Creationism vs Evolution thread.

[The Alma Mater]

If people evolved from animals with no divine intervention, then why do people do so many things that are counterproductive to their survival? Granted, sometimes animals do such things as well, but they don't always know when they are doing it. You would think that the desire to do things like eating unhealthy food, smoking, suicide, etc. would have been weeded out by natual selection long ago.

If creationism is true, why are we no longer between 5 and 10m tall, able to lift elephants with our bare hands and living for hundreds of years ? Why is the earth no longer a hollow sphere filled with water ?

And yes, the above statements refer to the actual form of creationism people want to teach in schools.

[Hittanryan]

If people evolved from animals with no divine intervention, then why do people do so many things that are counterproductive to their survival? Granted, sometimes animals do such things as well, but they don't always know when they are doing it. You would think that the desire to do things like eating unhealthy food, smoking, suicide, etc. would have been weeded out by natual selection long ago.

You've got it completely backwards. If god created us in his image, why would we do any of those things?

Suicide is in response to societal pressures. Smoking is a chemical addiction, it's all biochemistry. The unhealthy food thing is a direct product of natural selection. Back before the supermarket made hunter-gatherers unfashionable, we needed every scrap of food we could get. Sugars gave us quick bursts of energy, while fats gave us long-term fuel and some reserves to live off of during hard times. Sugar and fats are "unhealthy" now because not enough of us get off our ass to burn the calories they give us, and they still taste good because it's hardwired. Wanting to eat sugar and fats once gave an advantage in day-to-day survival, and we're still built like that.

[Great Nepal]

Perhaps I could have worded my point more effectively. Assuming you're the average person (which if you're not, I'm sorry), you probably enjoy unhealthy food and a mildly sedentary lifestyle. But if I told you the things you like will shorten your life, it would be your biological imperative to stop doing them in order to give yourself a larger timeframe to reproduce. However, most people would simply shrug and not give my advice a second thought. A perfect example of people doing things that don't make sense from an evolutionary standpoint. Apathy is an odd thing to explain, isn't it?

Nope, because animals didn't have problem with obesity. They had problem with starvation.

[Gallowfield]

I'm not talking about dieting, specifically. I'm talking about the human tendancy to do things that are counterproductive to survival, and subsequently reproduction. High-risk activities, suicide, self-destruction, the list goes on. What benefit could such tendancies have had on the human race at any point, in order for them to have been passed along?

[Socialdemokraterne]

To answer your question. Yes I am Zaurobia. I just created this nation since I didn't like the name Zaurobia that much. And furthermore upon reading through the posts of this thread it seems to be settled among the intellectuals that young earth creationism is the truth

And now I conclude that you're just screwing with us. Good day.

[Avenio]

Perhaps I could have worded my point more effectively. Assuming you're the average person (which if you're not, I'm sorry), you probably enjoy unhealthy food and a mildly sedentary lifestyle. But if I told you the things you like will shorten your life, it would be your biological imperative to stop doing them in order to give yourself a larger timeframe to reproduce. However, most people would simply shrug and not give my advice a second thought. A perfect example of people doing things that don't make sense from an evolutionary standpoint. Apathy is an odd thing to explain, isn't it?

Again, the lifestyle of humans now is not natural. We've modified the way we live and our environment and bent it into unnatural shapes; obesity in pre-agricultural societies, for example, was probably quite rare. We're still operating under the principles of natural selection, but the old selection criteria, as it were, no longer fully apply; different traits in humans, like intelligence, are being selected for than in the prehistoric past. Mortality rates and lifespans are also much lower and longer, respectively, which skews natural selection.

Besides which, the biological imperative to reproduce isn't all-consuming. Things like kin selection and our new-found intelligence come into play.

[Tlaceceyaya]

I'm not talking about dieting, specifically. I'm talking about the human tendancy to do things that are counterproductive to survival, and subsequently reproduction. High-risk activities, suicide, self-destruction, the list goes on. What benefit could such tendancies have had on the human race at any point, in order for them to have been passed along?

We find them fun. We are wired to do things which we find fun. Like eating, or women. Now that we don't spend our lives trying to survive to the next day, we can find other methods of having fun.

[Great Nepal]

I'm not talking about dieting, specifically. I'm talking about the human tendancy to do things that are counterproductive to survival, and subsequently reproduction. High-risk activities, suicide, self-destruction, the list goes on. What benefit could such tendancies have had on the human race at any point, in order for them to have been passed along?

1. Most of those aren't genetic hence irrelevant in evolution.
2. In history, most of those (High-risk activities, eating fat etc) was beneficial. Our current lifestyle changed that.

[Avenio]

I'm not talking about dieting, specifically. I'm talking about the human tendancy to do things that are counterproductive to survival, and subsequently reproduction. High-risk activities, suicide, self-destruction, the list goes on. What benefit could such tendancies have had on the human race at any point, in order for them to have been passed along?

That's assuming that the tendencies to perform high-risk activities is inheritable and/or innate to humans, mind you. The nature vs. nurture debate has been raging for some time now.

[Hittanryan]

I'm not talking about dieting, specifically. I'm talking about the human tendancy to do things that are counterproductive to survival, and subsequently reproduction. High-risk activities, suicide, self-destruction, the list goes on. What benefit could such tendancies have had on the human race at any point, in order for them to have been passed along?

High-risk activities? Well, some people like the adrenaline rush, and adrenaline is damn useful in a life-or-death situation. If you mean self-destruction through drug overdose or just excess in general, that happens in all sorts of animals. Pretty sure there was a test where rats had to choose between having the pleasure center in its brain stimulated and eating, and they starved to death every time. Suicide, again, is in response to societal pressures that developed outside of our natural environment.

[Faolinn]

Human's have free will and are meant to have it. We live in such a state where to be perfect would mean to be held in a single state which would mean stagnation. Things need to be imperfect so they can become better ironically. In the physical world, that which stagnates suffers.

[The Black Forrest]

Human's have free will and are meant to have it. We live in such a state where to be perfect would mean to be held in a single state which would mean stagnation. Things need to be imperfect so they can become better ironically. In the physical world, that which stagnates suffers.

Free will as in the anarchy sense? No not really. Humans are primates and thus prone to groups.

[Faolinn]

Groups do not mean no anarchy.Yes I am an anarchist,but that is not what I meant.

[Tlaceceyaya]

Groups do not mean no anarchy.Yes I am an anarchist,but that is not what I meant.

Well, explain what you meant. I couldn't decipher your post.

[Faolinn]

People can get together without forming a hierarchy.

[Tlaceceyaya]

People can get together without forming a hierarchy.

And how is that at all relevant to this thread?

[Faolinn]

Black Forrest asked what I meant by free will, so I answered him.

[Tlaceceyaya]

Black Forrest asked what I meant by free will, so I answered him.

In a person's post, in the top right, is a button. It says Quote. Click it when you want to direct a response to someone. And I meant for you to explain what you mean when you said

Human's have free will and are meant to have it. We live in such a state where to be perfect would mean to be held in a single state which would mean stagnation. Things need to be imperfect so they can become better ironically. In the physical world, that which stagnates suffers.

[Christian Democrats]

I voted for theistic evolution.

[Psuedopolis]

Darwinian Evolution.

My questions unto Creationists.
What sort of boss doesn't delegate?
Also since God is supposed to be watching us, doesn't that make us his entertainment?
So why not set up the parameters and see what occurs?

[Sociobiology]

People can get together without forming a hierarchy.

not thousands or more people.

[Mavorpen]

I'm not talking about dieting, specifically. I'm talking about the human tendancy to do things that are counterproductive to survival, and subsequently reproduction. High-risk activities, suicide, self-destruction, the list goes on. What benefit could such tendancies have had on the human race at any point, in order for them to have been passed along?

Because despite this, those people still reproduce and manage to survive due to our technology.

[Sociobiology]

I'm not talking about dieting, specifically. I'm talking about the human tendancy to do things that are counterproductive to survival, and subsequently reproduction. High-risk activities, suicide, self-destruction, the list goes on. What benefit could such tendancies have had on the human race at any point, in order for them to have been passed along?

Um If you want, I can go through and describe how each one of those behaviors would arise due to evolutionary pressures, and how they are beneficial or irremovably coupled to beneficial behaviors.
Also evolution is about benefits to genes not populations.
just because you can't think of a reason does not mean serious scientists have not worked out the reason.

[Hallistar]

If people evolved from animals with no divine intervention, then why do people do so many things that are counterproductive to their survival? Granted, sometimes animals do such things as well, but they don't always know when they are doing it. You would think that the desire to do things like eating unhealthy food, smoking, suicide, etc. would have been weeded out by natual selection long ago.

If creationism is true, why are we no longer between 5 and 10m tall, able to lift elephants with our bare hands and living for hundreds of years ? Why is the earth no longer a hollow sphere filled with water ?

And yes, the above statements refer to the actual form of creationism people want to teach in schools.

[Seangoli]

I'm not talking about dieting, specifically. I'm talking about the human tendancy to do things that are counterproductive to survival, and subsequently reproduction. High-risk activities, suicide, self-destruction, the list goes on. What benefit could such tendancies have had on the human race at any point, in order for them to have been passed along?

Um If you want, I can go through and describe how each one of those behaviors would arise due to evolutionary pressures, and how they are beneficial or irremovably coupled to beneficial behaviors.
Also evolution is about benefits to genes not populations.
just because you can't think of a reason does not mean serious scientists have not worked out the reason.

Not to disagree with you at all, but why are such tendencies required to be genetically coded in the first place? In all honesty, such behavior doesn't seem like it would have any sort of selection pressure on it at all as much of it seems largely inconsequential to the actual genetics involved.