Please use this thread for off-topic, but preferably BBC related, comments. Please keep comments on other threads to the topic at hand. N.B. this is not an invitation for general off-topic comments – our aim is to maintain order and clarity on the topic-specific threads. This post will remain at or near the top of the blog. Please scroll down to find new topic-specific posts.
Open thread – for comments of general Biased BBC interest:
Bookmark the permalink.
Why do you assume there is a purpose in life? I have never seen or heard anything substantive that suggests there is.
Chaos does not necessarily trump order; as we have found out over the last few decades, often chaos causes order, and nature lies on the cusp of the two.
There must be a purpose beyond seeking shelter and food and defecating and procreating. Otherwise what’s to differentiate us from animal life? It’s a very old argument, I know, but it’s still valid.
Surely there should be room for both creationism and evolution. Could be that our tiny minds can’t conceive of the concept of creation, especially the purpose of creation, and we therefore parcel it up neatly into the theory of evolution. Problem is, that still doesn’t explain what we are evolving towards.
Getting up off our fours and standing erect made us more vulnerable – with a woman’s breasts and a man’s genitals exposed and unprotected. So what is the next shape that the human species will adopt?
Next human shape ?
Head up our arses if the BBC have anything to do with it.
Thanks for the laugh, DTM!
Bryan
Why must there be any purpose? Why do you assume we are evolving towards anything? In fact the theory of evolution specifically precludes the concept.
Why is there any requirement for divine creation? What does it explain that is not explained otherwise? On the contrary it simply leaves the origin of the divine in question, as an additional unexplained phenomenon.
Standing up had epenalties, but the benefits outweigh the penalties. There is no way to predict the exact path evolution will take. That is a fundamental fact of evolution. tere is no reason yto suppose we will take any other shape, especially as we are now massively subverting evolution. As francis points out, we are allowing the least fit benefits in reproduction and survival of their offspring, so have reversed evolutionary pressure. Personally I think it’s nuts, but the alternatives (refusing support single mothers or eugenics) are not politically acceptible. I cannot think of a solution.
You betray a purpose by straying into the territory of eugenics.
I’m not going to travel down that particular road.
Errrrmmmmm .. where do I “…[stray] into the territory of eugenics”? I mention eugenics, and the fact that it is unacceptible. I think you mean “back away from the territory of eugenics”. Please don’t fall into the PC/liberal trap of jumping at the mere sight of some unmentionable word.
You still have not answered as to why you assume there is any purpose, or any aim to evolution.
I don’t jump. I follow logical trains of thought. But I don’t have the time to debate this right now.
Logical progress from me pointing out that eugenics are unacceptible to you suggesting I am “straying into the territory” of eugenics, to you then refusing to answer a completely separate question?
Perhaps the logic goes “oh, I have no answer to that, but he mentioned eugenics so I don’t have to answer anyway”?
Richard
It seems that Bryan has as little idea as Diane about how natural selection works, otherwise he wouldn’t have written a sentence like this:
“Problem is, that still doesn’t explain what we are evolving towards.”
‘Towards’ indeed.
Mmmm, comes of the problem of people having religious preconceptions and bringing them to science without questioning them.
Richard, perhaps you could bring yourself to stop being such a judgemental and pompous twit for just a moment or two. I said I had no time to debate in my last comment. I meant it. But the prospect of continuing this debate with you is beginning to look like a serious waste of time.
This site is predominantly about BBC bias. Perhaps you need another reminder about that.
I was not challenging the time taken to debate. Take your leisure. I was just pointing out that you claimed to “…follow logical trains of thought…” when your post was anything but a logical analysis of what I say. I am happy to give you as much time as you like, as long as you don’t misrepresent what I say!