Darwinism and genetics

Started by TheBadger, July 19, 2013, 08:23:53 pm

Previous topic - Next topic

PabloMack

July 22, 2013, 04:39:19 pm #15 Last Edit: July 22, 2013, 05:08:34 pm by PabloMack
Quote from: TheBadger on July 21, 2013, 01:25:59 pm
Thanks guys! :)
For me there are two fundamental questions, the how and the why. The how is biology/science, and the why is metaphysics/philosophy/religion.


I don't understand what you mean by "why". When some criminal commits a crime and the victim or his/her relatives ask "Why" they usually are interested in learning the motive behind the perpetraitor's decision to commit the crime. In our case, we humans who are connected to the Internet are all victims here. If there is any motive for creation you are looking in the wrong place for an answer. If there were no God (as atheists claim) there is no "why" because there is no perpetrator. Whatever motive was behind causing what we see in nature to come into being must be asked of the being who caused it. The question of this "why" cannot be answered with genetics because genetics is only a field of study that seeks to answer "how" questions.

I sometimes hear people talk about things like gender and DNA as being universal things. Those people say such things only because their experience and frame of mind is limited to a world where these things have become standards. But such standards should never be viewed as being universal. My wife and I like to watch a show called "Cold Case Files" which is a documentary series (on CUBE broadcast in the USA) about real murder cases that went cold until most of them were solved usually decades later. We both laugh every time the narrator says things like "genetic fingerprinting could not be used because DNA had not yet been invented." This goes past a lot of people as they quickly dismiss the existence of certain realitites just because their usefulness isn't immediately apparent. Of course, you and I both know that DNA was not invented but rather discovered. It was circa 1993 or so that DNA sequencing technology became available and cost effective enough to be used to solve criminal cases. But, of course, DNA didn't need humans to exist and has probably been around on Earth for at least three billion years. If biological forms of life does exist on other planets, it would not surprise me in the least to find that their genetic medium for recording how to build, repair and operate their bodies is chemically something far removed from Deoxyribonucleic Acid. But nothing other than what has become a standard on our planet would enter one's mind as possibilities if he/she were a TV zombie whose education consisted of watching popular television fictions written by morons.

Tangled-Universe

I think that's well said Pablo.

As to the "why" I think there's no specific need for a directed cause and effect as chaos/entropy is the driving force.
It's a chance based chaotic system which converges to sustainable/stable results over a huge time-frame.

That's something people "forget" or find too comprehensive to oversee or imagine, the huge time span this whole process takes place.
Billions and/or many millions of years, it's sooo freaking long. Beyond imagination, likely.
On top of that, like my previous link shows, it all doesn't happen step by step.
In a whole population multiple branches of evolution appear and disappear and even within those different branches a multitude of tiny changes can take place.
These findings further support that evolution can be dead slow or actually quite fast (in our time frame of reference), leading to significant biological changes leading to improved or worse survival odds.

About DNA:

Discussing whether DNA is unique to earth biology is very difficult and quite a different discussion from this.

Some people ascribe the most scary properties to DNA, because it can be so deterministic, especially if you consider non-humans, who are not self-conscious. We can more or less overcome or surpress some of our natural urges, programmed into our DNA, because we have society, conscious(ness) and more "choice" (I do not mean freedom of choice) and the like.
But animals are driven by what their DNA dictates, completely.
That makes some people think: is it the organism who wants to survive and reproduce or only the DNA?
Is DNA life itself? Is DNA evolution?

Perhaps DNA is a life form itself, widespread across the universe.
Or perhaps, if you consider statistical distrubtion patterns, which converge to the same pattern as long as you wait long enough...perhaps something similar happens to evolution in our universe.
Given that chemical compounds are present to build DNA-like molecules, not necessarily based on the same chemistry our DNA is made of!, is the ultimate way of storing biological "information" for creating life out of life, keeping alive, reproduction and death.
Other methods haven't found to be more effective by natural selection.
Again, we're looking here at vast time-scales of billions of years of course.

Perhaps DNA(like) life is universal. It's both hard and not so hard to imagine.

Within that it's easy to understand and feel for religious people's arguments that this vast complexity can't be ascribed to pure chaos and must have some kind of "guiding hand".
Clearly, I'm a man of science, working in biomedical science myself.
Research shows evolution is not "just a theory" but is real. See the links in my previous post.

Then we had Intelligent Design, which isn't even worth discussing. Those people were seemingly convinced by evolution, but not convinced that there's no God involved. However, science never claimed that, but only found results conflicting with religion!
So they theorize that God made evolution through Intelligent Design.
However, unlike scientific theories, this theory is not supported by previous research or any other scientific fact.
It's useless to discuss Intelligent Design. It's a dumb product wannabe science and religion.
The simplest possibilities are that there's a God or that there isn't. Life as we know is created by Him or by chance.
Not by something in between.
Following that trend of trying to make religion scientific, it will turn out that later they will claim that chaos and entropy are made by God too and what then? It's a never-ending story.

I guess when that time is near, hundreds or thousands of years from now perhaps, science has worked his way down into immensly deep understanding of (our) nature in search of answers.
Answers to why there's chaos and entropy will never be found I'm afraid, because these will inherently answer why our universe and all within exists. At the moment that is beyond our imagination. Well we can fantasize about it, but we have no clue yet on how we could ever get to know that.
It's that moment religious people may be waiting for to finally proof that science is wrong because of lack of evidence that God must exist, but we know that that kind of reasoning is a fallacy. The absence of something does not proof it's existence.

What we should keep in mind is that science does not exist to prove to anything to religion.
It serves our curiosity for knowledge to enrich our daily lives and improve our survival.
Science is (a product of) evolution.

It's pretty useless in my opinion to debate evolution with religious people and vice versa, I think I have explained clearly now why I think so.

efflux

Quote from: TheBadger on July 21, 2013, 01:25:59 pm
Darwin understood almost nothing about genetics, and yet everything I have been reading about evolution is based entirely on the racist nut-bags ideas. I just don't get that!? Genetics proves there is no such thing as race, or rather, genetics proves there is only one human race.


This is because Darwin was an absolute favourite of the British ruling classes. His theories proved to them (so they thought) that they were the fit to survive. Kral Marx, Engels? More of the same. Anyone who has a theory that will put down the rest of the population in favour of elites will be funded to the hilt. This funding now goes to science and why we get all the lies to do with Global Warming. Science comes up with a scheme to say that it's all these useless people causing the problem and something needs to be done to control them. If you come up with some science to provide endless free power you won't get any funding.

The actual problem is that if we don't get rid of these psyhcopaths who run things they are the ones that will cause the human race to be unfit for survival. The human species now absolutely outruns any other species ever in terms of killing it's own. No other species comes close. Allow the psyhchopaths at the top to remain and you will see more and more killing untill the species is wiped out or genetrically modified to be stupid and useless. They also have masses of resources to pump into genetic modification for controlling those genetically problematic people who actually think for themselves. Just read Brave New World to get an idea. We are already mostly into that world. Huxley who wrote that book was of course totally British elite along with his brother who was head of the British Eugenics Society. Where do you think Hitler got his ideas from?

Look for a video called The Soviet Story. That will give you some insight into these British elite psychopaths that have been running things for the last few centuries.

efflux

Read some of these outakes or better still, read the whole book:

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Brave_New_World

They also took a drug called soma and went into trance like states listening to mindless repetitive dance music created from electronic beat boxes. You think that it's an accident that so much music is like that? What happened to our classical music?

efflux

July 23, 2013, 04:37:47 pm #19 Last Edit: July 23, 2013, 04:52:43 pm by efflux
Read the "Plot" section:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brave_New_World

Malthus was another British elite favourite. He supported massive austerity on the lower classes to simply kill them off. He considered hunger, disease and war as positive checks for reducing population.

TheBadger

This is very difficult to talk about. It really is an incredibly large topic. Almost to big.

But everyone, yes. This is what I was kinda talking about in my OP. (sorry I meandered so much, it was really hard to get started)
QuoteThis is because Darwin was an absolute favourite of the British ruling classes. His theories proved to them (so they thought) that they were the fit to survive

I dont know what happens in the UK (or happened in the past)

But just these last few years, people with mental disabilities have been forcefully sterilized in California. Eugenics in the 21st century. It is not only about race though. But yes, Darwin WAS a racist nut-bag. And I don't mean race like species. I mean race like racial. He often wrote of people who he considered to be inferior in derogatory terms. So also did the people in his circle. And he him self through his work, or rather the way he represented his work, helped the Nazis do what they did. And not only the Nazis. Mostly I am talking about Darwin apart from evolution as a scientific idea.

I think it was martin who said I should separate the two; Darwin and evolution. And I am. As I said, one of the problems Im having is Darwin.
But everything I have read, heard, and am currently looking into gives him credit. But from what I think I know, Darwin did not discover evolution. But he gets all the credit because of his studies in the Goulopoulos islands. So what? Why is he immune from the same shame that we give everyone else who was like him?

There is also the mean spirited, basically hateful voice of the current politics around evolutionists, that smacks of tyranny. Where decent of any kind is absolutely persecuted with a Nazi level of self satisfaction and pride. You can already catch a whiff of it (just a taste) here and in other threads in this forum, everywhere in academia, and all over the net.

^^ that is 1 of 2 parts of what I was trying to say in my OP. (But I know I absolutely butchered my own post). As I said this is difficult to write about. An essay would be one thing. but posting a conversation like were trying to do here on such complex subjects is really hard.

The 2nd part of what I was attempting to say in my OP is on the subject of Genetics, as it relates to trying to understand evolution.
Consider the man James M. Tour (<-- this is the man from the "show" I was talking about in my OP. But I only just found him now)
http://chemistry.rice.edu/FacultyDetail.aspx?RiceID=1027
He "is one of the ten most cited chemists in the world"
He is a Nobel scientist, his Resume is to long to write here. But without a doubt he is a qualified authority on the subject of genetics.
He doe not believe in evolution. He says he tries, but he just cant. This is an interesting read. It deals with much of what I was saying at the top of this post... And much better too.


QuoteAlthough most scientists leave few stones unturned in their quest to discern mechanisms before wholeheartedly accepting them, when it comes to the often gross extrapolations between observations and conclusions on macroevolution, scientists, it seems to me, permit unhealthy leeway. When hearing such extrapolations in the academy, when will we cry out, "The emperor has no clothes!"?

...I simply do not understand, chemically, how macroevolution could have happened. Hence, am I not free to join the ranks of the skeptical and to sign such a statement without reprisals from those that disagree with me? ... Does anyone understand the chemical details behind macroevolution? If so, I would like to sit with that person and be taught, so I invite them to meet with me.


Quote... I will tell you as a scientist and a synthetic chemist: if anybody should be able to understand evolution, it is me, because I make molecules for a living, and I don't just buy a kit, and mix this and mix this, and get that. I mean, ab initio, I make molecules. I understand how hard it is to make molecules. I understand that if I take Nature's tool kit, it could be much easier, because all the tools are already there, and I just mix it in the proportions, and I do it under these conditions, but ab initio is very, very hard.

I don't understand evolution, and I will confess that to you. Is that OK, for me to say, "I don't understand this"? Is that all right? I know that there's a lot of people out there that don't understand anything about organic synthesis, but they understand evolution. I understand a lot about making molecules; I don't understand evolution. And you would just say that, wow, I must be really unusual.

Let me tell you what goes on in the back rooms of science - with National Academy members, with Nobel Prize winners. I have sat with them, and when I get them alone, not in public - because it's a scary thing, if you say what I just said - I say, "Do you understand all of this, where all of this came from, and how this happens?" Every time that I have sat with people who are synthetic chemists, who understand this, they go "Uh-uh. Nope." These people are just so far off, on how to believe this stuff came together. I've sat with National Academy members, with Nobel Prize winners. Sometimes I will say, "Do you understand this?"And if they're afraid to say "Yes," they say nothing. They just stare at me, because they can't sincerely do it.

I was once brought in by the Dean of the Department, many years ago, and he was a chemist. He was kind of concerned about some things. I said, "Let me ask you something. You're a chemist. Do you understand this? How do you get DNA without a cell membrane? And how do you get a cell membrane without a DNA? And how does all this come together from this piece of jelly?" We have no idea, we have no idea. I said, "Isn't it interesting that you, the Dean of science, and I, the chemistry professor, can talk about this quietly in your office, but we can't go out there and talk about this?"

If you understand evolution, I am fine with that. I'm not going to try to change you - not at all. In fact, I wish I had the understanding that you have.

But about seven or eight years ago I posted on my Web site that I don't understand. And I said, "I will buy lunch for anyone that will sit with me and explain to me evolution, and I won't argue with you until I don't understand something - I will ask you to clarify. But you can't wave by and say, "This enzyme does that." You've got to get down in the details of where molecules are built, for me. Nobody has come forward.

The Atheist Society contacted me. They said that they will buy the lunch, and they challenged the Atheist Society, "Go down to Houston and have lunch with this guy, and talk to him." Nobody has come! Now remember, because I'm just going to ask, when I stop understanding what you're talking about, I will ask. So I sincerely want to know. I would like to believe it. But I just can't.

Now, I understand microevolution, I really do. We do this all the time in the lab. I understand this. But when you have speciation changes, when you have organs changing, when you have to have concerted lines of evolution, all happening in the same place and time - not just one line - concerted lines, all at the same place, all in the same environment ... this is very hard to fathom.

I was in Israel not too long ago, talking with a bio-engineer, and [he was] describing to me the ear, and he was studying the different changes in the modulus of the ear, and I said, "How does this come about?" And he says, "Oh, Jim, you know, we all believe in evolution, but we have no idea how it happened." Now there's a good Jewish professor for you. I mean, that's what it is. So that's where I am. Have I answered the question? (52:00 to 56:44)


QuoteEvolution has just been dealt its death blow. After reading "Origins of Life", with my background in chemistry and physics, it is clear evolution could not have occurred. The new book, "Who Was Adam?", is the silver bullet that puts the evolutionary model to death.


Quote"We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged."


QuoteIn the last few years I have seen a saddening progression at several institutions. I have witnessed unfair treatment upon scientists that do not accept macroevolutionary arguments and for their having signed the above-referenced statement regarding the examination of Darwinism. (I will comment no further regarding the specifics of the actions taken upon the skeptics; I love and honor my colleagues too much for that.) I never thought that science would have evolved like this. I deeply value the academy; teaching, professing and research in the university are my privileges and joys...

But my recent advice to my graduate students has been direct and revealing: If you disagree with Darwinian Theory, keep it to yourselves if you value your careers, unless, of course, you're one of those champions for proclamation; I know that that fire exists in some, so be ready for lead-ridden limbs. But if the scientific community has taken these shots at senior faculty, it will not be comfortable for the young non-conformist. When the power-holders permit no contrary discussion, can a vibrant academy be maintained? Is there a University (unity in diversity)? For the United States, I pray that the scientific community and the National Academy in particular will investigate the disenfranchisement that is manifest upon some of their own, and thereby address the inequity.


But maybe you guys are right that believing in evolution means your smart. Anyone who does not believe must be a buffoon.

Now the rest of what I was badly atempting to say in my OP. I still cant :-\ I really do need to spend a lot of time reading.

@T-U
Hey man, I read your post and will read those links too. Its too much to read and comment on now though. But your effort is not waisted. I do take what you wrote serious. It just requires more time to think on.
It has been eaten.

efflux

The human species is the most highly evolved species. Evolution generally follows a pattern of concentration of intelligence into a powerful brain that can keep functioning in a huge variety of conditions. This process also requires more energy. Mammals eat more than other animals. The human species evolved further by standing on two legs and our hands were freed for more creative purposes. To get back to the survival of the fittest mentality, I heard someone on the BBC trying to say that we stand on two legs because this gave us our hands free as weapons to beat up the opponent. This is an example of the over emphasis on survival of the fittest which the elite eugeniscists love. Wipe out your opponent and you are fit for survival but you have to consider the whole species or life in general. Someone crippled in a wheelchair could still contribute massively to the species. The elites in charge would rather send those people to gas chambers because they only want people for their purposes of survival not life in general. They are in fact a retrogression to the thinking of reptiles. It was mammals that developed social structures and empathy. There is a lot of truth in David Ickes Reptilian stuff. Reptiles are pure psychopaths.

We do not fully understand the changes that contribute to evolution only that clearly species descend from other species and always to higher levels. Any species that doesn't evolve always dies out in the end because eventually environmental circumstances arrive that kills them off like the dinosaurs who were too big and couldn't control their body heat efficiently. Most likely some kind of cold period caused by a meteorite killed them off whereas mammals were able to survive.

efflux

July 23, 2013, 09:55:09 pm #22 Last Edit: July 23, 2013, 09:56:41 pm by efflux
And here once again are Americans celebrating these superior "blue blooded" beings with divine right to rule:

http://www.wwlp.com/dpps/entertainment/must_see_video/niagara-falls-light-up-royal-baby-blue-nd13_6470435

PabloMack

July 25, 2013, 02:13:45 am #23 Last Edit: July 25, 2013, 09:02:52 am by PabloMack
Quote from: TheBadger on July 23, 2013, 07:01:52 pm
...Darwin did not discover evolution. But he gets all the credit...


Actually, Charles Darwin shares the credit with Alfred Russel Wallace for his theory of evolution. When he made his famous speech he even said so. Don't blame Darwin that the average joe walking the streets only has enough gray matter to remember one name. If you ask them to name a "genious" they will say "Einstein". Ask "name another one". They will say "Uhhhh. Hmmmm. Dunno."

I suggest that you separate the phenomenon we call "biological evolution" from the devious things that social engineers want to do in the name of it. Also, scientists don't use the word "theory" the way people are using it in this thread (and at large). When average run of the mill people say "only a theory" they actually mean "only a hypothesis". A "theory" is a proposed mechanism for an observed existing phenomenon. Evolution is not a theory. It is a phenomenon. "Darwin's Theory" is his explanation for how he and Wallace thought the observed phenomenon works. "Theoretical" does not mean that it may be happening. That is what "hypothetical" means. "Theoretical" means that it has been shown to be happening and this is what we think makes it work in a way such that we observe it as we do.

In 2009 the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology had their annual meeting in Bristol England. My wife and I attended that convention. It was very memorable. They printed up a book celebrating the 200th birthday of Charles Darwin which was also the 150th anniversary of "Origin of Species". I wouldn't be too hard on Darwin for his "racist" attitudes. Almost everyone in this forum is a speciesist and it might take another couple hundred years for our contemporary bigots to overcome this. efflux said "The human species is the most highly evolved species". While this may be true for our brain development, it is certainly false when it comes to our body plan. The human appendicular skeleton is very primitive, even more primitive than a frog's. Frogs only have four fingers and we have the full complement of five which is a trait of our ancestors going back to the late Devonian or early Carboniferous. We have many other primitive features such as our simple gut. Arteodactyls are much more highly evolved than we are in that regard. We also have an eye that is not much better than a fish's. Birds and other dinosaurs, by contrast, have (had) much more highly evolved vision, respiratory systems and appendicular skeletons. Should I go on?

Tangled-Universe

Very well said Pablo.

I barely can add anything to it other than that in the scientific world a "hypothesis" is also based on observations and facts like a "theory".
Except for that a theory is a result of a hypothesis or multiple hypotheses.

This doesn't change anything to your message, it's just a minor detail and you're right that many people use "theory" completely wrong or in the wrong context or concept.

TheBadger

July 25, 2013, 10:02:09 am #25 Last Edit: July 25, 2013, 11:13:18 am by TheBadger
Thanks Pablo, that actually helps me quite a bit.
...

I have been listening to Richard Dawkins. He is a good speaker/debater. Obviously a smart man. But holy s**t is he an asshole. Really, I mean this guy is an in your face jerk.
I really get the feeling that this guy was molested by a priest or something.

...

Anyway, there are enough books on every aspect of this conversation, that it would really take like 15 years to even make a dent in the reading.

...

@efflux
I have no idea what your last post means.
The video was just a few seconds of a waterfall... Is this something to do with the birth of the prince? Or what?
It has been eaten.

TheBadger

July 25, 2013, 11:12:38 am #26 Last Edit: July 25, 2013, 11:18:45 am by TheBadger
@pablo

On the second part of what you said in your last post.

Please explain to me why it is evolutionary necessary;
1) why we have sex (gender) and why sexual intercourse is pleasurable?
2)why it is, a.) possible, and, b), useful that man can and does produce "art". What is the evolutionary value of a symphony (for example)? And c), how does evolutionary science even begin to understand the relationship between a created work, and an observer?
3) "How do you get DNA without a cell membrane? And how do you get a cell membrane without a DNA? And how does all this come together from this piece of jelly?"

To simply ignore that last question in particular, is another issue Im having with "biological evolution science". That is, it is the norm for questions that do not have (or do not yet have) answers to be ignored by the evolution establishment. I find that to be very troubling in terms of "trust" (who should I listen too).

Speaking of Richard Dawkins earlier, I saw a debate where he lost rather badly. By the end of it he was claiming seriously, that life on earth was created by aliens. He did this as an attempt to refute the notion of God. At which point the challenger asked "well, who made the aliens then?". Dawkins then became very upset... It was hilarious.
Dawkins was just trying so hard to ignore the fundamental questions, and he got railroaded by it.


Now you used the word "speciesist". I have to say that this made me lol. Because I would not trade even one *innocent* human life to save any animal on earth.
The idea that the skeletal systems of certain animals is "superior" to humans, and that therefore (your implication) animals and man are equal, is absurd in the extreme.

It has been eaten.

PabloMack

July 25, 2013, 01:48:00 pm #27 Last Edit: July 25, 2013, 03:05:29 pm by PabloMack
Hi Badger. I was in the middle of a long reply, pressed the Escape Key and lost everything I wrote. Probably an hour of my time lost. Sorry. I may have to answer you in pieces when I have time. But I am surprised at some of the questions you have, such as the one about why there is sex and why it is pleasurable. For now I will just answer this one and get to the others later if that is okay with you.

First of all, you understand that certain mutations in certain individuals make no difference at all. Most of our DNA is inactive and does nothing at all except to get replicated when it comes time for the cell to divide. Other mutations cause the gene to lose effectiveness. Other more rare mutations cause a beneficial increase in the well-being of the individual. Since this last one is probably the most rare kind, you should think it reasonable that, in a population of say ten million, the chance of two separate beneficial mutations to happen in the same individual is extremely low. Said another way, two beneficial mutations that occur in a population will almost always happen in two different individuals. But two beneficial mutations might even need eachother for something that is really beneficial. Sex makes it possible for different mutations in two different genes to come together in the same individual. Without sex (or other mechanisms that tranfer DNA from one individual to another) evolution is very slow and is very inefficient.

As for why sex is pleasurable. Ask yourself "Why is eating good food" or cooling off when you are too hot pleasurable? Indeed, pleasure is our biggest motivator. If we didn't enjoy what was good for us we would do a lot less of it and a whole lot of it wouldn't get done. People are a lot more animal than they want to admit. We species bigots even compare people we don't like to the other animals (often erroneously) when we want to insult them. Many of us (as highly socialized animals) even feel like we are showing good will toward our fellow conspecifics by expressing disdain for other species.

PabloMack

July 25, 2013, 04:45:28 pm #28 Last Edit: July 25, 2013, 04:51:19 pm by PabloMack
Quote from: TheBadger on July 25, 2013, 11:12:38 am
Now you used the word "speciesist". I have to say that this made me lol. Because I would not trade even one *innocent* human life to save any animal on earth. The idea that the skeletal systems of certain animals is "superior" to humans, and that therefore (your implication) animals and man are equal, is absurd in the extreme.


This again touches on how scientists use the same words differently from the way common people use them. "Primitive" doesn't mean "worse". Likewise "advanced" or "more highly evolved" in no way means "better". Primitive simply means "little changed as compared with an ancient ancestor". "Advanced" simply means "greatly changed as compared to an ancient ancestor". Granted, they are relative terms. But the only way you can appreciate others who may have the understanding you need for your questions to be answered is to learn their language. The hardest part of this is to throw off the emotional chaotic baggage that we all bring with us. My use of the word "superior" should not have any moral implications to it. If you are construing that, then you are not leaving your baggage outside the door before coming into this discussion. If you are serious about understanding what others know, then you will have to resist these suggestions coming to your subconscience that are not coming from me.

I use the word "superior" or "inferior" on a parameter by parameter basis. For example, a cheetah has a superior ability to achieve running velocities above those of humans. You should make out of this that I am saying "Cheetahs can run a lot faster than humans." Wouldn't it be a sad thing if we couldn't admire the extraordinary abilities of other animals just because of the insecurities we have; afraid that if we give credit for anything to someone or something else it would lessen ourselves?

TheBadger

July 25, 2013, 05:34:43 pm #29 Last Edit: July 25, 2013, 05:40:06 pm by TheBadger
Thanks Pablo. It makes sense for the most part.

One thing on what you just wrote though...
I dont feel like pleasure is a normal persons main motivator. I mean I eat because I'll die if I don't, and Ill die if I eat too much. I understand the notion of taking pleasure in food. But that can't be the reason we learned to eat (or animals for that matter). In fact, pleasure is more destructive in humans than it is beneficial (at least in terms of food). Most of our problems are a result of the pursuit of pleasure in one form or another... Even debt I would think.

Of course you know that nearly all religions in history describe pleasure as some form of divine gift.
The fact that religions can agree on anything is its self remarkable. But I really only want to point out that its an important topic to all, not just for the sake of this thread. So you shouldn't be surprised that I would bring it up here.

In the end, I see pleasure as a stumbling block for an evolutionary process, not a benefit. I know if it were not for the pleasure I take in food, I would be a lot healthier. Food actually kills more humans than all illegal drugs combined including smoking.

...

Just wanted clarification on the animals part.
I love nature. I have two Sandhill cranes that come to my yard everyday. I cant tell you the pleasure it gives me.
But there is also this movement where people want animals to have the same rights under the law as humans, and I find that insane. So I just wanted to make sure Im not listening to a crazy person here ;)
It has been eaten.