Preacher
Swabbie
Banned
Sorry about Down's--I felt uncomfortable w/ that example myself, but my weary brain couldn't come up w/ anything else @ that moment. My bad...Originally posted by Raptor Well, Down's Syndrome is a *chromosomal* abnormality, not a genetic one...
More correctly, it can't be "proven" to be genetic (leastways, not YET).This is on the assumption that there is such a gene, of course. That is the point I always keep coming back to...If none of those conditions can be satisfied, then scientifically speaking, that trait can't be said to be genetic.
Point 1) I am not *the* person who came up with the viewpoint I've been espousing, I'm just the one who brought it to this particular forum at the moment. If this area were an area of keen interest to me, I would be able to tell you *who* the person/group is that did come up with it. Fact is, all my writings thus far have drawn on my background of medical training and 15 years as a practitioner, countless journal articles read, etc. etc....But the irony is, even that knowledge base (being as my area is surgery, not genetics) is sufficient to refute many of the points/suppositions/etc. that've been made.As far as intelligence goes, none of those *have* been satisfied. All you have presented so far is possibilities and speculations, and that doesn't satisfy the burden of scientific proof. Not only that, in science, if someone postulates the existence of something...then the burden of proving that falls on that person, rather than on others to disprove it. It's a little ludicrous to say "This exists, and the reason that we haven't found any proof for it such and such, and we *will* eventually find the proof that supports my viewpoint." That relies on taking things on faith, which just doesn't fit the scientific method. You always go with the evidence that you *have*, not the evidence that *might* exist.
Point 2) It seems that you (and a few million others) are forgetting the fact that the same applies to YOU. To whit, the vaunted "theory of evolution": Seems folks forget that it's just a theory, and take it as, um, "gospel" (pun fully intended) that this is so. Much of your writings on this thread fall back upon the considerably shaky foundation of evolution/natural selection. There's so many holes in the theory that any impartial, rational scientist, schooled in scientific theory, knows that it's far from "proven" by any stretch of the imagination. Frankly, it takes less faith to believe in "Creation theory" than it does to take such leaps in logic as are commonly made in this area!... I suggest you listen to a series of talks recently given by John MacArthur on the subject ("The Battle For The Beginning"), and you'll see just how "ludicrous" blind faith in "evolution" is...
I don't say that "trying to select for traits such as intelligence is scientifically sound". I think we've both proven that it ain't. And, as for trying "to prove the existence of genes that code for intelligence in a way that goes against the scientific method", I ain't doin' that either. All I said was, THUS far it hasn't been proven. And I expect if/when it IS, it'll be fully compliant w/ the scientific method.Now, you're certainly entitled to say that it's your *belief* that intelligence is genetic... it remains just that, a belief or a hypothesis, and not a scientific fact...However, you can't simultaneously claim that trying to select for traits such as intelligence is scientifically sound, and then try to prove the existence of genes that code for intelligence in a way that goes against the scientific method..
I don't want a theological discussion either, at least not here. I meant simply to point out that, if "evolution" is NOT responsible for the genetic situation as it exists, then someONE *is* (since I'm not aware of any "3rd" theory that attempts to explain it all; if YOU are, feel free to enlighten me).I think I'll just leave the Creator out of it, if it's all the same to you. Debating theology definitely isn't the way I want to go. The differances could just as easily be explained by natural means (i.e the small starting population of African women that I talked about earlier) as by divine ones. As I said though, that's an area of debate that I have no intent of getting into.
Attempted Clarification: My point is that "natural selection", if it exists, would apply to the beasts completely,whereas it would...I was replying to a point that you raised in the first post you made, which admitedly was a while back. To be specific:
"Natural selection, if it is to be believed in the first place, applies to "closed systems" (i.e., the "natural world"), not to human systems. The very things that set us apart from the animals are the things that doom this comparison. We have morals (well, some of us anyway...), intellect, reasoning, intelligence, free will, consciences, etc., and the animals do not. Therefore, we make free choices about with whom to mate and produce offspring, etc. This alters the equation considerably, and largely renders the comparison null & void."
The example of skin pigmentation (the differant adaption to hot and cold climates) shows that natural selection does in fact apply to human systems as well as natural ones. If our free choice about who to mate with and so on could in fact render natural selection null and void, then these adpations could not have taken place. The fact that they have shows that free choice doesn't over-ride the basic proccesses of nature.
apply to humans only *partially*. Your skin color passage does nothing to refute this. Skin pigmentation is but a single trait; you've not really addressed the specific ones I raised, which are most DEFINITELY influenced by conscience/free will, etc. And, yes, the skin thing certainly CAN have taken place without my point being nullified, since I never said that free will affects ALL genetic traits, only a few--but a POTENT few they are....
This "theory" is crap, and it heartens me to know that you're not comfortable with it yourself. Lemme make you even *more* uncomfortable with it: Do you suppose the firefighters/cops who perished helping office workers get out of the towers (before they fell) expected to survive the experience?...They were doing a dangerous job, and as soon as they knew the towers might fall, they decided to sacrifice themselves anyway, to save as many others as they could. Sure, some left behind kids to propagate their genes in the gene pool, but what about the bachelors and childless amongst these heroes? Let your guy Dawkins try and explain THAT....Again, the Dawkins theory is that "altruism" is only a disguised methord of gaining advantage for yourself. If you have help someone out, you leave him in debt to you, and give yourself a future ally. His theory is that our behaviour is driven by the "selfish" genes, which are interested only in their own perpetuation. In other words, we're no differant from any other animal in that we act in ways that will contibute to the survival of our genes, we just have a much less straight forward way of doing that. Like I said, it's not a theory that I like very much, but he supports his theory very well with examples of how even the most seemingly alturistic behaviour can be explained in terms of personal advantage. I would certainly reccomend reading it if you can get hold of a copy.