Grandmother Hypothesis?Slidey said:
Past adaptations don't have to prove beneficial in all other contexts. Medicine is full of examples of biological tendencies which fair poorly with novel lifestyles, e.g. the way our penchant for fats and sugars puts us at risk of a general metabolic syndrome in a situation in which we have these things 'on tap' (just walk into any city corner store). That we are adapted to eat/want/process certain foods does not ensure that pursuing such foods is the best course of action (environments change! and, as Slidey mentioned, we are living longer).Kwayera said:
I don't doubt that (hence my comments in another thread on epigenetics), but in this case there is no evidence (as far as my admittedly brief perusal of the library's large science journal cohort) that longevity past 30 is affected by one's consumption of meat.KFunk said:
I think I actually pretty much agree with everything you have said here. My last point of resolve lies in the fact that we both recognize that individuals have the capability of making either choice when presented with a decision. Now whilst I recognize that they may be prone to choosing one choice over another we enter a tricky territory when we started interweaving morality in with the decision making process.KFunk said:
Interestingly enough I would probably throw preference in film genre and attractive individuals into the meaningless discussion basket too. The reason we find music, artwork or literature worthwhile for discussion is because we believe that they hold some value and meaningfulness. Discussing preferences in morality when you ultimate regard that morality as having no real meaning still appears to be meaning less to me. I mean essentially, if we look at an entirely naturalistic approach to the creation and existance of everything there is no meaning or actual value in anything beyond what we have decided is meaningful (which again, is of no real meaning). Everything is simply cause and reaction of different elements.KFunk said:
The importance of conflict resolution implies that conflict resolution has some value and meaning. I think you would find that this leads back to a case of what you believe is "right" and "wrong". The same goes for the claim that understanding is valuable.KFunk said:
What do you think causes cancer? It is almost exclusively DNA mutation. Bone degradation is a common phenomenon for diets with excessive amounts of iron; iron and calcium are competitively absorbed. Even without iron competition, calcium alone won't prevent bone degradation. It's currently unknown exactly why meat consumption causes bone problems, however.Kwayera said:
If you want. It's a fairly self-obvious part of evolutionary theory though: once an organism passes peak reproductive period, requirement for selective advantage starts to fall rapidly to zero, meaning things which confer a selective advantage in early life (such as eating meat in the wild) have no requirement of such a selective advantage in later life.
You don't think cancer, heart disease, diabetes or bone problems affect life expectancy after 30?Kwayera said:
http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/abstract/70/3/532S
Does this not assume that life and its longevity has some value and meaning?HalcyonSky said:
Ok, so the response I got from you guys is can basically be summed up as: Intelligent Design has a negative spin on it because it = teh stoopidHalcyonSky said:
That reminds me of how creationists mistakenly claim evolution is only a hypothesis. Or at least they try to, but end up calling it a theory instead (as though that's meant to be a bad thing in science).KFunk said:
Pretty much. We don't really give much credence to concepts claiming to be science without making any reference to the scientific method. Neither do the courts or the Pope (but since you follow ID, I'm guessing you're either protestant, evangelical, or non-denominational).BradCube said:
Really? What scientific evidence? This claim is made time and time again, but inevitably no "scientific evidence" is ever produced.*yooneek* said:
Antony Flew aside, I agree that the evidence in nature points to design... bottom-up design.
Wouldn't make too much of Flew's "conversion":*yooneek* said:
I get so lost in some of your comments slidey. You claim that it does not matter what a prominent person thinks (and I agree with this, although there points could be very valid), and use the courts and the pope as an example in why intelligent design can be dismissed?Slidey said:
I imagine, 'persuade' was used rather than proved since neither the atheist nor the theist can prove their belief empirically.Slidey said:
The courts and the pope having good reasons behind them... To say they've been rejected by the vatican and the courts is not to say they are wrong because that authority says so, but to point out that strong logical/theological arguments have been made against accepting the theory.
And this line of logic could be applied to whatever prominent person you are talking about. Still though, just stating that they do believe something is not proof. The proof is in why they believe what they do.youBROKEmyLIFE said:
To Catholics, the Pope is the 'voice' of God. Since Catholics comprise the majority of the world's Christians, it certainly matters what the Pope thinks - not because I attribute him any special mental clarity, but because billions (about 1/6 of the world) of Catholics in the world do - about half of all Christians. He is not a tool for proof, but a can be a tool for conveying the truth.BradCube said:
Incorrect. Science is all about empirical proof. Evolution is proved empricially repeatedly. Intelligent Design on the other hand has not provided any adequate empirical proof.
If I raised a point that said 1/2 of the worlds atheists follow what one atheist believes then does this mean that whatever that person says on a topic is authoritative or conveys truth? Not to mention the fact many of those atheists don't actively pursue their belief (or Catholics in the underlying example, that don't actively pursue Christianity).Slidey said:
You may have misunderstood my point here. I am not talking about about evolution - I am referring to the existance of everything in the universe and the universe itself. If you believe you have empirical proof that disproves the existance of God, then please bring it forward. I want to hear itSlidey said:
From your own wiki article...
It's really not quite as profound a retort when you put it that way eh?
eh, I am getting over this response now: Faires and God are the same thing - dismissable. I will re-iterate again my point. Posing God answers far more questions which are un-answerable by us (at least through science). Origin of the universe, life etc.youBROKEmyLIFE said:
BradCube said:
Agreed, but this certainly does not mean it is reasonable on its own! It means that it is only reasonable when provided with other proofs or reasons.youBROKEmyLIFE said:
