY, getting back to the original question, no one has yet mentioned the one obvious reason the sexual reproduction would evolve---or perhaps I should merely say, the one advantage that sexual reproduction has over asexual reproduction. And that is that sexual reproduction means very quick genetic diversity, which means a species is more adaptable over the long term. Asexual reproduction has the advantage of rapid population growth, but the species may be more sensitive to disruption of the environment. Both methods have their advantage.
New Scientist had an interesting theory on why sexual reproduction arose. In the early days, about a billion years ago, when the first eucaryote cells formed, there was a lot of junk DNA inserted, due to viruses etc. This because those early cells had no workable immune systems, and they were constantly attacked.
The genetic reshuffling that happened each time sexual reproduction occurred meant that some daughter cells contained lots of that junk DNA and some had a lot less. Natural selection took care of the worse cases, and that left a population that was genetically much healthier.
Also from New Scientist---sexual reproduction & geology:
Sex born from hard rock and heavy metal - life - 19 June 2012 - New Scientist
The key feature of sexual reproduction is not the exchange of genetic information, but the process of meiosis. Through meiosis a diploid genome undergoes reductive division to a haploid state. Understanding how that happened is probably the more important question to ask here. I don't like to see the transfer of genetic material amongst bacteria described as "sex"; it's quite misleading. Granted it may shed light on some of the reasons why sexual reproduction can be advantageous, but it sheds little light on the real question.
Single-celled organisms, which were probably haploid, would have to have undergone some kind of cell fusion, endosymbiosis or genome doubling to become diploid individuals. Without the formation of diploid cells there could be no sexual reproduction. How meiosis itself evolved is quite puzzling and remains an open question.
You mean the parasexual processes that don't require meiosis. Yeah, "sex" is not the right word for those actions, to be sure.
I'd always like seeing us as a key, and the problem we are facing the lock. If there are enough keys, that shuffle their slots, the lock is bound to open when given enough variations, no matter how difficult ..
Sex is the way to shuffle the slots btw.. vary the key itself..
I think I have this one covered.
There was a time when we could clone ourselves. When we had something awesome called Mitosis (I think). This allowed you to just reproduce alone. Clone yourself and DONE, you are FREE from the worries of life and can enjoy it. Then evolution fucked us and introduced Meiosis.
This basicly means you have to find a partner to couple with to reproduce, this has several depressing effects. You are now dependant on others for survival. You now have to fight harder to reproduce. Your offspring are no longer exactly as awesome as you - but shared with some other. You can no longer proudly point at your youngling and say "Thats me, yeeeah!"but are now forever doomed to have another one behind you saying "AND ME!" - completely ruining your narcissistic moment of triumph. As if finding someone of your equal genetic value isnt enough, you have to fight for them. And Im not talking about using actual force (that wouldve been easy) in modern times this means fighting socially and culturally. Which is a whole new game. You have to first devout vast amounts of time into physical labor and studying, THEN you can start to actually TRY by dating. And if you succeed - your partner may leave before you are done meeting the number of half-you that you want to make. Sending you back into the grinder. And that may take time. Before you know it an animal could bite off your reproductive organ and leave you unable to reproduce because it is SO TIME CONSUMING now.
At the end of the day Meiosis won (lucky) and cloning yourself isnt possible (yet) but hopefully that will change thanks to science. Thats how sex evolved from a simple, practical and awesome way into a superhard struggle that will consume your whole life.
You sound bitter and sexually frustrated.
Coherence: Actually this is pretty clear 10/10
Content: It's full off untrue bullshit 1/10
Validity: Finding a mate is more difficult these days 4/10
I have a solution for you. Stop focussing on the reproductive part. Stop thinking yourself as awesome, as it'll get you nowhere. And stop being pigheaded. Simply moderate, and go talk to the nice girl in the corner..
Why? Because making someone like that happy is a full time job. Nobody wants to do it! It's too hard! It's like lifting a ton of concrete every day. You die younger if you do it. So she will make you happy for a week or a month and then leave you. And that's when your world falls apart. Remember my words. NO idol worship when it comes to couples. You find a woman and she becomes your idol, you're in trouble. Don't worship idols brother.
I'll tell you a story to prove why idol worship is wrong in a couple. There was a man in Romania who married a beautiful woman. He loved her very much...a bit too much. He was voicing out his love and worship phrases, that the woman became to feel embarassed. He built a shrine for the woman, with men's device and pictures of her hanging all over the walls, and worshipped the woman as a Goddess saying "honey, may you be the Goddess I love and worship". He bought her 5 inch heels and special equipment designed to perform various pornographic abomination indoors. He would [...] in front of the shrine and [...] on the pictures, leaving an awful smell in that room after a while. THE POOR WOMAN RAN AWAY!
Remember, love is good for the one loving, not for the one being loved. When someone loves you...it can be an annoyance! Women say they want to be loved by men but what they really mean is, they want to be taken care of by men, not loved as a testosterone boosted man would understand it.
You have a weird view of love.
As a happily married man, let me tell you.
1. Love does not come to you like iron to a magnet. You have to get out there and seek it out. Work at it.
2. Having found your love partner, do not relax. Maintaining love requires continual effort.
3. It is worth it. Oh, boy, is it worth it! Love makes life complete. Without love, or at least companionship, life is not pleasant.
@Zwolver: You did realize my post was intended as humor? Though some guy did say once that "There is some truth to every joke" or something.
1) It was very funny. I lol'd.
2) There IS a sting of truth in there. Most definitely.
3) It was not at all CLEAR that you were joking around, as evidenced by the various responses.
4) Don't let that stop you having a sense of humor and joking around.
5) That was the most emoticons I've ever used in a single post.
If you're lucky, that 'break up' will be death, and you're the first to go. Grief at the loss of love is the price we're willing to pay - we just hope it's delayed to the end of two long lives - as long as possible. And that it will be bearable when it eventually comes.If your lover breaks up with you, your world collapses, mine doesn't.
As for the benefits of mutual, reciprocal, sensual love, no-one said it better than Blake.
Not something available to the unloved, the unloving or the solitary.What is it men in women do require?
The lineaments of gratified desire.
What is it women in men require?
The lineaments of gratified desire.
We are human, and it is human to need other people, whether lover, family or friends. The life alone is the saddest and most depressing. Finding and relating to another, or many others, is liberating and wonderful.
Either way, I have been doing this twice a week for the past 6 years, to catch up with me just so far, you need to live 400 years old. My master laughs at you right now, you have not understood ANYTHING to this existence despite your old age!
What makes you think that happily married people don't meditate? Plenty do.
I have learned something here.
1) Oxycodone will never accept advice from anyone less then 400 years.
2) Nobody will ever be able to get to 400 years.
3) Oxycodone will never accept advice.
I agree that finding love can be frustrating. And continuous dissapointments can really scar a man. I do know that the love you can eventually get, will be better then anything your own mind can think of. Though i agree with skeptic it takes continuous work.
But there are people who have WAY to high standards, that have abnormal feelings of love, or sex, that simply can not maintain a relationship. To those, i'd say good luck.. Best to you all, as it's not your fault, and you will never be able to be as happy in a relationship as what you should be (or as god probably would have intended in the case that he existed).
To everyone in this unusual debate about human sexuality, I can only say, you sound like this:
"Well I like being married."
"Well I like not being married."
"But I like being married, damnit! And since I like it, that must mean everyone was meant to like it!"
"Well I am happy as I am, so you are a fool and probably no one can be as happy as me ever! I am the best!"
But by all means, please continue.
I have always wondered what it was that really shaped living things to function just as they do. All organs work together like as if someone put it all together for a purpose.
@Oxycodone: Did you hold the torch of unrequited love for too long - and got so tired you sat down to meditate? This is derailing way to far from the OPs original thread but oh well. Ill tell you my own story. I was a kind, caring and loving person. I never cared for money, power or anything. Just one thing - a woman to love that loved me back for who I am. Only 2 times in my life have I been in love so far. None of them was romantically interested. What does that do to you in the long run? It eats you up alive second by second while that want for love goes unsatisfied. You become hateful, angry, extremely cynical and in the end changes you to a person that is no longer capable of loving. In my case - the only thing I really wanted from life, was no longer even possible. Because I became so bitter, hateful and negative that I couldnt love anyone - not even myself.
I then saw a newspaper article about a guy who shot some women at a gym. A self decleared "Woman hater" because women didnt want him. And I thought "What an idiot, its not the womens fault they didnt love him. He shouldve changed himself to deserve to be loved" and voila - there was the answer. As you say yourself - you cant anchor your whole life on someone else to love you, but that isnt true love either. True love is when a relationship doesent feel like a job at all - only the only place you want to be (Atleast thats how I see it). But do what I did. Focus on other stuff like friends, working out, studies, work. Altruism actually works. Be good to people - alot. And treat yourself good and get selfrespect by doing things right, and do right by others. In time you can reverse the change (Or just change in general) and it does NOT need you to "sacrifice" yourself. As you get smarter, wiser and stronger by the years - selfconfidence, selfrespect and such thing comes step by step. But it needs hard work. 4 years ago I had no goals in life, went on social welfare, I was antisocial, pessimistic and apathetic. You cant just expect someone to love you because of your own delusional way of thinking you are so great when you arent. Today Im studying japanese with an introductionary course in psychology for the fun of it on the side. I have many friends, consider myself lively, polite and outgoing. Ive had some setbacks with sleeping habits and having stopped working out some periods but I never fell off my studies or said no to living (Being with friends, family).
It may sound absurd, but the reason I changed my life. Was meditation too. Not sitting in some weird position with my legs crossed, with mental masturbation like you are doing now, with the whole "250 illusionary orgasms". But by spending 3 seconds infront of the mirror in the morning imagining falling asleep with a girl in my arms that I loved (That goal was enough to give me a motivation for life and change that has lasted 4 years even knowing it may never happen). And you know what? Even if I never find the love of my life. It sure as hell is worth fighting for. Im sorry to be blunt. But that meditation of yours? It sounds like you are running away, not obtaining wisdom or real happiness at all. 4 years ago I wouldnt even have bothered to reply to you, and I wouldve been afraid of making a fool of myself on this forum telling you this. But in the end we all die and life is too short to be afraid, and personally I feel that - if you didnt love someone in life - or even try. Then you lived in vain. You call love limiting? Limiting is being afraid, running away and being trapped in illusionary "Would be" world. If you think Im writing this to hurt or lecture you, youre wrong. I just hope this may open your eyes and change your life. Respect and love is very much alike, in that it cant be given - only EARNED.
You don't have to find the perfect love. You can make it.
Find yourself a girl; who is less than perfect, but nevertheless a good person, and who is willing to love you. You can learn to love, if your target is worth while. She does not have to be perfect. Loving someone is worth the effort.
Yeah, i gave up on looking for the perfect girl loooong time ago, as most get illogical at times, which i as a scientifically oriented male kinda hate..
You guys are funny.
As for me, my wife compliments me. She is strong where I am weak. She is wise where I am a fool. She is thoughtful when I am brash. Without her, I am lesser. I cannot imagine my world without her.
I'm not saying everyone can find or should seek out their perfect person. Maybe that person doesn't exist for everyone. However, when you meet that person, you know it. Something fundamental inside you shifts. My wife changed my life, but not through some force of will she imposed upon me. She simply made me realize that I had to be a better man to deserve someone like her in my life.
Finding the right person is so hard I had to cross countries and oceans to find a perfect match.
Nothing worth having should be easy to obtain.
Nowadays it's difficult because no one has a religion anymore. Before it was easy, love the creator, creator states that you shall love the husband and catter to his will, if the woman loved the creator, she indirectly loved the husband and cattered to his will in order to please the creator. It was beautiful because it removed all those evil, nasty motivations like money or fortune, but now it's nearly gone lol.
And for people who say that in a couple, love should be unconditional and both should love eachother...brothers and sisters...if that were to be true, the amount of married men and women would be below 25%.
If you want to know why, mix 500 white magnetic balls with 500 magnetic black balls so that the white balls attract the black ones in series from 1 to 500, and mix them for 2 minutes and 20 seconds. You will be astonished after that time to realize that less than 25% of the balls have found their match.
Last edited by Oxycodone; October 7th, 2012 at 11:05 AM.
Uh... Oxy? For someone who claims the ego is not important, you sure seem to be obsessed with stroking yours. Not to mention misogynistic. Care to explain?
"Men are guardians of women, because Allah has made one superior to the other, and (also) because men spend their wealth (on them). So the pious wives are obedient. They guard (their chastity) in the absence of their husbands with the protection of Allah. But those women whom you fear will disobey and defy, admonish them; and (if they do not amend) separate them (from yourselves) in beds; and (if they still do not improve) turn away from them, striking a temporary parting. Then if they become cooperative with you, do not seek any way against them. Surely, Allah is Most High, Most Great."
and in Genesis Chapter number 3, verse number 16:
"Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee. "
and in Corinthians Chapter number 11, verse number 3:
"But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God. "
Corinthians Chapter number 14 verse number 34 to 36:
"Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church. "
Ephesians Chapter number 5, verse number 22 to 24:
"Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing. "
Colossians Chapter number 3, verse number 18:
"Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as it is fit in the Lord. "
Timothy Chapter number 2 verse number 11 to 15:
"Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing."
and in Peter Chapter number 3, verse number 1:
"Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands."
I can keep on quoting verses from the Bible, the Quran, and hindu scriptures until tomorrow morning. Brother, do you consider your word to be above the word of God? Some men believe women are FAR superior to men, and they worship Fleshlights in satanic rituals, and they bow onto the women. What kind of man are you brother?
My friend, you have only addressed the issue of your feelings toward women, and not why you seek pleasure with such vigilance! But, since you have answered one of my questions, I will answer one of yours.
I believe above all else that the true word of God cannot be written down, cannot be spoken, and in most cases cannot be understood by us mere mortals. The scriptures are an effort to understand God. They are an attempt to make clear what is right and what is wrong. They are not holy in and of themselves. You do not worship a book, afterall; you worship God. I believe that no man (or woman, since it bothers you so much) no man is perfect. Nor has there ever been a perfect man. Not Jesus, not Muhammad. Not any of the various prophets of the various religions. These men, regardless how holy, regardless if God smiled on them, they were still only men. They were fallible and imperfect, like all men and women. It is men who write scriptures, not God. Men, trying to share what they have heard of the word of God, trying to make sense of what God speaks to them, write down what they perceive.
Over time humanity's relationship with and understanding of God has changed. It was not long ago that Muhammad did not exist. And before that, Jesus did not exist. But things change, and Jesus came along, and Muhammad came along, just as so many others had before them. New scriptures are written, each time making a new effort to understand God in the context of the world in which we live. When the context changes enough, a new prophet arises with new teachings.
So no, I do not believe that man is superior to woman just because I read it in a book. What's the use of old and frozen thought? I believe what God whispers in my heart, not what is leftover from hundreds of years ago.
The reason is that I do not believe in any hypothetical being you might call "God".
This is not unusual in a science forum. Most people trained in science are religious non believers. In the USA, for example, around 90% of the general population believe in a personal deity. However, only 40% of those with a bachelor's degree in science believe that. And of those with a Ph.D. degree in science, the number drops to 7%.
It is quite simple. Belief in deity is superstition, and those who are enlightened by a good understanding of science tend to discard superstition.
My view on women is that they are simply the female of our species. They are different from the male, but equal. They are wonderful creatures who deserve our love, our respect, our caring, and who deserve to stand beside us men as equal partners. Those who believe the religious bullsh!t about female inferiority that comes from Christian or Muslim superstition, and try to degrade women accordingly, deserve to be treated with disdain.
I was kidding lol, I'm a hopeless athiest, meaning, an athiest that knows all scriptures and believes in none.
Since this has taken a religious standpoint, I shall open up.
I take on several views, while maintaining a sense on religion.
I agree with physics, but I think God exists and works outside of them. He created the universe very meticulously. He made us from the simplest early cells to us. If He thought women were inferior, chances are He wouldn't have made them. He might be doing His work on other planets with life. Accept him, you are rewarded. Deny him, and you end up like Oxycodone.
...Now as to relate to the topic SOMEWHAT, I'm surprised that we evolved with separate genders. It makes more sense to me to have one bisexual(I'm using this to mean "two sexes") that way you have one hookup, and you have TWO offspring producers, with twice as many "men" and "women".(If this were the case, we wouldn't have such a gender bias problem in society.)
yes. although, childbirth? no thanks, i'll stick to boning.
I was going to comment that childbirth and associated female reproductive issues being a universal problem might have led to much quicker advances in contraception and in pain control for menstruation and childbirth. But you got there first.
"I was going to comment that childbirth and associated female reproductive issues being a universal problem might have led to much quicker advances in contraception and in pain control for menstruation and childbirth. But you got there first."
no idea what you just said, but from what i hear, orgasms would fun. probably.
"The deity superstition is open to having fun made of it."
you have three seconds to live before an angry horde of devout hindus, bhudists, and methodists trample you to death.
Last edited by bigratlover; October 10th, 2012 at 10:43 PM. Reason: dont know how to enter a quote in an edit.
Ah yes, the religious rights activists, of course. But I wouldnt say muslims are what you need to worry about.
Militant is the key word. To say we don't need to worry about Muslims is meaningless, because we need to worry about violence wherever it comes from. Muslim, Christian, whatever. The faith does not matter. The violence and oppression are the things we are concerned about, wherever they may arise.
I have been a religious non believer since age 15, which means a period getting ominously close to 50 years. I have been outspoken in my views, and a lot of religious people have told me rude things. To date, my head remains firmly on my shoulders, and I doubt I am in any danger.
Of course, New Zealand is one of the world's most secular societies (one reason I am proud of my country), and about 50% of the population share my non belief.
I think you may have just read it too fast. ;P
But on that note, it can be very difficult for a non-theist to remain calm in the face of theism, just as it can be difficult for a religious person to remain calm in the face of atheism. In both cases a person's very understanding of the world is being questioned. Generally speaking, the theist believes that their actions must adhere to the dictates of a non-human intelligence, or they will suffer the consequences. Their whole understanding of life revolves around this point. If you tell them "none of that matters!" you are threatening their understanding of life, of why they exist, and of how they ought to live their lives. But the exact same is true for the non-theist. If you tell me "there is a non-human intelligence and you will burn in hell if you do not worship him", that is a radical departure from my understanding of life, and from my understanding of how I ought to live my life. It can be very threatening, and that is why such debates usually devolve into chaotic bickering. Because that debate is more than just academic, it is deeply affecting on a personal and cultural level.
For this reason, I try to give everyone the benefit of the doubt when it comes to religion. You're religious, you're not religious, you just don't care... this is not as important to me as your individual conduct. (I don't mean you personally, I just mean in general.) And when interpreting conduct I try to assume the best of people. Not always easy, but I try.
Really? I don't find it that way. It's often a challenge to find a way to change the subject without upsetting a believer, but that's about the extent of it.It can be very threatening
That just makes you more even-tempered than some others. :P
When I was younger, I spent several years in Fiji as a high school science teacher, and several of my colleagues were muslim Indians. They were very fine people, and as a result, I do not have any prejudice against muslims purely because they are muslims. I am seriously prejudiced, though, against any militant religious type.
As you should be. Radical idealism is a blight on humanity. I'm all for cultural relativism, but when you start killing people because they want an education, I'll be happy to flush you down the drain.
It is really easy. Obviously, you have to be nice to her. The key is to tell her you love her about once a day, and to compliment her every time she does something good.
Really, if you follow these two rules, then (unless she is a nut case) she will be eating out of your hands, go around with happiness filled.
I'm done with this thread, for now. Peace!
That all adds up to why I cant last more than 17.4 seconds in a catholic church(or the middle ages).
Now, what about this concern of yours, Flick?
That sums it up nicely. It is not just that a person doesn't believe in God, and might choose to start believing in God--that would be the simplest matter of faith. But there is much more to it. There is an entire understanding of how the world works, and this understanding is very VERY amazing (atheists feel sad for religious ppl, just like religious ppl feel sad for atheists). There is so much in common, it is almost amusing. A Christian might say, "Hate the sin and not the sinner." An atheist would say, "Hate the belief and not the believer." Both ppl are trying to compromise and come to some middle ground, but both people have extremely different ways of understanding the universe. It takes hard work to change your entire world view, one way or the other.
did i say anything about changing your views? im confused about where you people got that point. flick, where i cant see how some thing happens i say, "it is god". when i learn how it is, it becomes, "so thats how he does it." my view of god is slowly complexifying over the years. i start to think, "people think god is everything, so maybe every little particle is god?"
Yes, that is how many religious folks feel. You are not alone there! If you have faith in something, you derive meaning from it and it helps you through life. It works well, but that is only one approach to find meaning in life. Another option is to build meaning as you go based on your own personal experiences.some thing happens i say, "it is god". when i learn how it is, it becomes, "so thats how he does it."
See, you can substitute the word god in your statement above for anything you like, can't you? For example, there is nothing unusual about saying,Afterall, you don't know anything about god on this level of detail. You know that there IS a god, but all the details beyond that are things someone else convinced you of. You have not experienced it yourself, but must take the word of a very very old account of someone elses experience of god in order to find clues about what god might be like. And if those very very old clues suggest masculinity, then that is what you will think, NOT because you have any personal experience that god is masculine, but because someone told you he was. This is a silly example, of course, but it illustrates the reason atheists get so prickly with religious folk."so thats how she does it."
From an atheists understanding of the world, you can't take something for given just because someone tells you. Not even the existence of a creator. If you can substitute she for he, then you can substitute anything else in there as well. Why should you believe god has a gender at all? That would imply biological sexy times, which doesn't seem very Christian/Muslim/Jewish (though might fit well in other religions). Point is, you don't know the details. Maybe god looks like a raccoon! The only reason you might say otherwise is something that a holy-man wrote down thousands of years ago in a completely different language. And why do you trust that guy? Well, that's how you were raised.
If you were raised in Pakistan you would take your details from a different book, and your life would have turned out very differently. All because the details were different. Majority of humans believe there is a creator of some kind, so in the end everyone is really just squabbling over the details. And the atheists point is that those details are... well, they're completely pointless, because you can not actually know them. There isn't even anything to discuss! Something happened and we exist. Eventually, we will die. We can't KNOW any more than that. We can FEEL more. We can BELIEVE more. But we can't KNOW any more than that (but for some reason everyone thinks they do know--even the atheists!).
What I'm trying to explain is that atheists are, by and large, all about being practical. Whenever a religious person talks to an atheist, the atheist asks "how do you KNOW these things?" Of course, the retort is, "I have FAITH!" But the atheist will here that as, "Well, I don't KNOW these things, but I believe them with a force of will." Doesn't sound very convincing. And that's because there is no personal experience involved, and the atheist world-view is completely defined by personal experience (or perhaps the experience of others so long as they can be repeated with similar results). If you had personally seen that god created the universe, that would be a different story. To an atheist, the idea of faith is entirely contrary to their understanding of existence, in which meaningfulness is made as you go, and not pre-defined in any way.
Kinda long, sorry, I don't know if any of that was helpful, or if I just sounded like a pompous ass. Here's the summary:
different religions = different details for the same events, even though none of the details can be observed
atheism = no details about these events are knowable, and therefor its not worth spending time chasing details
having faith = one approach to make a meaningful life (meanings are generally pre-defined)
not having faith = a different approach to make a meaningful life (meanings are not generally pre-defined)
I agree with you, but I would use the word 'skeptic' instead of atheist. Sadly, there are some atheists who are so certain of their own beliefs, they might as well be religious. But a skeptic is one who demands evidence.
I believe nothing on the basis of faith, or what I have been told, or emotional input, or someone's spiritual inspiration. My belief system, like that of every good skeptic, is based on empirical, credible, and objective evidence. Even that is not perfect, but it is a damn sight better than anything anyone else has come up with.
That's true, unfortunately. They give the rest of us a bad name. I am coming around more and more to the idea of identifying as a skeptic.
Not sure if JoshuaL's athiestic/skeptic, agnostic, or theistic.
The evidence suggests that Joshua is smart, and uses real evidence to form his ideas. That puts him in the skeptic camp, whether he identifies himself as such or not. Note that skeptic and science oriented are very, very similar.
I feel guilty giving a like to that comment, but whatcha gonna do?
If I don't have the care or interest to research, I just say, "Eh, who cares. It happens somehow." But if I really care, then yes I will go out and answer that question. I say, "Oh, so that how He does it" because that is part of my faith- every thing is controlled by God.Baseless assumption. I cannot accept that. When I don't understand how something works, I investigate it without first forming an opinion. If I don't understand something and simply say, "It's God" what is the driving force to learn about it?
You can't SEE the evidence because you look at the wrong stuff. Where are you?(On a forum.) Why are you there?(Because I exist.) How did you get to be?(I was formed out of matter from the big bang.) How do you explain that?(silence.) Exactly! You are looking at the wrong stuff- you are brought into existence by God, who did everything himself. You may not accept it because there is no evidence, but to me, the lack of evidence speaks in favor of my beliefs.I get that you want to credit God for everything, but his hand is not visible in any way shape or form. The underlying fact remains; you accept that God is the constructive factor behind everything in creation without having any evidence to support that idea. I refuse to accept the predetermined notion that God is behind everything when there is no evidence to suggest such a thing. I will entertain the idea that an omniscient creator is a possibility, but I don't accept it as truth.
Think about your computer. You cannot observe the calculations happening in any way. None. However, you can see the outcome of the work on the computer monitor as an image, the only evidence that there was anything that was working to make that image. This can be applied to religion. You cannot see the acting forces, yet the outcome is irrefutable. A person who doesn't believe the acting calculations exist will simply say, "It is just an image on a screen. Nothing is causing it. It is just there."Now you're suggesting that God is just some vague, benevolent force. If he is not tangible, if he cannot be observed in any manner, he does not exist to me yet. If, by his vary nature, he cannot be observed in any way, he will never exist to me.
You are describing the "God of the gaps" philosophy. Use science to explain what science explains, and then, when you find a gap that science cannot (yet) explain, you invoke God.
The problem with that is that most of what science explains today was gaps yesterday, and gaps today will be scientific explanations tomorrow.
What you suggest with God, however, is a force that is impossible to measure or observe in any manner which we know of. Like skeptic said, it's very easy to apply God to the things we don't understand, but it is more productive to admit our ignorance and pursue a rational method of understand that which we do not comprehend.
Let me restate that:
You cannot see the forces yourself. There is no way. The equipment shows it. The outcome of the work is shown by those machines.Think about your computer. You cannot observe the calculations happening in any way. None. However, you can see the outcome of the work on the computer monitor as an image, the only evidence that there was anything that was working to make that image
I'm having trouble explaining myself. Whats the term for knowing you're right, but having no way to explain yourself? I KNOW I'm not the only one that has run across this situation.
Ummm....Hi there. First time poster. One of my classes at Uni involves Women in Science; and I'm presenting Lynn Marguillis as a final presentation; and she wrote a whole book on the orgin of I believe meiotic sex. She proposes that it all started as aborted attempts to cannibalize among protists, where one protist would gobble the other and go floating by, diploid and bloated; and this basically led to the creation of gametes that would do this gene sharing between two floaters. What do you guys think of that?
So whats the smallest or oldest species we know which depends on a sexual function between sexes in that species?
Some people think the evolution theory has it all wrapped up, but questions like this make me wonder how much we actually know.
It's another example of symbiotic relations, not just bewteen species, but between sexes within a species. How can it have evolved? isnt it more likely that it was created?
This is the sort of question that arises only if people don't fully grasp the enormous, gigantic, literally incomprehensible periods of time involved in these very gradual changes. It might look simpler or easier to create in an instant, but it's just as easy to allow species to respond to their environments over millions of years. We ourselves haven't had one million years yet. But mammals, our lot, were around for a few million years before the dinosaurs went extinct.isnt it more likely that it was created?
When they went, there were lots and lots of environmental niches just waiting to be filled. And the mammals were the ones to do it. Of course, gradual is not the best word to describe the near frenzy of diversity that follows an extinction event. Big things happen in mere decades or centuries rather than multiple millions. Look at how easily Darwin's finches managed to develop into multiple species when isolated on their islands.
If you like the idea of a creator, there's absolutely no good reason to imagine one hand-crafting every single algae, whale, quince tree, wombat, octopus, lichen, clam, fungus, coral, earthworm, lavender bush and meerkat. Why not set up a self-powered production line and hit the start button?
I was going to link to this page to end the argument about the scientific plausiblity of a deity that I was in with flick, skeptic, and josh that for some reason we started having on this thread. However, since the topic has switched back, nevermind. 10 Things Christians and Atheists Can (And Must) Agree On | Cracked.com
You wise-crack quote about a Creator who would have to had to hand craft every single thing shows your ignorance of what most creationists believe the Bible teaches.
If you like the idea of evolution, there's absolutely no good reason to imagine that one should be able to trust the reasoning and working of an evolved monkey brain that evolved for no purpose through blind random chemical processes. Why not have an Omnipotent Deity intelligently design life?
I think things just got out of hand....
For all your blustering, the only thing you revealed was that you are unaware of how the process works.
Read here:TalkOrigins Archive: Exploring the Creation/Evolution Controversy
Overcome your misconceptions, first.
Adelady nailed it.
|« Zinc perhaps didn't limit evolution of Eukayotes | Book recommendation - Evolution »|