Study Detects Recent Instance of Human Evolution 503
The New York Times is running a Sunday article regarding new evidence about 'recent' human evolution. A research team at the University of Maryland has done some work looking at the rise of lactose tolerance in the human populations of Africa. From the article: "The principal mutation, found among Nilo-Saharan-speaking ethnic groups of Kenya and Tanzania, arose 2,700 to 6,800 years ago, according to genetic estimates, Dr. Tishkoff's group is to report in the journal Nature Genetics on Monday. This fits well with archaeological evidence suggesting that pastoral peoples from the north reached northern Kenya about 4,500 years ago and southern Kenya and Tanzania 3,300 years ago ... Genetic evidence shows that the mutations conferred an enormous selective advantage on their owners, enabling them to leave almost 10 times as many descendants as people without them. The mutations have created 'one of the strongest genetic signatures of natural selection yet reported in humans,' the researchers write. "
Micro vs Macro (Score:4, Insightful)
For example, if Adam & Eve were the only parents why are people so different?
How did all the animals fit on Noah's Ark? If there were just 2 of the animals (dogs for instance) why are they so different now?
What about humans on the Ark, were they forced to inbreed for a second time to populate?
Also, we may not have the ability to actually observe Macro Evolution, but Micro Evolution has been evident for some time now. We have documented proof that Americans have gotten taller for instance.
So when you have small changes over a small period of time, is believing that over a large period of time you could have large changes really that unreasonable?
Re:No way! (Score:5, Insightful)
I think this is an awesome find. Cool. I look forward to more. Guess what I'm a Christian and obviously believe in Jesus.
As I post in all these threads: I'm for gay marriage, pro choice (though anti abortion I don't feel I can make the choices for others), for legal gambling (we don't live in a theocracy), pro legalized drugs and prostitution (what do you think Mary Magdalene was???) etc.
Slashdot would be a wonderful place if we could lose all the religion bashing.
People on the fringes don't speak for all of us. I don't try to force my views on others. I interest my friends in learning more about my views by: being nice to them and treating them well, and listening when they have problems and trying to help them out whenever I can.
Did you know that if, today, you went and tried to translate the original Genesis story into English today it could have 4 or more meanings? The Bible you read is the most *probable* meaning but it is NOT the only meaning that Moses could have intended when writing it.
Seriously, evolution happens all around us. We know. However, it doesn't necessarily mean God didn't put us here, or any of that Jazz. In fact the two don't really have anything to do with each other at all. The fossil record DOES show species just "appearing" as if they were just created. It also indicates that the Earth is very old. So what? That just indicates that: we have more stuff to figure out about our world. We discover stuff that was previously unkown all the time. Cool. I believe God gave us our mind so we could do as much as we can do understand the world around us. Are we always going to be right? No. But that doesn't mean you are a "dirty sinner" or something if you are.
Humans don't have a full understanding of everything. I'm cool with that. I look forward to learning more about evolution. As we learn more and more about the detail of the universe I think it shows us more and more about how awesome God is for putting it into place.
Milk and survival (Score:5, Insightful)
But yes, of course smarts can pay off to various degrees in Darwinian terms too, depending on what niche you are looking to fill.
Re:Speculation, I don't see how it makes a differe (Score:5, Insightful)
Says YOU. Tell me, what is it that babies were supposed to drink 6000 years ago? Formula? Diet Coke?
The problem is that you're looking at this in the wrong context. You're seeing it as an adult, and you're thinking about cow milk.
The leading cause of death for infants less than 100 years ago in developed nations (and STILL the leading killer today in underdeveloped countries) was diarrhea. How do you get diarrhea? Hmm, lactose intolerance causes - guess? Diarrhea. Baby can't drink breast milk, so you give it something else - something more likely to be contaminated with diarrhea causing viruses. Net result? More diarrhea.
Who cares if an adult - who has probably already reproduced (this is before birth control remember) dies of diarrhea? Those genes have already been passed on. The important factor here is all those dead babies who never got old enough to pass their genes on. Lactose intolerance has played a MAJOR part in this.
Re:Micro vs Macro (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:No way! (Score:1, Insightful)
Good for you. Except that strikes to me as quite a hypocritical view. Maybe you'd like to explain that one item you didn't try explaining? You are for gay marriage even as the bible very clearly condemns homosexuality in several passages. Or do you mean with marriage something else than christian marriage? Like a "registered relationship" etc. In that case I would refrain using the word marriage as it gives wrong impression.
Or maybe you are one of these christians who think that "god's will" should not shape the values of our society, but our societies everchanging values should shape god's will?
Disclaimer: I'm not a christian, but I much more value a christian that practices what his book preaches than a christian that changes his opinion based on what's "hip" in current opinion climate.
Re:Speculation, I don't see how it makes a differe (Score:5, Insightful)
They point is that they often couldn't. Check populations such as the African's Masaï tribe, cows are their lifeline and most of their diet is composed of milk and dairy products and cow blood (for warriors). A masaï suffering from adult lactose intolerance wouldn't reach puberty.
No it didn't, guns haven't yet generated any new evolutionary path. If you one day discover bullets-resistant humans then they may be favored by natural selection, until then guns have no major influence on the human evolutionary path.
Re:They don't explain WHY (Score:5, Insightful)
Ah yes, the exception. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:A dangerous and incorrect fallacy (Score:4, Insightful)
evolution of man and squirrel alike indeed continued apace until ~approx 100 000 years ago, when modern man first left Africa and the laws of evolution ceased to apply to humans, due to the plasticity of spandrels.
The "laws of evolution" are still with us, and spandrels are not necessarily plastic. Nor does the presence of spandrels lead to plasticity at all. I think you're just joining evolutionary-sciency words to sound clever.
Hence, positing evolution of humanity is incorrect in timespans extending much further back than a mere 6000 years.
Skin color? This must have arisen in the last 150kya after humans moved out of Africa. I could list other examples, but it's quite obvious you're talking out your arse here.
It is hard to determine if this study and many other recent similar ones implying recent evolution in humans are driven by mere ignorance or if more sinister motives are at work.
Yes. It appears that this study was funded by the evil Dairy-conglomerate to promote milk-drinking behavior.
The author referenced here, one Nicholas Wade, is notable for engaging in ideologically dubious activities
Nicholas Wade [plosjournals.org] is a very well respected science writer. I guess that science could be consided "ideologically dubious" to some.
Re:No way! (Score:1, Insightful)
(not all myths are about deities, just listen to any left-winger talking about the virtues of socialism and you'll wonder if he has ever learned anything about the past century's history)
Re:No way! (Score:2, Insightful)
Ummm, technically he only invoked "Jebus". I dunno about you, but in my alphabet "b" and "s" are different letters. Maybe he was intentionally doing this to avoid offending anyone reasonable who does believe in Jesus?
"Slashdot would be a wonderful place if we could lose all the religion bashing."
And the world could be a wonderful place if groups of people identified predominantly by their religion would stop bashing everyone and everything else, too.
"People on the fringes don't speak for all of us."
No, but they speak the loudest. So all us non-religious types hear is fuckwit fundamentalists complaining about violent video games in the army, opposing evolutionary marriage and banning gays.
" I don't try to force my views on others. I interest my friends in learning more about my views by: being nice to them and treating them well, and listening when they have problems and trying to help them out whenever I can."
Then well done - you're pursuing the only path that stands a chance of really converting anyone with more than two brain-cells to rub together.
If it helps, try the following:
s/christian/fuckwit fundamentalist christians/
s/religion/what's done in the name of religion by fuckwits/
I'm pretty sure that's the mental shorthand of most reasonable people on Slashdot - religion has done very good things, but these days most of the good things are shouted down by the constant media-whoring of the lunatic fringe.
Re:No way! (Score:5, Insightful)
First off, the law in the Bible has always been for the people of God. In the Old Testament, that was the Jews. After Jesus, it expanded to include Christians. Nowhere in the Bible does it say that non-believers should be made to follow the law (In the OT, the Jews were told to kill certain unbelievers, and in the NT Christians are called to convert them, but they're never told to force them to follow the law). Biblically, you don't get saved by following the law (or rather, you would, but nobody ever manages to keep it 100%). You get saved by following Jesus. Going around forcing people who don't follow Jesus to act as if they did accomplishes nothing except to get them really annoyed. It's not going to save anyone, and it's counterproductive.
Since, as the grandparent said, we don't live in a theocracy, the government should not necessarily be bound to obey the laws of God. I believe homosexuality is wrong, but I believe the government shouldn't be making laws about morality. Governments should make laws to provide for the security and freedom of its citizens - anything else is (or should be) out of its scope. If it's an issue of morality, then it should be in the hands of the church (as the rules of the church apply only to its followers). So allow gay marriages - as long as you don't force me to partake in one, or force my church to officially sanction it. Allow prostitution and drug use - as long as you don't force me to foot the bill to treat the addicts, or allow people to use being "under the influence" as a means to escape their actions. These are consensual activities, and are issues purely of morality, and should not be prohibited by the government. As long as the government doesn't stop me practicing my religion, it should allow everyone else to do whatever they like, as long as it does not significantly impact other's freedom or security.
On the other hand, things like murder, rape and theft have an impact on the citizen's freedoms and security. The government should forbid them. The current abortion debate (and the therepeutic cloning debate) are essentially a definitions debate, determining when a developing human should be given the same protections as a fully developed human.
As an aside, Mary Magdalene wasn't a prostitute - Rahab was though, and she was judged as righteous. Not because of her profession, but in spite of it. The Bible isn't defending prostitution as a moral choice, it's saying nobody (including prostitutes) is beyond redemption.
Re:No way! (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes, and the reason why is simple: religion is un-reason (and often anti-reason). Therefore, it obliterates the only common grounds that humans can find among each other.
In a world of reason, there are facts, evidence, and proof, with which we can (in principle) persuade each other to converge on a single, objective knowledge... and hence, there is no need to kill each other.
Without reason, it's just your feelings/assertion/faith/whim/tradition versus mine, and there is no mechanism for synchronizing the two databases... so, may the biggest club win.
Re:where's the mutation? (Score:2, Insightful)
If you believe there is natural selection, and you don't believe in determinism, you are left with evolution as the only "guiding" (evolution has no goal other than survival so calling it guiding is a bit strong) force.
Re:No way! (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Micro vs Macro (Score:3, Insightful)
I believe you mean that the re-ordering of specific nucleotide sequences is somehow different from larger-scale changes, such as chromosome fusion, or perhaps the RNA->DNA change that is postulated to have happened ~1 billion years ago.
It is not clear what this difference would be. Chemistry is chemistry, and when you get down to it, all "evolutionary" changes are just chemical changes to the genome. So to claim that some changes are believable and others are not would require some difference in the chemistry of various changes. But no such difference exists.
And we have plenty of evidence that genetic changes occur on all scales. Most obviously, human chromosome 2 is clearly the fusion of two other chromosomes (which have been given the rather antropocentric names of 2p and 2q) in other primates. There is nothing that prevents such fusions from occuring, and we have evidence that they do, and such large changes undoubtedly have a big effect on that ability of individuals to interbreed, which is the basic requirement for the creation of a new species.
So you can (and no doubt will) believe what you like. But you need to be aware that you are not just denying the well-known facts underpinning evolutionary biology. You are also denying a great deal of chemistry (and by implication physics).
Re:They don't explain WHY (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Micro vs Macro (Score:3, Insightful)
Eh, just a passing thought I have from time to time. I haven't had a chance to state it as eloquently as I'd like, but the gist of it is there.
Re:Depends (Score:3, Insightful)
Unfortunately, this statement is indistinguishable from, "If you have a system that requires a bunch of things to happen before it is indisputably obvious to me personally that any natural selection advantage is given, I would find that unreasonable."
So the question is: does your inability to see the advantage in something constitute evidence against evolution by variation and natural selection? Obviously not. Scientific truth is independent of your abilities.
To give your position any scientific strength you need to specify what measure of advange you are going to apply, so that everyone can apply the same measure of advantage. Also, you need to make clear what you are arguing for. Obviously no one sane believes that evolution by variation and natural selection has no role whatsoever in the diversity of life. To deny that would be to deny the factual basis of the bulk of chemistry and physics on top of biology. So undoubtedly any measure of advantage will reveal many cases where evolution has taken place.
You presumeably believe that in some cases there will be an increase in the diversity of life that is not accompanied by any selective advantage. Thus, you will have proven that evolution is true and correct in a limited domain--this is the normal process of scientific development. Newtonian physics is not wrong, just limited to a given domain. Likewise, no one who understands what evolution is thinks that it will ever be replaced as one of the primary explanation for the diversity of life. There are simply too many cases where all the transitional forms have been found and documented for that to happen.
But in the case where you find conserved non-advantageous characteristics, what would you do next in terms of figuring out the cause of that process? Certainly you cannot invoke "God does it", because by invoking ideas of advantage and so on you are speaking in scientific terms, and it would be completely dishonest to pull that kind of bait-and-switch. So what do you think might drive evolution in cases where variation and natural selection does not?
Re:No way! (Score:3, Insightful)
It seems that yours is the extremist approach, not those that follow some sort of religion. It is always amazing that people with religion are required to tolerate those without, but those without religion don't have to do the same.
you have deluded yourself into believing in a god who is kind, just and fair when your own texts say that there was a lot of 'fire and brimstone' behind him.
That would be a correct statement if you only focus on the Hebrew Scriptures and leave out the Christian or New Testament ones. But, then again, the Christian ones re-interpreted the message and meaning of the Hebrew Scriptures and the 'fire and brimstone' wasn't part of it, but love and forgiveness was.
The real question is why does any time an evolution discussion come up, Slashdot turns into a religion bashing discussion. Even for the relatively small group of world-wide Christians that are fundamentalists and hold to the biblical account of creation, most do not.
I would have really thought the Slashdot discussion would have focused on the claim that these two groups of people evolved in a relatively short time and relatively recently. That would seem to beg the question of evolved from what? Where they not homo sapiens before this evoloution? Are they not homo sapiens now? If they were homo sapiens both before and after this genetic trait occurred, then technically, evolution hasn't occurred, just adaptation. You would think researchers would be more precise with their language.
That's What You Think It Said (Score:5, Insightful)
I believe that they were not the only parents. It looks like to me that the creation events of the first chapter of Genesis are a separate event from the creation spoken out in the second chapter. If, as I believe, this is true, it would very well explained how Cain could have met his wife.
The humans from the first chapters of Genisis were the hunter-gatherers while the creation of the man in the second chapter was hte beginning of agriculture.
"How did all the animals fit on Noah's Ark? If there were just 2 of the animals (dogs for instance) why are they so different now?"
The actual Hebrew word that is translated to Earth is eretz. Eretz means land or soil. Was it the entire planet that was flooded, or was it the entire land (in that area)? Many cultures totally unrelated to Judeaism and Christianity have records of the Flood. It is obvious that the Flood was a major world event, and to me it looks like the flood covered the entire land (in that area).
"What about humans on the Ark, were they forced to inbreed for a second time to populate?"
Maybe.
"Also, we may not have the ability to actually observe Macro Evolution, but Micro Evolution has been evident for some time now. We have documented proof that Americans have gotten taller for instance."
Americans have gotten taller, and when conditions are right, Americans can become shorter as well. Evolution, natural selection, or whatever you want to call it is a mechanical process, nothing more. There are switches with this program that allow certain features to be turned on and off as conditions warrrant. Software crackers also manipulate these switches to affect the behaviour of a program (by switching of registration screens, etc). Computer scientists are in some cases designing programs so that these types of switches can be easily activated and deactivated by other processes in order to try to cause programs to self improve.
The point is that I have seen physical evidence, historical evidence, and linguistic evidence, and archealogical evidence of Biblical truth as well as fossil evidence of the mechanical process of evolution. Much of both evidence goes against what many mainstream Christian BELIEVE, but it does not go against what the original (Biblical) scriptures ACTUALLY SAY. Am I a Christian? no, I am not. I am a Messianic Jew. I also resent the anti-creator bias that is displayed in slashdot as well as many (not all) scientific circles.
Just as there is physucal evidence of the mechanical process of evolution, there is also physical evidence of Biblical authenticity.
Look at http://www.bibleplus.org/discoveries/sodomfound.h
Long before scientists stated (and proved) that the heavens are expanding, the Bible has stated this fact (Job 9:8, Isaiah 40:22, 42:5, as well as many others). I could go on and on about many pieces of evidence, however this evidence is not really hidden. One can find references to most of it online. Yes, I fully expect that this post will be modded down and labelled as flaim bait (typical). However I post such information so that people will get to see a broader view and diverse opinions.
Re:That's What You Think It Said (Score:5, Insightful)
Speaking as a former historian, I can tell you that history and faith do not mix well--and shouldn't. You can not use history and science to "prove" supernatural assertions (if you could, they wouldn't be supernatural).
Yes, the Bible includes much important historical information that historians use (and argue about). But using historical and archaeological sources to argue that the Bible is accurate in many of its historical assertions does absolutely nothing to support or renounce its supernatural claims. Historians have, for instance, long accepted that Jesus was a real historical figure. But that acknowledgement can offer nothing to the argument over whether or not he performed miracles, or was the "Son of God."
-Eric
Re:No way! (Score:5, Insightful)
You mean the century during which, along with the previous one, every advanced democracy adopted policies directly inspired by socialism, and the ones in which people are happier with the performance of their government generally were the ones that adopted more "socialist" policies than other advanced democracies?
Re:They don't explain WHY (Score:4, Insightful)
I'll stick to searching 'pubmed.org' for "milk, osteoporosis" and seeing the randomized control trials, thank you.
Re:No way! (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:No way! (Score:3, Insightful)
Those without religion do not purport to have any kind of 'authority' over others, unless it's based on reason.
From Thomas Hardy to the Beatles to Dogma there are a million examples in the last century alone of religious people being intolerant of anything which even hints at atheism, or mocks/insults their religion. I have no idea how you've managed to construe it as the other way round except, perhaps, in the very small world of slashdot users.
Re:No way! (Score:3, Insightful)
Prove it. Give me just one scientific study that hasn't been debunked which shows a causal link between video games and violent behaviour. And no, your own gut feelings and those of your military friend do not apply.
Look, your long exposition is very well written and, I'm sure, well-meaning, but to coin an over-used term, it's nothing but "truthiness". The fact is, there are no well-constructed studies that demonstrate the link you claim. Much like the Birthday Paradox, human instinct is really shitty at dealing with things like this, hence why the scientific method exists. And, thus far, the scientific method disproves your beliefs.
Re:No way! (Score:3, Insightful)
Now who's being religious?
Re:No way! (Score:4, Insightful)
Score: -1, Doesn't understand the difference between Stalinist Communism and Socialism
Seriously, you obviously have no idea. Look at the Socialist countries of Europe, and see how they're performing better than the US. See how their crime rates are usually lower, how their healthcare is usually better, how more people vote, less poverty, etc. etc. etc. Why are you so poorly informed about other countries? It makes you look a wee bit foolish when your indoctrinations come clashing up against reality. It's not your fault, most likely an influential family member also had the wrong end of the stick and kindly imparted that knowledge to you when you were too young to realise adults get things wrong. Either that or a communist stole your girlfriend when you were at college. Either way, you're not arguing from logic :)
Re:No way! (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:No way! (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:No way! (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:That's What You Think It Said (Score:4, Insightful)
There are some word games being played here. First, "many" cultures is quite a stretch. There are some half-dozen cataclysm stories that parallel the flood story told in Genesis.
Second, calling these other stories "unrelated" is false. Greek and Sumerian cultures were "unrelated" to Hebrew culture? I think not. A large weight of evidence suggests the opposite of what you assert. These ancient civilizations were quite mobile and it is highly likely that these "unrelated" flood stories have a common root, which was passed among these people by oral storytelling tradition, through which it became localized.
Third, these stories are not "records" any more than the story of Paul Bunyan [wikipedia.org] is a "record" of how the Grand Canyon was formed. Now, I am not arguing whether the story has a basis in fact; believe about that what you will. I am only saying that it does not qualify as a historical record.
I submit that what you perceive as "anti-creator bias" is instead an aversion to black box thinking. If you see the work of God in the emergence of life on Earth, more power to you. However, we cannot postulate that the emergence of life is caused by a creator, because we then fall off the map of science. All the mechanics become hidden away inside a magical black box where we cannot see them. And since we cannot make observations, there is no way to prove any of the claims wrong. Ergo, science is impossible.
There is no bias present, only a desire to do proper science.
Re:Why?!?!? (Score:3, Insightful)
I think somehow, this is sarcastic. I'm no expert, though.
Anyways, a mutation to generate an enzyme to breakdown a common compound that is chemically similar to another compound we produce ourselves (ie: glucose), is a far smaller jump in the genetic map than, say, a mutation that would generate a chelation molecule specifically designed to capture lead, while simultaneously producing exotic polymers that weave themselves throughout your skin.
Not to say it couldn't happen, but mutation A is far more likely than mutation B.
Though, at least half of mutation B would very likely exist if, say, all of humanity were exposed to levels of lead sufficient to kill off the population after 15 years of exposure. That is to say, higher than was consumed by the Romans (in the form of Lead (II) Acetate from wine served from lead casks); they regularly lived 30 years or more.
Thing is, we're well aware of the dangers of Lead; even if it somehow found its way into all our water, we'd pretty quickly notice and take action to filter it out. The same applies to a lot of dangers. Human evolution, if not stopped, slowed dramatically when we were able to clear out most macro and microscopic dangers.
Re:No way! (Score:4, Insightful)
On the other hand, if you're talking about a non-christian marriage which grants gays the same benefits as marriage, then sure. I see nothing hypocritical about that. It's just that when people are talking about marriage it is still easily understood to mean christian marriage, and you should be careful to spell it out if you don't mean it.
Given that marriage far predates Christianity and has always been more of an economic institution than a religious one, you might want to quit it with the moronic attempt at revisionist history. Also, there are far more marriages than there are Christians in the world.
Re:No way! (Score:3, Insightful)
Um, what?
The "original authors" of the OT were dead and gone long before Jesus was born or the NT written, so you can't claim they accepted or rejected anything. You're using the modern meaning of Judaism -- someone who follows the God of Abraham but does not accept the teachings of Jesus -- and transfering it back in time to the authors of the OT, long before that definition had any meaning at all. Your claim only makes sense if you are granting ancestral authority to those Jews who were alive at the time of these events and rejected the NT, remaining practitioners of Judaism. Well Jesus and his follewers were all Jewish, racially and religiously, and thus they all have equal claim to ancestral ties with Abraham. It was the acceptance/non-acceptance of Jesus and the NT that caused the split in religions of Judaism and Christianity. So saying modern Jews don't accept the NT is as insightful as saying that Christians don't accept the Koran, and saying the authors of the OT reject the NT makes as much sense as saying that the Disciples rejected Mohammed.
And, for the open minded parent poster above, the christian 'bible' clearly states that homosexuality is an abomination (Lev. 18:22), for which you get to go to hell (Rom. 1:26-28). Don't get me wrong, I applaud such open mindedness, but if you're a christian who believes that every word in the English christian bible was explicitly arranged by god, its pretty hard to reconcile open mindedness about such issues with the 'word of god'.
The argument for open-mindedness comes largely from the words of Jesus himself. I'll grant this is just my interpretation, but when Paul says something is an abomination and you will go to hell, and Jesus says we are all sinners and judge not lest you be judged yourself as only God has that authority, and accused anyone who would try to punish those who sin as hypocrites, I'm going with Jesus.
Re:No way! (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm pretty sure that these countries have private ownership of businesses and personal property. This makes them only "socialistic". Naked Socialism would work out about as well as Communism did.
Re:No way! (Score:3, Insightful)
Heh. Yeah. Because there's no way two people using facts and evidence would come to the conclusion that they have an unreconcileable conflict of interest and they won't get what they want unless they kill the other.
No King has ever decided that, based on pure reason, that it is better for him to invade a neighboring country, slay or enslave the populace, and steal their resources and land for himself.
It's religious conviction, anti-reason, that motivates organized criminals to kill snitches.
Okay, sarcasm over. I will fully accept the ills that relgions have caused, though I think you'll find that it is generally only as it is used as a mechanism to control the masses. The one doing the controlling usually has very practical, very rational, and completely brutal reasons behind the manipulation. The people are often driven to war by appealing to their religion, but the leaders seek war as they seek power and wealth and resources, like every war ever.
Frankly I reject your initial premise, that reason is the only common ground humans can find. Art, music, simple human empathy, are all based on emotion and are at least as effective at bringing people together.
Re:That's What You Think It Said (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:No way! (Score:3, Insightful)
Since when, in recorded history, have people acted with the peaceful rationality you attribute to them?
Furthemore, there are different brands of logic and rational approaches to situations which could (with or without religion) lead to conflict. Religious violence may occur in dramatic affairs, but I say that the logic of personal interest has caused just as much, if not more bloodshed. If you doubt this, consider how many people, from the dawn of time have been individually killed for food, money, land, possesions, and so on.
Never doubt that in a world without religion that people would still kill eachother in similar numbers and level of senselessness.
-Grym
Re:No way! (Score:3, Insightful)
In a world of reason, there are facts, evidence, and proof, with which we can (in principle) persuade each other to converge on a single, objective knowledge... and hence, there is no need to kill each other.
Interesting, then, that in this last century, where the culture was substantially influenced by this Enlightenment-based "world of reason" you describe, we have seen the bloodiest wars, and the most shocking instances of genocide, in all of history. Even accounting for the increased population.
And while yes, some of those conflicts exploited religion, none of the big ones had religion as their real motivation, as did e.g. the crusades, or the Catholic-Protestant conflicts of earlier centuries.
I'm not arguing that religion doesn't lead to violence, obviously it can and does. I am arguing that your supposed remedy to this violence simply doesn't work: human beings are, and will remain, violent. Religion is just one of the many excuses we use for it.
Without reason, it's just your feelings/assertion/faith/whim/tradition versus mine, and there is no mechanism for synchronizing the two databases... so, may the biggest club win.
I'm curious where you've ever seen this example you describe of perfect, mutually agreed upon rationality used to such a degree that rationality is actually the dominant means of decision-making, rather than a useful means of discussing issues. From what I can see of the world, even fairly "rational" people often form opinions and make decisions based substantially (if not entirely) on emotion, and then, in the ideal case, apply reasoning to evaluate those decisions. But emotions are still a very large part of human society, and I'm not sure how you propose to eliminate that through logic -- while some people may (claim to) be able to work that way, the vast majority of people do not and cannot.
And: even people who arrived at their conclusions "rationally" still frequently use power, rather than persuasion, to attain their ends.
Re:No way! (Score:3, Insightful)
Since when, in recorded history, have people acted with the peaceful rationality you attribute to them?
All the time, all around you, every day. Thats why we have a society and civilisation. In fact you can safely say that proportionately, wars are much more of a rare, occasional aberration. And even then we go about them in an organised and rational fashion.