Is there choice in evolution?
Instinct for example, how does instinct change without choice?
If an animals food source runs out, how does it choose a new food source it has never eaten before? If said the new food source was only determined by the environment, why do some animals choose new eating habits while some go extinct? If no choice, shouldn't all go extinct that must change eating habits to survive?
Yes and no.
It doesn't. Why would it do that all of a sudden? Desperation. Why do you assume it would do that? How do you know that is the case? Who says this is true? Perhaps they did and would in your limited scenario.
Didn't you ask this one before Marine? And surely this belongs in the science forum - not the ridiculous beliefs forum?
Thanks again for your defense Cags. Sorry my ridiculous, garbage, ignorant beliefs aren't up to your standards. Amazing how you assume choice in evolution is ridiculous when you have nothing credible to back up your claims. The only solution I see to an animal only programmed by instinct to eat one thing must choose to eat another or become extinct when food runs out. Does this seem like garbage to you? What part of the scenario would you like to expand on?
Odd. I never said anything about that - I answered all your questions or asked for clarification where necessary. I clearly stated that there is choice in evolution.
Not a big fan of reading are you? Sorry - I forgot.
Thanks. You didn't answer what part of the scenario you would like to expand on, neither did you explain your "yes and no" answer. You also didn't explain why the scenario was so limited. What is desperation in your usage and what generates it?
Yes I did. Please read what I wrote. An explanation of the "yes and no " answer would take too long for a forum post. And in any case - you just asked a "yes or no" question - not for an explanation - I suggest buying a few books and learning some what. That may be a better way of learning about the evolutionary process instead of startling numerous fights that gets a user banned permanently.
Please answer my questions - this will clarify your questions and make them more meaningful - constantly bombarding people with assumptive questions that you then argue against is not terribly productive.
Thanks. I do not understand why you consistently lecture people to read and learn, yet you rarely have productive comments that aren't written for controversy. Then you claim me for being the one trying to start the controversy. I figure as much as you claim to have read on evolution, you would have more knowledge to offer. How about asking one specific question at a time so it's not just a circular argument for you to start. I didn't know I was assuming anything, I am asking how an animal changes instinct without choice.
Please state where Darwin gives credit to choice in evolution in "origin of species". If he doesn't, why not when you yourself agree that there is choice in evolution?
But - I have answered your questions in detail Marine - only to have you then ignore them or argue against them because you do not understand.
You are not asking questions in order to learn - you are asking questions in order to argue against what is said, but I will gove you the benefit of the doubt - again:
What instinct is the animal changing? Why would it need to change this instinct? Who says there is or is not a choice involved? Surely - in your scenario - it either changes or dies - so where is the choice involved? Is that a choice? To die from starvation?
There are certainly some species that have died out - for various reasons - but the underlying reason is that they could not adapt fast enough to survive. Not that they did not "choose" to change an instinct. I think "choice" is a poor choice of words. No animal chooses to adapt - it either adapts or dies. If I only had one source of food and it vanished - I would have to find another source or die. Am I "choosing" another food source? No - I am surviving - which is what everything tries to do. Which is why the answer is "yes and no". I am "choosing" to survive, but I am not "choosing" to change an instinct - I have no choice if I am to survive.
I am not lecturing you - I am making a suggestion as to how to educate yourself on a subject you seem to have a very strong interest in, but no apparent willingness to learn. Reading books is a wonderful way of educating your self - I do it all the time.
Thanks Cags, please use my proper name, I think it is rude and lacking manners to repeatedly call me a different name.
How do you know what is in my mind and what I am trying to learn or not? Or is this just an assumption? Maybe others would retain more of what you write if there wasn't so much ridicule or disrespect behind many of your comments.
If a fish dependent on another fish which goes extinct, how does the fish change eating habits without choosing? If instinct is the programming from the parents, the program would need to be changed when old instinct becomes no good to extinct food, no? How is this programming changed without thought and choice? It could very well be a choice to die from starvation if the animal or fish doesn't choose new behavior or instinct.
How does anything adapt without choosing new habits and instinct? If some have faster learning habits than others, does this not give evidence of the power of choice in survival? I see where we disagree that there is limited choice to survive, but still choice, no?
Thanks for this response, I liked it much better.
As you well know Marine - I am not cags. And pounding me with another bunch of questions does not really address what I said.
I explained that the choice was to "choose" to survive, which is the instinct that remains the same - the rest is academic, and - poor choice of terms on your part stemming from a lack of understanding.
I will attempt to explain it again -
The instinct is survival - this does not change. Take away the food supply and all life will attempt to survive by finding another source.
They will try and survive. No change of instinct - none. No choice involved. None. Survive or die. Obviously you have never been hungry enough to try and eat something you have never eaten before, but the instinct is not to eat XYZ - the instinct is to survive, and this has not changed.
It has already "chosen" to survive by whatever means necessary.
Some can even learn from other members of the same species' mistakes. I wouldn't be eating those berries if I just watched you eat some and start puking. Does a tree "choose" to spread its roots far and wide? No - but take away it's nutrient or water supply and it will do so in search of more.
Read about it - it is very interesting.
I cannot put it more simply than that
Thanks, so I take it you are purposely being disrespectful and lacking manners.
If there is limited choice, how do you know it's not determined for me to misunderstand?
Do you think all animals have instinct in choosing to survive? If this is so, why didn't the extinct animals change habits rather than starving? Shouldn't it have been instinct to change what they ate?
How do you consider it no change of instinct being programmed from one food source into eating a different one? True starvation will cause drastic thinking, but it must be acted on by choice. If the life chooses a new food source, there may still be a selection of what different food to choose. To say the starving animal would eat anything I think is incorrect, even with a starving instinct, fear may still keep the animal from trying to eat a threatning animal or predator. You got me on the tree for now.
I am not purposely being disrespectful or rude. These questions you have just asked can only come from ignorance.
And yes - wolves will risk their lives in an attempt to take down a bear if they are hungry enough. They may even manage it if the bear is similarly short of food and weak enough. The instinct to survive is strong and there is no choice involved in attempting to find food. Eat or die. Simple. No where near as complicated as you seem bent on making it.
Read about it - it is very interesting.
Thanks. And there is the "ignorance" word, I expected to also see "garbage" by now. Maybe we have a different perspective of what rude and disrespectful is. Your example of wolves doesn't speak for all life. Some life will choose to die by starvation than take risk, do you think this has never happened? Does the animal have no intellect or choice also of picking an injured animal rather than a healthy one to attack? Please explain how you believe there is choice to some extent as you started to above. Where exactly do you believe choice comes into play?
But - you are being ignorant right now. Is this an insult? How so? Obviously you are ignorant because you are asking a question.
I cannot explain it any simpler than I have done. The "choice" is survival. Obviously - some animals "choose" not to survive, but this is the instinct.
Some life will "choose" to not attack a predator - but more likely because it cannot eat and digest it or would not physically be able to - not some human emotion called "risk."
No matter how hungry that bunny rabbit is - it is not going to attack a wolf. Millions of years of evolution have taught that bunny to "run away," - and once again the instinct is survival and has not changed.
Same with your example of the weak animal instead of a strong one. The survival instinct says - weak animal - easier to kill, less energy expended, more energy gained. Simple.
I don't know if wild animals understand the concept of "risk" but I am fairly sure they understand "hungry" and will go to extremes if they have to and are able. Those that do not or cannot will die. Simple.
Please explain why you seem so fixated on making this so complex when it is really simple.
Thanks. More personal attacks. So everyone that ask a question is ignorant? Do you call everyone ignorant that asks you a question? Is this manners to you?
My question isn't what is or isn't instinct, it is how instinct changes for old habits to new ones.
Why would an animal have ability to process thoughts of digestion without choice of what to eat? If it wasn't a risk, why wouldn't the animal eat anything and everything?
Millions of years of evolution have taught a lot of lifeforms what to do, it doesn't mean they don't often choose new instincts. How did evolution and instinct program a monkey to fish for ants with a stick with no other examples to follow? The monkey had to choose to pick up the stick and use it as a tool.
So you admit the animal will choose the less healthy animal to pursue? If there was no choice, how would the animal tell the difference in which is weak or healthy?
I don't think it's simple, I think it's assumed simple. If it was simpler, perhaps you could explain your version of why they have choice. I mainly see you claiming there is no choice, only instinct. You say it is instinct and not choice to survive, so how do you also believe it's choice? Are you agreeing that instinct is choice?
Why would you ask a question if you were not ignorant of something?
The instinct is survival. The End. The instinct is not to "eat XYZ." XYZ just happens to be a convenient food source. Take it away and it will eat ABC if it can. No changing of instinct - no choosing to do something different - it just eats what is available and usually works out the most energy efficient way of doing so.
This is why animals evolve. If it needs to get on to land instead of water to find food - it will do so. If it needs to grow gills and go back in the water in order to find food - it will do so. You do not "choose" to grow gills - that is a by product of the survival instinct.
I cannot answer any more simply than I have done - you are making it needlessly complicated - I assume because you do not understand the answer and I am ignorant of a method of explaining it to you in a way you will grasp - maybe someone else will try.
Thanks. Possibly I keep asking because I don't think it's fully answered, I am ignorant because of this? Also, I do not understand your answer. You say yes and no to choice, but then only give evidence why there is no choice. If you think there is no choice of survival to pick different food, why do you say yes to choice existing?
I think our main disagreement is instinct and choice. But I think instinct is choice. If something has instinct/memory, it is making a choice to stick to or change the habits. Do you think we also are bound by instinct without choice when simpler life is?
Now that is rude and ignorant. I have explained it as simply as I can and you once again bombard me with more questions.
You think instinct is choice. OK. In that case - please back this statement up with an argument of some kind, because that is not what the word "instinct" means.
If it is choice, how does a single celled animal have the cognitive abilities to make a choice? Do plants choose? How do they arrive at a decision? Is this a rational choice or merely a question of survival driving it? Which makes it not a choice surely? What do you mean by choice in any case? Does that mean animals can choose to die? Surely this goes against the survival instinct? How do animals choose to evolve in that case? What is the thought process telling them to grow legs and leave the water? Is it instinct for food driving them or do they choose it? How does the instinct to only eat one food come about? Why would a species choose to limit itself so badly and risk extinction? You clearly think all life can assess risk - how have you arrived at this conclusion?
Or you could read a few books.
Thanks. Amazing your buddy lectures me to not be a hypocrite when you can't write a comment without calling someone ignorant. Again, is this manners to you? Do you call everyone ignorant that asks you a question?
My reasoning behind believing instinct is a choice. Repeated choices come from repeated thoughts. When the thoughts and actions become repetitive enough to be memorized subconsciously, I think they then become instinct. Kinda like a habit, when you have a habit, it becomes your instinct to follow the habit. The more you repeat the habit, the more memory and instinct it becomes.
I don't know about plants making any choices. I still don't see where you believe there is choice since you don't think instinct involves choice.
I think simple life like plants have less choice than we do, but still choice to some extent. It is the cells of the root that choose to grow towards more stimulus or water when dehydrated.
Doesn't programmed cell death also go against survival, yet you think it's impossible for an animal to choose to die? On the fish, how do you gain instinct to explore land when you have never been on land without thought? Do you think other animals are reversed and have physical actions before mental actions? Why is this not so in rats, why do they always have thoughts before actions? I think instinct is the mental capacity and reasoning before choosing. You seem to think instinct is physical action without need for mental processing.
What Buddy is that, Marine?
Sorry - not understanding your reasoning. Instinct is habit is subconscious reasoning? This is not reasoning - this is - no offense - garbage.
Just another barrage of questions that indicate you have not listened to a word I have said. It is rude to pound out more questions when you refuse to answer mine. Please be a little more respectful and reasonable.
And I respectfully suggest educating yourself as to the driving forces of evolution - then you would understand why a fish would leave the water and grow legs.
The Survival Instinct.
Although - now you have thrown yet another baseless assertion out there: "I think instinct is the mental capacity and reasoning before choosing."
Sorry dude - it doesn't work that way. Plants have the instinct to reach for sunlight. Why? Survival.
Thanks. More disrespect. I knew you would call my belief garbage sooner or later. Can you explain how instinct works without memory and mental processing? Does the physical action come before mental stimulation? How exactly does the survival instinct work without mental processing before physical action? They do everything first without thinking, then remember it? How is there survival without memory?
Of course - they are beliefs - nothing else. Odd that you have absolutely no reasoning behind them. Oh - you mean I should respect your beliefs? And your rude approach to pounding out questions without providing any reasoning and ignoring all the information I have provided. Sure. You sure you are not religious Marine?
Still - this is easier than learning anything I suppose. LOLOLOLO
Next you can start getting aggressive with me for not answering your questions that you never read the answers for.
Ignorance is bliss.
Thanks. If they are false beliefs, explain why they are false with faulty reasoning. I explained my reasoning behind why I think choice and thought become instinct, it seems you didn't read it. I read all of your responses and see limited answers to my questions as you expect me to answer your surveys. You have no explanation for why you think physical actions come before or without needing mental processing or memory?
Thanks - u sed it woz becoz that is wot u think - that is not reasoning.
"My reasoning behind believing instinct is a choice. Repeated choices come from repeated thoughts. When the thoughts and actions become repetitive enough to be memorized subconsciously, I think they then become instinct."
Love it - as usual - u do the same thing - make an assumptive assertion and demand proof that you are wrong.
Dear me. So very lazy.
Thanks. I base the beliefs on objectionable evidence and observation. What is your evidence I am wrong? Brain scanning shows mental processes before physical action. Why do you think there is no thought required in evolution when thought comes before all action?
Why do you attempt to create the illusion my belief is faith based when there is observational evidence showing mental before physical? Do you not think mental before physical passed the scientific method?
Thanks. Please explain how physical action comes before mental. Please explain how you typed that without first thinking it. If you can do that, then I will be wrong. Please show manners and stop cussing.
Thanks. Please refer to me by my proper name and stop being rude and disrespectful so I can learn your knowledge and wisdom. Yes, cussing, what does wtf stand for? This is not polite manners. I am not offended, but it could be taken offensively.
Thanks. Please stop cussing and being disrespectful. I understand this is instinct, but you have choice to have manners. Please do not make fun of my name and parents, thanks.
Thanks. Please stop attacking me for you entertainment. I apologize I challenged your beliefs and upset your stability. I will read more and possibly come to your side of belief so we can be friends and agree. Please stop attacking my mom. Thanks.
Thanks. I will not give you more personal information for you to attack me with. I think you would gain more trust if you wouldn't ridicule and if you have more manners. Please stop making personal attacks about my moms labor.
Thanks luv, I think I have as well. Mean people change the subject.
Thanks. It's alright, Mr. Knowles will someday learn to be entertained without need to ridicule others. There is always chance or choice he can go from grinch to santa. (hugs)
TruthDebater says To Mark Knowles:"Thanks Cags, please use my proper name, I think it is rude and lacking manners to repeatedly call me a different name."
The reply: "As you well know Marine - I am not cags."
"Thanks, so I take it you are purposely being disrespectful and lacking manners."
Did anyone else LOL at this exchange?
Thanks. I did. He purposely uses disrespect and lack of manners which partly determines how someone responds to him, then wonders why someone is lacking manners or respect in responding. Are you here to add anything meaningful or just spectator controversy?
"He purposely uses disrespect and lack of manners which partly determines how someone responds to him, then wonders why someone is lacking manners or respect in responding."
So, two wrongs make a right, then?
"Are you here to add anything meaningful...?"
It's an interesting discussion, but I just wanted to point out that when Mark called you "Marine," you didn't say, "Mark, please don't call me that" in your next post. You called him "Cags." Then, after many many incidences of calling Mark "Cags," you pull out this "You're being disrespectful" stuff, when you've been exactly as disrespectful all along.
It makes the "you're being rude" argument have about as much weight as one of the electrons in this post.
And once again,
Thanks. I never claimed to give others respect that don't offer respect in return. Do you go around respecting people that call your beliefs ignorant garbage? Should I respect him and tell him it's ok and perfectly normal?
"I never claimed to give others respect that don't offer respect in return."
No, you asked for respect (and seem to have actually expected it) after giving exactly the disrespect you were complaining of. If you'd said, "Hey, call me by my right name" right off, that would have had some weight. But since you responded to what you perceived as disrespect with the exact same thing, your complaint about being disrespected means very little. (Now's your cure to say, "But he started it!" )
It would have had more weight if you'd said something like, "Hey, we're calling each other by incorrect names, and it's childish and silly. I'm sorry I stooped to that, and I won't do it anymore. In return, will you please stop also?" That would have been really classy, but you didn't do that.
(You know who's a real class act? Evan G. Rogers. I disagree with him on many subjects, but he's almost always respectful in his arguments, and when he slips, he owns it.)
I've even called you on it, and you still haven't even acknowledged that your disrespect is just as bad as Mark's (the only difference being that we know for sure you're being deliberately rude, since you called it rude and haven't apologized for doing it yourself). The classy thing to do at this point might be to say something like, "Y'know, maybe you have a point. I'm going to stop being deliberately rude to people from now on."
"Do you go around respecting people that call your beliefs ignorant garbage?" I'd like to think that when someone (verbally) strikes me on my left cheek, I offer him my right. I don't always succeed in this, but I try. And generally I'm polite even to people who are rude to me, even in real life. Nothing frustrates people more than being treated with scrupulous politeness when they know they're acting badly, I've found.
"Should I respect him and tell him it's ok and perfectly normal?"
If you expect to be treated with respect, you should treat others with respect. Should you tell others it's okay to dis you? Nope. If someone disses you, call them on it, by all means, but if your first response is to take an eye for an eye, your second response should be to apologize for your part in the mutual dis-fest. Else, you leave yourself open to being labeled a hypocrite, expecting people to respect you when you're not willing to respect them.
I recognize that this may seem preachy, and I don't mean to set myself up as the Mr. Manners of the Forums. But the advice is freely given and kindly meant. Do with it what you will.
I'm done posting on the subject for now. I hope we're friends.
Thanks. We are friends and you have a point. I have written how he is disrespectfully calling people that ask him questions ignorant. Yet, he continues to do it purposely being disrespectful, why do you think it would change making him aware of being disrespectful about something else? I agree that it makes people mad when you are polite in their face, but polite doesn't always attract politeness if the other chooses to remain disrespectful.
Your mistake is thinking that animals only have instinct to go by.
That's a common religious view, by the way. Yet another example of how religion interferes with thinking.
Thanks. What are you talking about? Maybe it is your bias that makes you assume I am religious which is religious in itself. I think it is thought and choice along with instinct, along with the environment and how the life responds to the environment.
I recently saw a television documentary which featured iguanas which had learned to swim in the ocean and catch fish! Necessity creates choices in some cases, but it doesn't always work out. Survival is a tough teacher!
Thanks Randy. Do you think necessity and choice has an equal role or necessity has more power? Can necessity have effect without the animal choosing to change habit or instinct?
My own view is, necessity trumps choice! Ever hear how stranded shipwreck survivors try to drink their own urine while floating in the ocean? Definitely not a choice!
Thanks Randy, lol hard to argue analogy there. So necessity determined their limitation on what to drink to stay alive, but without choosing to drink the urine, possibly the survivors would die before a possible rescue?
Just like when it is last call and all the attractive girls are taken, sometimes you have to spend the night with someone who might not necessarily be attractive.
Come to think of it, that might be an interesting theory to explore re: the origin of new species.. unnatural selection caused by the lack of preferable mates and the influence of alcohol
Reminds me of one of my favorite T shirts from a bar in West Virginia.
It was (or is) called "CM Ducks" and their tag line was "Go Ugly Early and Avoid The Rush."
Thanks Greek, lmao. I agree this is why I think many of us have chosen to drink more in a bar with less females to select from.
i think animals are driven by survival instincts *and* by conscious choice, as they are capable of learned behaviors, which are stored in their memory, in addition to instinctual behaviors. for example, animals instinctively know that they need water to survive, so they will gravitate towards places with water like lakes and watering holes. in severe droughts, they might choose to travel great distances to get water and if they can't find any, choose to begin eating plants that contain water because any water is better than no water. some make it because they find water or extract enough from the plants to survive the drought, and those who are unlucky don't find water at all anywhere and perish. i think animals' far greater senses of smell allow them to detect water in plants and in doing that, they have modified their instinctual habits in order to survive. younger animals remember this and adopt the new behavior. well, that is what i was thinking about anyway when i read your question, which was interesting and thought-provoking, so thanks!
Evolution is very much flawed, it is the ultimate ridiculous belief. God is through all, in all, in control of all, possessor of all, indeed, the laminin that glues all things together.
He cares for each living creature, course he gave them great smell and awesome eyesight, tough furs etc, each one to its living condition. But man he gave a difference, a brain, perhaps this was the foolishness of god to do such a thing but He will get what He wants and the rest, including the animals will perish.
Thanks. Who is to say your belief isn't flawed? If flawed and ridiculous as you claim, please provide your reasoning for why you think so. I could counter and say your God didn't care about the ones that went extinct. If given to them by your God, why didn't he give them ability to survive along with all of the other helpful parts? Man is not the only one with brains, many animals have them, just not likely the same awareness.
Usually, when one makes a claim theories that have mountains of evidence to support them are flawed, they should at the very least offer up something to point out the flaws. Anything?
Instinct is the bootstrap program of all living things?
Creatures do not necessarily have the ability of choice.
A tree or plant cannot choose to move it's location.
Other creatures have limited choice ability to move, to eat, to procreate. But still it is their instinct + that drives them. Are animals conscious of what they are doing and why? I think not. They are programmed to do certain things at certain intervals. Certainly if the mighty reptiles were aware that the sea levels were rising and cause a flood upon the land, destroying their food supply, they would have moved to higher ground or adapted to the water environment, or better, adjusted their food source instantly.
Now, if this is choice regarding evolution itself. Evolution would have a bootstrap program also, in addition to the other elements of consciousness AND exceed consciousness to the point of totality, perfection. If evolution is learning as it goes, it is destined to make itself extinct, since it is subject to itself and limited by itself and its consciousness. In other words, it can only go so far, expand it reach so far, until it snaps or collapses on itself.
Thanks Twenty. I think they can choose to grow towards water to some extent. The cells have memory/instinct of water, so I think they can choose ways to gain more water. What do you mean you don't think animals are conscious of what they are doing? They get mentally stimulated, then physically proceed to the stimulus. How is this without consciouness when mental thoughts must occur before action? As for the reptiles, I agree with you, not all animals are or can be aware of as much as others. I still don't think I understand why you believe it will collapse, thank you.
On the original post, I recommend reading "The Omnivore's Dilemma" by Michael Pollan. There's a neat discussion in it about rats, how they can eat pretty much anything, and how that makes them ore successful as a species than, say, sheep, which can eat pretty much only grass and survive under the protection of humanity. On the other hand, the life of an individual rat is a lot more dangerous, because if you can eat nearly anything, how do you decide /what/ to eat, and how do you keep track of what you shouldn't eat, especially if you're a rat, who can't write stuff down.
Thanks Jeff, I will check it out.
Maybe you can help me out with this question. All of our physical processes come only after the mental process / thought. At what level of life do you think this changes to where mental isn't needed for/before physical action?
I would be interested to know the comparisons between rat reproduction and sheep reproduction. It seems the rats eating anything pays off in the end considering they haven't wiped themselves out, but increased "I think". I guess the reproduction and not being selective outnumbers all of the poison they eat?
The short answer is, "I dunno."
The longer, more considered answer is a question: why is the premise that all of our physical processes come only after the mental process/thought accepted as a given?
What are we putting under the heading "physical processes?" Only voluntary actions? Or all physical processes including digestion, respiration, circulation, etc., none of which require conscious thought?
Rats reproduce a *lot* more quickly then sheep: shorter gestation period, more offspring at once, more frequent "heat." I don't know if any data exists on the rat population over the years and whether it's overall increased, decreased, or stayed about the same, but I do know that there didn't used to be rats in North America, and now they're everywhere people live (with the possible exception of the Antarctic research stations and the International Space Station [though I'm pretty sure rats have been in space at some point as experimental subjects]).
For a fun (and yet educational) overview of rat life, watch the "Your Friend the Rat" feature on Pixar's Ratatouille DVD. It's funny, and yet there's facts in it (which is one of my favorite ways to learn).
Hey, I found Your Friend the Rat on Veoh:
http://www.veoh.com/browse/videos/categ … 066wWBPhW7
There's a bit of an ad at the beginning, though.
Thanks Jeff. The video was interesting. We should be grateful to them. lol
Could you explain how you think mental and physical happen if physical does come before mental? I'm not saying it can't or doesn't, just didn't think of it because before action comes thought or subconscious thought. Do the synapses create the thoughts or do the thoughts create the synapses?
I have no idea how it is possible for thoughts to create the synapse or the cells react to create synapse. It seems if everything was determined by the physical without mental choice, we would do whatever the physical determines us to do. It seems we have mental choice to decide which physical synapse to choose.
I don't know if I made sense, i'm obviously not a neuroscientist.
I think our digestion and other functions do require subconscious memory of some type. Even if it was a computer program, it would still require memory.
by Miebakagh Fiberesima 10 days ago
One importance of food is that it provide energy for the body. Do genetic modified foods provide an energy level higher than the organic foods, or is it the other way round? Just curious.
by TruthDebater 10 years ago
Is it possible to know the origin of species without knowing the origin of life? Is to know how life evolves or changes into new species knowing the origin of species? I do not see how understanding the changing of life is understanding the origin of life. Is the origin of species misleading for...
by I'mwiththeflow 10 years ago
what do you think the point of life is?some people base it on religions, others base it on evolution and some don't have a view at all
by Jacqui 5 years ago
Choice in Sexuality - when did you choose? Part 2FOLLOW UP TO A PREVIOUSLY ASKED QUESTION. Sexuality. When did you choose? Were you young? Old? After an interesting experience, or a disturbing one? My belief is that if one states that sexuality is a choice, then it is one they have obviously had to...
by Andrew Hawkley 10 years ago
One of the problems I have with evolution is that it does not always seem compatible with the desire to stay alive. If a fish is perfectly healthy and content living in water then why would it bother trying to drag itself onto dry land? Wouldn't this be like a human trying to survive in a dry hot...
by AKA Winston 10 years ago
Someone else asked the question: Do Christians accept evolution, and it occured to me that whether or not evolution accepts Christians would be the more relevant question. Will natural selection eliminate those too rigid in their beliefs to adapt?
Copyright © 2021 Maven Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers on this website. HubPages® is a registered trademark of Maven Coalition, Inc. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. Maven Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers to this website may receive compensation for some links to products and services on this website.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|