Crucial 'missing link' in Theory of Evolution found

Former Member

klintock wrote:

That;'s because most people aren't scientific, and they get all that scar tissue of thought that you get from indoctrination at an early age.

you keep harping on about science.
so science is your god ...the one you look to for hope.
science has given us many amazing things but ...is the very thing that is on the verge of destroying us.
i put my hope in something far bigger than bad science.

Former Member

science has given us many amazing things but ...is the very thing that is on the verge of destroying us.

Science is just a method Mr. Roll. It's the most effective method so far found. There might be more.

Former Member

klintock wrote:

they get all that scar tissue of thought that you get from indoctrination at an early age.

But what if you're (we're, as I'm mostly in agreement) wrong, what if the brain creates the need and capacity for religion as a survival trait, comparible to the sensation of hunger driving us to find food? See, I've been thinking- yes, maybe I'm right and there is no apple (god) but that we are supposed to be programmed to be suseptible to the belief that there is an apple as a means of actually enhancing our reproductivity. Even if not by numbers than by sustainability. It could explain why seperate groups of people have worshipping tendancies... And to not be suseptable to religion would therefore be a genetic error.

There was a theory in there- badly articulated though.

Former Member

klintock wrote:

Science is just a method Mr. Roll. It's the most effective method so far found. .

most effective method of false hope?
death destruction ...

Former Member

But what if you're (we're, as I'm mostly in agreement) wrong, what if the brain creates the need and capacity for religion as a survival trait, comparible to the sensation of hunger driving us to find food?

Interesting idea. I guess you could say that the ability to live in the real world is rare, as no one seems to want to do it. hmmmmm....

See, I've been thinking- yes, maybe I'm right and there is no apple (god) but that we are supposed to be programmed to be suseptible to the belief that there is an apple as a means of actually enhancing our reproductivity.

But not believing in "the apple" gives rise to a greater numbers of behaviours. The people with the highest number of choices will control a system over time. This gives the best chance of reproducing. So not believing is the most effective behaviour.

Even if not by numbers than by sustainability. It could explain why seperate groups of people have worshipping tendancies... And to not be suseptable to religion would therefore be a genetic error.

Well, these theories do come from somewhere. Would it be an error though, or a useful mutation? I'll have to have a thunk about that, although it is fairly theoretical. While I can easily laugh at the ideas of religion, I cannot discount that there are so many of the damn things and that some form of belief is near universal.

Former Member

klintock wrote:

But not believing in "the apple" gives rise to a greater numbers of behaviours. The people with the highest number of choices will control a system over time. This gives the best chance of reproducing. So not believing is the most effective behaviour.

But, by openly not believing in the apple for the reason of a positive outcome genetic flaw, the non-believer is then seen by the believers to be either 'mad' (oh the irony) or to be asserting that they're 'superior' to believers (er, yes). the problem would then be how a non-believer uses their unsuseptible mind to advantage in a world where the vast majority of people around them are believers?

ETA: wouldn't it be better to keep the advantage a secret, or at least not flaunt it in an alienating way by telling believers that they're full of shit, especially if according to my theory- they can't relly help it?

Former Member

What do you think I DO do in real life?

This is a debating board!