Atheists believe in miracles more than believers

[John53]

This isn't the work I was referring to, but it is related.

An Upper Palaeolithic Proto-writing System and Phenological Calendar | Cambridge Archaeological Journal | Cambridge Core

OK I read it but I can't claim to fully comprehend it.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

My breeding days were fairly comical.

I don't even know how to respond to that...





Mine too.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

OK I read it but I can't claim to fully comprehend it.

I haven't read that particular paper yet. I'm still trying to find where I put the others so I can find them online and send you a link or pdf.

 

[firedragon]

Don't be obtuse.There have been millions of verifications since Darwin's time.

Can you provide a so called "verification" of random gradual mutation?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I am aware the breadth of my ignorance is extensive. No, not just the ignorance of our entire species but mine goes beyond this because I don't even try to know anything beyond metaphysics and a few subjects that interest me. Indeed, knowledge, especially book knowledge can be an impediment to me. I appreciate all experiential knowledge and metaphysics. This makes my experiments and observations quite interesting to me.

One summer I battled houseflies in a common area in a public place where food was prepared and eaten and was dirty. I would periodically grab a flyswatter and murder every fly I saw. Several observations came from this but the most relevant one was that each time I killed a smaller percentage of all the flies that were buzzing about when I started. Some would head for the hills and some would land under tables and chairs. They were not only displaying individual intelligence, which was hardly surprising to me, but subsequent generations had increasing percentages that lived under the furniture except to come out and feed.

I've seen these same things in other "species". Mosquitos can practically smell my mosquito sump since large percentages of entire generations have been eradicated in them. I could probably make a million with a simple patent on it. You just need to dump the few day old larvae on the ground.

We see insects as unconscious drones much as Darwin did despite the fact we can even interpret Bee Language now. I find it obvious insects are intelligent (smarter than some people I know), but we downplay any intelligence that can't manipulate abstractions. If a chimp can't elaborate on "I think therefore I am" then the lack of appropriate response is interpreted to mean chimps can't think. This isn't far wrong but it's highly misleading in a world where we've deluded ourselves into believing there's such a thing as "intelligence" and by God we got it!

All experiment including my own suggest that life is consciousness and that it's consciousness which determines survival. Consciousness is natures way not only to ensure individual survival but through the capriciousness of nature leads to change in species which occurs suddenly like all other known change in life on the individual and "species" level. Science doesn't take years to change its mind but rather bides its time until some famous scientific foot dragger shuffles off the mortal coil. This is life. Sudden change defines life and consciousness. Just as a summer intern could prove linear funiculars he might also invent upside down flies. It never takes long for the world to be stood on its ear.

Before I completely wrap this up, I wanted to address what I see as another confusion you have regarding speciation. Speciation does not occur in an individual. Parents of a species do not reproduce offspring of a new or different species. It doesn't work that way. The evidence supports that. It isn't a claim of the theory of evolution. It does seem to be your belief. How you came about that, I have no idea, but it is incorrect.

Let's assume the flies you encountered were all of a single species. The ones that you killed remained that species. The ones that survived remained that species. Any offspring were also of that species. Selecting for a new trait, and that is what you claim you were doing, artificial selection, does not suddenly change individuals or groups of individuals into a new species. No scientist claims that. Darwin didn't didn't claim that.

I predict that nothing I have posted over the last few days will be reviewed with any attempt to understand. That's all right. I tried. But it doesn't leave us anywhere to go. There is no common ground for us. I'm trained as a scientist and you seem to want to be one without bothering to experience, learn or understand. That is oil and water.

Good luck to you. I'll correct your errors for the benefit of others, but I don't see further attempts at discussion and debate worth the effort.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Can you provide a so called "verification" of random gradual mutation?

The Origin of Species is a good start. Or try some of the books by Donald Prothero. He's a good writer with a non-technical audience in mind for some of his general works.

Are were you looking for something more specific?

 

[Valjean]

Can you provide a so called "verification" of random gradual mutation?

Whales.

 

[firedragon]

The Origin of Species is a good start. Or try some of the books by Donald Prothero. He's a good writer with a non-technical audience in mind for some of his general works.

Are were you looking for something more specific?

Yes. Specific.

 

[firedragon]

Whales.

Yeah. I like whales.

So again, please provide a so called "verification" of random gradual mutation.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

I just illustrated to you with the bees that it doesn't. Some are queens, some are workers, and some are drones. Does that mean 1/3 each to you?

OK, my friend, I’ll cover this one more time….

To answer your question above: NO!

Not when, on average, worldwide there are 20,000x more workers in existence than queens, and 100x to 150x more drones than queens!

Does saying there are “some” for each group sound acceptable, to you?

Not to me. Unless I was trying to downplay the number of workers, and inflate the number of queens for some reason.


I sincerely hope you & your family are staying healthy & safe too!

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Only according by your own personal definition.

No. By implication of the words "brings about.." and "follows..."

That has been addressed multiple times………..

You mean "ignored"

as I said before, I agree that any cause-effect relation that is restricted by GR has to follow the rules of GR. including "the cause come before the effect)

But I don’t grant that everything (let alone the cause of the universe) has that restriction……..and you haven’t done anything to show the opposite. ……….

You can claim whatever you wish. That doesn't change the evidence of reality or the physical phenomenon of causality.

.therefore we are stock in “it true because I say so”

Physics says so.

Yes "I dont know" would be the actual answer

Then stop saying otherwise.

……………… the problem is that you seem to know with nearly 100% certainty that everything (literally everything that exists) is restricted by GR………….but for some reason you haven’t done anything o support such a radical and controversial claim

I'm just saying it is absurd to invoke the physics of the universe, to explain the universe.
And you actually pretty much agree with that as per your own analogy that you can't explain the first computer by invoking another computer.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Can you provide a so called "verification" of random gradual mutation?

The bolded part is nonsensical.
"random gradual" mutation?

You seem to be mixing things up.

Mutations are random with respect to fitness.
Evolutionary change (= the accumulation of mutations over generations by being passed on to off spring) happens gradually.

 

[John53]

Yes. Specific.

You're asking someone on an internet forum to do years of work and write something that would be the size of a book.

If you are truly interested and not just trying to score points against the evil evolution believers then Peter and Rosemary Grant have written several books about the Galapagos Finches. I suggest trying them. There's a list of their books towards the bottom of this page....

Peter and Rosemary Grant - Wikipedia

 

[ratiocinator]

That has been addressed multiple times………..as I said before, I agree that any cause-effect relation that is restricted by GR has to follow the rules of GR. including "the cause come before the effect)


But I don’t grant that everything (let alone the cause of the universe) has that restriction……..and you haven’t done anything to show the opposite. ………..therefore we are stock in “it true because I say so”

I think part of (all of?) your problem is that causation needs something to happen—even if it's simultaneous (another temporal and relative term)—and things happening are just points in spacetime. We define causal relationships between these points, depending on their relationships in the 'landscape' of the manifold.

But, the manifold itself didn't happen. It never changes. It makes no sense to say that it would. All we have is a fixed 'landscape'. It 'just is'.

Yes "I dont know" would be the actual answer……………… the problem is that you seem to know with nearly 100% certainty that everything (literally everything that exists) is restricted by GR………….but for some reason you haven’t done anything o support such a radical and controversial claim

No, not everything has to follow GR (maybe nothing does, and it's just a good approximation), but without it (assuming it's correct), we have no time, except as paths through it, and, when we look at it as a whole, nothing happens.

How do you have a cause for something that is entirely fixed, not subject to time, and for which even simultaneity is meaningless (for it as a whole.).

Why are you so desperately clinging to applying the language of time to something that is timeless?

ETA: Also, even if you insist on the misuse of the language, whether time is finite in the past or not is irrelevant to any proposed 'cause'.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

The bolded part is nonsensical.
"random gradual" mutation?

You seem to be mixing things up.

Mutations are random with respect to fitness.
Evolutionary change (= the accumulation of mutations over generations by being passed on to off spring) happens gradually.

Good catch.

I read that and corrected it in my head without a thought.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

You're asking someone on an internet forum to do years of work and write something that would be the size of a book.

If you are truly interested and not just trying to score points against the evil evolution believers then Peter and Rosemary Grant have written several books about the Galapagos Finches. I suggest trying them. There's a list of their books towards the bottom of this page....

Peter and Rosemary Grant - Wikipedia

Surely you can give me a one sentence statement that explains 200 years of science. Or provide me with 10 years of advanced education in the brief space of this post.

 

[shunyadragon]

The bolded part is nonsensical.
"random gradual" mutation?

You seem to be mixing things up.

Mutations are random with respect to fitness.

A little disagreement here on how this is worded. As a general statement this is not true. It is true the timing and occurrence of mutations is random. The fact that mutations in and of themselves do not determine fitness is not true randomness. It is simply the physical nature of some kinds of mutation that fitness is not determined to varying degrees. Some types of mutations are to a degree protected form harmful mutations.

New study provides first evidence of non-random mutations in DNA.

The non-random pattern in mutations between gene and non-gene regions of DNA suggests that there is a defensive mechanism in place to prevent potentially disastrous mutations.

"In genes coding for proteins essential for survival and reproduction, mutations are most likely to have harmful effects, potentially causing disease and even death," Monroe said. "Our results show that genes, and essential genes in particular, experience a lower mutation rate than non-gene regions in Arabidopsis. The result is that offspring have a lower chance of inheriting a harmful mutation."

Researchers found that to protect themselves, essential genes send out special signals to DNA repair proteins. This signaling is not done by the DNA itself but by histones, specialized proteins DNA wraps around to make up chromosomes.

"Based on the result of our study, we found that gene regions, especially for the most biologically essential genes, are wrapped around histones with particular chemical marks," Monroe said. "We think these chemical marks are acting as molecular signals to promote DNA repair in these regions."

Evolutionary change the accumulation of mutations over generations by being passed on to off spring) happens gradually.

It should be emphasized that Natural selection is not a random process,

 

[cladking]

Speciation does not occur in an individual.

Just for the record I never said speciation does occur to an individual. I said new species arise full blown and as such are not the same species as the parents. They are typically quite similar, but every individual being the same species as its parents, as Darwin believed, runs counter his own concept that species "Evolve". It is illogical. I believe the fossil record shows no missing links because there never were missing links. Species change in tiny, small, or large jumps between generations and not within them.

Let's assume the flies you encountered were all of a single species. The ones that you killed remained that species. The ones that survived remained that species. Any offspring were also of that species. Selecting for a new trait, and that is what you claim you were doing, artificial selection, does not suddenly change individuals or groups of individuals into a new species.

Perhaps if I had imposed an artificial bottleneck on flies according to some fundamental characteristic of flies I would have created a new species. Perhaps if there were a sufficiently genetically robust population of wingless flies and these were left alone or a population of flies that didn't like sugar they would have produced a change in species. There are always individuals within populations which are different because of genes and a behavior that reflects these genes and the experience of their always individual consciousness.

Behavior is driven by genes and experience.

Mother nature is a mad experimenter and reality is very complex.

I predict that nothing I have posted over the last few days will be reviewed with any attempt to understand. That's all right. I tried. But it doesn't leave us anywhere to go. There is no common ground for us. I'm trained as a scientist and you seem to want to be one without bothering to experience, learn or understand. That is oil and water.

Perhaps no one empathizes with your perspective more than I. I don't even disagree really and just see every word from a different perspective. I'll continue to read your posts and follow links as appropriate but we're only going to agree on some of the broadest points. I'll certainly continue to watch for experiment and facts that show me to be wrong knowing full well it not only could happen but if Darwin was right probably will at least in the long run.

 

[firedragon]

You're asking someone on an internet forum to do years of work and write something that would be the size of a book.

No. An example would be fine.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

on average, worldwide there are 20,000x more workers in existence than queens, and 100x to 150x more drones than queens! Does saying there are “some” for each group sound acceptable, to you? Not to me. Unless I was trying to downplay the number of workers, and inflate the number of queens for some reason.

Yes, there are some of each in a hive. That sounds like proper usage. I don't where you got a different idea of what some means. You're using the word to mean an equal amount rather than an unspecified amount. Look at these dictionary entries:

In any event, if you didn't know before, you know now that you have an anomalous understanding of that usage. That doesn't mean you need to change, but if you want to be understood and you want to understand others who use the word more typically, it will help to keep that in mind.

If you are asking me, do I agree with the bible the answer is absolutely no. That mythology has nothing to do with me. Do I accept the mythology I use then yes, it is truth to me. The story of the hobbit has amazing truth within it but one must open up to what Tolkin was trying to tell us. Harry potter contains some very interesting mythology whether the author really understood it.

OK. My experience has been very different. All I find there is entertainment value or less. I understand that these sources, Aesop's fables, and Shakespeare tragedies all feature some common human situations, but that kind of thing was only meaningful as a child (the boy who cried wolf, the three pigs), and no more so than aphorisms like "Look before you leap"

To give an example of what I mean the myth of the goddess Boann who becomes the Boyne River of Ireland has incredible wisdom in it. It tells us the greatest wisdom of our world comes from the natural world and not from some supernatural being. It is the spring of Segis with the hazelnuts that fall into it and represent the 5 senses we have. Boann is dismembered in the spring and becomes the river Boyne. Thus, in her sacrifice she emerges as something greater that permeates the land of Ireland connecting all things. For someone on journeying in the pagan path, all wisdom comes from nature which means that evolution is exactly what the shaping forces of nature can do without any influence of any supernatural whatever. Thus, they Irish myths contain truths of relationship which is amazingly connected to our world. The problem has been in a western culture of rational view could not understand their message because the message was never literal. It is poetic, metaphorical and it is own way magical.

OK, this one is nice. I came to a similar conclusion about nature through a different path not involving any mythology, although I like and use the expression Mother Nature.

Science was my path to spirituality. Here's an excerpt from a kindred spirit from a transcript of a video entitled "Science Saved My Soul":

"When I looked at the galaxy that night, I knew the faintest twinkle of starlight was a real connection between my comprehending eye along a narrow beam of light to the surface of another sun. The photons my eyes detect (the light I see, the energy with which my nerves interact) came from that star. I thought I could never touch it, yet something from it crosses the void and touches me. I might never have known. My eyes saw only a tiny point of light, but my mind saw so much more."

[snip]

"The body of a newborn baby is as old as the cosmos. The form is new and unique, but the materials are 13.7 billion years old, processed by nuclear fusion in stars, fashioned by electromagnetism."

This to me is the spiritual experience - a sense of connection to nature and life combined with a sense of awe, a sense of mystery, and a sense of gratitude. But the path to understanding and experiencing that doesn't involve myths like the one you provided. For me, it was education and life experience.

Myths never did that for me, and biblical myths are utterly useless to me as I alluded earlier here. I really don't understand why people say that there is deep meaning there.

I hope this answers your question if not i will try to do better.

You did fine. Thanks.