Gary Lineker in a spot of bother

[cunning fergus]

Exactly this, we are all adult ffs! also there is no Santa or Easter Bunny either, really do not understand religious types, apologies if I offend but if I do then you need to grow up

This is all very well on a football forum, however there are not that many awkward religous types on here............so you are largely pushing at an open door.

The ignorant and unenlightened world wont "wake up" unless people like you with your deeply held views take the Atheist word out onto the streets.

I suggest you start with somewhere like Southall or Whitechapel and get straight to the nub of the problem with some of the Islamish. See how they respond to you with your rhetoric about Mo and Al.......you could take a pig with "my name is ........" on the side just to add emphasis your point.

Until you and Superbez and all the other pious Atheists on here are prepared to get out and practice what you preach to those at the pointy end of the religous pyramid then your views are just those of a standard keyboard warrior.

I am right behind you both y the way, seriously knock yourselves out (no pun intended).

 

[Guy Crouchback]

I hope you don't feel like I have been disrespectful to you or your religion.

You haven't been disrespectful at all.

Your argument was presented in a convincing and coherent manner, and I am
by no means vehemently against the evolution theory (as I said, God might well
have used evolution in the process of creation). It is just that I feel something
particularly disquieting in the very thought of my great-great-great(n times) grandfather
being a monkey, so I suppose as long as there is a chance (however slight that chance
might be) of Darwin's theory being proven wrong, I shall reserve my right to be a stubborn
Polack and remain sceptical about it.

You may argue that I am letting my personal preferences cloud my better judgement,
and there is a likeliness of you being right, but there it is.

 

[Triggaaar]

It is just that I feel something particularly disquieting in the very thought of my great-great-great(n times) grandfather being a monkey

Pah, get over it. Some of our ancestors will have been what we consider murderers, rapists, etc etc. We have too many ancestors for that not to be the case. Long after they were primates, our ancestors were black Africans.

so I suppose as long as there is a chance (however slight that chance might be) of Darwin's theory being proven wrong, I shall reserve my right to be a stubborn Polack and remain sceptical about it.

There isn't a chance. That's not me being stubborn or holding onto my belief, evolution is a fact, and it's been shown to be. We can even see how we evolved in the last couple of thousand years.

You may argue that I am letting my personal preferences cloud my better judgement, and there is a likeliness of you being right

To be honest, that's not an argument. You seem to fully accept that your personal preferences are clouding your judgement. But don't sweat it, it's nothing to get worked up about. If you'd prefer to think we didn't descend from more primitive primates (not monkeys), then don't think about it, no big deal. But if you ever feel you want to think about it, don't be ashamed of our past, it's no big deal, just part of the wonder of life.

 

[BBassic]

Topics like this remind me to never get into debates with religious people.

 

[BadFish]

You haven't been disrespectful at all.

Your argument was presented in a convincing and coherent manner, and I am
by no means vehemently against the evolution theory (as I said, God might well
have used evolution in the process of creation). It is just that I feel something
particularly disquieting in the very thought of my great-great-great(n times) grandfather
being a monkey, so I suppose as long as there is a chance (however slight that chance
might be) of Darwin's theory being proven wrong, I shall reserve my right to be a stubborn
Polack and remain sceptical about it.

You may argue that I am letting my personal preferences cloud my better judgement,
and there is a likeliness of you being right, but there it is.

I sometimes think it would be wonderful to believe in God, I quite like all the warm and fuzzy stuff about someone watching over me. I am the opposite to you though and my personal preferences don't cloud my judgement and I just can't believe it.


I think that religion gets too much blame for stuff in today's society though. It doesn't matter what we believe in we should be able to get on.

 

[Dub-67]

While I do actually think we did evolve, and that the theory of evolution is probably broadly correct, Guy Crouchback is correct to say that it has not been proved. It hasnt. The fossil record is full of holes.. there are massive gaps in the record. There are countless examples of huge 'jumps' between stages of a species, with no intermediate fossils being found. The theory of evolution is still in fact a theory.. even scientists will agree it has not been proven, despite it being very likely.

The thing that annoys me about the theory of evolution as preached by people like Richard Dawkins is that the say the process was 'blind' that it happened purely by chance, with random mutations find themselves better adapted to certain environmental conditions. Personally, I think most creatures have a degree of consciousness, or awareness.. I dont see why creatures going back historically were also 'aware' to a degree. So I think that there is a case to argue that evolution might not have been entirely 'random' but directed, on some level, by the creatures themselves.

So.. take that.. Creationists AND scientists.. I think youre both wrong and I'm breaking out on my own.. feck yez all

 

[BadFish]

While I do actually think we did evolve, and that the theory of evolution is probably broadly correct, Guy Crouchback is correct to say that it has not been proved. It hasnt. The fossil record is full of holes.. there are massive gaps in the record. There are countless examples of huge 'jumps' between stages of a species, with no intermediate fossils being found. The theory of evolution is still in fact a theory.. even scientists will agree it has not been proven, despite it being very likely.

The thing that annoys me about the theory of evolution as preached by people like Richard Dawkins is that the say the process was 'blind' that it happened purely by chance, with random mutations find themselves better adapted to certain environmental conditions. Personally, I think most creatures have a degree of consciousness, or awareness.. I dont see why creatures going back historically were also 'aware' to a degree. So I think that there is a case to argue that evolution might not have been entirely 'random' but directed, on some level, by the creatures themselves.

So.. take that.. Creationists AND scientists.. I think youre both wrong and I'm breaking out on my own.. feck yez all

Are you suggesting that some creatures decided to die so the ones that were more suited to their surroundings could survive and reproduce?

 

[Triggaaar]

The thing that annoys me about the theory of evolution as preached by people like Richard Dawkins is that the say the process was 'blind' that it happened purely by chance, with random mutations find themselves better adapted to certain environmental conditions. Personally, I think most creatures have a degree of consciousness, or awareness.. I dont see why creatures going back historically were also 'aware' to a degree. So I think that there is a case to argue that evolution might not have been entirely 'random' but directed, on some level, by the creatures themselves.

But you can't use your awareness to affect your height, the length of your limbs, the size of your brain etc, so why do you think other creatures could?

What's your reason for not accepting that mutations are random? If you and a partner have two children, one will be slightly stronger than the other. If they were fighting (not necessarily physically) for their lives against mother nature, one might be slightly better adapted to their environment (a stomach that gets on better with the food on offer). Survival of the fittest is not difficult to understand. The children that were better suited to their environment survive longer and pass their genes onto their children, and so it goes on.

 

[beorhthelm]

So I think that there is a case to argue that evolution might not have been entirely 'random' but directed, on some level, by the creatures themselves.

evolution isn't entirely random. thats one mechanism for how mutations that bring about advantages occur. but certainly with primates and higher mammals they are able to make "conscious" acts that improve their survival and pass on learnt behaviour to offspring. this is why the nature verses nuture is such a muddy and vexed area, how much of each aspect is distorted by the other? do animals pass on behaviour in genes? many learnt behaviours are apparently evident in animals kept and raised away from parent, so had no way to learn them.

 

[Acker79]

(as I said, God might well
have used evolution in the process of creation).

And that is why I mentioned that the method of evolution is still debated (hoping to avoid the religion debate).

It is just that I feel something
particularly disquieting in the very thought of my great-great-great(n times) grandfather
being a monkey, so I suppose as long as there is a chance (however slight that chance
might be) of Darwin's theory being proven wrong, I shall reserve my right to be a stubborn
Polack and remain sceptical about it.

But, that isn't what evolution proves (or even suggests), we didn't come from monkeys. It's that we had a common ancestor to monkeys. i.e. Monkeys are your 200th cousin 300 times removed - if you go far enough back up your family tree there is someone related to both of you, your great-great(n times) grandfather is also the great-great(n times) grandfather of a monkey. Not that putting it like that is likely to ease your discomfort with evolution, just make it more accurate.

 

[Surrey_Albion]

This is all very well on a football forum, however there are not that many awkward religous types on here............so you are largely pushing at an open door.

The ignorant and unenlightened world wont "wake up" unless people like you with your deeply held views take the Atheist word out onto the streets.

I suggest you start with somewhere like Southall or Whitechapel and get straight to the nub of the problem with some of the Islamish. See how they respond to you with your rhetoric about Mo and Al.......you could take a pig with "my name is ........" on the side just to add emphasis your point.

Until you and Superbez and all the other pious Atheists on here are prepared to get out and practice what you preach to those at the pointy end of the religous pyramid then your views are just those of a standard keyboard warrior.

I am right behind you both y the way, seriously knock yourselves out (no pun intended).

I am very open about my beleifs (or lack of) Christians are worse than Muslims, I was invited to a mosque in Crawley by a fella and when I said "no I don't have a faith or believe in god" he said "you don't have to , come down on a Sunday we have tea in the garden and chat about life" , my boy used to go to Boys Brigade and I used to chat to everyone there and if they all went swimming or out for the day I was always asked to help, I mentioned my veiws when chatting to the group leader he has never spoken to me since and never been asked to help since either, not all religioins bad just religious people and through expereince Christians in particular need to lighton up and understand why others don't believe then over time they might open their minds a bit more and see the light, there is no god

 

[sten_super]

Survival of the fittest is not difficult to understand. The children that were better suited to their environment survive longer and pass their genes onto their children, and so it goes on.

I find the cases where evolution has not lead to 'survival of the fittest' some of the most interesting. There are several types of deer that have evolved horns used for deciding the alpha-male in a pack - so horns have got bigger over time. Which is great when you are fighting amongst yourself to decide top deer, but not quite so useful when running away from predators. If predators were more common then presumably the evolved size of horns would quickly work it's way down to something more manageable.

 

[Dub-67]

Are you suggesting that some creatures decided to die so the ones that were more suited to their surroundings could survive and reproduce?

no, but it would be nice if some people were this considerate. lol

 

[Dub-67]

But you can't use your awareness to affect your height, the length of your limbs, the size of your brain etc, so why do you think other creatures could?

What's your reason for not accepting that mutations are random? If you and a partner have two children, one will be slightly stronger than the other. If they were fighting (not necessarily physically) for their lives against mother nature, one might be slightly better adapted to their environment (a stomach that gets on better with the food on offer). Survival of the fittest is not difficult to understand. The children that were better suited to their environment survive longer and pass their genes onto their children, and so it goes on.

Yes I understand the current view of the survival of the best adapted, however 'consciousness' or 'awareness' is always left out of the equation. I think there ar random mutations as well, but I can help but think that some aspects of evolution could be affected by the consciousness of the creatures. Not just in passing on behaviourial techniques through the genes, but perhaps by a collective unconscious awareness.

How about flying squirrels? Ok they technically 'fall with style' but if the creature themselves recognised that those with more prominant bingo wings flew further.. couldnt that possible have an effect on the development of the species. Of course you have to accept that there could be a collective unconscious first.. which may be a leap too far for most.. but I still think its an interesting possibility that cant be totally thrown out.

 

[Birdie Boy]

Yes I understand the current view of the survival of the best adapted, however 'consciousness' or 'awareness' is always left out of the equation. I think there ar random mutations as well, but I can help but think that some aspects of evolution could be affected by the consciousness of the creatures. Not just in passing on behaviourial techniques through the genes, but perhaps by a collective unconscious awareness.

How about flying squirrels? Ok they technically 'fall with style' but if the creature themselves recognised that those with more prominant bingo wings flew further.. couldnt that possible have an effect on the development of the species. Of course you have to accept that there could be a collective unconscious first.. which may be a leap too far for most.. but I still think its an interesting possibility that cant be totally thrown out.

Isn't that bats?

I get all this evolution theory etc. except what happens next... If life, plants, animals, humans etc. have evolved over millions of years then surely we are not the end of it. Anyone know what my great great (n times) grandchildren are going to look like in a million years time? And don't tell me we would have had Big Bang 2 by then!

 

[Triggaaar]

I find the cases where evolution has not lead to 'survival of the fittest' some of the most interesting. There are several types of deer that have evolved horns used for deciding the alpha-male in a pack - so horns have got bigger over time. Which is great when you are fighting amongst yourself to decide top deer, but not quite so useful when running away from predators. If predators were more common then presumably the evolved size of horns would quickly work it's way down to something more manageable.

Indeed, due to a lack of predators, the deer most capable of fighting of the other deer passes on its genes.

Yes I understand the current view of the survival of the best adapted, however 'consciousness' or 'awareness' is always left out of the equation.

Nothing is left out. If there's a reason found why a gene is passed on, why one animal does better than its cousin, then that reason is given. If someone can give an example of consciousness as a reason, then it's given. No one is hiding anything.

How about flying squirrels? Ok they technically 'fall with style' but if the creature themselves recognised that those with more prominant bingo wings flew further.. couldnt that possible have an effect on the development of the species.

No. The ones that glided further had a better chance of survival, and passed on their flappy under arm genes. They didn't get together and say 'wow, that's totally cool brother, I'm going to let you have all the ladies so your babies can do that too'.

 

[Dub-67]

Isn't that bats?

nah squirells believe it or not.. have a google!

and what will we look like in a million years? I dread to think..

 

[Dub-67]

Nothing is left out. If there's a reason found why a gene is passed on, why one animal does better than its cousin, then that reason is given. If someone can give an example of consciousness as a reason, then it's given. No one is hiding anything.

No. The ones that glided further had a better chance of survival, and passed on their flappy under arm genes. They didn't get together and say 'wow, that's totally cool brother, I'm going to let you have all the ladies so your babies can do that too'.

Present Science DOES leave out the effect of awareness on evolution. At the moment Science doesnt even accept that many animals even have rudimentary awareness.

>>They didn't get together and say 'wow, that's totally cool brother,
If you read back I wasnt suggesting that the animals themselves were doing this 'consciously'. I was alluding to a 'collective unconscious' that may exist. This idea come from Carl Jung, who suggested that there may be a 'collective consciousness' that links us all. If that is a possibility, then its also possible that this collective unconscious could influence evolution. That is again left out of the current view.

 

[sten_super]

Present Science DOES leave out the effect of awareness on evolution. At the moment Science doesnt even accept that many animals even have rudimentary awareness.

It's left out because there's little conclusive evidence for it. Thinking specifically about the evolution example, if there was a case where natural selection (i.e. survival of the most well-adapted) did not conveniently 'explain' an evolutionary process, then there would be studies into alternative explanations, which may well include a study of collective behaviour. Certainly biologists are well versed on collective behaviour (which is evident across many different kinds of lifeform).

 

[matthew]

Urgh religion is such a load of shit, we are all part of nature and end up the same way

Oh and the meaning of life is to survive to adulthood and reproduce not whatever some god wants us to do