<<In an over populated world wasting depleting resources I do not worship growth, >>

Foyle,
Once again you are relying on inferior (if any) scholarship. accoring to Olivier De Schutter, the UN Special Rapporteur on the right to food, there is enough food: it is its distribution that is the issue.

"The promotion of large-scale land investment is based on the belief that combating hunger requires boosting food production, and that supply has been lagging because of a lack of investment in agriculture. Hence, if investment can be attracted to agriculture, it should be welcomed, and whichever rules are imposed should encourage it, not deter it.

But both the diagnosis and the remedy are incorrect. Hunger and malnutrition are not primarily the result of insufficient food production; they are the result of poverty and inequality, particularly in rural areas, where 75% of the world’s poor still reside.

In the past, agricultural development has prioritized large-scale, capitalized forms of agriculture, neglecting smallholders who feed local communities. And governments have failed to protect agricultural workers from exploitation in an increasingly competitive environment. It should come as no wonder that smallholders and agricultural laborers represent a combined 70\% of those who are unable to feed themselves today."

ref: Olivier De Schutter, Responsibly Destroying the World’s Peasantry, http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/deschutter1/English

Foyle wrote;

<<In an over populated world wasting depleting resources I do not worship growth, particularly in the prosperous western world. I read the article at the website you quoted on this matter and it really shows that religious people do not really understand some of the problems facing the human population.>>

The research is by the foremost experts in growth and development! Its not some atheist guru that says things that you like to hear.

Foyle wrote:
“How else could the scientific method interpret the confirmed sequential, but occasionally partly overlapping, age ranges of Australopithecus Afarensis, A.africanus, Homo habilis, H.ergaster, H. erectus, H. heidlegergensis, H.sapien and H.sapien sapien? Humans share 98%+ of their genome with our closest living ape relative so with A. Afarensis, if we could find some DNA, the sharing would be in the high 99% area.”

The point i make is that it interprets the evidence assuming that “Humans evolves from another species”. In doing so scientists will be selective in what they put forward as evidence. If you assume that “humans evolved from another species” then you are going to ignore evidence to the contrary. That’s the problem with the methodology.

Compare this approach with that taken in the climate change debate. The broad scientific community agrees that the evidence is sufficient to reject the notion that “human beings have not been the primary cause of climate change”.

In other words the null hypothesis is “Human beings have not been the primary cause of climate change”

The appropriate procedure is to reject the null only if the probability of FALSELY rejecting the null is small...and that is what most scientists agree upon. The probability of falsely rejecting the null hypothesis is “small” (say 5% or 1% or even smaller).

All I’m saying is that I do not believe evolutionary theorists, when it comes to human beings, are following a scientific methodology. The null hypothesis should be: “Human beings did not evolve from another species” and it is only to rejected if the probability of FALSELY rejecting the null is “small” (Perhaps you haven’t got a background in statistics so all of this is bit confusing. But ask anyone with some basic statistically training and this is basic stuff.)

Anyway, you would presumably say that the probability is in fact small because of the above mentioned sequence. But then you would need to prove that this sequence would be highly unlikely if human beings did not evolve from another species. Has anyone approached the problem in this manner?

cont..

cont..

By the way National Geographic report scientific work that contradicts your numbers:

"For decades, scientists have agreed that human and chimpanzee DNA is 98.5 percent identical. A recent study suggests that number may need to be revised. Using a new, more sophisticated method to measure the similarities between human and chimp DNA, the two species may share only 95 percent genetic material. "
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/09/0924_020924_dnachimp.html

So i don't know what that means for your conjecture about "A. Afarensis, if we could find some DNA, the sharing would be in the high 99% area.” Do you?

Foyle you state:

"You took a thousand or so words to say nothing that I find worthwhile so I won't be even reading anything else you post."

That's fine. I'm doing it primarily to see how robust reasoning on the basis of Qur'anic precepts can be.

Since you and others end up caving in (twice now!) and resorting to personal attacks then i interprete this as evidence of the robustness of message to critical scrutiny.

salaams

Intriguing position, grateful.

>>If you assume that “humans evolved from another species” then you are going to ignore evidence to the contrary.<<

Two points on that.

As I understand it, the position “humans evolved from another species” was deduced from evidence that was uncovered and analysed over an extended period of time.

After all, the starting point for every culture across the globe was "humans just happened", a concept that was supported by an entire history of mythologies and folk-tales. It took a great deal of courage to amass and decipher evidence to the contrary. If indeed they started with a preconceived notion, it would have been the prevailing "God put us here for a purpose" ideology.

The second point is even more interesting.

You assert that "evidence to the contrary" is being ignored. Would you care to offer some examples?

@Grateful,

Grateful is keen on selling the line that it’s not population, but the distribution of food that is the real problem

See his comment of 17/02: [[Once again you are relying on inferior (if any) scholarship. accoring to Olivier De Schutter, the UN Special Rapporteur on the right to food, there is enough food: it is its distribution that is the issue.]]

And of course, it’s only coincidental that those countries that are in the top ranks of the population growth stakes, and often have major issues feeding their numbers are in many, if not most cases, states who identify themselves as Islamic.

Grateful’s implied solution is a redistribution of resources . A variation on: we should all line up with our bowls for an equal sized dollop of halal stew .Though, I suspect, in keeping with the tradition of the jizya tax, the believers would get two dollops to the non-believers one.

Unfortunately for Grateful we’ve heard it all before.The old communist block implemented widespread planning with the intent to minimise waste/duplication and equalize distribution. The result was producers lost incentive to produce and production diminished.

Reducing waste is a worthy ambition –and has wide currency-- which his why Grateful employs it.I was particularly intrigued with a project in parts of the UK to collect left over food items and turn them into energy and fertilizer.
http://player.sbs.com.au/programs#/programs_08/fullepisodes/latestepisodes/playlist/The-Future-Of-Food-Ep-2/
(it starts at around 44:00)

But the above would hardly satisfy Grateful, since Grateful only uses waste reduction as a pretext. His real intend seems to be that the West should subsidize his adopted people.