many people do not understand evolution and it is amazing.
take it or leave it, but i will tell you now that evolution is inevitable and a fact of the universe. questioning it is like asking whether gravity was working this morning when you woke up.
although i have not explained evolution, this is the actual situation, and try to get a feel for how real it is
remember, it is not random. hence "selection". it just happens to be natural
<!--QuoteBegin-Pepe Muffassa+Mar 11 2005, 03:10 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Pepe Muffassa @ Mar 11 2005, 03:10 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->If you really wanted to disprove evolution using eyes, you should point to a cephlapod with inverted eyes or a mammal with non-inverted eyes.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well, I'm not trying to disprove anything - just trying to ask pertinant questions. I would think that finding cephlapods with inverted eyes would point more strongly towards evolution and point to common ancestry being that as it stands we have a case of convergent adaptation - 2 diffent designs evolving independantly that serve the same purpose (3 if you count insect eyes). When playing the game of chance, I would think such occurences would not weigh in favor of evolution.
As to why octopus have one type of eye while fish have the other - in simiar environments with similar (cold blooded) anatomies - the one thing that came to mind was that octopus have less oxygen on average than fish - and because of the nature of thier eyes, they consume less oxygen as well.
Anyway, the link with some useful information:
<a href='http://www.creationevolution.net/inverted_retina1.htm' target='_blank'>linky, linky</a> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> One reason why octopi have non-inverted eyes, and humans and fish have inverted eyes, is because humans and fish split off evolutionarily from the octopi about 590 million years ago. Humans and fish split apart about 440 million years ago. This suggests that the eye in fish and humans was developed between 590 and 440 million years ago, while the octopi eye was developed independantly later than 590 million years ago. It seems somewhat arbitrary that fish and octopi developed eyes that are different in such a basic way. I'd guess that, by chance, a proto-octopi mutated one way, while a proto-human/fish mutated another way. The eye is so useful, that they would keep it regardless of a problem like an inverted retina. The eye developed a lot more than 3 times throughout the course of evolution. Scientists estimate that the eye developed about 40-60 times independantly.
Dawkins writes about this in <i>Climbing Mount Improbable</i>, if you want to read it.
<!--QuoteBegin-Zel+Mar 11 2005, 07:01 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Zel @ Mar 11 2005, 07:01 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> This might ignite some flames, but I'd like to ask others why they do not believe in Evolution?
Do you not believe that offspring can have random changes and pass them on to their offspring?
Do you not believe that these changes accumulate?
What else is there to understand? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> I think it's because even though they see that microevolution (simple heredity) can occur, they think that it's a normalizing force, so that species won't diverge.
I think this is false for two reasons. The first is that, life has been around on this planet for 1-2 billion years. If viruses can change themselves in a matter of months to match drugs or if we can drastically change the appearance of dogs, cats, or other domesticatable animals in a few generations, then speciation will certainly occur over 1-2 billion years. The second is that if two groups of one species are separated by some force (tectonic plates shifting, for example), then they will begin to diverge, regardless of any normalizing forces.
I accept evolution as true, so I don't know if these are the actually arguments creationists use, but this is the biggest criticism of evolution that I've heard.
<!--QuoteBegin-Snidely+Mar 11 2005, 03:09 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Snidely @ Mar 11 2005, 03:09 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> My point was that AvengerX didn't listen the last time, so why would he listen now? He clearly read that thread (as he posted in it), so why is he asking the same stuff again?
Bleh. Sorry.
Does evolution explain some odd instinctual stuff? I seem to remember that at birth, a certain type of beetle knows that it has to dig its way up to the surface, etc. How does it know? Is it somehow preprogramed? Or is this outside of evolution's remit? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> because apos seems like a very knowledgable source on the subject so I wanted to ask him.
<a href='http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/' target='_blank'>An Index to Creationist Claims</a>.
<a href='http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0345384725/qid=1110618025/sr=8-1/ref=pd_csp_1/102-3268248-4519333?v=glance&s=books&n=507846' target='_blank'>Shadows of Forgotten Ancestors</a>.
I highly recommend both.
-Ryan!
I believe in looking reality straight in the eye and denying it. -- Garrison Keillor
The most ridiculous concept ever perpetrated by Homo Sapiens is that the Lord God of Creation, Shaper and Ruler of the Universe, wants the sacharrine adoration of his creations, that he can be persuaded by their prayers, and becomes petulant if he does not recieve this flattery. Yet this ridiculous notion, without one real shred of evidence to bolster it, has gone on to found one of the oldest, largest and least productive industries in history. -- Robert Heinlein
My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble mind. -- Albert Einstein
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Well, I'm not trying to disprove anything - just trying to ask pertinant questions. I would think that finding cephlapods with inverted eyes would point more strongly towards evolution and point to common ancestry being that as it stands we have a case of convergent adaptation <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
No, because that would be a radical departure from the path that cephlapods had been developing: the kind of huge and bizarre macromutational jump away from existing structures and arrangements that would speak AGAINST the operation of mechanisms like natural selection.
Covergent adaption in evolution means that sometimes similar problems or environmental niches hit upon general similar solutions. But the keys words are general and similar. That is, the underlying structure of the solution is often very different, because it was actually adapted from different things. And the underlying genetics definately won't be the same, or often even very close.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->- 2 diffent designs evolving independantly that serve the same purpose (3 if you count insect eyes).<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Eyes have evolved in many more ways than 3.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->When playing the game of chance, I would think such occurences would not weigh in favor of evolution. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
But evolution doesn't play a game of pure chance: it plays a game of _function_. If there are "good tricks" out there that in general seem to help living creatures survive, it's quite likely that living creatures, especially those that all share a basic underlying genetic code and even some genes, will independantly hit upon some broad similarities. "Eyes" are one obvious example, because light is such a reactive thing and there is a lot of information about the environment to be gleaned from it.
GrendelAll that is fear...Join Date: 2002-07-19Member: 970Members, NS1 Playtester, Contributor, NS2 Playtester
edited March 2005
<!--QuoteBegin-theclam+Mar 12 2005, 02:55 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (theclam @ Mar 12 2005, 02:55 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> If viruses can change themselves in a matter of months to match drugs or if we can drastically change the appearance of dogs, cats, or other domesticatable animals in a few generations, then speciation will certainly occur over 1-2 billion years. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Just as a small point, viruses do not change themselves. Any survivors of a bacterial or viral colony must by nature of their survival be more tolerant of the drugs or vaccines used against them. As the only reproducing members of their generation, they ensure that the entirety of the colony they spawn must have approximately the same level of resistance (some new virii will be more resistant, some less). The mechanism is entirely unthinking.
As for degradation of the human genome due to removal of selective pressure:
Well, this has both positive and negative aspects. Allowing more individuals to breed in a population will ensure a more diverse gene pool, even if certain less useful genes are also more widespread. The most practical solution, which is the one that we are attempting to put into practice, is that of gene therapy and genetic manipulation. This allows us to both maintain as wide a genetic diversity as possible, whilst removing harmful genes from the pool. Of course, this does not come without risks.
Removing sickle cell anaemia, for example, might seem like a good idea, but if global warming results in a significant rise in marshland and thus mosquito population, we may well suffer for it.
<!--QuoteBegin-Zel+Mar 11 2005, 07:01 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Zel @ Mar 11 2005, 07:01 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> This might ignite some flames, but I'd like to ask others why they do not believe in Evolution?
Do you not believe that offspring can have random changes and pass them on to their offspring?
Do you not believe that these changes accumulate?
What else is there to understand? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> I believe in evolution. I mean genetics shows us that. but I don't believe in Common Ancestory. thats all. DNA changes over time. look at Adam , he lived to be 900 but the average person now a days lives what? 80-90 years is a pretty good life span.... so what happened? well apprently our DNA has been changing over the years and we've been dying sooner (I suspect that the amount of Insest after the flood might have something to do with it) and allso when you make a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy of something it loses quality every time. Adam who was God's son lived to be 900.. then his son lived a little shorter, and so on and so fourth.
<!--QuoteBegin-AvengerX+Mar 13 2005, 01:07 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (AvengerX @ Mar 13 2005, 01:07 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> so what happened? well apprently our DNA has been changing over the years and we've been dying sooner (I suspect that the amount of Insest after the flood might have something to do with it) <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> As opposed to the ammount of incest that must have occured long <i>before</i> the flood?
<!--QuoteBegin-AvengerX+Mar 13 2005, 01:07 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (AvengerX @ Mar 13 2005, 01:07 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Zel+Mar 11 2005, 07:01 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Zel @ Mar 11 2005, 07:01 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> This might ignite some flames, but I'd like to ask others why they do not believe in Evolution?
Do you not believe that offspring can have random changes and pass them on to their offspring?
Do you not believe that these changes accumulate?
What else is there to understand? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I believe in evolution. I mean genetics shows us that. but I don't believe in Common Ancestory. thats all. DNA changes over time. look at Adam , he lived to be 900 but the average person now a days lives what? 80-90 years is a pretty good life span.... so what happened? well apprently our DNA has been changing over the years and we've been dying sooner (I suspect that the amount of Insest after the flood might have something to do with it) and allso when you make a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy of something it loses quality every time. Adam who was God's son lived to be 900.. then his son lived a little shorter, and so on and so fourth. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Thanks for the laugh AvengerX. I needed that.
<!--QuoteBegin-theclam+Mar 13 2005, 02:41 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (theclam @ Mar 13 2005, 02:41 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-AvengerX+Mar 13 2005, 01:07 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (AvengerX @ Mar 13 2005, 01:07 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Zel+Mar 11 2005, 07:01 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Zel @ Mar 11 2005, 07:01 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> This might ignite some flames, but I'd like to ask others why they do not believe in Evolution?
Do you not believe that offspring can have random changes and pass them on to their offspring?
Do you not believe that these changes accumulate?
What else is there to understand? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I believe in evolution. I mean genetics shows us that. but I don't believe in Common Ancestory. thats all. DNA changes over time. look at Adam , he lived to be 900 but the average person now a days lives what? 80-90 years is a pretty good life span.... so what happened? well apprently our DNA has been changing over the years and we've been dying sooner (I suspect that the amount of Insest after the flood might have something to do with it) and allso when you make a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy of something it loses quality every time. Adam who was God's son lived to be 900.. then his son lived a little shorter, and so on and so fourth. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Thanks for the laugh AvengerX. I needed that. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> hey clam boy. if I wasn't feeling so tolerant today I might go off on your sorry heretic face. but I'm not going to friggen pagan Petey over here
<!--QuoteBegin-AvengerX+Mar 13 2005, 04:08 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (AvengerX @ Mar 13 2005, 04:08 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> hey clam boy. if I wasn't feeling so tolerant today I might go off on your sorry heretic face. but I'm not going to friggen pagan Petey over here <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Buhahahaha! Seriously dude, just remember how freaking owned you were last time you ignited a flamewar.
<!--QuoteBegin-SkulkBait+Mar 13 2005, 04:17 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (SkulkBait @ Mar 13 2005, 04:17 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-AvengerX+Mar 13 2005, 04:08 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (AvengerX @ Mar 13 2005, 04:08 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> hey clam boy. if I wasn't feeling so tolerant today I might go off on your sorry heretic face. but I'm not going to friggen pagan Petey over here <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Buhahahaha! Seriously dude, just remember how freaking owned you were last time you ignited a flamewar. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> how'd I get owned? you didn't change any of my beliefs? you didn't convince me anything I say is wrong? you didn't really make me think much of anything... so how did you win in any way shape of form?
and who says I was talking about a flame war, I'm talking about genocide the unwanted masses like you skulk bait. jump start the crusades again and the world will become a better (and heavily less populated) place.
<!--QuoteBegin-Legat+Mar 13 2005, 03:12 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Legat @ Mar 13 2005, 03:12 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> The clam, please, do not start flamewars. This is a very good thread and I think it would be a shame if it was closed. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> AvengerX is the one who brought religion into it. This is a scientific discussion. Religious tales have no place here, according to board rules.
He also displayed a flawed understanding of evolutionary processes. <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->allso when you make a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy of something it loses quality every time<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Not true. Evolution has safeguards to make sure that this doesn't happen. Some people's copies of DNA do degrade (mutate in a way that reduces evolutionary fitness), but they are less likely to pass on their DNA in that case, so it slows or stops degradation. In addition, if this was true, then life would never have advanced the initial basic lifeforms billions of years ago.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Adam who was God's son lived to be 900.. then his son lived a little shorter, and so on and so fourth.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Shorter Lifespans =/= Degradation. Shorter Lifespans are not worse than Longer Lifespans, in an evolutionary sense. People will evolve to have shorter lifespans, only if shorter lifespans increase evolutionary fitness.
Plus, if lifespans have been decreasing drastically from 900 years to present day, then this is what it would look like:(see attached image; y axis = lifespan, x axis = time, at x=0 would be Adam, the far right side of the graph is present day)
Historical evidence shows that lifespans were pretty low up until the Industrial Revolution, because of a lack of good nutrition, sanitation, and health care. How would people be able to live 900 years in an age without any of these things?
AvengerX doesn't believe in Common Ancestry (humans sharing common ancestors with all other life forms) and I assume macroevolution(speciation), because DNA degrades over time (not true). That's why I laughed.
<!--QuoteBegin-AvengerX+Mar 13 2005, 04:20 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (AvengerX @ Mar 13 2005, 04:20 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> how'd I get owned? you didn't change any of my beliefs? you didn't convince me anything I say is wrong? you didn't really make me think much of anything... so how did you win in any way shape of form? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> You can't change the beliefs of anybody who chooses to believe a book is 100% and any facts that go against that are obviously false. I suppose you're right though, in that sense nobody won, I mean, you certainly didn't change anybodies mind with your drivel. On the otherhand, I don't think you even garnered one post in support of your ideas in that entire thread, so you could say you lost in that regard.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> and who says I was talking about a flame war, I'm talking about genocide the unwanted masses like you skulk bait. jump start the crusades again and the world will become a better (and heavily less populated) place.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> You're right. We should start with useless hypocrite bastards like you, who can't even follow the words of their own professed savior. Seriously, do you think jesus would kill off masses of people? I doubt it. Yet you, who are supposedly one of his followers, would advocate it without hesitation.
There are alot of christians on this board. And honestly, I respect most them. You on the otherhand are not a christian, you are just an ignorant smacktard.
<!--QuoteBegin-AvengerX+Mar 13 2005, 04:20 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (AvengerX @ Mar 13 2005, 04:20 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-SkulkBait+Mar 13 2005, 04:17 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (SkulkBait @ Mar 13 2005, 04:17 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-AvengerX+Mar 13 2005, 04:08 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (AvengerX @ Mar 13 2005, 04:08 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> hey clam boy. if I wasn't feeling so tolerant today I might go off on your sorry heretic face. but I'm not going to friggen pagan Petey over here <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Buhahahaha! Seriously dude, just remember how freaking owned you were last time you ignited a flamewar. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> how'd I get owned? you didn't change any of my beliefs? you didn't convince me anything I say is wrong? you didn't really make me think much of anything... so how did you win in any way shape of form?
and who says I was talking about a flame war, I'm talking about genocide the unwanted masses like you skulk bait. jump start the crusades again and the world will become a better (and heavily less populated) place. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Come on guys, we've gone from me laughing at AvengerX's statement, to outright personal attacks. Like Legat said, let's keep this thread open (which is why I posted explaining my statement).
You're right clam. Though since Avenger has **** me off enough to write my last post, I will keep it there. Though I will not respond to any counter post in the hopes that it will stop the thread degredadtion before it becomes irreversable.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->AvengerX is the one who brought religion into it. This is a scientific discussion. Religious tales have no place here, according to board rules.
He also displayed a flawed understanding of evolutionary processes.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes, I am aware of that. All I say is: DFTT. <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
How many fossils have they found that prove missing links? because there's millions of diffrent types of animals in the world and if they've all been changing over time that'd mean countless other forms of life on this planet.... so where are all the fossils? I mean sure a few would get lost and what have you but you'd think we'd have more. I mean for reals.
And referring to the bible in a historical sense is worth something I think. I mean someone had to write it. and hey, they said Adam was 900 years old before he died. thats not really religious thats just some guys journal saying how old Adam was when he died.
the arguement about people not being able to live long do to the lack of nutriants and what have you before the industrial revolution... I'd argue that people were healthier at the beggining of history...
A- there was little to no pollution at the time B- we didn't pump chemicals onto all the crops or fill cows up with growth steriods C- Minerals Depleation has been going on for all of history. at the beggining I'm sure soil was a lot more fertile then it is today
I could see how with good genes and a healthy diet Adam could make it to 900
<!--QuoteBegin-AvengerX+Mar 13 2005, 04:39 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (AvengerX @ Mar 13 2005, 04:39 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> How many fossils have they found that prove missing links? because there's millions of diffrent types of animals in the world and if they've all been changing over time that'd mean countless other forms of life on this planet.... so where are all the fossils? I mean sure a few would get lost and what have you but you'd think we'd have more. I mean for reals. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Which fossils specifically do you want? We've found millions of fossils. We'll never find any missing links, because there aren't any. Every single fossil and every single species is transitional. Every fossil and every species is a link. I think this is a silly argument, anyway. If we find a "missing link" fossil B between fossil A and fossil C, then you can ask for a "missing link" between fossil A and fossil B. <i>Reductio ad absurdum</i>. We've got enough of a fossil record to prove evolution, even without DNA evidence (we've also get enough DNA evidence to prove evolution without a fossil record).
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->And referring to the bible in a historical sense is worth something I think. I mean someone had to write it. and hey, they said Adam was 900 years old before he died. thats not really religious thats just some guys journal saying how old Adam was when he died.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> If a historical document said that someone lived to 900 years, no one would believe it. If a religious document said that someone lived to 900 years, people who follow that religion would believe it. That's why it's a religious issue.
<!--QuoteBegin-AvengerX+Mar 13 2005, 04:42 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (AvengerX @ Mar 13 2005, 04:42 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> the arguement about people not being able to live long do to the lack of nutriants and what have you before the industrial revolution... I'd argue that people were healthier at the beggining of history...
A- there was little to no pollution at the time B- we didn't pump chemicals onto all the crops or fill cows up with growth steriods C- Minerals Depleation has been going on for all of history. at the beggining I'm sure soil was a lot more fertile then it is today
I could see how with good genes and a healthy diet Adam could make it to 900 <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> You misunderstood me. People started living longer <i>during</i> the Industrial Revolution. We know that the Romans, for example, didn't live to 900 years. Roman emporers had better medicine, better food and more food than Adam/Noah/whoever had, but they still didn't live 900 years, or even 100 years.
A. There were few pollutants during the Middle Ages, but people still died young. B. There were few chemicals before the Industrial Revolution, but people still died young. C. Food is more nutritious and more plentiful now than it was back then.
We have a wider variety of foods, more food, better food, a better understanding of nutrition, better sanitation, better medicine, etc than we have ever had. How would
<!--QuoteBegin-AvengerX+Mar 13 2005, 04:48 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (AvengerX @ Mar 13 2005, 04:48 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I don't think you've proven it. I think in fact it takes almost more faith to believe in common ancestory then it does to have faith in god.
allso with carbon dating... your believing in stuff a lot older then adam is <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Yes, because carbon dating and common ancestry have scientific knowledge proving that they are real and there is nothing that proves god exists or doesn't exist.
Does anyone object to us arguing over this OT subject, or can we continue?
how do you know that the food wasn't better back then? I mean soil erosion has been going on for years now but back then it hadn't effected stuff that much... Adam had the priesthood which he could give his kids blessings and stuff.
why is it hard to believe something lives 900 years? huh? I mean red woods live for 100's of years... and they must have evovled from the same crap we did right? so if they can why couldn't we?
and that graph is so Horrible not drawn to scale you should really fix that. I mean if you care about the subject you should at least have the respect to prepare a proper graph
<!--QuoteBegin-AvengerX+Mar 13 2005, 04:56 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (AvengerX @ Mar 13 2005, 04:56 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> how do you know that the food wasn't better back then? I mean soil erosion has been going on for years now but back then it hadn't effected stuff that much... Adam had the priesthood which he could give his kids blessings and stuff.
why is it hard to believe something lives 900 years? huh? I mean red woods live for 100's of years... and they must have evovled from the same crap we did right? so if they can why couldn't we? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> We've seen food that has been preserved. I know that corn, for example, was much much smaller when it was first farmed than it is now. It was about the size of baby corn and was much less edible. We've been breeding crops, improving fertilizers, and improving farming techniques for thousands of years, so our foodstuffs are better than ancient foodstuffs.
Even someone who has been taking care of their body perfectly rarely lives longer than 90 years. The longest lived person in the world was about 126 years old (IIRC). Also, there is no evolutionary advantage to living long. It's almost impossible to breed after 50, regardless of how well you've kept your body. Once people can't breed anymore, they aren't contributing anything genetically and are a drain on a community's resoruces. They may offer a slight advantage in terms of experience, knowledge, and manpower, but the knowledge can be passed on to another generation and a younger person would offer more manpower per amount of food he or she would eat.
Comments
take it or leave it, but i will tell you now that evolution is inevitable and a fact of the universe. questioning it is like asking whether gravity was working this morning when you woke up.
although i have not explained evolution, this is the actual situation, and try to get a feel for how real it is
remember, it is not random. hence "selection". it just happens to be natural
Do you not believe that offspring can have random changes and pass them on to their offspring?
Do you not believe that these changes accumulate?
What else is there to understand?
Well, I'm not trying to disprove anything - just trying to ask pertinant questions. I would think that finding cephlapods with inverted eyes would point more strongly towards evolution and point to common ancestry being that as it stands we have a case of convergent adaptation - 2 diffent designs evolving independantly that serve the same purpose (3 if you count insect eyes). When playing the game of chance, I would think such occurences would not weigh in favor of evolution.
As to why octopus have one type of eye while fish have the other - in simiar environments with similar (cold blooded) anatomies - the one thing that came to mind was that octopus have less oxygen on average than fish - and because of the nature of thier eyes, they consume less oxygen as well.
Anyway, the link with some useful information:
<a href='http://www.creationevolution.net/inverted_retina1.htm' target='_blank'>linky, linky</a> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
One reason why octopi have non-inverted eyes, and humans and fish have inverted eyes, is because humans and fish split off evolutionarily from the octopi about 590 million years ago. Humans and fish split apart about 440 million years ago. This suggests that the eye in fish and humans was developed between 590 and 440 million years ago, while the octopi eye was developed independantly later than 590 million years ago. It seems somewhat arbitrary that fish and octopi developed eyes that are different in such a basic way. I'd guess that, by chance, a proto-octopi mutated one way, while a proto-human/fish mutated another way. The eye is so useful, that they would keep it regardless of a problem like an inverted retina. The eye developed a lot more than 3 times throughout the course of evolution. Scientists estimate that the eye developed about 40-60 times independantly.
Dawkins writes about this in <i>Climbing Mount Improbable</i>, if you want to read it.
Do you not believe that offspring can have random changes and pass them on to their offspring?
Do you not believe that these changes accumulate?
What else is there to understand? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
I think it's because even though they see that microevolution (simple heredity) can occur, they think that it's a normalizing force, so that species won't diverge.
I think this is false for two reasons. The first is that, life has been around on this planet for 1-2 billion years. If viruses can change themselves in a matter of months to match drugs or if we can drastically change the appearance of dogs, cats, or other domesticatable animals in a few generations, then speciation will certainly occur over 1-2 billion years. The second is that if two groups of one species are separated by some force (tectonic plates shifting, for example), then they will begin to diverge, regardless of any normalizing forces.
I accept evolution as true, so I don't know if these are the actually arguments creationists use, but this is the biggest criticism of evolution that I've heard.
Bleh. Sorry.
Does evolution explain some odd instinctual stuff? I seem to remember that at birth, a certain type of beetle knows that it has to dig its way up to the surface, etc. How does it know? Is it somehow preprogramed? Or is this outside of evolution's remit? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
because apos seems like a very knowledgable source on the subject so I wanted to ask him.
<a href='http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0345384725/qid=1110618025/sr=8-1/ref=pd_csp_1/102-3268248-4519333?v=glance&s=books&n=507846' target='_blank'>Shadows of Forgotten Ancestors</a>.
I highly recommend both.
-Ryan!
I believe in looking reality straight in the eye and denying it.
-- Garrison Keillor
The most ridiculous concept ever perpetrated by Homo Sapiens is that the Lord God of Creation, Shaper and Ruler of the Universe, wants the sacharrine adoration of his creations, that he can be persuaded by their prayers, and becomes petulant if he does not recieve this flattery. Yet this ridiculous notion, without one real shred of evidence to bolster it, has gone on to found one of the oldest, largest and least productive industries in history.
-- Robert Heinlein
My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble mind.
-- Albert Einstein
No, because that would be a radical departure from the path that cephlapods had been developing: the kind of huge and bizarre macromutational jump away from existing structures and arrangements that would speak AGAINST the operation of mechanisms like natural selection.
Covergent adaption in evolution means that sometimes similar problems or environmental niches hit upon general similar solutions. But the keys words are general and similar. That is, the underlying structure of the solution is often very different, because it was actually adapted from different things. And the underlying genetics definately won't be the same, or often even very close.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->- 2 diffent designs evolving independantly that serve the same purpose (3 if you count insect eyes).<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Eyes have evolved in many more ways than 3.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->When playing the game of chance, I would think such occurences would not weigh in favor of evolution. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
But evolution doesn't play a game of pure chance: it plays a game of _function_. If there are "good tricks" out there that in general seem to help living creatures survive, it's quite likely that living creatures, especially those that all share a basic underlying genetic code and even some genes, will independantly hit upon some broad similarities. "Eyes" are one obvious example, because light is such a reactive thing and there is a lot of information about the environment to be gleaned from it.
Be back for more tommorow (Sunday).
Just as a small point, viruses do not change themselves. Any survivors of a bacterial or viral colony must by nature of their survival be more tolerant of the drugs or vaccines used against them. As the only reproducing members of their generation, they ensure that the entirety of the colony they spawn must have approximately the same level of resistance (some new virii will be more resistant, some less). The mechanism is entirely unthinking.
As for degradation of the human genome due to removal of selective pressure:
Well, this has both positive and negative aspects. Allowing more individuals to breed in a population will ensure a more diverse gene pool, even if certain less useful genes are also more widespread. The most practical solution, which is the one that we are attempting to put into practice, is that of gene therapy and genetic manipulation. This allows us to both maintain as wide a genetic diversity as possible, whilst removing harmful genes from the pool. Of course, this does not come without risks.
Removing sickle cell anaemia, for example, might seem like a good idea, but if global warming results in a significant rise in marshland and thus mosquito population, we may well suffer for it.
Do you not believe that offspring can have random changes and pass them on to their offspring?
Do you not believe that these changes accumulate?
What else is there to understand? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
I believe in evolution. I mean genetics shows us that. but I don't believe in Common Ancestory. thats all. DNA changes over time. look at Adam , he lived to be 900 but the average person now a days lives what? 80-90 years is a pretty good life span.... so what happened? well apprently our DNA has been changing over the years and we've been dying sooner (I suspect that the amount of Insest after the flood might have something to do with it) and allso when you make a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy of something it loses quality every time. Adam who was God's son lived to be 900.. then his son lived a little shorter, and so on and so fourth.
As opposed to the ammount of incest that must have occured long <i>before</i> the flood?
Do you not believe that offspring can have random changes and pass them on to their offspring?
Do you not believe that these changes accumulate?
What else is there to understand? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I believe in evolution. I mean genetics shows us that. but I don't believe in Common Ancestory. thats all. DNA changes over time. look at Adam , he lived to be 900 but the average person now a days lives what? 80-90 years is a pretty good life span.... so what happened? well apprently our DNA has been changing over the years and we've been dying sooner (I suspect that the amount of Insest after the flood might have something to do with it) and allso when you make a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy of something it loses quality every time. Adam who was God's son lived to be 900.. then his son lived a little shorter, and so on and so fourth. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Thanks for the laugh AvengerX. I needed that.
Do you not believe that offspring can have random changes and pass them on to their offspring?
Do you not believe that these changes accumulate?
What else is there to understand? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I believe in evolution. I mean genetics shows us that. but I don't believe in Common Ancestory. thats all. DNA changes over time. look at Adam , he lived to be 900 but the average person now a days lives what? 80-90 years is a pretty good life span.... so what happened? well apprently our DNA has been changing over the years and we've been dying sooner (I suspect that the amount of Insest after the flood might have something to do with it) and allso when you make a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy of something it loses quality every time. Adam who was God's son lived to be 900.. then his son lived a little shorter, and so on and so fourth. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Thanks for the laugh AvengerX. I needed that. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
hey clam boy. if I wasn't feeling so tolerant today I might go off on your sorry heretic face. but I'm not going to friggen pagan Petey over here
Buhahahaha! Seriously dude, just remember how freaking owned you were last time you ignited a flamewar.
Buhahahaha! Seriously dude, just remember how freaking owned you were last time you ignited a flamewar. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
how'd I get owned? you didn't change any of my beliefs? you didn't convince me anything I say is wrong? you didn't really make me think much of anything... so how did you win in any way shape of form?
and who says I was talking about a flame war, I'm talking about genocide the unwanted masses like you skulk bait. jump start the crusades again and the world will become a better (and heavily less populated) place.
AvengerX is the one who brought religion into it. This is a scientific discussion. Religious tales have no place here, according to board rules.
He also displayed a flawed understanding of evolutionary processes.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->allso when you make a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy of something it loses quality every time<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Not true. Evolution has safeguards to make sure that this doesn't happen. Some people's copies of DNA do degrade (mutate in a way that reduces evolutionary fitness), but they are less likely to pass on their DNA in that case, so it slows or stops degradation. In addition, if this was true, then life would never have advanced the initial basic lifeforms billions of years ago.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Adam who was God's son lived to be 900.. then his son lived a little shorter, and so on and so fourth.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Shorter Lifespans =/= Degradation. Shorter Lifespans are not worse than Longer Lifespans, in an evolutionary sense. People will evolve to have shorter lifespans, only if shorter lifespans increase evolutionary fitness.
Plus, if lifespans have been decreasing drastically from 900 years to present day, then this is what it would look like:(see attached image; y axis = lifespan, x axis = time, at x=0 would be Adam, the far right side of the graph is present day)
Historical evidence shows that lifespans were pretty low up until the Industrial Revolution, because of a lack of good nutrition, sanitation, and health care. How would people be able to live 900 years in an age without any of these things?
AvengerX doesn't believe in Common Ancestry (humans sharing common ancestors with all other life forms) and I assume macroevolution(speciation), because DNA degrades over time (not true). That's why I laughed.
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
You can't change the beliefs of anybody who chooses to believe a book is 100% and any facts that go against that are obviously false. I suppose you're right though, in that sense nobody won, I mean, you certainly didn't change anybodies mind with your drivel. On the otherhand, I don't think you even garnered one post in support of your ideas in that entire thread, so you could say you lost in that regard.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
and who says I was talking about a flame war, I'm talking about genocide the unwanted masses like you skulk bait. jump start the crusades again and the world will become a better (and heavily less populated) place.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You're right. We should start with useless hypocrite bastards like you, who can't even follow the words of their own professed savior. Seriously, do you think jesus would kill off masses of people? I doubt it. Yet you, who are supposedly one of his followers, would advocate it without hesitation.
There are alot of christians on this board. And honestly, I respect most them. You on the otherhand are not a christian, you are just an ignorant smacktard.
Buhahahaha! Seriously dude, just remember how freaking owned you were last time you ignited a flamewar. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
how'd I get owned? you didn't change any of my beliefs? you didn't convince me anything I say is wrong? you didn't really make me think much of anything... so how did you win in any way shape of form?
and who says I was talking about a flame war, I'm talking about genocide the unwanted masses like you skulk bait. jump start the crusades again and the world will become a better (and heavily less populated) place. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Come on guys, we've gone from me laughing at AvengerX's statement, to outright personal attacks. Like Legat said, let's keep this thread open (which is why I posted explaining my statement).
He also displayed a flawed understanding of evolutionary processes.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes, I am aware of that. All I say is: DFTT. <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
And referring to the bible in a historical sense is worth something I think. I mean someone had to write it. and hey, they said Adam was 900 years old before he died. thats not really religious thats just some guys journal saying how old Adam was when he died.
A- there was little to no pollution at the time
B- we didn't pump chemicals onto all the crops or fill cows up with growth steriods
C- Minerals Depleation has been going on for all of history. at the beggining I'm sure soil was a lot more fertile then it is today
I could see how with good genes and a healthy diet Adam could make it to 900
Which fossils specifically do you want? We've found millions of fossils. We'll never find any missing links, because there aren't any. Every single fossil and every single species is transitional. Every fossil and every species is a link. I think this is a silly argument, anyway. If we find a "missing link" fossil B between fossil A and fossil C, then you can ask for a "missing link" between fossil A and fossil B. <i>Reductio ad absurdum</i>. We've got enough of a fossil record to prove evolution, even without DNA evidence (we've also get enough DNA evidence to prove evolution without a fossil record).
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->And referring to the bible in a historical sense is worth something I think. I mean someone had to write it. and hey, they said Adam was 900 years old before he died. thats not really religious thats just some guys journal saying how old Adam was when he died.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If a historical document said that someone lived to 900 years, no one would believe it. If a religious document said that someone lived to 900 years, people who follow that religion would believe it. That's why it's a religious issue.
allso with carbon dating... your believing in stuff a lot older then adam is
A- there was little to no pollution at the time
B- we didn't pump chemicals onto all the crops or fill cows up with growth steriods
C- Minerals Depleation has been going on for all of history. at the beggining I'm sure soil was a lot more fertile then it is today
I could see how with good genes and a healthy diet Adam could make it to 900 <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
You misunderstood me. People started living longer <i>during</i> the Industrial Revolution. We know that the Romans, for example, didn't live to 900 years. Roman emporers had better medicine, better food and more food than Adam/Noah/whoever had, but they still didn't live 900 years, or even 100 years.
A. There were few pollutants during the Middle Ages, but people still died young.
B. There were few chemicals before the Industrial Revolution, but people still died young.
C. Food is more nutritious and more plentiful now than it was back then.
We have a wider variety of foods, more food, better food, a better understanding of nutrition, better sanitation, better medicine, etc than we have ever had. How would
allso with carbon dating... your believing in stuff a lot older then adam is <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes, because carbon dating and common ancestry have scientific knowledge proving that they are real and there is nothing that proves god exists or doesn't exist.
Does anyone object to us arguing over this OT subject, or can we continue?
why is it hard to believe something lives 900 years? huh? I mean red woods live for 100's of years... and they must have evovled from the same crap we did right? so if they can why couldn't we?
why is it hard to believe something lives 900 years? huh? I mean red woods live for 100's of years... and they must have evovled from the same crap we did right? so if they can why couldn't we? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
We've seen food that has been preserved. I know that corn, for example, was much much smaller when it was first farmed than it is now. It was about the size of baby corn and was much less edible. We've been breeding crops, improving fertilizers, and improving farming techniques for thousands of years, so our foodstuffs are better than ancient foodstuffs.
Even someone who has been taking care of their body perfectly rarely lives longer than 90 years. The longest lived person in the world was about 126 years old (IIRC). Also, there is no evolutionary advantage to living long. It's almost impossible to breed after 50, regardless of how well you've kept your body. Once people can't breed anymore, they aren't contributing anything genetically and are a drain on a community's resoruces. They may offer a slight advantage in terms of experience, knowledge, and manpower, but the knowledge can be passed on to another generation and a younger person would offer more manpower per amount of food he or she would eat.