Pointless debates and fruitless discussion

[Muezzin]

I've never understood the debate about evolution. Whether or not my prehistoric ancestors evolved from a shared ancestor to apes does not affect my daily life in the least. So why do people get so fired up about it, on both sides of the fence?

People are dumb.

[جوري]

^^^ This is why--

if that is what people believe they came from.. they can be my guest... I just don't want it imposed on me in any sort of debate, heated or not...

[Muezzin]

Yeah, but why do people want to impose it? They act as if it's such an important scientific discovery when really, it has very little practical use whatsoever. It's trivia in the long run, when it comes to living our lives right here and now. It's meaningless conflict that will never be resolved because when it comes down to it, it doesn't really matter where we came from; what matters is where we're heading.

[جوري]

It isn't a scientific discovery.. it is science fiction...

Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up

[Pygoscelis]

I've never understood the debate about evolution. Whether or not my prehistoric ancestors evolved from a shared ancestor to apes does not affect my daily life in the least. So why do people get so fired up about it, on both sides of the fence?

People are dumb.

It is really only so heated because it is rejected so virulently. Most people who believe in evolution would readily give up that belief is something better with more evidence came along. The same is not likely for those who disbelieve. The two groups believe for different reasons. One is science. The other is faith.

Some people of faith will accept it and point out that it need not necesarily clash with their creation stories (ie perhaps we evolved since adam and eve, etc). With others I think it may be an ego thing, thinking we couldn't possibly have evolved from the same ancestors as apes, because that threatens their self image and self importance.

[جوري]

I personally so virulently reject the theory of evolution because of scientific reasons.. and I have stated my reasons through out the pages here, nothing of creation/religion as pertains to evolution infiltrated my posts... I don't see creation as the anti-science or evolution to be the anti-religion or the two having to exist in parallel realms or else something won't make sense--

I don't believe evolution on any level would contradict my beliefs should it be proven true, short of the creation of man... nothing in the Quran states a plant can't evolve into a whale. nor does the Quran say that the 6 days of creation are governed by this earth's laws of physics and relativity --- However the possibility of an Ape turning into a human is very unlikely, given what we know of genetics, mutations and molecular biology!

I can't get into your psychological assessment of an "ego thing"... that is just a funny observation... thanks for making me smile!

peace!

[MustafaMc]

Yeah, but why do people want to impose it? They act as if it's such an important scientific discovery when really, it has very little practical use whatsoever. It's trivia in the long run, when it comes to living our lives right here and now. It's meaningless conflict that will never be resolved because when it comes down to it, it doesn't really matter where we came from; what matters is where we're heading.

You make a good point. Personally, I can't remember being at one time a fertilized egg in my mother's womb, then an embryo, then a fetus and then being born. My mind can't comprehend that at one time I was smaller than the period at the end of this sentence. If I can't comprehend this well known fact, then how can I comprehend that all life (unicellular prokaryotes and multicellular eukaryotes, plants and animals, etc.) is supposedly descended from a common living ancestor.

This coflict continues because 1) some people can't imagine that random chance mutations, recombinations and natural selection can arbitrarily lead to the development of new, better species and 2) some people can't imagine an All-Powerfull Being created life forms either as we know them or that He directed and controlled the devlopmental, evolutionary process. Unfortuantely, I don't see how one side can ever prove with scientific evidence the other wrong.

[Muezzin]

It is really only so heated because it is rejected so virulently.

Not necessarily. I've often seen certain athiests begin threads in message forums in order to somehow get one over on creationists or people of faith. But I do see your point.

Most people who believe in evolution would readily give up that belief is something better with more evidence came along. The same is not likely for those who disbelieve. The two groups believe for different reasons. One is science. The other is faith.

I appreciate that. I think people should believe what they want to. I just really detest these ongoing debates that will never be resolved, and are simply the intellectual equivalent of males competing to see who has the larger genitalia.

Some people of faith will accept it and point out that it need not necesarily clash with their creation stories (ie perhaps we evolved since adam and eve, etc). With others I think it may be an ego thing, thinking we couldn't possibly have evolved from the same ancestors as apes, because that threatens their self image and self importance.

Hmm... I guess ego threat does come into it for some people, but not for all. Some oppose it on scientific grounds.

But I should really take my ranting elsewhere, rather than driving this thread off-topic.

[MustafaMc]

Not necessarily. The starter of this thread is an atheist, and obviously put it in the 'Comparative Religion' section so as to prove religion wrong in some strange way. But I do see your point.


I appreciate that. I think people should believe what they want to. I just really detest these ongoing debates that will never be resolved, and are simply the intellectual equivalent of males competing....

I would have to disagree. These are very important issues. One of the primary means that theists have to know Allah is through His creation and His revealed books. My knowledge of life, genetics and the intricate processes that occur in a single living being reinforces my belief in a Creator. Atheistic evolutionists seek to disprove the existence of God and they put their faith in illogical assumptions that they claim are scientific.

To me this dispute is a fundamental defense of Faith that cannot be neglected. It is one thing to believe and let believe what one wants to, it is quite another to let fundamental challenges to one's faith go unopposed.

[Muezzin]

I would have to disagree. These are very important issues. One of the primary means that theists have to know Allah is through His creation and His revealed books. My knowledge of life, genetics and the intricate processes that occur in a single living being reinforces my belief in a Creator. Atheistic evolutionists seek to disprove the existence of God and they put their faith in illogical assumptions that they claim are scientific.

It still doesn't change the fact that people will believe what they like. True, we might think of people with opposing beliefs as fools, but has anyone actually ever been conviced on either side of this particular fence by arguments from the other? Seems that people's beliefs on each side are so entrenched that the entire conflict is meaningless.

To me this dispute is a fundamental defense of Faith that cannot be neglected. It is one thing to believe and let believe what one wants to, it is quite another to let fundamental challenges to one's faith go unopposed.

To me, it's not a challenge, it's a non-issue because at the end of the day, I'm secure in my beliefs, the same way things like 'God does not exist' is not a challenge - will arguing about it change that person's belief? Slim chance, but when all is said and done is it really worth all the bother? I personally don't think so. I'd rather just go, 'feh, believe what you want, don't try and impose it on me' and leave it at that (and no, before someone jumps on my back, I'm not opposing dawah, I'm opposing arguing with people who are determined not to change)

A challenge to me would be something along the lines of 'Religion breeds violence', because the ramifications of such beliefs would have an effect on the way we lead our lives (banning of religious symbols for instance). On the other hand, evolution and creationism have little effect on the way we lead our lives here and now.

I'm not saying don't defend Islam or religion if it is being attacked, or don't defend ideas held dear to our hearts, but don't engage in fruitless dialogue either. I apologise if I've offended anyone with my frankness.

[Muezzin]

I've decided to make this thread to drop my ranting from the 'Creationists Dealt a Blow' thread, so as not to drive that one off-topic. EDIT: So apologies if it's a bit confusing near the beginning, when merging posts from other topics, they are displayed in chronological order.

Anyhow, I truly believe that debates/arguments about evolution, the existence of God, or the superiority of one religion over another, are all equally pointless.

Evolution - both sides of the argument seem so entrenched, and so unwilling to concede anything, that the entire debate has become a point-scoring farce. Let's leave that sort of thing for the politicians, eh?

The existence of God - if someone is obstinately determined not to believe in God, what the heck is the point of trying to disprove them? If someone came up to me and said, 'You know, I have scientific proof the sky is made entirely of potatoes', I wouldn't start an argument with him, I'd just roll my eyes and say, 'Rock on, buddy'.

Superiority of one religion - this is just silly. It's one thing defending allegations against your religion. It's another thing attacking other religions. To those who say it's to aid conversion, I say 'bull'. If I'm trying to sell you a tea set, what technique would you respond positively to? Technique a) I tell you how amazingly awesome the tea set I'm offering to sell you is, or technique b) I tell you how shoddy your current tea set is and how it corrupts society and your children.

At the heart of all this is the sheer futility of such arguments. What does it really matter to the way we live whether some people believe we descend from a common ancestor as apes, or some people believe we were created in our current form by a deity? Should we feel our own belief is threatened simply because someone else doesn't share it?

[Keltoi]

I've glanced at many of these evolution vs. creationist threads, and it just fails to hold my interest for long. Scientifically, it has been shown that human beings share the most genes with certain species of monkey, but I don't know what that means or if that is even relevant in the long run. It's pretty obvious that we aren't monkeys, so to that end I'm not sure what the debate really is, except for the origins of life.

[Gator]

Muezzin,
To kind of follow on MustafaMc's observations. I think the arguments hit a nerve for some people because they go against deeply held beliefs which effects both theists and atheists. It challenges their worldview and some personalities get offended at that and they get "fired up" to defend it.

My question would be do you not like debate in general or just heated debates. I don't mind debating my beliefs in a normal manner, just to test to see if my view of things stands up to differing views or to find new perspectives.

Thanks.

[Muezzin]

It's pretty obvious that we aren't monkeys, so to that end I'm not sure what the debate really is, except for the origins of life.

If only it had stayed a genuine discussion about the origin of life, and had not become a silly point-scoring game...

Muezzin,

Yo.

To kind of follow on MustafaMc's observations. I think the arguments hit a nerve for some people because they go against deeply held beliefs which effects both theists and atheists. It challenges their worldview and some personalities get offended at that and they get "fired up" to defend it.

I understand it ruffles feathers and offends people on each side. But I still don't see how it affects our daily lives in any significant way, unless we happen to be Richard Dawkins or something.

My question would be do you not like debate in general or just heated debates. I don't mind debating my beliefs in a normal manner, just to test to see if my view of things stands up to differing views or to find new perspectives.

Heated debates about things that will actually affect us? Fine. Good. Do it. Let's get the best solution possible. Heated debates about stuff that really amounts to nothing in the sense it does not contribute to the way we are treated or treat others? I think those kind of arguments are pointless and are just conflict for the sake of conflict.

[Woodrow]

^^^ This is why--

if that is what people believe they came from.. they can be my guest... I just don't want it imposed on me in any sort of debate, heated or not...

Nice picture of GBW. OOOOOps GWB, No problem he wouldn't have noticed the difference


I don't think that is the reason so many get so heated up. I believe the reason is much deeper. I think many people perceive it as an attack against their religious understanding and that it is blasphemous to them. People feel very insulted and angry if something differs from their inner beliefs.

What is interesting is that the first time a basic religious belief is challenged is when a person becomes the most angry, the more times it is challenged the more skilled the person becomes at handling the challenge. They will either discover it can cause their belief no harm, learn valid refutations or accept that not everybody has the same beliefs they do. (Festinger's inoculation theory, reworded)

The whole thing boils down to a personal level, much like Bro. Muezzin said.

If it can not stop me from living my life as I choose, why get angry over it.

[Gator]

If only it had stayed a genuine discussion about the origin of life, and had not become a silly point-scoring game...


Yo.


I understand it ruffles feathers and offends people on each side. But I still don't see how it affects our daily lives in any significant way, unless we happen to be Richard Dawkins or something.


Heated debates about things that will actually affect us? Fine. Good. Do it. Let's get the best solution possible. Heated debates about stuff that really amounts to nothing in the sense it does not contribute to the way we are treated or treat others? I think those kind of arguments are pointless and are just conflict for the sake of conflict.

I see where you're coming from. I guess the reason a public debate effects non-scientists, besides just entertaining exchange of information, would be the debate about what's taught in school. Other than that, I agree the effect of continuing debate on evolution or creationism is going to effect me this very day is pretty limited.

I guess just don't take part or read them.

[Muezzin]

I see where you're coming from. I guess the reason a public debate effects non-scientists, besides just entertaining exchange of information, would be the debate about what's taught in school.

That's a good point.

Other than that, I agree the effect of continuing debate on evolution or creationism is going to effect me this very day is pretty limited.

I guess just don't take part or read them.

True. Ah, you just used my own logic against me. Drats. :p :)

[Al_Imaan]

I've never understood the debate about evolution. Whether or not my prehistoric ancestors evolved from a shared ancestor to apes does not affect my daily life in the least. So why do people get so fired up about it, on both sides of the fence?

People are dumb.

maybe its cuz some ppl want to be evolved from apes...or do they?..:p

[جوري]

Anything that helps you draw closer to G-D, through understanding of his creation, isn't fruitless. I posted the http://www.islamicboard.com/health-s...-must-see.html

for that exact purpose...So a person would reflect on all these intricate processes-- Sometimes the debate isn't about the debater or the debatee but the passer by in his yahoo spider slurp... s/he might read something that clicks... Everyone finds their way to G-D differently, should they find him!... That is personally how I found this forum... I looked something up under ask jeeves and voila, I had a well thought out answer. And I remember the very member whose post I had read!

Some cavort in ignorance and science fictions deeming it scientific in spite of strong evidence to the contrary. I suppose G-D by default doesn't appeal to many... but in the wise words of one Sir Arthur Conan Doyle "when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth." So where I agree, I don't particularly enjoy getting into vain discourse with someone -- when I personally write, I don't have one member in mind. I do it for the sake of putting forth what I have learned and pledging my effort to G-D

:w:

[Muezzin]

That's cool because it's not a pointless debate, it's educational.

I was referring more to silly debates where no side gives in, are more about point-scoring than truth, and which don't even matter in the long run.

[جوري]

That's cool because it's not a pointless debate, it's educational.

I was referring more to silly debates where no side gives in, are more about point-scoring than truth, and which don't even matter in the long run.

Yes.. people get emotionally charged, or upset.. they take it personally... I take some posts personally -- If you'd get to the root of it, you might find the reason a debate got heated isn't even the topic itself--

I am not writing this to defend my position, rather explain why things spiraled to this point-- fact is, I wasn't going to partake in the whole debate, except one post I found rather condescending from the start, as if someone has all the knowledge of the cosmos and is coming to teach us vagabonds the ways of the world ( I find that to be a common symptom on most any forum) Someone reads a book or two, it touches them in a particular way, it becomes their crusade and new religion!--
What I can't tolerate is injustice toward a fellow Muslim-- not whether or not someone believes in G-D.. Genuinely I don't give a rats A$$.. and I have no interest at all in extending du'wah to anyone...

So, that is my Achilles -- I exerted some minor efforts in the evolution not (creationists dealt a blow thread)... it wasn't until a Muslim member from the forum gathered all the threads on evolution and put them under one post that I started browsing through it.. and I found two members in particular with an ongoing cruel and cutting stylistic edge to their writing... Which made me pick on one in particular-- on the account it was grossly in error from a scientific stand point.. what is worst I ask than error laced with condescension?

The few things I got out of it:
1-Hopefully proving that having a good grip on English, and the "vulgar tongue" doesn't qualify you as a scientist.. nor is cutting and pasting someone else's research so when questioned about the most basic of concepts in a way to communicate it to others seems daunting..
2- using cruel language to chastise a member isn't acceptable such as with this particular post

Why don't you actually learn about evolution before getting involved in a discussion about it? That might stop you from getting so confused all the time.

I personally didn't take the above, though not directed at me, to be a kind response to someone genuinely asking a question.
3- Lastly the title in and of itself was convoluted as if an epiphany, and it turned out to be a wowser only from the opposite end of the spectrum...

on the con side
It was an absolute waste of my time... But I hope some passer by somewhere gains something from it? and with this I hope I have cleared at least my position as to why? & hopefully you'll have concluded that it isn't about scoring, rather a taste of their own medicine...
:w:

[جوري]

Nice picture of GBW..

lol so true... perhaps he is the missing link?

I don't think that is the reason so many get so heated up. I believe the reason is much deeper.

Indeed-- nothing gets by you.. I suppose because insight into people's psyche is yours by profession-- where you might sincerely feel, none of it should inspire more than a shrug of the shoulders, I have stated my genuine reasons above...

:w:

[snakelegs]

Yeah, but why do people want to impose it? They act as if it's such an important scientific discovery when really, it has very little practical use whatsoever. It's trivia in the long run, when it comes to living our lives right here and now. It's meaningless conflict that will never be resolved because when it comes down to it, it doesn't really matter where we came from; what matters is where we're heading.

i agree. i've heard these heated debates on and off for years. because it really doesn't matter to me one way or the other, it almost sounds like a debate between 2 religions - the "science" side vs. the "religious" side.
silly when there are so many better things to do.

[MustafaMc]

It still doesn't change the fact that people will believe what they like. True, we might think of people with opposing beliefs as fools, but has anyone actually ever been conviced on either side of this particular fence by arguments from the other? Seems that people's beliefs on each side are so entrenched that the entire conflict is meaningless.

I don't think that those who don't believe the way that I believe are fools. I believe some non-Muslim members are misguided and that they are striving to misguide others, particularly young impressionable Muslims. This is apparent in posts by some atheists (evolutionists) and some Christians. I also don't see this debate as mindless scoring points against the other side, but as legitimate debate.

I have thought about the arguments put forward by both evolutionists and Christians way more than your average Muslim. Consequently, you might call me sensitive to their arguments that are directly contrary to my deeply held beliefs. You are right, however, that debate is not likely to convince the other side that one is right.

[Muezzin]

Wow, two pages of debate about... pointless debate! :p

I don't think that those who don't believe the way that I believe are fools. I believe some non-Muslim members are misguided and that they are striving to misguide others, particularly young impressionable Muslims. This is apparent in posts by some atheists (evolutionists) and some Christians. I also don't see this debate as mindless scoring points against the other side, but as legitimate debate.

That's good. You're not a group of the people taking part in the mindless pantomime I seem to see the debate as.

Nontheless, I have seen it degenerate into midless point scoring - in fact, it may well stem from the condescension that PurestAmbrosia noticed; that seems to be the point legitimate debate ends and it becomes a farcical argument.

I have thought about the arguments put forward by both evolutionists and Christians way more than your average Muslim. Consequently, you might call me sensitive to their arguments that are directly contrary to my deeply held beliefs.

I apologise if my frankness may have shaken your efforts somewhat, as that was certainly not my intent. Rather, I wished to point out the absurdity of becoming too emotionally attached to abstract notions that are of little practical value. I tend to have all the tact of a jackhammer which is why my intent gets gobbled up in messages of stressful whining.

You are right, however, that debate is not likely to convince the other side that one is right.

Yeah. I don't think there's anything wrong in defending or refuting facts, but it seems to me that certain people get really fired up because not only are they trying to clarify what they think is true, they also fight to 'convert' others to their cause, maliciously ridiculing them if they dare to think differently. Again, the condescension that PurestAmbrosia mentions is relevant.

[MustafaMc]

Nontheless, I have seen it degenerate into midless point scoring - in fact, it may well stem from the condescension that PurestAmbrosia noticed; that seems to be the point legitimate debate ends and it becomes a farcical argument.

Thank you for the explanation. I can relate to what you and she are saying.

[Pygoscelis]

That's cool because it's not a pointless debate, it's educational.

I was referring more to silly debates where no side gives in, are more about point-scoring than truth, and which don't even matter in the long run.

Few debates matter in the long run. The vast majority of internet "debates" are pointless and go nowhere. As soon as communication online stops being called a discussion and starts being called a debate that's a clear sign that no more good will come of it.

That said, a good internet debate can still be fun. Just take it for what it is - entertainment. I can honestly say I've never been upset by anything on here or other boards. It isn't worth it. You will meet people with polar opposite views and people who get all huffy and upset or people who go out of their way to insult you, but I try to ignore that, or just point out the adhoms and let the people look bad for making them.

I do find that things tend to get heated faster than they should though, even amongst well meaning people online. I attribute that to two things.

First, that its plain text and you therefore will often read a post with inflection that wasn't meant in the writing of it.

Second, the depersonalization of it all. You can type text on a discussion board and never have your face seen or see the faces of the otheers. This is known in psych as deindividuation. Its the same phenomenon that leads masked groups like the KKK into a frenzy so easily. And it is one major factor in "road rage" (if people had to look directly into the eye of everyone they are road raging at, they'd settle down much quicker). This happens to many people without them even noticing it.

[sevgi]

People are dumb.

i like that...

crude...very crude...:p

[Muslim Knight]

Debates and discussion can invigorate the mind, it keeps it working and prevents falling into disuse. However, too much of incessant discussions and arguing for the sake of argument can be harmful. Similarly we are reminded in Surah Baqarah about the nature of the rebellious Bani Israel who were persistent in they questioning of Prophet Moses, that they were cursed afterwards for their insulting behavior, even after Allah had made things easy for them to deal with.

I found interesting notes about debates. May we all gain benefit from it.

Islaam.com

What Our Scholars Said About Debate
Shaykh Saleh Abdullah bin Humaid
Excerpted from "Islamic Principles and Rules of Debate"
© Al-Manara 1994
http://islaam.com//Article.aspx?id=661

“A debate is only justified to unveil truth, so that the more knowledgeable should impart knowledge to the less knowledgeable, and to stimulate a weaker intellect.” - adh-Dhahabi

“I never talked with someone but sincerely wished that Allah guard him, protect him from sin and misdeed, and guide him; and I never debated with someone but sincerely wished that we would come upon truth, regardless of whether he or I should be the one to think of it first.” - Imam al-Shafi`i

“Cooperation in seeking truth is inherent to religion, but sincerity in the pursuit of truth can be distinguished y certain conditions and signs. A diligent seeker of truth may be compared to one who is looking for his lost camel. It would be immaterial for him if he or another person should be the one to find it. Likewise, a sincere truth-seeker would perceive his partner as a helper rather than an adversary, and would be grateful to him if he should guide him to truth.” - Al-Ghazali

“If quoting, maintain accuracy; if claiming, provide proof.” [An aphorism of Muslim scholars]

“Some scholars used to excuse anyone who disagrees with them in debatable matters, and did not insist that he should accept their view. - Ibn Qudama [Al-Mughni]

“My viewpoint is right, but can be wrong; and my adversary’s viewpoint is wrong, but can be right.” [An aphorism of Muslim scholars]

“I have never debated with a knowledgeable person but beaten him, and I have never debated with an ignorant person but been beaten by him.” - Imam al-Shafi`i

“Let each one of the debaters accept statements of the other party supported with proof. By doing that, he would demonstrate a nobility and self-respect, and he would prove himself to be an acceptor of truth.” - Ibn Akeel

“Over-enthusiasm is a mark of corrupted scholars, even when the case they are defending is true. By showing excessive enthusiasm for truth and their contempt of their opponents, the latter would be stimulated to retaliate and react in the same manner. They would be driven to stand for falsehood and to be true to the label attributed to them…If the champions of truth had spoken kindly to them avoiding publicity and humiliation they would have succeeded in winning them over. But as it is, a person who enjoys a place of prestige is strongly inclined to preserve his position by attracting followers, and the only way to that is to boast and to attack or curse adversaries.” - Al-Ghazali

“I never debate with someone and he accepts my proof except that I hold him in high esteem, and I never debate with someone and he refuses my proof except that I lose all esteem for him.” - Imam al-Shafi`i

“If you sit with scholars, my son, be more interested in listening than in speaking. Learn good listening just as you learn good speaking. Never interrupt a speaker, even if he takes long, until he comes to an end.” -Advice of Al-Hasan ibn Ali (radhiallahu `anhu) to his son.

“Learn good listening just as you learn good speaking. To be a good listener, you should give a speaker time until he concludes, not seeming anxious to reply. Have your face and look in the direction of the speaker and try to understand what he says.” - Ibn al-Muqaffa`

Islaam.com

To sum it all up, for a Muslim, debates must be used as tool for discerning the truth and not for showing who's right and who's wrong. Personally, I'd come strong and hard but once proven wrong I'd be giving thanks to Allah for having chosen to guide me, rather than leaving me lost in the dark and not finding the true way.

I think there's one Imam that can be attributed to this, I can't remember which one either Imam Ghazali or Imam Shafiie (Allah's Mercy on both of them) who said that he'd be glad to be proven wrong when the truth is pronounced from his opponent's mouth.

Masha Allah!

[Muezzin]

Few debates matter in the long run. The vast majority of internet "debates" are pointless and go nowhere. As soon as communication online stops being called a discussion and starts being called a debate that's a clear sign that no more good will come of it.

Very true. I just prefer it when people play nice.

And now that I'm a mod, I can impose that worldview on others, muhahahaha.

That said, a good internet debate can still be fun. Just take it for what it is - entertainment.

See, I don't find it very entertaining. For me, it's too mean-spirited.

But also, the whole evolution debate (not just online) has struck me as rather pointless from the get-go.

I can honestly say I've never been upset by anything on here or other boards. It isn't worth it. You will meet people with polar opposite views and people who get all huffy and upset or people who go out of their way to insult you, but I try to ignore that, or just point out the adhoms and let the people look bad for making them.

Okay.

I do find that things tend to get heated faster than they should though, even amongst well meaning people online. I attribute that to two things.

First, that its plain text and you therefore will often read a post with inflection that wasn't meant in the writing of it.

That's why I use the hell out of emoticons.

:p

Second, the depersonalization of it all. You can type text on a discussion board and never have your face seen or see the faces of the otheers. This is known in psych as deindividuation. Its the same phenomenon that leads masked groups like the KKK into a frenzy so easily. And it is one major factor in "road rage" (if people had to look directly into the eye of everyone they are road raging at, they'd settle down much quicker). This happens to many people without them even noticing it.

You've just successfully psychoanalysed every troll on the I-web!

[ranma1/2]

Yeah, but why do people want to impose it? They act as if it's such an important scientific discovery when really, it has very little practical use whatsoever. It's trivia in the long run, when it comes to living our lives right here and now. It's meaningless conflict that will never be resolved because when it comes down to it, it doesn't really matter where we came from; what matters is where we're heading.

Actually it has many a practical use, especially in the field of health. The medical industry itself spends millions every year trying to keep up with the new diseases that evolve.

[جوري]

Pls tell us more about those diseases that evolve!

[ranma1/2]

Pls tell us more about those diseases that evolve!

i usually ignore you but have you heard of aids? flu? the common cold?
avian flu?

[جوري]

Yes all of the above mentioned are viruses and viruses aren't living organisms.. we have already explained that to you prior.. I fail to see how evolution applies to non-living organisms!

[Keltoi]

It is known that certain bacteria evolve if antibiotics are used too much. I don't know about the evolutionary "evidence" of this reality, but it is known that bacteria will grow resistant to antibiotics.

[جوري]

Bacteria might form resistance to a particular antibiotic not unlike the adaptation that goes on in the body... but I challenge anyone that brings me a class of bacteria that has evolved from one class into another
in other words I'd like to see how a gram positive bacteria becomes a gram negative, or a mycoplasma or evolves into a fungus or a virus or a fluke...

[Keltoi]

I don't think the issue is whether bacteria evolves into another species, so to speak, but that it adapts to certain environmental elements and changes accordingly.

[جوري]

I don't think the issue is whether bacteria evolves into another species, so to speak, but that it adapts to certain environmental elements and changes accordingly.

sure I agree with that.. but that isn't evolution... that is adaptation. I'd get into this in more detail, except I am feeling a bit under the weather..If really need be then I will!

[Muslim Knight]

i usually ignore you but have you heard of aids? flu? the common cold?
avian flu?

It is known that certain bacteria evolve if antibiotics are used too much. I don't know about the evolutionary "evidence" of this reality, but it is known that bacteria will grow resistant to antibiotics.

Bacterias aren't viruses! Quit messin' with my head!!

As PurestAmbrosia pointed out, viruses aren't exactly living organism. Deprived of host, they will become dormant in crystallized form. Once introduced to living culture they spring into action. Which is why extreme heat can destroy viruses, but who would heat up a human being just to cure AIDS when you might just kill him outright.

Antiobiotics, on the other hand, work only on bacterias, and not viruses. Which is why using antibiotics against common cold is useless, the doctor will only prescribe something that will cause sleepiness so that the the cold is ignored and eventually overcome by the body's defenses, but it will not directly cure the illness.

[Trumble]

Yes all of the above mentioned are viruses and viruses aren't living organisms.. we have already explained that to you prior.. I fail to see how evolution applies to non-living organisms!

As a total layman on such things I would appreciate your comments on the Wiki entry on this subject? Is it incorrect?

Viral evolution is a subfield of evolutionary biology that is specifically concerned with the evolution of viruses. Many viruses, in particular RNA viruses, have short generation times and relatively high mutation rates (on the order of one point mutation or more per genome per round of replication for RNA viruses). This elevated mutation rate, when combined with natural selection, allows viruses to quickly adapt to changes in their host environment.

Viral evolution is an important aspect of the epidemiology of viral diseases such as influenza, HIV, and hepatitis. It also causes problems in the development of successful vaccines and antiviral drugs, as resistant mutations often appear within weeks or months after the beginning of the treatment.

RNA viruses are also used as a model system to study evolution in the laboratory.

One of the main theoretical models to study viral evolution is the quasispecies model, as the viral quasispecies.

[جوري]

your point being what? I have already stated above viruses aren't living organisms.. They need to use the host's machinery whether a eukaryotic or a prokaryotic in the form of a bacteriophage-- via recombination, reassortment, complementation or phenotypic mixing, etc is inconsequential from a human evolutionary stand point. I hope we are clear on that.

[Trumble]

your point being what?

I have no 'point' other that I am just trying to understand something I know little about. You seem to be saying that viruses cannot evolve because they are are not living organisms. Yet the Wiki article states that they do evolve via mutation/natural selection/adaptation (even if the biological mechanisms are different)? I am obviously missing something!

[جوري]

I have no 'point' other that I am just trying to understand something I know little about. You seem to be saying that viruses cannot evolve because they are are not living organisms. Yet the Wiki article states that they do evolve via mutation/natural selection/adaptation (even if the biological mechanisms are different)? I am obviously missing something!

I never said they can't evolve. In fact their genius (if I can call it that) is in their ability to change their nucleic acid sequences so you aren't really sure how to attack them.. else it would have been fairly easy for us to eradicate --Rhino virus or the flu -- the best we can do is figure out which new recombination it will assume and come up with a flu vaccine which is introduced into the body in many forms I can't get into it now.. but to mount a host immune response.. so when the actual virus hits your body is already familiar with its mechanisms and can attack it properly... this is a very expansive topic--
I am simply saying they are not governed by the laws that apply to us on the account that they aren't living organisms.. if you know what it entails I have no doubt you can make your own virus in a lab just recombining pieces of nucleic acids.. there is no guaranteeing that it will be lethal.. most viruses are small enough to go through our system undetected.. but folks play with that a lot to try to fix some of the genetic diseases that we have (SCID) being one--point being if they (viruses) make it/ should they make it.. they need either a bacterial or human host to replicate and do their thing.. and their replication is really not directed like bacteria, or flukes or helminths or fungi... I can get into that a bit more tomorrow... I sincerely don't feel well tonight...

peace

[جوري]

Just an addendum from a point of interest, I wanted to enclose this website which really explains fairly easily and adequately how we can use a retrovirus in gene therapy to combat a DZ like (SCID) whence you can figure out how easy it is to manipulate a virus hopefully to see some positive results in some rather deadly disease...
http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ult...neTherapy.html

peace and Gnight

[Muezzin]

Actually it has many a practical use, especially in the field of health. The medical industry itself spends millions every year trying to keep up with the new diseases that evolve.

That's true.

I was talking more about Evolution in terms of the 'controversial' type that causes so much ape-debate.

[MustafaMc]

I have no 'point' other that I am just trying to understand something I know little about. You seem to be saying that viruses cannot evolve because they are are not living organisms. Yet the Wiki article states that they do evolve via mutation/natural selection/adaptation (even if the biological mechanisms are different)? I am obviously missing something!

There is a critical point here that is being missed. Virii are not living and are outside the realm of evolution in the sense evolutionists talk about. No where on the "tree of life" showing ancestral relations will you find a virus. Although a virus can mutate and adapt to become virulent where it was not previously, it can't "evolve" into a living organism - even a single celled bacteria. Just as PurestAmbrosia said, it may be possible to generate a new virus in the lab, but it is impossible to generate even a single living bacteria from the basic elements.

[جوري]

There is a critical point here that is being missed. Virii are not living and are outside the realm of evolution in the sense evolutionists talk about. No where on the "tree of life" showing ancestral relations will you find a virus. Although a virus can mutate and adapt to become virulent where it was not previously, it can't "evolve" into a living organism - even a single celled bacteria. Just as PurestAmbrosia said, it may be possible to generate a new virus in the lab, but it is impossible to generate even a single living bacteria from the basic elements.

Great post akhi:
I am going to try to explain this in very easy terms.. How viruses work--I wish someone had done this for me back in the day-- but anyhow for those interested, and I am almost certain for the most part no one will be interested in reading this save a handful. As I notice people enjoy throwing terms and using articles but not really understanding the mechanism behind them, which is a shame since it can mislead many people...

The best example of a virus in lay man's term is a polymer, but out of nucleic acid so obviously they change all the time from things they pick up or exchange along the way through many mechanisms.. the mechanisms can only be attained from living things and that is how they become infective or lethal. let's say your cell has a key that is triangular shaped.. and I make this polymer that will be a perfect fit for that triangular shaped lock of yours.. obviously this can be understood as Glycoprotein- GP 120 or CCR5.. I am just using normal terms so when you read about CCR5 or Gp-120 or any other that might pass your way-- on your own time you can assimilate it to something that makes sense on an every day level!

then any number of things can happen--we can have recombination via the exchange of genes between two sets of chromosomes by crossing over within regions of significant base sequence homology in other words two nucleic acids can be exchanged but they are still somehow alike. that is one way so you don't end up with many different serotypes.

Also we can have reassortment which is when viruses with segmented regions (that is pretty much self explanatory) but an ex of that would be the flu exchanges these segments, and I believe that is very much where the term "evolution" can fit, every time you have a new segmentation, it causes a very high frequency of new recombination, and that is why it causes world wide pandemics.. if scientists aren't on top of it trying to figure out what new recombination might arise yearly. What they don't tell you though, is that sometimes it can be a miss... I mean some segments can be assimilated in the vaccine and some can be completely missed.

We can also have complementation it pretty much like a marriage I don't want to use rogue terms but neither a man nor a woman can have a baby on their own.. they are missing something that the other partner can give and that is what complementation does for a virus -- one complements the other and they exchange parts that make both of them functional.

and last but not least we can have phenotypic mixing again in lay man terms is like we are exchanging coats or cloaks. I give you my coat which can cause harm in its own (surface protein) way plus your own nucleic acid sequence which causes harm in another way.. so you have my type A coat with your own Type B genetic material however there is many different combination that can exist.

I can go into more details in this, if anyone has specific questions. If not.. I hope we can all see the difference between a cell and all its functions and a purely acellular organism.
thanks for reading
:w:

[Muezzin]

Aw man, now we appear to be debating evolution again :p

[جوري]

No dear sir I beg to differ---I was discussing how Viral "evolution" isn't evolution that pertains to cellular life form as the pseudo intellects will have us believe -- at least that is what I am hoping the thinking reader would conclude after this short explanation!
From now on--you should impose some sort of a tariff --whenever one of them tries to revive this sort of topic under the guise of a new discovery courtesy of reader's digest or the lady's home journal!

:w:
peace!

[Muslim Knight]

Aw man, now we appear to be debating evolution again :p

You asked for it bro. Sis is angry. LOL

[جوري]

I’m not entirely sure I want to get into this with someone who has such an appalling lack of knowledge about evolution

Then don't!.. I am not sure I want to engage someone with such an appalling form of continuous verbigeration, and subjective views. If you are handy with the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders.. why don't you reflect a little and come up with a handy solution as to what ails your person instead of dispensing free advise as to what you assume "religion entities" have done to our mind.. This is the most amazing form of projection I have ever come across....

peace!

[جوري]

Respond to what exactly? what have you offered in regard to evolution?
This is what you managed to come up with!

I’m not entirely sure I want to get into this with someone who has such an appalling lack of knowledge about evolution.

For starters what a great preamble...

As a starting point, you may wish to review authoritative sources about the very best factual data about how life has evolved on the planet. I think you'll find the evidence for major evolution is vast and overwhelming.

By authority you mean your person? or simply assume that we can't do a google search to see various third party frauds on wikipedia? that have undoubtedly gave you exclusive rights to the illuminati club?

I'll be pleased to provide additional data sources at your request.

I am sure it will prove to be earth shattering...

Unfortunately, your entire premise is terribly flawed. I see this frequently.

Another subjective view? or you are really ready to wow us with the same rhetoric we are accustomed to seeing?

My suspicion is that you have been coached by religious entities who certainly have a vested interest in placating your desire to believe the religious tales and fables in lieu of hard facts.

lol-- Ok!

Meaning, of course that the “apes into human beings” nonsense displays a fundamental lack of understanding. Man was never an ape or a monkey. Man was never descended from a monkey. Man and primates shared a common ancestor but branched off in separate directions. That’s not at all uncommon in evolutionary history, by the way, for species to diverge in different directions while sharing a common ancestry.

for what it is worth I was never the one who stated we are descended from Apes.. you can thank your fellow atheists for that...mine was merely a mocking reply!
the most amusing part is your nit picking on one post in particular that has absolutely nothing to do with the entire topic..
I have already explained ad nauseam the flaws with evolution under -- well "evolution" and "creationists dealt a blow"-- the party is over...
if you want to start a new topic... then do... and clean up your disposition if you wish to get some sort of feedback from members...
peace!

[Muezzin]

Well, this topic sort of backfired...

Can somebody close it please? I have no mod magic in this particular section.