Atheists believe in miracles more than believers

[Valjean]

I am talking about the concept of "natural selection." There IS no "selection" because it's RANDOM. If you want to call a car smashing into another car as selective -- go ahead.

So all the crops, livestock and pets we're familiar with today have always existed, just as we see them now? Selective breeding is impossible, because reproduction is all RANDOM?

 

[gnostic]

Go ahead -- does choosing to have children have any sense of "natural selection"?

my example was just “sexual reproduction”, not that of “Natural Selection”.

Natural Selection is about speciation, which my example has nothing to do with speciation.

The example was to show that mutations are not necessary for genetic variations to occur, via sexual reproduction.

As I had illustrated, when male and female reproduce, they not only have the gene pool from these 2 alone, but also from genes of ancestors of preceding generations, from both sides.

So when offspring inherited certain traits, those genes that would have genetic information of those traits, already existed in the gene pool. In this case no mutations need to exist that follow the inheritance process.

Do you understand that?

I have also stated that mutations would cause the changes that are ”new” in the organism’s body…and “new” as in alterations of DNA sequences, which would mean the”mutated” genes MAY or MAY NOT be introduced into the gene pool. If not, then the change won’t include any mutated genes.

What are in the gene pool, a number of variations would be “potentially” inheritable…and these don’t require mutations.

if you have inherited some that occur along one parent’s line of certain features or traits, then it isn’t mutation.

That just basic genetics.

And Ill illiterate my example is that of sexual reproduction, not that of Natural Selection, because you need to remember that when we are talking about Evolution these are changes to populations, especially when concerning divergence and speciation…which my example is not about speciation.

 

[Valjean]

The evidence you are speaking about in reference to "natural selection" of organisms evolving, for instance, from fish to apes just isn't there. No evidence of good selection. And of course, deleterious so-called natural selection wouldn't be around to show itself. Fossils demonstrate there were some organisms that were. They do not evidence that such naturally evolved even over the said millions of years, etc.

Please get off this fish-to-ape kick. You've demonstrated that the whole subject's over your head.

We're talking about reproductive variation observable today, and how the small differences might be advantageous or disadvantageous, depending on environment.
Do you really think a slow gazelle's chance of surviving in lion country is equal to that of a fast gazelle?

No evidence of natural selection? How about the peppered moths, passenger pigeons, or coyotes and raccoons?
You say some species aren't around due to deleterious features? How is that not exactly what we've been talking about?

 

[gnostic]

I am talking about the concept of "natural selection." There IS no "selection" because it's RANDOM. If you want to call a car smashing into another car as selective -- go ahead.

What on Earth, does smashing cars have to do Evolution?!

Evolution is all about biology, not about cars!

Creationists love to use irrelevant analogies, that are not only irrational, they only cause confusion. They are irrational and keep recycling the absurd Watchmaker analogy with some other absurdities called “analogy”.

please stick to biology examples.

 

[Valjean]

Even scientists don't "understand" everything about evolution -- keep figuring new things about what might have happened -- nevertheless, semantic changes are occurring (evolving would you say? No -- that can't be -- by "natural selection..." because people can be conscious but nature?? in the form of "natural selection" ain't conscious say some. Nevertheless they select.

I have no idea what you're saying, here.

 

[Valjean]

Selection implies choice. No I am not claiming conscious choice. Nevertheless, selection, natural or unnatural, implies choice.

"Choice" implies conscious awareness of options, and picking one intentionally.
Water doesn't choose to run downhill. Nature/physics unconsciously chooses what actions are more likely.

 

[Valjean]

Go tell the scientists that are reworking their wordings of things.

Please explain what problem you're seeing here.

 

[cladking]

Natural selection = what works survives and propagates. What doesn't work, dies and doesn't propagate.

It's not rocket science.

No, it's not rocket science, it's a miracle.

Something has to survive and reproduce or there'd be no such thing as life. Therefore we can each define those that survive as the "most fit" "those selected by God", "that which is favored by the Flying Spaghetti Monster", or the "most conscious". Smoke 'em if ya gottem.

It's all just an assumption of the conclusion and "science" is right by definition which constitutes yet another miracle because metaphysics doesn't work this way.

But believers in science are the holiest of all thous so we must all convert and cast off our heresies.

 

[wellwisher]

What works survives and propagates.
What doesn't, dies and doesn't propagate.

What does and doesn't work is determined by the environment at large.


Natural selection.

There is also the effect of consciousness on evolution, such as the process of migration. One may not be suitable for a hot environment, so rather than stay and die, by not being selected by natural selection, you migrate to where it is cooler, so you can be selected. During the ice ages, animals were forced to consciously migrate to find places where they can be selected. The carnivores, following their food supply, made selection for them a moving target.

Darwin's theory of natural selection has logic to it based on natural potentials that push and pull on life. Science added a genetic randomizer variable that is not that well thought out. Random change will do more harm than good. Take a complex machine like an automobile and randomly move parts around. The odds are you will break it long before you improve it. It makes no conceptual sense.

To me a more complete and logical model of evolution would also include changes in natural selection itself, for any given environment. A forest fire can alter the environment and change who can and will be selected. This selection process will then gradually change as the forest grows back; larger animals appear.

An Ice Age can change the rules for selection, in all environments, so collective biological change is needed. The current theory is more like unnecessary change as though selective pressures are always the same. Adaptation to changing environments adds the brain to the selection formula, by using the brain to alter, adapt or migrate to where the weather suits your clothes.

If you look how/where various races of humans settled, at one point in time, this selection was mutual; good place to thrive and be selected. Places like China and India do a lot of propagating. The West tends to push population control, since they do not feel as selected. This could be due to the fast pace of change in free market materialist cultures that imports too much stuff.

I tend to believe there is cause and effect for genetic change. It may look random, but often it is about timing, where changes appear too early or tool late, relative to the changes in natural selection. It would be like moving to a new part of the country, to get a good job, and then the economy tanks. Now this once optimize change, is not optimize, and looks like a random mutation due to lack of selective advantages. If this had been done a year before, the story may have ended differently; selected to stay at the job.

 

[Valjean]

Ok, I don't disagree with that. But how are things then "naturally SELECTED?"

Reproductive variation exists. Children aren't clones of their parents. Siblings aren't clones of each other. I'm sure you've noticed that litters of kittens or puppies aren't all identical. This is due to chance.
But can't some of the siblings chance to have differences that confer a reproductive or survival advantage? The advantage is conferred by ('selected' by) the circumstances (environment) the varying individuals find themselves in. The advantages/disadvantages automatically follow from the circumstances.

This is common sense. It's a childishly simple concept. I don't understand how you can't understand it -- unless you're mentally retarded or consciously being obtuse.

 

[wellwisher]

What works survives and propagates.
What doesn't, dies and doesn't propagate.

What does and doesn't work is determined by the environment at large.


Natural selection.

There is also the effect of consciousness on evolution, such as the process of migration. One may not be suitable for a hot environment, so rather than stay and die, by not being selected by natural selection, you migrate to where it is cooler, so you can be selected. During the ice ages, animals were forced to consciously migrate to find places where they can be selected. The carnivores, following their food supply, made selection for them a moving target.

Darwin's theory of natural selection has logic to it based on natural potentials that push and pull on life. Science added a genetic randomizer variable that is not that well thought out. Random change will do more harm than good. Take a complex machine like an automobile and randomly move parts around. Or randomly move the lines of computer code around and see if you break it or innovate it. The odds are you will break it long before you improve it. It makes no conceptual sense.

To me a more complete and logical model of evolution would also include changes in natural selection itself, for any given environment. A forest fire can alter the environment and change who can and will be selected. This selection process will then gradually change as the forest grows back; larger animals appear.

An Ice Age can change the rules for selection, in all environments, so collective biological change is needed. The current theory is more like unnecessary change as though selective pressures are always the same. Adaptation to changing environments adds the brain to the selection formula, by using the brain to alter, adapt or migrate to where the weather suits your clothes.

If you look how/where various races of humans settled, at one point in time, this selection was mutual; good place to thrive and be selected. Places like China and India do a lot of propagating. The West tends to push population control, since they do not feel as selected. This could be due to the fast pace of change in free market materialist cultures that imports too much stuff.

I tend to believe there is cause and effect for genetic change. It may look random, but often it is about timing, where changes appear too early or tool late, relative to the changes in natural selection. It would be like moving to a new part of the country, to get a good job, and then the economy tanks. Now this once optimize change, is not optimize, and looks like a random mutation due to lack of selective advantages. If this had been done a year before, the story may have ended differently; selected to stay at the job.

 

[cladking]

What works survives and propagates.
What doesn't, dies and doesn't propagate.

What does and doesn't work is determined by the environment at large.


Natural selection.

A fast rooster might be so confident in its speed that it will take a chance eating the seeds where a fox often prowls. But a scared chicken might rather go hungry than take on the risk.

So which one has the better odds of survival? How many times did the chicken and the rooster see the fox? Is the rooster rally faster than the chicken? How many times has a biologist run this experiment with same individuals to get statistically significant results?

When the fox is distracted by having a sick kit how does this affect the odds? How many times does such an experiment need to be run?

Do you think nature will select for chicken or cockiness"?

Of course you believe it's all automatic and nature works its miracle without any concern for any specifics but this is the exact same miracle that God performs. Unlike nature He knows in advance who will live and who will die and He can affect the outcome. He can add the element of randomness at will while nature is at the mercy of scared or confident abstractions we call "poultry".

 

[Pogo]

Please get off this fish-to-ape kick. You've demonstrated that the whole subject's over your head.
We're talking about reproductive variation observable today, and how the small differences might be advantageous or disadvantageous, depending on environment.
Do you really think a slow gazelle's chance of surviving in lion country is equal to that of a fast gazelle?

No evidence of natural selection? How about the peppered moths, passenger pigeons, or coyotes and raccoons?
You say some species aren't around due to deleterious features? How is that not exactly what we've been talking about?

Which leads to the question of whether the Dodo is truly extinct.
Horizontal gene transfer?

 

[Pogo]

What on Earth, does smashing cars have to do Evolution?!

Darwin Awards: Evolutionary Action

Darwin Awards: Vote for the Award Nominees! The Darwin Awards commemorate the (remains of) individuals who contribute to the improvement of our gene pool by removing themselves from it. Enter this portal for stories from the Darwin Awards.

darwinawards.com

 

[cladking]

Unlike nature He knows in advance who will live and who will die and He can affect the outcome. He can add the element of randomness at will while nature is at the mercy of scared or confident abstractions we call "poultry".

It's not nature that results from scared chickens because nature existed before any chicken crossed the road or any treee fell in a forest with or without someone to hear it. Life is consciousness. Life evolved to reflect consciousness and not to give Darwin a "theory" on why species
change over time.

Darwin resulted from consciousness as surely as any poultry.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

So I get you correctly, but it seems to you there's no third side in this situation. The Bible Capture that in (Revelation 3:16 [So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth.])

as nicely put here (“The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.” Attributed to Edmund Burke, including by John F Kennedy in a speech in 1961.)

If you are never supported, you are simply against and that is where it ends. The human mind always wants to find a loophole in everything but it's only in your head. That's what you believe to be true, relative absolute but we're dealing with an objective absolute.

if you are placed in the position to help only five people but you have ten people available out of which only five supported you, are you going to leave your supporters and save those who never chose sides?

What? Was this intended for somebody else? Why are you quoting me scripture? Evil isn't part of my world and is unrelated to my comment. Loophole to what? What does being supported have to do with my comment to you, which was,

"My belief isn't that there is no god, which is why I call myself an agnostic atheist. My atheism is the logical product of two beliefs, namely that gods cannot be ruled in or out and that one shouldn't believe anything without sufficient empiric support. If one believes those things, he will conclude that agnostic atheism is the only rational position, which is a third belief derived from the first two. The only belief I have that derives from that is that there is no reason to have a religion. If you're saying that one either believes that there is a god or the opposite of that, then I disagree. There is a third position possible: agnosticism, which is neither a claim that something is true or false, but an "I don't know" answer. I am quite confident that agnostic atheism is the only rational position for a critically thinking empiricist to hold. If you disagree, please explain why. Falsify (rebut) the claim if you think you can."

Did you want to address that content this time?

agnostic atheism can't live out its objectives.

What (again)? I'm the one living out my objectives, not an ism. My life is exactly what I intended it to be (retired now). It's safe, easy, worry-free, and stimulating. I have a loving wife whom I love, a home that is how we like it (solar powered storage batteries being installed today as an adjunct to our roof panels to protect against power failures), and two dogs. We played in a bridge tournament yesterday (did poorly), had a nice dinner out afterward, are going to a birthday party tonight, and into Guadalajara to the country club there for more bridge and some fine dining Saturday in a shuttle for twelve of us from my local bridge club, including Sonny, tonight's birthday boy and my online bridge partner (I play with my wife in the club). She's becoming proficient on ukulele currently and belongs to an artists' club and a garden club.

What else does one want out of life? And most of our friends live an equal life, although some are not atheists, but none are zealous theists. (Sonny's a church goer, but he never discusses religion).

So what life advice did you want to give me? Join a church? Start embracing faith?

 

[Valjean]

I understand that, did a term paper on that. Where's the SELECTION? Or is it attraction? Or is it rather hit or miss? Remember, and I repeat, I used to believe everything they taught in science.

Sometimes it's attraction. Female peahens choose to mate with the males with the most impressive tails. Female moose choose mates with the biggest antlers.
Sometimes it's hit or miss -- in the sense that a slow pitch is more likely to be hit than a fast one, as a slow gazelle is more likely to get eaten than a fast one.

 

[Valjean]

My approach is honest and factual. You seem angry and lashing out. Too much caffeine? Or sour grapes because I won't follow you down the rabbit hole?

I'm not going to play games with you or anyone else on here anymore.

What you are doing makes talking with you uninteresting to me. That's just the way it is. Have better fruit and you might get better results.

It's like trying to explain something to a cat....

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

The people of Yonada think they live on a planet, but it is really a spaceship that was built by their ancestors to save the species and send them to a new world when their solar system was dying. For some reason, it was determined that they should be kept ignorant of this and controlled with pain and death by the computer that runs the ship. Surrounded by technology and living next to a database of the entire knowledge of their people, they revert to a sort of unquestioning worship of the computer and slowly lose or suppress the curiosity that was the foundation for the knowledge that saved them in the first place. Irony.

A boy, now an old man, remembers when he broke the rules and climbed the forbidden mountain to end up touching the sky that should be untouchable as a solid object. His knowledge brought him death. It is very similar in ways to the flight of Icarus. I don't know this, but surely that story was some inspiration for the story of the episode.

Yes, since I posted to you yesterday, I've watched that episode.

Here, today, we have all these people telling us to remain ignorant. Don't touch the sky, it is forbidden. Listen to the words of men and heed them. Don't learn.

I can't abide that. In the end, destruction of the Oracle, or at least the personality of the computer, frees the people and saves them from destruction as they had gone off course and were going to ultimately collide with another planet if they stayed on the path they were commanded to follow without thought.

I see a lot of parallels between that story and these threads.

Very creative of you.

I also just like the sound and wording of the title. It has this feel that pleases me.

I liked it, too. And a few other episode titles from season 3 including And The Children Shall Lead and Is There In Truth No Beauty?

 

[cladking]

So what life advice did you want to give me? Join a church? Start embracing faith?

Having fun and leaving the world a better place is all anyone needs to do.

You could perform a lot more experiments though.