-
IMPORTANT // Please look after your loved ones, yourself and be kind to others. If you are feeling that the world is too hard to handle there is always help - I implore you not to hesitate in contacting one of these wonderful organisations Lifeline and Beyond Blue ... and I'm sure reaching out to our PRE community we will find a way to help. T.
Life, The Universe and Everything Else
- Thread starter evo
- Start date
this is the thread of harmony, KR :angel:
If anyone has 45 minutes to spare I highly reccomend this talk by SAm Harris on Freewill.
It pisses my off somewhat because it is almost identical to what I had planned as a master thesis ( although my arguments were going to be less scientificlly orientated)
www.youtube.com/watch?v=pCofmZlC72g
If anyone has 45 minutes to spare I highly reccomend this talk by SAm Harris on Freewill.
It pisses my off somewhat because it is almost identical to what I had planned as a master thesis ( although my arguments were going to be less scientificlly orientated)
www.youtube.com/watch?v=pCofmZlC72g
very enjoyable documentary series hosted by richard dawknis is on sbs at the moment. the series is about how society goes about keeping its morals and values in a world that is becoming more secular.
the episode i watched the other night was about sin (with a focus on sex). there was one discussion which really piqued my interest.
dawkins had his geneology mapped (which was interesting in itself), which it led to a discussion on evolution. if darwin's theory states that the fittest and strongest survive and multiply, then how does evolution explain how one third of the the people in the world over the age of 100 alive today are actually childless? when you think about it, this is an incredibe statistic. i don't know what the percenate of humans that have never had children is, but i would expect it to be extremely low... less than 5% perhaps? maybe someone can provide this stat?
so the big question is: if these people have lived so long, why haven't they spread their genes? because obviously these people have very strong genes if they live to that sort of age. but the only way for their strong genes to survive is through procreation.
i found the answer to be just as interesting... it's because nature wants people to procreate. if you don't procreate, nature wants you to keep living until your genes have been passed on. and once you do procreate and your genes have been passed on, you become expendible... so you tend to die younger.
the episode i watched the other night was about sin (with a focus on sex). there was one discussion which really piqued my interest.
dawkins had his geneology mapped (which was interesting in itself), which it led to a discussion on evolution. if darwin's theory states that the fittest and strongest survive and multiply, then how does evolution explain how one third of the the people in the world over the age of 100 alive today are actually childless? when you think about it, this is an incredibe statistic. i don't know what the percenate of humans that have never had children is, but i would expect it to be extremely low... less than 5% perhaps? maybe someone can provide this stat?
so the big question is: if these people have lived so long, why haven't they spread their genes? because obviously these people have very strong genes if they live to that sort of age. but the only way for their strong genes to survive is through procreation.
i found the answer to be just as interesting... it's because nature wants people to procreate. if you don't procreate, nature wants you to keep living until your genes have been passed on. and once you do procreate and your genes have been passed on, you become expendible... so you tend to die younger.
rosy23 said:
compare the amount of childless people at age 50 compared to the age of 100. i'm tipping it won't be anywhere near 33% at age 50.
Azza said:
lol, valid point. typical selfish me by not factoring in women... especially considering hey live longer than men. i'm just thinking of myself as i've pretty much made the decision that i will never have kids.
Azza said:
That is an interesting question.
One hypothesis is about the value of grandmothers in rearing their grandchildren.
mld said:
Whenever creationists get all fired up their most oft used retort is "yeh, well if evolution is true how come we don't see transistional species fossils?"
Surely something like this qualifies as a transistional species. It's obvious it was once a fish that swam upright and that it is gradually transitioning into some sort of sting ray thingy .
Asteroid to miss the earth by 28,000km on Feb 16. Will pass west of WA. Shame we can't see it.
Geez....I still remember getting scared at 12 years of age with that Skylab fall. ;D
Geez....I still remember getting scared at 12 years of age with that Skylab fall. ;D
