Atheists believe in miracles more than believers

[YoursTrue]

I argue that it does verify the ToE.
But it doesn't prove the ToE.

I know what you mean. But I'm purty sure you would agree that verifying the theory (in some people's minds) doesn't mean the theory is TRUE. Maybe you think that verifying the theory means it's true. I don't think so.

 

[firedragon]

Not a steel man argument and nothing to do with theology or metaphysics.

I don't think you understood what steel man means. Steelman is not an argument. It's to make sure I got you correctly. To make sure I understood you properly.

The rest of the same post is a non-answer. Thanks.

 

[firedragon]

yeah--random gradual mutation till it catches on and forms a new species, evidently for the betterment of the "population.". (Is that good enough?) Oh, EVENTUALLY forms a new species -- not right away. <small smile here>

How did you verify it. That was the claim. Not yours. But you are now answering for someone else. What was the verification done to prove it was Random and gradual mutation?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I don't think you understood what steel man means. Steelman is not an argument. It's to make sure I got you correctly. To make sure I understood you properly.

The rest of the same post is a non-answer. Thanks.

You misunderstood. I got that. Thanks.

 

[firedragon]

You misunderstood. I got that. Thanks.

Excellent. I am glad you're happy. Cheers.

 

[Revoltingest]

I know what you mean. But I'm purty sure you would agree that verifying the theory (in some people's minds) doesn't mean the theory is TRUE. Maybe you think that verifying the theory means it's true. I don't think so.

No statements about the material (or supernatural) world are true.
All have the potential of being refuted, eg, Newton's laws.
They are at best "useful".
And claims about the supernatural are "not even wrong",
ie, "nicht einmal falsch".

The quotes are from Popper & Pauli.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Excellent. I am glad you're happy. Cheers.

I'm overjoyed that you are glad.

Have a wonderful day.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

If you think those words imply “in time” then change the words and use any other words that you find convenient………………..why do you keep insisting on semantics?

Why would I change the words to make YOUR statements mean something different then what you are expressing?
And then you complain about semantics................

Why would the cause of the universe be limited by the laws of the universe?

Causality is a phenomenon of physics. The physics of the universe.
It is no different then trying to invoke chemistry in a context where there are no chemically active elements.

The computer analogy has nothing to do with physics it has to do with logic………….logically speaking the first computer can´t be caused by a preexisting computer

And logically speaking whatever originated the universe cannot involve the physics of the universe (like causality).

……………you may or may not agree, but the point is that it is not analogous………………

The logic is.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

perhaps not, perhaps mutations are not always random

That article does not say what you think it says.

I'm talking about random with respect to fitness.
The article is talking about certain regions having lower mutation rates then other regions.
These low mutation-rate regions concern the more essential, fundamental genes. The explanation given is that the organism evolved a self-protection mechanism making essential genes less prone to mutation.


“These are the really important regions of the genome,” Monroe said. “The areas that are the most biologically important are the ones being protected from mutation.”
The areas are also sensitive to the harmful effects of new mutations. “DNA damage repair seems therefore to be particularly effective in these regions,” Weigel added.

 

[cladking]

That would be a form of speciation of the individual.

I said there is no such thing as "species" at all and you say I believe an individual can change his species.

Obviously you are deconstructing my sentences in your terms rather than mine. This works OK to maintain your existing beliefs but it is the root cause of our inability to communicate.

It would be impossible and logically inconsistent to believe every individual is the same species as its parents, no matter how you define "species" and then say that species change. Yes! I heard you say that Darwin believed a "species" is defined as all of its incarnations but these can not each manifest simultaneously and no evidence shows that the morphing over time resulted from survival of the fittest.

Yes, you might object that each manifestation still exists within its genome but, again, most of the definitional and evidential problems remain. These older versions of the species were still each conscious individuals whether they reproduced or not. They are still distinct from the existing "species' and the path to the existing species was still a random walk that has not been shown to be based on some abstraction like "fitness". There remains the logical inconsistency that if the species Evolved according to "fitness" then each generation must be fitter than the last.

I can parse your sentences accordingly.

More likely small changes accumulated over time from one generation to the next. But this runs counter to what you said above where you claim species reproduce new species individually.

You can't step into the same river twice. This is reality not some philosophical precept. For every practical purpose every individual is a different species than its parents or siblings. I have a virtually "identical" twin who's two years older. The fixation on what individuals have in common is what led to Darwin. Individuals are an amalgam of their parents and hence are much more different than the rest of their "species' and more like their siblings. No doubt when bottlenecks appear most individuals have a far higher probability of being more closely related to other survivors. When the tamest wolves were selected to breed dogs each selected individual was more likely to be closely or distantly related to those selected than those which were not.

If you must see this in your terms then fine but just because you use Darwin's terminology does not make either of you correct. It just means you can communicate more easily with those who share your beliefs. The earth can be defined as "flat" but we don't do it because it makes the math too complicated. Darwin has complicated the means by which species change and overlooked the mechanisms.

But only the genetic portion of that is heritable. Experience is an acquired characteristic that is not heritable. Like calloused hands.

In homo omnisciencis this is very true. But all other life forms including the extinct homo sapiens this is not true. We experience reality in terms of our beliefs but the others experience it in terms of what they know. Their brains come to reflect reality. Their brains are the models of reality itself and the process results from the wiring of the brain with which they perceive reality and gain experience. This is the nature of consciousness which is individual and which Darwin couldn't see.

 

[shunyadragon]

What do you mean that natural selection has also been determined to not be random as you say above? Don't you mean that the progression of changes by mutations and transference of DNA and changes started out by random changes? Unless you think they were thought about.

No. first Natural Selection is only dependent on the genetic diversity of a population as a result environmental change. Mutations simply increase the genetic diversity of a population whether they are random or not.

The only thing that has been objectively determined is that the timing and occurrence of individual is random. References have been provided that not only the processes of genetic mutation are not random, but many types of genetic mutation are not random.

 

[shunyadragon]

On a related note on new concepts on mutation I ran across this today:

Zooplankton study challenges traditional views of evolution

In new research, Arizona State University scientists and their colleagues investigated genetic changes occurring in a naturally isolated population of the water flea, Daphnia pulex. This tiny crustacean, barely visible to the naked eye, plays a crucial role in freshwater ecosystems and offers a...

phys.org

I saw this. I believe the important note of this research is:

"In seemingly stable environments, there is significant fluctuation in the frequency of gene variants known as alleles at specific chromosomal regions over time, even if the overall strength of selection remains near zero on average over many years. This suggests that such genetic variation allows populations to remain adaptable to environmental changes.

"This study has, for the first time, given us a glimpse into the kinds of temporal changes in gene frequencies that occur even in seemingly constant environments, a sort of ongoing churn of genetic variation distributed across the genome," says Michael Lynch, lead author of the new study."

 

[Kfox]

Atheism may not address that question, but the question is since atheists do not believe in a higher intelligent power, then there obviously could not be an unseen intelligence with power that caused life to begin.

Life begins? Life comes from prior life. Atheists are not required to believe there was a time in history when life did not exist.

 

[shunyadragon]

Sincerely, if I understood you correctly you are deeming theology and the metaphysical as meaningless thought and it and its adherents challenge science(s)? Is that a steal man of your statement?

First it is true that many adherents to Theism reject science based on an ancient tribal agenda without science.

Yes atheists will deem theology and the metaphysical as meaningless this is an obvious given.

Science is based only on the physical nature of our existence and indifferent to adversarial Atheist and Theist beliefs.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

....

Causality is a phenomenon of physics. The physics of the universe.
It is no different then trying to invoke chemistry in a context where there are no chemically active elements.

...

When I google causality, the first result I get claim that it is a part of metaphysics. Now you might be able to give a link to a text, that explain how it is physics. If that is so, I would like to read it.

 

[shunyadragon]

Life begins? Life comes from prior life. Atheists are not required to believe there was a time in history when life did not exist.

Science is not dependent on Atheist nor Theist agendas.

There is objective verifiable evidence that at one point in the geologic history of the earth life did not exists, About 4.2 billion years ago the environment at hydrothermal vents in the ocean became ideal for the beginning of life and the first primitive life formed

Abiogenesis and evolution are dependent on the environment and changing environments.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

When I google causality, the first result I get claim that it is a part of metaphysics. Now you might be able to give a link to a text, that explain how it is physics. If that is so, I would like to read it.

Likely because google serves you with links on what it thinks might interest you, based on your browser history. I, for example, get different results.

If a flat earther googles "moon landing" it will get served with plenty of links to conspiracy websites saying the moon landing never happened.
You can find all sorts of nonsense on the internet.

 

[shunyadragon]

When I google causality, the first result I get claim that it is a part of metaphysics. Now you might be able to give a link to a text, that explain how it is physics. If that is so, I would like to read it.

This is a basic summary of the relationship between science and causality: This is a direct objective observation causal explanations and effect in science. Note the text of the references below do not mention philosophy. Humans have been using causal explanations to their advantage ever since and actually before humans have been human without any consideration of philosophy.

"Causality is a fundamental concept in science that studies how things influence one another and how causes lead to effects. It's a central idea in many scientific disciplines, including biology, econometrics, epidemiology, and physics.

In science, a causal relationship exists between two variables when a change in one variable causes a change in the other. For example, hot, dry, and sunny weather can cause people to buy more ice cream than cold weather. However, correlation does not imply causality, as it's possible for two variables to be associated without one causing the other's behavior.

Scientists seek to identify the causes of natural phenomena and discover the relationships between causes and effects. This is based on the assumption that explaining the cause of a phenomenon explains the phenomenon itself. However, modern science presents some challenges to this view, such as Einstein's theories of relativity, which show that time can warp due to large masses or high speeds. This means that it's not always possible to string causes and effects along a single line of time."

References for further details of causality and science.

Causality

Causality is the study of how things influence one other, how causes lead to effects.

www.newscientist.com

Causal Approaches to Scientific Explanation (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

 

[shunyadragon]

How did you verify it. That was the claim. Not yours. But you are now answering for someone else. What was the verification done to prove it was Random and gradual mutation?

Firs evolution is not dependent on random gradual mutation. The processes of mutation are not random. Evolution is dependent on the environment and and environmental change.

There is no such thing as "verification done to prove it was Random and gradual mutation."

 

[shunyadragon]

Careful with that word random, its negation is often seen as directed when what you mean is variation for the environment to select.

Natural Selection is a non random process independent of genetic mutation whether mutations are random or not. The "processes" of genetic mutation are not random they are determined by Natural Laws and predictable. The only aspects of genetic mutations that are documented as random are the timing and the occurrence of individual mutations. The patterns of genetic mutations are predictable over time within a possible range of outcomes. and as described in references has been increasingly demonstrated as not random.

Randomness is one of the most misunderstood and misused concepts by scientists and layman. These are relects of old views in science and religious layman trying to justify their agenda. For amusement I read a scientific research paper describe fractal relationships as "almost random."