Are you an atheist?

[Rabbie]

I would say that getting comfort from a whisky bottle is quite a bit more workable, given that the whiskey actually exists.

Alcohol is a false friend when you turn to it for comfort. It might have benefits in the short term but the day after, you may find you are paying for it.

 

[Rich]

Alcohol is a false friend when you turn to it for comfort. It might have benefits in the short term but the day after, you may find you are paying for it.

Which is why you have to keep going 'till the last drop

 

[Rich]

So there is a hell?

Silly question, of course there is

 

[Rich]

Yes but where does this capacity to learn come from?

It's called growing up, don't they have biology lessons in American schools?

 

[dan-cat]

It's called growing up, don't they have biology lessons in American schools?

How can they begin to grow up without being able to learn in the first place?

I think what I am trying to say is that lying comes from intuition.

 

[Rich]

How can they begin to grow up without being able to learn in the first place?

I think what I am trying to say is that lying comes from intuition.

I don't think it's that simple, maths etc. would be much easier to grasp by them if it were

 

[dan-cat]

I don't think it's that simple, maths etc. would be much easier to grasp by them if it were

But doesn't lying seem to come to kids so much easier than arithmetic?

 

[Rich]

But doesn't lying seem to come to kids so much easier than arithmetic?

That's because it's simpler

 

[ShaneMan]

Yes I do believe it to be true. Humans are evolved to parent their young. No matter what country you go to, or what culture you study, you will find that all humans take care of their children for at least a few years, and that this parenting ALWAYS includes instruction in the social contract of that culture, i.e. what is right and wrong, what is acceptable and unacceptable, and what are the punishments and rewards. Therefore, by nature, humans are evolved to instruct their young in moral behaviour. Supernanny notwithstanding, in general, all parents at least attempt to do this, regardless of their religion, or lack thereof. That is why it is a false argument to claim that you "need" religion to have a moral compass. That is simply not the case.

Alisa, I think you may need to go back and read by post again. Your reply is quite a ways off from what I posted. I never made the statement that someone can only be moral if they have religion. I only commented that I do not believe your statement of humans being moral by nature.

 

[Alisa]

Alisa, I think you may need to go back and read by post again. Your reply is quite a ways off from what I posted. I never made the statement that someone can only be moral if they have religion. I only commented that I do not believe your statement of humans being moral by nature.

It is not "a ways off" at all. You are saying that it is not human nature to be moral because little kids misbehave. I am saying that it is human nature to be moral because it is human nature to instill morals in our offspring. As far as the statement that someone can only be moral if they have religion, that statement was made by George. His post was the whole reason that I wrote the post that you were responding to, about how it is human nature to have morals. I didn't mean to imply that you are the one that made that statement.

 

[Mike375]

A couple of thoughts I just had on evolution

Sea snakes: Given that sea snakes never come on land why are there no sea snakes with a gill system? What possible advantage could there be for them to remain air breathers? Perhaps the same question could be applied to dolphins/whales. Perhaps being warm blooded might be a problem, that is, the amount of oxygen required would exceed what gills could deliver.

One would think at least some sea snakes would breathe via gills.

Another thought was the variety of animals that live in the same environment. It is obvious from how prolific some are compared to others that some are far more suitable to the environment. Shouldn't evolution mean that the number of species would be greatly reduced?

I think the sea snake not devloping gills is perhaps similar to the lizard not getting to the snake skull/jaw structure. The legless lizard has taken many characteristics of the snake but can't make the final jump. Many sea snakes have the paddle tale and their scale structure (why they can't move on land) stream lines them for going through water but they can't make the final jump to gills.

 

[Rich]

Many sea snakes have the paddle tale and their scale structure (why they can't move on land) stream lines them for going through water but they can't make the final jump to gills.

Many creatures in the sea don't have gills, what's your point?

 

[Rabbie]

A couple of thoughts I just had on evolution

Sea snakes: Given that sea snakes never come on land why are there no sea snakes with a gill system? What possible advantage could there be for them to remain air breathers? Perhaps the same question could be applied to dolphins/whales. Perhaps being warm blooded might be a problem, that is, the amount of oxygen required would exceed what gills could deliver.

One would think at least some sea snakes would breathe via gills.

Another thought was the variety of animals that live in the same environment. It is obvious from how prolific some are compared to others that some are far more suitable to the environment. Shouldn't evolution mean that the number of species would be greatly reduced?

I think the sea snake not devloping gills is perhaps similar to the lizard not getting to the snake skull/jaw structure. The legless lizard has taken many characteristics of the snake but can't make the final jump. Many sea snakes have the paddle tale and their scale structure (why they can't move on land) stream lines them for going through water but they can't make the final jump to gills.

Looking at the overall evolutionary proces gills cam before lungs. ie lungs evolved after gills. If you study human embryology you will see that a foetus goes through a stage where it has gills.

This means that a sea snake would need to regress back from the lung stage to the gill stage and if lungs are working for it then that won't happen till the mutation occurs.

Just because you and I can't understand all the steps in evolution does not invalidate the theory.

 

[Darth Vodka]

A couple of thoughts I just had on evolution

Sea snakes: Given that sea snakes never come on land why are there no sea snakes with a gill system? What possible advantage could there be for them to remain air breathers? Perhaps the same question could be applied to dolphins/whales. Perhaps being warm blooded might be a problem, that is, the amount of oxygen required would exceed what gills could deliver.

sea snakes, dolphin & whales' ancestors used to live on land

One would think at least some sea snakes would breathe via gills.

perhaps they would if they were designed, they're not

Another thought was the variety of animals that live in the same environment. It is obvious from how prolific some are compared to others that some are far more suitable to the environment. Shouldn't evolution mean that the number of species would be greatly reduced?

no not really

I think the sea snake not devloping gills is perhaps similar to the lizard not getting to the snake skull/jaw structure. The legless lizard has taken many characteristics of the snake but can't make the final jump. Many sea snakes have the paddle tale and their scale structure (why they can't move on land) stream lines them for going through water but they can't make the final jump to gills.

you've viewing evolution as pushing things towards the ultimate design, like car technology. it doesn't work that way. their ancestor evolved lungs as they were necessary to move onto land. the sea snakes kept them cos they still work if you're a swimmer

 

[Mike375]

Looking at the overall evolutionary proces gills cam before lungs. ie lungs evolved after gills. If you study human embryology you will see that a foetus goes through a stage where it has gills.

This means that a sea snake would need to regress back from the lung stage to the gill stage and if lungs are working for it then that won't happen till the mutation occurs.

Just because you and I can't understand all the steps in evolution does not invalidate the theory.

So why haven't fish progressed to lungs.

Also, I can't see why evolution is locked into a direction that would be inferior. Sea snakes do take on some oxygen through their skin which allows for longer dives. That alone suggests it would be better with gills.

As to the sea snake regressing if it developed gills, well, it went back to the water.

 

[Mike375]

Many creatures in the sea don't have gills, what's your point?

Read post again. Rabbie understood it fine.

 

[Rich]

Sea snakes do take on some oxygen through their skin which allows for longer dives.

Actually they have to come to the surface to breathe

 

[Darth Vodka]

If you study human embryology you will see that a foetus goes through a stage where it has gills.

no it doesn't

This means that a sea snake would need to regress back from the lung stage to the gill stage and if lungs are working for it then that won't happen till the mutation occurs.

it could regress, or it could reinvent them again

Just because you and I can't understand all the steps in evolution does not invalidate the theory.

indeed, but there's plenty that would invalidate the theory, that's the definition of a good theory. human fossils before the KT boundary would shake biology to its foundations

 

[Mike375]

you've viewing evolution as pushing things towards the ultimate design, like car technology. it doesn't work that way. their ancestor evolved lungs as they were necessary to move onto land. the sea snakes kept them cos they still work if you're a swimmer

Not according to evolution. I think evolution does not account for big jumps.

 

[Mike375]

Actually they have to come to the surface to breathe

They also take on some oxygen through their skin.