Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: tejek who wrote (366870)	1/14/2008 6:27:06 PM
From: combjelly	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1572613

"Doesn't Darwin cover development of the amoeba into more complex organisms?" Sure. But that isn't the same as the origins of life. Which is what Harris is demanding that evolution explain.

To: tejek who wrote (366870)	1/17/2008 12:57:52 PM
From: Brumar89	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1572613

Doesn't Darwinian evolution say features evolve because they make creatures more fit to survive and reproduce? And logically, shouldn't this apply to things like religion as well? If so, we can say religion evolved and has become widespread because it makes its adherents more fit to survive and reproduce. Religions that make their adherents less likely to survive and reproduce, like say Jim Jones cult, tend to die out. But religions that have lasted a long time and have lots of adherents, must logically provide fitness benefits to their adherents or they wouldn't have gotten to be old and large. So why then don't liberal-minded evolutionists have respect for religion, especially the large long-lasting religions, as a product of evolution?