I feel better knowing that the Jehovah's Witnesses agree with me that a literal interpretation of the Bible isn't warranted or useful. A day in the Bible isn't 24 hours and rest and refresh means stopping.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Darwin's Illusion
- Thread starter Neuropteron
- Start date
And plus it must be taken in context with understanding.
"The Israelites must keep the Sabbath; they must observe the Sabbath during all their generations. It is a lasting covenant. 17 It is an enduring sign between me and the people of Israel, for in six days Jehovah made the heavens and the earth and on the seventh day he rested and refreshed himself." (It's not like He took a vacation, or slept or lounged around.)
Genesis 2:2 - "And by the seventh day, God had completed the work that he had been doing, and he began to rest on the seventh day from all his work that he had been doing." That happened, btw, after He created Adam and Eve. Interesting but finer point.
Even on the sabbath day, as Jesus expressed, people had to function. They didn't just lay around. Which brings to mind that Jesus was condemned by religious leaders for doing certain things on the weekly sabbath day. Like he said, if one's animal got stuck, he'd "work" to bring it up. So it's not like God took a vacation. Jesus said that his Father kept working. I bring to your attention John 5:17 which says, "But he answered them “My Father is working till now, and I am working.” He was assailed because he cured a man on a Sabbath and even told the healed man to carry his cot. Something the religious leaders did not like. So he replied that his Father keeps working. Thus we have to understand what a day is, and what resting is. In God's eyes and especially what it means that He rested on the 7th day.
I'm done for the evening. There doesn't seem to be anything I find worth discussing to be available right now.
Wayelll, Dan, I'm glad you feel better. I hope you mean it when you say that you agree the use of the word day in the Bible doesn't necessarily mean a 24-hour period from evening to the next evening, but can mean a period of time with a beginning and an end. Even the term "a day's journey" doesn't have to mean 24 hours. So glad we agree on that! (I hope.)
cladking
Well-Known Member
And every individual without the characteristics desired by the breeder might as well be dead (artificial bottleneck).
Since every individual is unique we could even think of nature as many series of artificial bottlenecks, however at any time in the future other genes can and typically will reenter the populations. This is why Evolution doesn't exist; all individuals are fit and there is an ongoing mixture of genes. When nature selects for behavior at bottlenecks which is typically how bottlenecks occur, a new species can arise with the genes that caused that behavior. Behavior is not derived from instinct as we believe; it derives from consciousness which in turn derives from logic of the brain (remember logic incarnate).
You can not breed for red fur or anything else by selecting individuals at random. Nature doesn't select fitness. Or more accurately even though very often she kindda does the fact is all individuals are fit so no such selecting will result in change in species. Nothing in nature is static. Niches simply don't last long enough to make any significant change in species.
The scripture doesn't just say that he rested. It was a day of rest following six days of creation, each with a sunset and a sunrise, and a commandment to do the same for what was understood to be one 24-hour period from sunset to sunset. My comment about why that likely appears in scripture is a reasonable explanation for that odd addition to a creation story. I'm not aware of other gods needing six days to create or one to rest. The believer might not question why those words appear there, but the skeptic should.
Likewise with the flood story, which also depicts the creator in an unflattering way. It blames its creation for not being what it wants them to be, murders most of them and most other terrestrial life in a cruel manner, and then uses the same breeding stock to repopulate the earth. The believer is loathe to think so, but that's the story of an immoral and not-too-bright deity. Why is it in there? There is a naturalistic reason. Like the day of rest, it solved some problem or answered some question, or else it wouldn't be there. Our job is to decide why. My answer? The discovery of seashells and other marine fossils on the highest mountaintops. How did they get there? What would be your answer if you were an ancient Hebrew who believed that he lived in a world run by a tri-omni god? Mine would be that God flooded the earth. It wouldn't have happened without his blessings and effort. So why? What's the usual answer for adversity in human life? God is punishing man. Why? What's the usual reason, the only reason? Punishment for sin.
You're guessing, and without supporting evidence from scripture. You learned elsewhere that the universe evolved over billions of years and not six days, so you apply that to scripture and assume that its writers channeling the creator of everything knew that, too. But they didn't, and the evidence I just summarized involving days of creation with sunrises and sunsets in them and a Sabbath that is from sunset to sunset strongly support the thesis that the ancients meant and believed 24-hour days.
For how many hours and how frequently must they keep the Sabbath? Why do you suppose that they were commanded to do so? Would it serve God or would it serve the priests? Who benefits from a weekly Sabbath?
Last edited:
If you are arguing that artificial selection creates a functional bottleneck artificially, that is reasonable. What's your greater point that that fact supports and your reason for making it in this discussion?
Bottleneck refers to a population's gene pool's relatively small size and constricted allele frequencies. How are you applying that to the individual and his unique genome?
Nature doesn't select for behavior per se, but for behavior that facilitates reproduction. Is this your proposed alternative mechanism for biological evolution intended to replace natural selection applied to the genetic variation in populations across generations?
Some is. Chicks know how to burrow out of eggs and mammals are born knowing how to nurse. We call that behavior instinct to distinguish it from empirically acquired skills.
Fitness is defined as the quality which the individuals in a population who reproduce most prolifically posses.
Last edited:
But they aren't dead and their diversity still exists. Not even a bottleneck. You really don't evaluate your thoughts very well from the look of it and think this through do you.
But these aren't bottlenecks. They are the genepool.
Evolution is a fact with a theory to explain it. Nothing you pontificate is remotely supported by evidence.
All individuals have a level of fitness relevant to the selection of the enivornment.
To varying degrees within and between populations.
It doesn't. There is no evidence that your fantasy belief about breeding is a fact. Think it through. Read some actual science on these things. Don't just imagine it up and speculate it from your tea leaves.
No. Bottleneck events are events that reduce the actual numbers and actual diversity of a population. They are not whatever erroneous, short-sighted thing you claim for them without benefit of any evidence. You are not the source of biological knowledge.
Nonsense. Nothing supported by fact, evidence or experiment.
It isn't derived from anything you claim without support either.
Not entirely.
I don't care about your mantras. Just the evidence and reason. You should try that sometime.
No one claims that breeders select individuals at random. If you think that is the case, you know less about breeding than I suspected. Which was a pretty low opinion from the start.
It does. We have the evidence that you don't understand and ignore in favor of what you believe about nature without evidence. I'm going with evidence and experiment. It's an easy choice.
All individuals have a level of fitness relative to the selection of the environment.
It has been documented. Sorry you don't understand biology or the experiments that have been conducted. That's your own fault in my opinion. You seem to see yourself as the source of information in these things. You give no one any reason to see that too.
So. That doesn't address anything discussed here. It's not an area of contention.
There is no evidence you understand niche, let alone how long they persist. It has nothing to do with your erroneous claims about breeding and bottlenecks.
You are just all over the place like a fish out of water flopping and flipping hoping the next one sends you to water.
gnostic
The Lost One
He referred to himself as a “generalist”.
Basically he is an armchair philosopher, with, as far as I can tell no qualifications or experiences in any field of science...
...not unless he is the so-called “nexialist”, which don’t exist except in a sci-fi novel.
I'm curious how an individual would reduce its genetic diversity and it's numbers. I usually call that death, since the only number an individual can reduce to is zero.
Anything that would reduce the genetic variation of the population of cells that make us up would be far more significant than simple breeding experiments. And the results would take us to that zero again.
It sounds like some sort of selection based on behavior or choosing is being proposed as near as I can tell from the truncated claims. I would wonder if the existing species chooses to be a new species, how and why. If the new behavior springs up unbidden in an individual, it isn't evolution and it can't have a genetic basis. Any heritable mutations originating in an individuals germline wouldn't express in that potential parent. It seems like a short-sighted dead proposed by someone that doesn't have very deep knowledge of what is known about breeding, reproduction, behavior, genetics or evolution.
Yes, agreed.
Yes, agreed.
I suppose that for some, generalist must mean don't generally know that much about a subject.
I've seen the references to the science fiction stuff that doesn't have a recognized technical definition. I might accept that someone claims that they might be such a thing, but I would expect them to provide a rational definition and explain how their expertise fits that. Otherwise, it is just meaningless science fiction entertainment stuff.
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
Well, yes. A generalist is a total general sense is meaningless. But there is another version. For some people who professionally work with humans as humans some of them are both a specialist for their field and a generalist.
Here is how it goes. You are now say a social pedagogue (Danish term) for a live-in facility for people with the need for that. Then you always have to watch out for physical/medical aspects, cultural and psychological aspects, understand the law and how an formal system influences the informal.
Social pedagogy - Wikipedia
Don't get me wrong, I think that generalists of different flavors exist.Well, yes. A generalist is a total general sense is meaningless. But there is another version. For some people who professionally work with humans as humans some of them are both a specialist for their field and a generalist.
Here is how it goes. You are now say a social pedagogue (Danish term) for a live-in facility for people with the need for that. Then you always have to watch out for physical/medical aspects, cultural and psychological aspects, understand the law and how an formal system influences the informal.
Social pedagogy - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
People with a broad, general knowledge base aren't rare to encounter. But they often have areas with a greater depth of knowledge as well. I think many of us here would qualify to one degree or another.
Mine is just a commentary regarding a person claiming to be a generalist when their expressed level of knowledge and understanding of that knowledge in several subjects isn't generally correct.
I was just reading through you link. In many ways, this seems to describe the social workers that we have at some hospitals here.Well, yes. A generalist is a total general sense is meaningless. But there is another version. For some people who professionally work with humans as humans some of them are both a specialist for their field and a generalist.
Here is how it goes. You are now say a social pedagogue (Danish term) for a live-in facility for people with the need for that. Then you always have to watch out for physical/medical aspects, cultural and psychological aspects, understand the law and how an formal system influences the informal.
Social pedagogy - Wikipedia
I had a friends who--forget her exact title, it dealt with recreation, art and entertainment--filled this role as part of her position at a nursing care facility.
It is an important function that would require a good general knowledge of a lot of practical subjects from personal finance, personal care, recreation, etc.
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
In Denmark it can also include special needs persons. I happen to be one of those and I have a professional at home, because my wife is of that profession. The balancing act is that is my wife first and she shouldn't take her work to her home, but in the beginning (21 years) she had to adjust to that I am special need, but I have also learned from her.
Last edited:
cladking
Well-Known Member
Yes. Exactly.
If you are selecting for very unusual behavior then you are going to select individuals whom are very unusual. You will select individuals with very unusual genes. These unusual genes will breed true and create an unusual species. Darwin believed populations were nearly static but apparently population bottlenecks are quite common. When the individuals selected have unusual behavior you get change in species/ evolution. If it's typical behavior you just get fewer genes but the same species. Observation and experiment suggests this is the primary driver of "Evolution" and not survival of the fittest.
The smaller gene pool facilitates change in species when these are also unusual genes. Fit individuals virtually by definition have typical genes but unusual individuals have unusual genes.
I am merely suggesting that change occurs because all relevant genes are unusual. A wolf's genes are irrelevant to the populations of dogs.
We've got to drop this idea of "natural selection" or "survival of the fittest". It is virtually irrelevant to the reason species undergo sudden change and most change is sudden.
Species change when nature DOES select for behavior at bottlenecks. The rest of the time there is very little change in species and it is usually caused by other factors that operate suddenly such as mutation. If you think you see any gradual change in nature you are looking at it wrong; you are using the wrong perspective. You need to look closer or from farther away or to expand or contract the time line. Reality is a series of events that spring logically from initial conditions. Things happen suddenly or in fits and starts not gradually.
Nothing is static and nothing is gradual. Things that happen on long time lines still happen suddenly as seen from a longer timeline. The collision of galaxies is very brief from the perspective of the age of galaxies.
Yes, it is. How convenient that you can look at the individuals with the most off spring and pronounce them most "fit" after the fact. This is just another circular argument. When you can look at an individuals genome and project Evolution in advace I'll be impressed. Hell, I'd be impressed if you could even project which genes will produce the most off spring in advance. Obviously I'm excluding sick and congenitally deformed individuals.
cladking
Well-Known Member
Some behavior is hard wired into individuals. This is instinct.
But most behavior by most individuals is NOT instinctive but rather results from consciousness which is the tool bestowed by nature that individuals can thrive. There is no such thing as "species" beyond a collection of individuals.
Taxonomy is the science of classifying organisms
Not all living things have consciousness like humans do.
cladking
Well-Known Member
If I am correct no other living thing has consciousness like humans do. We see what we believe and all other life sees what it knows. We experience thought no other living thing does.
But this has been true for only 4000 years. Before this "humans" were exactly like every other species.
It is irrelevant. It is not a bottleneck as defined in biology. You can't just give some irrelevant phenomena an existing name and declare it so.
Why would you think that wouldn't go without saying.
What does this mean?
How is it determined without breeding evidence and knowledge of the dominance of the alleles?
No he didn't. Where do you come up with this stuff. He recognized that populations were in flux.
If enough events occur that reduce numbers and diversity, they can be common.
No you don't get a change in species just out of change in a single trait. At best you would get a population of a species with a new behavior. Genetically controlled behavior is not the only traits organisms exhibit. They have a diverse phenotype.
Make It Up and Say Science is not science. If the behavior is typical, it already exists to be seen as typical. What you don't know.
No observation and experiment suggests this. You just say it and act like it is some sort of knowledge. It isn't.
This is just nonsense filler that says nothing and isn't backed up by the evidence or experiment.
No they are not. Wolves, coyotes and dogs can still interbreed.
Why would anyone drop a well-supported idea. Not on the say so of some random novice touting speculation on the internet certainly.
You keep walking back, but most change is variable and not sudden.
Species change when the accumulated variation leads to reproductive barriers. It has nothing to do with bottlenecks and nothing to do with whatever it is that you are describing.
You clearly know nothing about these things. Mutations produce variation that is acted on by natural selection increasing those organisms with favorable variation as a proportion of the population. Continued selection can fix the trait under selection in the population. This is not sudden. It, unlike your claims, is backed up by evidence and experiment.
Sigh! NO! We see change at varying rates depending on the system being examined. Old field succession is not sudden. Speciation is not sudden. Fixation is not sudden. Etc.
Sigh! NO! Evidence is being used to draw the conclusions about biology and not Make It Up and Say Science.
Fits and starts would be...gradual. Things happen at a pace that can change and is relevant to what is happening. Your claims do not have the weight of any evidence to hold them up.
Repeating irrelevant statements or erroneous claims won't make them suddenly relevant or correct.
That is how fitness is measured. It is too bad you don't know any of this material and are just guessing and assuming your guesses are facts.
Yes. Please stop.
That wouldn't be how it would work if there were a way to do that. Looking at a genome can tell you about the organisms examined and about past change though. ERV's is one of those elements that tells us about the past evolution.
That is likely already possible for some genes in some environments. Clearly you don't know the material or you would have come up with better demands.
Those that are less fit. Sure.