thessalonian Posted March 10, 2011 Share Posted March 10, 2011 So my company builds complex guidance equipment for aircraft. We keep trying to make it better alll the time. I just wonder if we just let it sit there and didn't apply any brain power to it if it would get better on it's own? Oh I suppose you could say animals are different, they have a brain. So is it the thinking of the animal that makes it go from a single celled ameba to a human? No it would seem the brain of the creature is immaterial to the evolution of life. So I'm back to not in a billion billion years would our guidance systems get better by themselves. They have to have a brain apply energy and incite to improve them. A mind external to them. I just wonder how even if evolution is a valid process it would be different. Just thinking out loud. Ignore if you like. Thoughts? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
havok579257 Posted March 10, 2011 Share Posted March 10, 2011 whoa whoa whoa, who are you to say my great-great-great-great-great-great-great grandfather wasn't a dodo. how dare you sir. maybe your just mad because your ancestors were frogs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nihil Obstat Posted March 10, 2011 Share Posted March 10, 2011 [quote name='thessalonian' timestamp='1299724027' post='2219699'] So my company builds complex guidance equipment for aircraft. We keep trying to make it better alll the time. I just wonder if we just let it sit there and didn't apply any brain power to it if it would get better on it's own? Oh I suppose you could say animals are different, they have a brain. So is it the thinking of the animal that makes it go from a single celled ameba to a human? No it would seem the brain of the creature is immaterial to the evolution of life. So I'm back to not in a billion billion years would our guidance systems get better by themselves. They have to have a brain apply energy and incite to improve them. A mind external to them. I just wonder how even if evolution is a valid process it would be different. Just thinking out loud. Ignore if you like. Thoughts? [/quote] [img]http://farm1.static.flickr.com/108/377484935_b4ee114483.jpg[/img] The brain is kind of only secondary to evolution. Random mutations occur in genes, and those which are beneficial tend to be passed on via a reproductive advantage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam Posted March 10, 2011 Share Posted March 10, 2011 It must be remembered that individuals don't evolve, species do. One does not really see evolution on an individual scale but rather species wide scale. That being said, you need a mechanism for evolution. In creatures, the mechanism is reproduction. Your guidance equipment does not reproduce itself and make more guidance systems and thus it has no way of getting better or worse (well it will get worse overtime as observed by the second law of thermodynamics, but that is another point). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thessalonian Posted March 11, 2011 Author Share Posted March 11, 2011 (edited) I realize I was being fascetious. Just trying to probe the thought of myself and others. I'm not against evolution as a process So did the mail or female evolve first? Guessing female. Could the first female something reproduce both sexually and asexually? Or maybe they were bi. Just askin. Edited March 11, 2011 by thessalonian Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thessalonian Posted March 11, 2011 Author Share Posted March 11, 2011 [quote name='thessalonian' timestamp='1299867385' post='2220140'] I realize I was being fascetious. Just trying to probe the thought of myself and others. I'm not against evolution as a process So did the mail or female evolve first? Guessing female. Could the first female something reproduce both sexually and asexually? Or maybe they were bi. Just askin. [/quote] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nihil Obstat Posted March 11, 2011 Share Posted March 11, 2011 [quote name='thessalonian' timestamp='1299867385' post='2220140'] I realize I was being fascetious. Just trying to probe the thought of myself and others. I'm not against evolution as a process So did the mail or female evolve first? Guessing female. Could the first female something reproduce both sexually and asexually? Or maybe they were bi. Just askin. [/quote] Again, the only possible response I can come up with: [img]http://farm1.static.flickr.com/108/377484935_b4ee114483.jpg[/img] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Laudate_Dominum Posted March 11, 2011 Share Posted March 11, 2011 (edited) The evolution of sexual reproduction is super interesting imo. 'Tis one of the big deal topics in contemporary biology too. Here's a decent little summary: [url="http://www.philippwesche.org/old1/es.html"]Evolution of Sex[/url] Edited March 11, 2011 by Laudate_Dominum Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AudreyGrace Posted March 17, 2011 Share Posted March 17, 2011 The issue is not how we were created or developed, but whether or not we acknowledge God as the creator. "Science can purify religion from error and superstition. Religion can purify science from idolatry and false absolutes." -JP2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sixpence Posted March 17, 2011 Share Posted March 17, 2011 [quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1299733266' post='2219746'] [img]http://farm1.static.flickr.com/108/377484935_b4ee114483.jpg[/img] The brain is kind of only secondary to evolution. Random mutations occur in genes, and those which are beneficial tend to be passed on via a reproductive advantage. [/quote] THIS!!!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sixpence Posted March 17, 2011 Share Posted March 17, 2011 1. what do you mean "better"? what makes an ant "better" than an aardvark? They are both surviving in their environment 2. machines, though they are super amesome, do not reproduce and do not have a "population" per se.. and therefore cannot evolve 3. if you want to ignore all that... you could maybe say that people's preferences are the selection force on the machines.. with only the one's people like continuing to be produced... when you are talking about living things, this Miiighhhtt be comparable to breeding dogs or livestock... people are the selective force here too. In nature... the force that selects who gets to move on to the next round is called "natural selection" and "sexual selection" and, depending upon who you ask, the influence of God's will sometimes.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ParadiseFound Posted March 17, 2011 Share Posted March 17, 2011 [quote name='thessalonian' timestamp='1299724027' post='2219699'] So my company builds complex guidance equipment for aircraft. We keep trying to make it better alll the time. I just wonder if we just let it sit there and didn't apply any brain power to it if it would get better on it's own? Oh I suppose you could say animals are different, they have a brain. So is it the thinking of the animal that makes it go from a single celled ameba to a human? No it would seem the brain of the creature is immaterial to the evolution of life. So I'm back to not in a billion billion years would our guidance systems get better by themselves. They have to have a brain apply energy and incite to improve them. A mind external to them. I just wonder how even if evolution is a valid process it would be different. Just thinking out loud. Ignore if you like. Thoughts? [/quote] One of the worst interpretations of the theory of evolution I have ever seen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thessalonian Posted March 18, 2011 Author Share Posted March 18, 2011 [quote name='ParadiseFound' timestamp='1300385127' post='2221420'] One of the worst interpretations of the theory of evolution I have ever seen. [/quote] It's not an interpretation of the theory and I said below it was a bit TIC. I was just thinking out loud a bit and also looking to probe some thought. I am ok with evolution as a theory but it would have to be guided is the point of what I wrote. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thessalonian Posted March 18, 2011 Author Share Posted March 18, 2011 [quote name='AudreyGrace' timestamp='1300373882' post='2221392'] The issue is not how we were created or developed, but whether or not we acknowledge God as the creator. "Science can purify religion from error and superstition. Religion can purify science from idolatry and false absolutes." -JP2 [/quote] Amen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam Posted March 24, 2011 Share Posted March 24, 2011 [quote name='AudreyGrace' timestamp='1300373882' post='2221392'] The issue is not how we were created or developed, but whether or not we acknowledge God as the creator. "Science can purify religion from error and superstition. Religion can purify science from idolatry and false absolutes." -JP2 [/quote] I think the quote you may be thinking of is "Faith purifies reason...[but if removed from reason] faith then runs the grave risk of withering into myth or superstition" (Fides et Ratio). I have never come across the quote you use and when looking for it online, though I found it, I did not find any real citations for it or any direction to where it would be in an actual document released by the Pope. Also, I do not agree with the general role given to science in the quote you use. The role seems to be appropriate to Reason, at large, as the first light that God gave to humanity and not to science specifically. I think the appropriate relationship is spelled out in Fides et Ratio. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now