Meh, I can't really say anything on the depressed part. But as for the crocidiles thing, can crocidiles pick up tools, or walk bipedal(NO, this does NOT include in Lugaru)? As I understand it, in Earth's history only two other animals have ever walked on two legs. Dinosaurs, and Kangroos, both of which have been winners in the animal world. Also, an animal that is going to take over the world has to be social, now, I have no idea the exact nature of the crocidile in this department, but from what I've seen they are pretty solitary. Oh, and they have to have voice boxes that can be used to produce speech, and the brain capacity to understand said speech.
Crocidiles have none of these things, and the reason they didn't evolve into an animal like that is because they were already suited to their environment.
What people belive is true on these forums
You have to understand, that the ultimate goal of evolution is not to become smart, or even more complex. The goal is to be as well adapted to your environment as possible. And not everything has to have a purpose. There could be some evolutionary basis for depression I'm not aware of, but even if there isn't, that doesn't disprove anything. If God created us, why is there depression?
Really? By doing nothing but thought experiments, and without benefit of training, you've found some flaws?invertin wrote:I found some flaws in evolution! (finally)
Perhaps you just don't understand it. Perhaps you expressed yourself badly. Maybe you have discovered the fatal error overlooked by Darwin. Let's find out.
Emotions are like any response your body makes; they're chemical in nature. They have uses; fear makes you run (or fight), anger makes you fight (or run); love makes you protect and nurture your offspring.then wrote:*Why do we have emotions? Fear makes sense, but why would being so depressed you want to kill yourself be useful in the wild?
Unhappiness is an emotion; it makes you want to change the thing that's making you unhappy (by running or fighting or something). Depression isn't an emotion. It's a chemical imbalance. If you can't change your unhappiness, it can lead to depression; your body keeps pumping out the chemicals, even though they just make it worse.
Animals and humans (a distinction without a difference) respond in similar ways: lethargy, obsessive behavior, aggression, etc. It’s why I don’t like zoos; I hate seeing animals pacing back and forth, or lying there like a stoner, or licking their own fur off. (Anti-depressants for humans were developed through animal testing.)
Animals don’t kill themselves; they aren’t self-aware, so they can’t conceive of it. Their actions might lead to death, but they can't know that (as far as we can determine).
We don’t know where self-awareness comes from; it might have to do with intelligence, so it’s related to your other question.
But animals will die from environmental pressures. The ones who survive longest tend to pass on their ability to survive to more offspring, so they enforce the techniques that help them survive.
Animals that can and do take effective action don’t get depressed unless they’ve inherited a flaw, or get stuck in a situation they can’t change (physical, like a trap, or social, like low status). This is true for people as well.
Don’t confuse intelligence with “the ultimate goal of evolution.” We aren’t the crown of creation (a bible-based idea), or the result that natural selection is trying to achieve. Natural selection has no goal, it’s not driven in any direction. It’s a very random process, and takes from a couple generations to a couple eons to accomplish anything.and also wrote:*Why is it that in the relativly short time humans have been on earth, we've become so smart when crocodiles have existed since the dinosaurs and before?
We developed intelligence as a result of environmental pressures; it helped us survive. It’s also caused us problems (depression might be one) just like other characteristics of other animals cause them problems. Huge antlers don’t help deer or elk; it kills them more often than helps them. But it attracts more females, so they mate more, so they have more offspring, so more deer have big antlers, and so on.
As for crocs, they developed their characteristics to survive in the environment they were in. Your intelligence would help you hunt and kill one, but dropped naked into the Nile, you’d be croc chow in a heartbeat.
If you’re looking for the best-adapted, longest existing, most durable survivor of evolution, it’s bacteria: among the simplest organisms on earth. And they can survive the widest range of environments of any organism, and make up the largest portion of the existing biomass on earth. They’re the crown of creation if anything is.
Yes, and evolutionary theory, too.and next wrote:(I think, I'm a bit sketchy on my animal history to be honest)
Evolution is accepted as the cornerstone of biology by scientists (and major religions) the world over, taught as such in every legitimate institute of higher learning, and backed up by over a century of observations and experimentation, with the only real detractors doing so on the grounds of religious belief, with no evidence or experimentation to back up their belief.then finally wrote:While before I rejected evolution completly I'm a bit more open this time.
On what grounds do you reject it?
Invertin, seriously, just watch a documentary of evolution on Google Video or something. It will all become clear to you. Here, http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=e ... tary&hl=en
Once you learn the basics, you can come back and we will answer your questions.
Once you learn the basics, you can come back and we will answer your questions.
Last edited by Jeff on Wed Jan 24, 2007 12:56 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
BunnyWithStick
- Gramps, Jr.
- Posts: 4297
- Joined: Mon Dec 05, 2005 12:14 am
- Location: New Zealand
-
Albab
- This title is part one ...
- Posts: 674
- Joined: Wed Mar 23, 2005 10:26 pm
- Location: Somewhere on the interweb
- Contact:
Although this is totally off topic, jeffs' posting of a video link reminded me:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=JeRBjrCMMBo
More or less sums up my ideas. By the way, who knew Joe Rogan had any brains at all? This surprised me...
http://youtube.com/watch?v=JeRBjrCMMBo
More or less sums up my ideas. By the way, who knew Joe Rogan had any brains at all? This surprised me...
I was a bit tired when i wrote that, if you take away the 'ed' in established it'll make more sense. But yeh what i meant was that (in my opinion) atheists more or less establish facts on theory's, unlike religions, i guess.Esen wrote:
atheists dont believe in things they established facts
Not sure what you mean here.
Also i like your 'summed up' definition of my belief, thanks. (im good with my thought, but not my wording)
