Religion and Ethics Forum
General Category => Science and Technology => Topic started by: Hope on December 27, 2016, 12:26:56 PM
-
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-38251031
Evolution, vastly overrated ;)
-
We wouldn't be here without it. But still; if you think existence is overrated ...
-
We wouldn't be here without it. But still; if you think existence is overrated ...
If evolution results in discomfort and inefficiency, doesn't that suggest that it hasn't been successful? ;)
-
If evolution results in discomfort and inefficiency, doesn't that suggest that it hasn't been successful? ;)
No.
A blind and at least partly random biochemical process can't have goals or aims and can't plan so there's no such thing as success or failure except in the human sphere, extrapolated from our valuing existence as a success and nonexistence as a failure. EbNS either creates organisms which survive long enough to reproduce (and thereby pass on genes to a next, new generation) or not. If EbNS can achieve the former even with discomfort, it's done its "job" and we call it "successful" (scare quotes entirely deliberate).
The inefficiency to which you refer is due to EbNS being a process that works by cobbling together whatever is at hand. Now, of course, a magical spirit of unlimited power, complete knowledge and perfect goodness could and furthermore would indeed create organisms without discomfort and inefficiency ... but obviously we don't see that, do we? ;)
-
If evolution results in discomfort and inefficiency, doesn't that suggest that it hasn't been successful? ;)
it could be explained to you a million times but you will never understand , will you !
but if people on here can be bothered to go through it all again well that's up to them , I cant .! ::)
-
If evolution results in discomfort and inefficiency, doesn't that suggest that it hasn't been successful? ;)
By what criteria are you judging success and failure here?
-
I do find it amusing that folk here have taken umbrage at an OP that is clearly a light-hearted jibe (see use of emoticon in OP). Seems to suggest that they feel that their belief-system is under threat!! :D
-
No, since understanding of the evidence for and acceptance of the reality of evolution isn't a belief system; we're just too used to hearing people spout off about evolution who know nothing of the subject.
Gets old very quickly, that one; not least because the persistent offenders are so lamentably uneducable.
-
I heard a mention of that bit about being upright and arthritis this morning, and I also heard a comment which was that exercise and physiotherapy can help to compensate. I'm going to put the next part in bold:
I can give a personal proof that exercises, done consistently and properly, and directed by a good physio, can obviate the need for a replacement hip, even when one has had for years an 'advanced degenerative condition resulting in complete loss of hip joint space'. Prior to this being triggered again by enforced rest following the accident, I had only occasional, minor difficulty, but now I am, I think, stronger than I was before. Please, please tell anyone you know who wants to avoid major surgery to follow this plan.
-
Quite obviously the payoff of standing upright and being bipedal was greater than the subsequent drawbacks. Also, evolution is only concerned with, so to speak, with the next generation. Most of these types of ills usually come when we are past our breeding age or that there are younger and fitter alternatives.
Add to the problems of being bipedal is the relatively more difficulty in giving birth, but so far we have managed; well the women have.
-
I heard a mention of that bit about being upright and arthritis this morning, and I also heard a comment which was that exercise and physiotherapy can help to compensate. I'm going to put the next part in bold:
I can give a personal proof that exercises, done consistently and properly, and directed by a good physio, can obviate the need for a replacement hip, even when one has had for years an 'advanced degenerative condition resulting in complete loss of hip joint space'. Prior to this being triggered again by enforced rest following the accident, I had only occasional, minor difficulty, but now I am, I think, stronger than I was before. Please, please tell anyone you know who wants to avoid major surgery to follow this plan.
Unfortunately, this isn't a foolproof remedy, Susan. A friend of mine has just had a hip replacement and was relaying the activity he had undertaken overe the previous weeks and months to the surgeon - a 2 mile walk at least once a day every day for many years being one of them; the surgeon was astonished, as the X-ray indicated that the ball of the hip had practically disappeared, and the socket had become so damaged that they had to rebuild it with some form of precious metal before they could reconstruct the hip itself. In fact, it seems that the walking and other activities my friend had done over the years had possibly accelerated the damage.
Don't get me wrong, I believe that exercise etc. is very important for our health, but I'd be surprised if the 'prescription' you outline is medically valid across the board.
-
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-38251031
Evolution, vastly overrated ;)
No pain, no gain, they used to say. So now we get back pain and arthritis for walking upright. No such thing as a free lunch I guess.
-
Unfortunately, this isn't a foolproof remedy, Susan. A friend of mine has just had a hip replacement and was relaying the activity he had undertaken overe the previous weeks and months to the surgeon - a 2 mile walk at least once a day every day for many years being one of them; the surgeon was astonished, as the X-ray indicated that the ball of the hip had practically disappeared, and the socket had become so damaged that they had to rebuild it with some form of precious metal before they could reconstruct the hip itself. In fact, it seems that the walking and other activities my friend had done over the years had possibly accelerated the damage.
Don't get me wrong, I believe that exercise etc. is very important for our health, but I'd be surprised if the 'prescription' you outline is medically valid across the board.
Yes, of course, one remedy does not work for all, but I have also learnt that there are specific exercises, both lying down and standing, which strengthen other muscles other than the ones used for walking. Thank goodness that such good hip operations are available for those who need them. I hope the physio groups are able to promote their message strongly so that younger people will realise the benefits of correct exercises to prevent the problem, but it will be an uphill struggle I think!
I have a reasonably high pain threshold I think, but I had been suffering a lot of pain, but knowing how I loved to keep fit, I was well prepared to give it a very fair try - and am glad I did.
-
Yes, of course, one remedy does not work for all, but I have also learnt that there are specific exercises, both lying down and standing, which strengthen other muscles other than the ones used for walking. Thank goodness that such good hip operations are available for those who need them. I hope the physio groups are able to promote their message strongly so that younger people will realise the benefits of correct exercises to prevent the problem, but it will be an uphill struggle I think!
I have a reasonably high pain threshold I think, but I had been suffering a lot of pain, but knowing how I loved to keep fit, I was well prepared to give it a very fair try - and am glad I did.
I have to admit to having retained a few details in the example I gave. This was actaully a replacement hip replacement - 25 years after the original op., and my friend also had a large turnip-shaped tumour that had eaten away a lot of the thigh muscle in the relevant leg. Thankfully, it was a benign tunmour and the surgeon was confident that he and his team had managed to get it all out in one go. What was expected to be a 4 hour op. became a 5.5 hour one.
-
Hope said,
"If evolution results in discomfort and inefficiency, doesn't that suggest that it hasn't been successful? ;)"
Yeah but what if a benevolent and loving God made us that way for a joke, wouldn't that be worse?
-
Hope said,
"If evolution results in discomfort and inefficiency, doesn't that suggest that it hasn't been successful? ;)"
Yeah but what if a benevolent and loving God made us that way for a joke, wouldn't that be worse?
It could also be that modern humans are trying to do things with their bodies that neither God's creative blueprint - nor evoilution - was ever designed to do. Let's take high-heeled shoes as an example. The human foot is designed to walk flat, not at some precipitous angle. Or what about sitting at a desk? Our hips and knees aren't designed to be folded/bent at right-angles for the length of time they often are nowadays.
-
It could also be that modern humans are trying to do things with their bodies that neither God's creative blueprint - nor evoilution - was ever designed to do. Let's take high-heeled shoes as an example. The human foot is designed to walk flat, not at some precipitous angle. Or what about sitting at a desk? Our hips and knees aren't designed to be folded/bent at right-angles for the length of time they often are nowadays.
Are you saying that God did not forsee high heel shoes or desks?
-
On the subject of desks and sitting at them, my (older) son was saying yesterday when he came to see me that he uses one of those large exercise balls to sit on at his desk at work and he says that, since doing so, he has had no lower back ache. He recommends that I buy one for sitting here at the computer! I might just give it a try!
-
It could also be that modern humans are trying to do things with their bodies that neither God's creative blueprint - nor evoilution - was ever designed to do. Let's take high-heeled shoes as an example. The human foot is designed to walk flat, not at some precipitous angle. Or what about sitting at a desk? Our hips and knees aren't designed to be folded/bent at right-angles for the length of time they often are nowadays.
This is the point of the piece referenced in the OP. Humans were not designed to walk upright. We have adapted from a design optimised for quadrupedal motion, hence chiropractors are on to an earner, many human ills can be traced to this; walking upright frees the hands but our backs were designed for walking on all fours. So much for 'Intelligent Design'
-
Hope
How did you know I wear stiletto heels? I suppose you know about the fishnets and suspenders too, well just don't tell anyone else. :-\
-
Sitting waiting for a train at Southampton station recently, I noticed, not for the first time, that all the passengers coming and going, except for one or two, were wearing flat shoes. I do not know any of my contemporaries who wear high heels for general everyday use.
-
On the subject of desks and sitting at them, my (older) son was saying yesterday when he came to see me that he uses one of those large exercise balls to sit on at his desk at work and he says that, since doing so, he has had no lower back ache. He recommends that I buy one for sitting here at the computer! I might just give it a try!
I used to have an early version of those 'kneeling' chairs which spread the pressure. Unfortunately, it broke when I tried to adapt it to match the height of my desk at the time (probably over-reaching its design parameters). I've never found one that allows me to sit high enough.
Interestingly, I sometimes took a fold-up 'bar stool' into classrooms when I was teaching, as it allowed me to have my legs hanging down rather than bent at the hips.
-
Sitting waiting for a train at Southampton station recently, I noticed, not for the first time, that all the passengers coming and going, except for one or two, were wearing flat shoes. I do not know any of my contemporaries who wear high heels for general everyday use.
It would seem that the main users of high heels these days are otherwise totally unclothed women appearing in movies portraying behaviour of an intimate nature.
-
It would seem that the main users of high heels these days are otherwise totally unclothed women appearing in movies portraying behaviour of an intimate nature.
phwoar , dya know a good web site?
-
It would seem that the main users of high heels these days are otherwise totally unclothed women appearing in movies portraying behaviour of an intimate nature.
Sorry, HH, the main folk wearing them are women working in companies - such as the finance and insurance world - who have been told they have to wear them by their bosses, or risk losing their jobs.
-
Sorry, HH, the main folk wearing them are women working in companies - such as the finance and insurance world - who have been told they have to wear them by their bosses, or risk losing their jobs.
Proof?
Don't tell me, you were chatting to a couple of people from your church and they know someone who once worked for the Pru who told them that fact!
::)
-
Sorry, HH, the main folk wearing them are women working in companies - such as the finance and insurance world - who have been told they have to wear them by their bosses, or risk losing their jobs.
Yes, Hope. It must be true 'cos there was that one case that was in the papers....
Perhaps these are all the same women that do the dirty films. They just never take their high heels off ... ::)
-
Sorry, HH, the main folk wearing them are women working in companies - such as the finance and insurance world - who have been told they have to wear them by their bosses, or risk losing their jobs.
I am now going to give you a serious answer to this statement.
1 Such behaviour on the part of any employer could be challenged under the Equality Act 2010. It is discriminatory.
2 Such behaviour could be challenged on Health and Safety grounds. It is potentially damaging to the health and well-being of the women concerned.
What makes you think that your statement is true?
-
Proof?
Don't tell me, you were chatting to a couple of people from your church and they know someone who once worked for the Pru who told them that fact!
::)
This has been in the news. Whether it is widespread is another thing but I wouldn't be surprised if it is.
-
I am now going to give you a serious answer to this statement.
1 Such behaviour on the part of any employer could be challenged under the Equality Act 2010. It is discriminatory.
2 Such behaviour could be challenged on Health and Safety grounds. It is potentially damaging to the health and well-being of the women concerned.
What makes you think that your statement is true?
Taking legal action costs money which many employees can't afford.
-
Taking legal action costs money which many employees can't afford.
which is not an answer to the question
'What makes you think that your (Hope's)statement is true?'
-
Taking legal action costs money which many employees can't afford.
They should join a union then.
-
which is not an answer to the question
'What makes you think that your (Hope's)statement is true?'
It wasn't suppose to be an answer just a statement about the reality of the situation.
What (Hope's) statement? - not sure what you are talking about.
-
They should join a union then.
How easy is that? If it is easy why didn't the people who worked for the two sports firms that have been in the news recently do so?
-
How easy is that? If it is easy why didn't the people who worked for the two sports firms that have been in the news recently do so?
Why dont you ask them?
-
It wasn't suppose to be an answer just a statement about the reality of the situation.
What (Hope's) statement? - not sure what you are talking about.
The post you replied to
Quote from: Hope on January 02, 2017, 09:04:48 PM
Sorry, HH, the main folk wearing them are women working in companies - such as the finance and insurance world - who have been told they have to wear them by their bosses, or risk losing their jobs.
Quote from Harrowby Hall
I am now going to give you a serious answer to this statement.
1 Such behaviour on the part of any employer could be challenged under the Equality Act 2010. It is discriminatory.
2 Such behaviour could be challenged on Health and Safety grounds. It is potentially damaging to the health and well-being of the women concerned.
What makes you think that your statement is true?
-
Why dont you ask them?
I don't know any of them. Is it easy to join a union for all circumstances of employment?
-
The post you replied to
Quote from: Hope on January 02, 2017, 09:04:48 PM
Sorry, HH, the main folk wearing them are women working in companies - such as the finance and insurance world - who have been told they have to wear them by their bosses, or risk losing their jobs.
Quote from Harrowby Hall
I am now going to give you a serious answer to this statement.
1 Such behaviour on the part of any employer could be challenged under the Equality Act 2010. It is discriminatory.
2 Such behaviour could be challenged on Health and Safety grounds. It is potentially damaging to the health and well-being of the women concerned.
What makes you think that your statement is true?
Which statement are you referring to?
-
Which statement are you referring to?
Hope's statement which is included in and referred to the post I just copied.
-
Is it easy to join a union for all circumstances of employment?
All? I dont know. Most , fairly easy.
-
All? I dont know. Most , fairly easy.
I believe that it is problematic if the employer refuses to allow union representatives onto the property, and time for workers to go to meet such reps.
-
I believe that it is problematic if the employer refuses to allow union representatives onto the property, and time for workers to go to meet such reps.
Can we have evidence for your claim earlier as challenged by Harrowby Hall?
-
1 Such behaviour on the part of any employer could be challenged under the Equality Act 2010. It is discriminatory.
2 Such behaviour could be challenged on Health and Safety grounds. It is potentially damaging to the health and well-being of the women concerned.
There was case back in the summer at a London firm (financial, iirc) where a temp was asked to leave, and the agency was told by the firm that they expected the women they sent to abide by a certain dress code - which included heels. Whether it has ever gone to tribunal, I don't know, but ... .
After a quick hunt, here is one media report from the Guardian - http://bit.ly/1YlEq5B
-
There was case back in the summer at a London firm (financial, iirc) where a temp was asked to leave, and the agency was told by the firm that they expected the women they sent to abide by a certain dress code - which included heels. Whether it has ever gone to tribunal, I don't know, but ... .
After a quick hunt, here is one media report from the Guardian - http://bit.ly/1YlEq5B
Yes, this has already been covered. It is not support for your statement.
-
Sorry, HH, the main folk wearing them are women working in companies - such as the finance and insurance world - who have been told they have to wear them by their bosses, or risk losing their jobs.
There was case back in the summer at a London firm (financial, iirc) where a temp was asked to leave, and the agency was told by the firm that they expected the women they sent to abide by a certain dress code - which included heels. Whether it has ever gone to tribunal, I don't know, but ... .
Spot the inconsistency between these two statements.
Hint
... the main folk wearing them are women working in companies ... - implication: there are lots of such women.
... there was case back in the summer --- - implication: there was a solitary incident.
-
All? I dont know. Most , fairly easy.
All as in all types of jobs and employment.
-
Hope's statement which is included in and referred to the post I just copied.
I'm not Hope. You said 'your' implying me JK.
-
I'm not Hope. You said 'your' implying me JK.
No, I quoted (in quotes) the bit from Harrowby Hall's post that you had replied to and added in (Hope) in brackets to point out that it referred to Hope's statement.
-
All as in all types of jobs and employment.
Not all. There are some jobs which have legislative restrictions I believe. But generally speaking, yes.
-
No, I quoted (in quotes) the bit from Harrowby Hall's post that you had replied to and added in (Hope) in brackets to point out that it referred to Hope's statement.
But my reply wasn't there with that lot in your post so I don't know what you are referring to and I'm not searching back in the thread to find it. So you either furnish me with what I said, including the #number, or decease with this farce.
-
Not all. There are some jobs which have legislative restrictions I believe. But generally speaking, yes.
This is what I thought.
-
But my reply wasn't there with that lot in your post so I don't know what you are referring to and I'm not searching back in the thread to find it. So you either furnish me with what I said, including the #number, or decease with this farce.
Reply #27 from Harrowby Hall, your reply to him #29 and my reply to you #30. It's all there.
-
Reply #27 from Harrowby Hall, your reply to him #29 and my reply to you #30. It's all there.
So again, what is wrong? My statement is true, not all employees can afford the legal fees to take their employers to a tribunal.
-
So again, what is wrong? My statement is true, not all employees can afford the legal fees to take their employers to a tribunal.
it's essentially an irrelevant non sequitur to HH's post and Hope's statement as I said in #30
-
it's essentially an irrelevant non sequitur to HH's post and Hope's statement as I said in #30
It wasn't a conclusion but a statement of fact that though the option to take the employer to a tribunal is technical there it is not always open to the employee for reasons given. It is called contributing to the discussion. You're a pedantic fellow.
-
Sorry, HH, the main folk wearing them are women working in companies - such as the finance and insurance world - who have been told they have to wear them by their bosses, or risk losing their jobs.
No. That's not true. Very few companies have policies that say women must wear high heels. In fact, I'd be surprised if any do now.
-
No. That's not true. Very few companies have policies that say women must wear high heels. In fact, I'd be surprised if any do now.
it's OK, jeremyp, when asked about it, Hope cited the one much publicised case but no more. So as in classic Hope argument rules, that"s more than enough as a justification.
-
it's OK, jeremyp, when asked about it, Hope cited the one much publicised case but no more. So as in classic Hope argument rules, that"s more than enough as a justification.
I posted my comment immediately after reading Hope's post but before reading all the responses. I could have deleted it, but I couldn't be arsed.