Expressing Atheism

evenwolf · Wed 15/08/2007 00:38:15

Can today's criteria be defined? Its a simple answer but how would you ever explain it to someone who just thinks that humans are better than animals, and therefore evolution doesn't apply to us?

It seems that the poorest, most unattractive, least intelligent people are better "suited" for distributing their genes here and now. If the chain of evolution would be restored one day, wouldn't that group of people be more likely to survive based on probability alone? I know we don't have a clue what conditions humans will be tested on. But isn't safe to say that one of the poorest, most unattractive, least intelligent persons is MOST likely to find themselves in a survival situation when the rest of us are dead? Say from a meteor collision?

space boy · Wed 15/08/2007 00:59:59

Let's start with saying that the "chain of evolution" never was broken in the first place. Evolution is constantly happening in tiny steps. Also I don't see why the ugliest, dumbest and poorest people would be more likely to survive... it depends on the conditions of course, but i can't really imagine that being dumb and ugly would be more beneficial than being intelligent and attractive.

evenwolf · Wed 15/08/2007 01:22:06

Spaceboy: Sorry, not evolution. But evolution through natural selection.

Mike Judge made a movie called Idiocracy about how the future of mankind is becoming dumber & dumber. The claim is that human society effects evolution is this way: Instead of survival of the "fittest" (which you would expect to be smart, attractive people) what we are seeing is that the people with the lowest socio-economical positions are having the most babies.

That might be because they can't afford birth control, or because intelligent people are avoiding having children because of their careers. Some women have babies JUST to receive more food stamps, you see.

So what I'm asking is this: Since there are more of these people, wouldn't they actually be more fit to survive if a catastrophe occurred? The argument isnt that they are more fit for the survival AFTER the catastrophe. That they are more likely to survive based on numbers alone. The tiny sampling of human survivors consists of them & only them.

I suppose what happens is that only ugly idiots survive. But then over time, natural selection resumes. So human society was a chink on a chain that comes and goes away.

jetxl · Wed 15/08/2007 11:25:36

Who are these dumb people?
Knowlage is more accessable now than ever before, from car mechanics to quantum physics. And, when you work with new electronic devices, there is a learning curve. People never stop learning.
Maybe people don't get dumber but layzier, but that layzieness can be a drive itself to make life as combfortable as posible for everyone.
Plasic surgery is just one step to look good. There are other, like working out, eating healthy and buying good clothes, which means a good job, which means a college education or the drive and edurance to climb the corpered ladder, whith means competition.
The dumb arch type is, as far as I'm concerned, a myth.

space boy · Wed 15/08/2007 11:54:17

A big population is helpful but not enough. The circumstances and genes still play a big role. Let's say you have a population of 1000 people with 50 of them being exceptionally smarter than the rest. Now let's say this population is affected by an earth quake. You might think that since there are far more dumb people they have a higher chance of survival. But the 50 smart people might work out better ways to survive the catastrophe while the rest has no clue what to do. The smarter minority reduces casualties using their intelligence while the dumb people might actually kill themselves by accident. Generally I think that being smarter is more helpful in a survival situation, rather than relying on numbers and chance alone.

evenwolf · Thu 16/08/2007 00:16:00

Still that says very little for a meteor collision.

Theoretical: The entire world is obliterated by this meteor INSTANTLY but a group of rednecks were in an inflatable moonwalk at Walmart.... so they survive by sheer dumb luck.

I understand the concept that smart people SHOULD be better equipped to survive. I really don't need that explained.

nick.keane · Thu 16/08/2007 08:24:55

Quote from: space boy on Wed 15/08/2007 11:54:17
A big population is helpful but not enough. The circumstances and genes still play a big role. Let's say you have a population of 1000 people with 50 of them being exceptionally smarter than the rest. Now let's say this population is affected by an earth quake. You might think that since there are far more dumb people they have a higher chance of survival. But the 50 smart people might work out better ways to survive the catastrophe while the rest has no clue what to do. The smarter minority reduces casualties using their intelligence while the dumb people might actually kill themselves by accident. Generally I think that being smarter is more helpful in a survival situation, rather than relying on numbers and chance alone.

Well, it still depends on what you mean by smart or dumb people. If a train is moving at 60 mph into a smart wuss, that smart guy will probably die - He'll definately make good time getting to his proposed destination as a greasy smear anyway, so it isn't all that bad. Then again, if the man being hit was a retarded mini-hulk, that train (depending on its mass) would stop for him. Then again, if a nuclear reactor was in a state of meltdown and the only way of getting the core to cool down was to play hacker with SHODAN (the bioshock demo just came out, btw, go download it), I'd probably be more inclined to follow in the steps of the smart wuss.

Then again, if 'mini-hulk' were to be blasted by radiation into 'incredible' hulk...

For the most part, just look at the Multiple Intelligence Theories - not just one archtype or aspect of human intelligence can be considered a representation of total smart-i-ness in all potential situations.

lo_res_man · Thu 16/08/2007 08:37:20

of course not, its like love, PET studies showed that people feeling the differant kinds of love( parental love , physical love in love love) showd differant areas been active. Just because we don't have differant words for it doesn't mean its not differant emotions. I think even the greeks list wasn't conclusive. (Eros, Philia, Agapē, Storge Thelema)

space boy · Thu 16/08/2007 11:18:30

Ok, to be more specific, in my example i assumed that the "smart" group are potential mensa members while the "dumb" group are people who would poke a land mine to see if it works. A very simplified and exagarated example for the sake of argument.

Btw: we went pretty offtopic. that's an interesting discussion but shouldn't we start a new topic for discussing evolution?

evenwolf · Thu 16/08/2007 11:29:06

Hmm. well not many people are jumping in so I presume the tangent is dying fast.

Plus, the thread's pretty well run its course eh?

Misj' · Thu 16/08/2007 15:43:39

Quote from: evenwolf on Thu 16/08/2007 11:29:06
Hmm. well not many people are jumping in so I presume the tangent is dying fast.

Plus, the thread's pretty well run its course eh?

So before this (finally) dies out, this would be the right moment to ask: is anyone here actually a scientist?

Misj'

nick.keane · Fri 17/08/2007 09:19:44

nope, i'm jesus. Because when you've got jesus, why need anything else?

Meerbat · Fri 17/08/2007 10:18:38

I am a biologist, with a special interest in evolution and behavior.

space boy · Fri 17/08/2007 17:24:31

On topic: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3YSXKlO7qjA

MoodyBlues · Fri 17/08/2007 20:25:50

Does majoring in computer science make you a scientist? If so, I want my white lab coat and beaker, demmit.

Nacho · Fri 17/08/2007 21:13:01

Quote from: nick.keane on Fri 17/08/2007 09:19:44
nope, i'm jesus. Because when you've got jesus, why need anything else?

I don' t get it... does that imply that the human being doesn' t beed to investiagate, because Jesus is going to do the work anyway?

I don' t think so... Sorry, I don' t imagine Jesus coming to my home, and saying "hey! I know you want to go Mittens, but as mankind trusts in my and, therefore, you haven't invented aircrafts, I am here to fix the mess... Climb into my back, I' ll take you to Ontario!!!"

So, according to you, Jesus is for me what David Hasselhoff is for SpongeBob? Curious... O_o

lo_res_man · Sat 18/08/2007 08:07:26

Its a lot like a great story I heard once.

There is this lady drowning in the middle of a lake and a boater passes her by, and he goes over to help, but she waves him off saying "God will save me."
The man calls the coast guard and they send a speed boat, but the woman shouts back "God will save me!" and refuses to be rescued. FINALLY they send a helecopter which hovers above the drowning lady with a ladder hanging down, a man climbs down the ladder and reaches his hand out to grab hers, but she shakes his hand away, screaming, "GOD WILL SAVE ME!" Refusing all aid, the woman tires and sinks and drowns.
Up in heaven, the woman walks up to God, stomping mad. "GOD!" she snarls "I HAD FAITH, WHY DIDN'T YOU SEND ANY HELP?"
And God sighs, looks her in the eye and Says....

***

But I Did

evenwolf · Sat 18/08/2007 08:43:12

God also sent her aid in the form of the bible and religious leaders. And so it was His will that she become delusioned and die.

lo_res_man · Sat 18/08/2007 09:28:22

Okay let me condense what I meant by the story
"Pray to God, but swim for shore"

Nacho · Sat 18/08/2007 11:38:47

That' s my favourite joke ever. Acting pretending that God is going to directly help you is so sacrilege, contradictorious and shows such lack of respect of God' s affairs that all those who believe that deserve everything that happens to them.