Exploring Atheism

[maro]

Atheists ,it was a pleasure talking to you , i just need to go throught some links and i may come later to express my thoughts if i have enought time, god willing....c u all

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

So ,from the primary forms of life , Random mutstions kept following a predictible distribution around a central trait ,untill a human being with all the complexity of its cells,organs ,and systems was eventually made ?..I bet Random mutations should have some creativity to create such a miraculous system

No, that's not correct. It was never a foregone conclusion that evolution would give rise to humans... or even mammals, or intelligent life of any form.

Aha..so natural selection has no serious appreciation of what we call "beauty" ? It was just a coincidence that not all organisms arise to be black or brown or black and white...The fascinating beauty that captures our eyes in nature is not meant to be..but another big coincidence..I see

You're exercising selective judgement.

While evolution has given rise to hummingbirds, it has also given rise to dung beetles. It created roses AND fungus, antelopes AND warthogs. Whatever your definition of beauty and ugliness, both exist in nature. There's no trend to either one at all.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

so the luckier who randomly followed the right strategies are the ones who survived ?..It was only luck..It was only a random choice...it was neither an aware choice ,nor some tacit knowledge in the genes..

although ,i am really tired of the words random ,luck ,coincidence...but i still have a question for you : do we see the members of the same species acting differently..don't they agree on one strategy to follow ?

The analogy I gave you was exaggerated on purpose. In reality, things are usually much more subtle.

But still, there can sometimes be very wide variation in closely related species. For example, take the Galapagos finches that caught Darwin's interest: even though they're very closely related, they vary greatly in both size and beak shape, and therefore also in food source and survival strategies.

Can Evolution fill all the gaps between the so called common ancestor and human beings ,can it explain everything so far without making untestable unfalsifiable predictions ?

Yes, it can. The predictions that evolution makes are testable and falsifiable.

are the Mutation-natural selection mechanism a measurable scientific fact..or just an unmeasurable assumption ?

They are measurable scientific fact. The mechanisms of natural selection have been well known for a long time (in fact, they're one subset of the ideas behind selection generally, which has been used in its "artificial" form to breed desirable traits into animals for thousands of years). Random mutation was mainly an untested hypothesis until the discovery of DNA, but since then, there has been a great deal of study on how copies of DNA are made, how DNA from the two parents combine, and how random mutations occur as part of these processes.

 

[maro]

No, that's not correct. It was never a foregone conclusion that evolution would give rise to humans... or even mammals, or intelligent life of any form.

....:run:

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I am merely asking where this came from?

Rubbish. You did not ask where beauty came from. Rather, you asked:

Also , if according to evolution life is automatically proceeding towards the Strongerst and the more skillful , as Survival will always be for the strongest...How can it explains the proceeding towards the more beautiful?

It is a flawed premise and exhibits a fundamental ignorance of what you are seeking to debunk. Rain falls: sometimes you get clogged sewer systems; sometimes you get magnificent canyons.

I understand how it's hard for you to express your point without being rude....don't you know the ethics of debate ?

As a matter of fact, I do. It includes being intellectually responsible. I have zero tolerance for willful ignorance.

 

[camanintx]

The problem with the maro-camanintx dialog is that it's an exchange of ignorance.

At least that response is a little more helpful than the first. Would you care to explain how natural selection measures fitness if not by an organisms success in passing along it's genetic makeup?

 

[maro]

How can it explains the proceeding towards the more beautiful?

If life ,from its Alleged primary form turned into this...



how can beauty not be a factor in the equation ? how can that be a coincidence ? I don't think i am exercising selective judgment because beauty is dominant over nature in an undeniable way ?

As a matter of fact, I do. It includes being intellectually responsible. I have zero tolerance for willful ignorance.

Who do you think yourself to talk to me in that arrogant rude way ? Either you express your point decently or shut your mouth and keep the rubbish coming from it to yourself , Mr . "i have zero tolerance"

 

[Alex_G]

Ok this is getting ridiculous.
Evolution of organisms is a fact. Genetic material from parents is passed on to the offspring. Many mechanisms have been isolated that demonstrate increasing genetic variation. Such include;

· The random alignment of bivalent pairs of chromosomes during Meiosis 1 resulting in variation between the subsequent gametes produced.
· The crossing over of genetic material between adjacent chromosomes, known as Chiasmata.
· The subsequent variation produced in Meiosis 2 as haploid gametes are produced.
· The random combination of male and female gametes to produce the final zygote.

These are some examples of how genetic material changes over generations and hence why you’re not a clone of a parent. This gives the rich tapestry of organisms with subtle differences, which subsequently get tested in our environment, resulting in successes and failures.

It’s actually interesting to see that the rate of evolutionary change increased dramatically at the point where meiosis began in sexual reproduction. Previously a-sexual mitosis was producing almost clone like offspring, which had a much slower rate of producing genetic variance. Evolution sped up.

What’s labelled as the theory of evolution is Darwin’s idea of natural selection being the mechanism of control. An idea that is attacked purely because it’s labelled ‘theory’, even though it’s backing evidence is phenomenal.

This was survival of the fittest, where by survival was one big competition between all organisms. Every attribute at the organisms’ disposal, plus some chance and luck might make it more likely to reproduce than one of its peers. This process of evolution is very slow and it takes time for an attribute to become present in the majority of the population. What we can say is that all of your ancestors successfully reproduced, one long generation. The number of organisms that fail greatly outnumber the successes.

Evidence for this was noted by Darwin when you see similar organisms which have been geographically isolated from one and other. Such a thing could occur for example with migrating birds going of track. Small differences occur over time, as the organisms adapt and evolve separately to their own specific environments. It was demonstrated 1st with the flightless birds on the Galapagos Islands, and the ones that could fly on the mainland, and shows the importance of the environment and its selection pressures on the control of evolution.


This is a small amount from the top of my head, the tip of the iceberg. And from an atheists point of view, you may be able to see why i loose the will to live a little when someone confronts me with a story of everything being created 10. 000 years ago in a puff of smoke by some covert divine creator. Oh and obviously no evidence seeing as it conveniently doesnt apply!

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

how can beauty not be a factor in the equation ? how can that be a coincidence ? I don't think i am exercising selective judgment because beauty is dominant over nature in an undeniable way ?

Your set of pictures left out buzzards, dung beetles, coelacanths, naked mole rats, and whatever the heck this thing is:

On top of this, there's the huge number of species that, at least to me, are neither ugly nor beautiful: do you really think that lichen is beautiful? How about E. coli bacteria? Krill?

That's why I say you're exercising selective judgement.

 

[little_monkey]

Atheists ,it was a pleasure talking to you , i just need to go throught some links and i may come later to express my thoughts if i have enought time, god willing....c u all

Don't forget my post #58, where I gave you a link on the origin of life, and post #77, with a link on social darwinism.

 

[Magic Man]

Whenever you want to instruct me on evolution, please feel free. I'm always up for a little humor.

The problem with the maro-camanintx dialog is that it's an exchange of ignorance. Our fundamentalist maro asks:The fact is that evolution has nothing to do with "proceeding towards the more beautiful" - as if "more beautiful" has any standing whatsoever as a scientific characterization. So ...

How old are you mball? Are you married? I am. Is your wife more beautiful than mine? Is mine more beautiful than yours? Do you have kids? I do. Are yours more beautiful than mine? Are mine more beautiful than yours?

And, worse, what about race. Is one "more beautiful' than another? Yes? How is that established scientifically? No? How is that determined scientifically?​

And so we slide dangerously close to the discredited drivel of social darwinism.

The correct answer to maro's pitiful "How can it explains the proceeding towards the more beautiful ?" is to point out again and again that the question rests on a flawed premise exposing a fundamental ignorance of the thing she wants so desperately to debunk.

Yes, Maro's question and understanding of the matter is flawed. I will not argue with that. The response you quoted from camanintx was ok, though. That's where the problem started. Attractiveness can be determined, just as it is with animals. There are many animals to choose from, but I'll go with birds. Certain birds have colorful feathers. The way the males attract the females so that they will mate with them is to do funny-looking (to us) dances and show off their colors. The brighter and more colorful they are, the better chance they have of attracting a mate. Humans work in a similar way. The more attractive a man or woman is, the more likely they are to mate with someone. So, we can be determined attractive just as birds can, or many other animals can.

Aside from that, I'm just glad I got you to say more than two words. The worst part about your responses is that they don't actually further the discussion. If you think there's something wrong with what someone said, then why don't you point it out as you just did, instead of just insulting it with no reason presented?

 

[Majin Buu]

Perhaps early "prophetic" people were trying to explain things that only now due to scientific technology can we clearly explain. Greek mythology is filled with ideas about the workings of nature that can now be scientifically defined, mythological ideas and traditions that themselves evolved into todays religions. All proven false within the last hundred years by science.

 

[darkendless]

Perhaps early "prophetic" people were trying to explain things that only now due to scientific technology can we clearly explain. Greek mythology is filled with ideas about the workings of nature that can now be scientifically defined, mythological ideas and traditions that themselves evolved into todays religions. All proven false within the last hundred years by science.

Many will argue with faith, and the fact you cannot disprove the existance of higher powers. However, belief in God being used as proof, and the bible being used as law is a rather huge flaw depending on how literally you take all these things.
Today's religions took the best of the religions they conquered, however, since their are no new ones to conquer, it seems the bible is no longer quite as up to date as it needs to be. The morality of most religions is being challenged from every angle. The question is whether religion can stand the test of time.

 

[Trey of Diamonds]

The question is whether religion can stand the test of time.

Isn't that a question that has already been answered. What is older than religion? It's possible that religion actually predated mankind. Neanderthal's had religion before we came along so you could say religion is older than we are.

 

[darkendless]

Isn't that a question that has already been answered. What is older than religion? It's possible that religion actually predated mankind. Neanderthal's had religion before we came along so you could say religion is older than we are.

In the past religions answer to questions has been death, thats no longer acceptable so how will they take challenges to their belief systems?
I don't directly mean that 'religion' will fall, i mean the current religions may fall, Christianity, Islam etc. Sorry for not being clear.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Attractiveness can be determined, just as it is with animals.

Circulus in demonstrando - you're begging the question at best. Please show me any statistic that correlates mating frequency and family size with the physical beauty.

 

[lombas]

Isn't that a question that has already been answered. What is older than religion? It's possible that religion actually predated mankind. Neanderthal's had religion before we came along so you could say religion is older than we are.

Homo sapiens and Homo neanderthalensis are about the same age, both having full characteristics about 130 000 years ago.

 

[logician]

Actually, we don't really know how "religious" primate ancestors of homo sapiens might have been, that would be pure conjecture.

 

[camanintx]

Circulus in demonstrando - you're begging the question at best. Please show me any statistic that correlates mating frequency and family size with the physical beauty.

Are you saying you wouldn't choose the most attractive of two mates, all else being equal?

 

[Trey of Diamonds]

This may not be the thread to go into this but according to Wiki, Cro-Magnon man appeared 45,000 years ago and Neanderthal's 130,000 years ago, so while they comingled, one still came before the other by a large number of years.

Neanderthal - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Cro-Magnon - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

As to whether or not Neanderthal's practiced religion, it's debated and no one really knows for sure.

Untitled Document

So, I stand by my statement that religion could possibly pre-date mankind.