Irony of the evolutionary belief

[leroy]

I can agree that if the god of Abraham exists, miracles are possible and may have occurred with a creation event and thereafter as well as with plagues, parting the Red Sea, the flood, the Tower of Babel, etc. through to the resurrection. If you establish the former, you have made a good case for the latter. But I don't think you can do that.

Do you view God as Santa Clause (someone that obviously and certainly doesn’t exist) or do you view God as Aliens (we don’t know, perhaps they exist perhaps no,)

This is not intended to be a dichotomy, if you think there is a third option please share.

For me, as I've explained, in its literal sense, testimony is the answer somebody gives when asked what he heard, saw, or did.

So if I ask a scientist about his experiment, would that count as testimony? If I ask him about his methodology, results, conclusions etc. would that be a testimony…………..if I ask him who review the paper would that be his testimony?

But we can relax that and use the term more loosely. When you refer to the testimony of those who saw the resurrection, technically, you're implying that they were asked what they saw rather than excitedly offered their "testimony" to anybody that would listen. When somebody testifies at a religious revival or an AA meeting, he is probably doing so in a setting where somebody has asked for his opinion for the opinions of anybody who wants to offer

Not in this forum

one.


Glad to meet you. If it's not too personal, I'd also like to know what country you live in now if it's not Mèxico, if you have a wife, what your work is, and how much schooling you have, but it's none of my business if you prefer to keep that private.

I'm from the US, but have lived in Mèxico fifteen years now in an expat community with a lot of Canadians and Americans. I'm almost 70 years old now, married 33 years now, no kids, a retired physician (internal medicine and hospice), an avid amateur musician (electric guitar), and a contract bridge enthusiast and teacher.

It is difficult to learn Spanish here because everybody speaks to us in English, so there is no need and one must do some immersion training to learn, but we keep plugging. At lunch today, we spoke Spanish as much as possible, but the Mexican waiter spoke to us in English. I ordered a "margarita fresa, frappe, sin sal, sin tajin, con tequila aparte" and heard back "frozen strawberry margarita, clean glass, tequila on the side." They want to improve their English just as we are trying to improve our Spanish. And if they screw up the English, they appreciate being corrected just I appreciate correction.

My wife lags behind me, especially when it comes to conjugating verbs, which can be a scene. As our mesero was clearing the table, she wanted to tell him that we never touched the bread, and said "No tocar" rather than "no tocamos," and he cleared everything but the bread. I told he that I think she just told him not to touch the bread. She'll say hable for hablo and necisita for necesito and that never works out well. Got to be careful with verbs.

The brain in your avatar you must know by now is a cartoon character, a cynical cartoon intended for adults, where your character is continuously angry and wants to rule the world with his low information but cheerful sidekick friend, maybe like Lieutenant Dan and Forrest Gump if that means anything to you, or Laurel and Hardy, or George and Lennie from Of Mice And Men - one smarter and a bid jaded, the other simple but happy.

What community is that? in what city ? to me it is hard to even imagine a community of English speaking people that is isolated from the rest …….. I didn’t know that such communities excisted.

I own a small business in Mexico city, I don’t have science education beyond high school…. And as interesting as this might sound “evolution” is not an issue I Mexico, I don’t remember any parent complaining about teaching evolution in school. And nobody even knew that there is such thisn as YEC…….. The first time I learned about YEC was in a YouTube video 1 OR 2 YEARS after my highschoool education….. I was expecting to see a “documentary type” video about dinosaurs (because dinosaurs are awesome) but I ended watching a video from Kent Hovind….. All his ideas where new for me “evolution is false” Dinosaurs and men coexisted” “big bang theory is wrong” “evolution is wrong2 etc…………. I am not a YEC but I did have a period of 2 or 3 years where I doubted

YES I have a wife


Yes I know who Brain is, and I also enjoyed that cartoon, LONG AGO (say 8 years ago) I printed pillows with some of my favorite characters, includin Brain, I guess when I created my account in this forum the image was in my computer, and I simply pick it as a profile picture becasue it was the first image that I found

 

[leroy]

Why is this so hard for you to comprehend?

It is not hard to comprehend; but hard to believe that you would hold such a nonsense view.

Assume this hypothesis : “Restaurant A” is closer from the hotel than “Restaurant B”

Assume that you are a tourist that has no idea, so for all you know the intrinsic probability for the hypothesis being true is 50%

So if a local man (say someone that works at the hotel) tells you that Restaurant A is closer than B that would be evidence for that hypothesis…………. Why? because given the testimony the probabilities of this hypothesis being true go up, beyond the initial 50% …………given the testimony, the hypothesis becomes more likely to be true than false, (where as initially the probabilities where the same)



This is my justification for why I would say that the claim of the local man counts as evidence.. because it makes the hypothesis more probable..............what mistakes do you find?

(note that I said evidence, not absolute proof)

 

[leroy]

Actually it turns out to be negative because it uses up limited resources without creating progeny.

Yes but evolution(natural selection) has no foresight………….. NS cannot *say*I won’t select this new trait, because within 100 generations it there will be no resources.


Assume a mutations that resulted in a 1% increase of life span (the ape will get old 1% slower that the rest)

Why would this mutation be negative? Any limitation of resources would not affect him in particular,

Note the question mark at the sentence…. I am asking a question because I dont´know the answer.


..

If this individual would live 1% more than the rest of the population he would have 1% more time than the rest to find a girl friend and reproduce, so it would be an advantage for him……….. In this case the descendants would tend to live forever given that every once in a while a 1% life span mutation would occur

Or perhaps it would be neutral, perhaps even if he lives 1% more time than the average, his fertile years are the same, so his probability of reproduction would be the same……. In this case genetic drift would likely filter these 1% mutations.

But I don’t see a negative effect, at least not any negative effect related to “limited resources” ………..or perhaps you are seeing something that I didn’t see.

 

[Pogo]

It is not hard to comprehend; but hard to believe that you would hold such a nonsense view.

Assume this hypothesis : “Restaurant A” is closer from the hotel than “Restaurant B”

Assume that you are a tourist that has no idea, so for all you know the intrinsic probability for the hypothesis being true is 50%

So if a local man (say someone that works at the hotel) tells you that Restaurant A is closer than B that would be evidence for that hypothesis…………. Why? because given the testimony the probabilities of this hypothesis being true go up, beyond the initial 50% …………given the testimony, the hypothesis becomes more likely to be true than false, (where as initially the probabilities where the same)



This is my justification for why I would say that the claim of the local man counts as evidence.. because it makes the hypothesis more probable..............what mistakes do you find?

(note that I said evidence, not absolute proof)

Guess what, we have more words. In this case you are conducting a survey of knowledge who knows what. You ask someone is a or b closer and they respond a and so you now have one response or data point or input into your survey. In the case of a survey you would not use testimony but a word indicating a single piece of information.
Our friend GPT when asked "what do you call the answers to survey questions?"
Says:
"The answers to survey questions are commonly referred to as "responses" or "survey responses." These terms encompass all the answers provided by respondents to the questions asked in a survey. Additionally, depending on the context, they may also be referred to simply as "data" or "survey data.""

Again, testimony is not a word that is used. This is American scientific English and along with King's English which is occasionally different covers most standard English usage.

The problem is that the word testimony in English has connotations of Law and Religious fervor which are outside of the meaning set for scientific terms. I will try an analogy, imagine there is an inoccuous English word for a woman, but when the direct translation of that word is used in some Spanish idioms, it is considered a low class insult. Testimony is sort of that where whatever it means to you as a Spanish speaker, to us it carries connotations that keep it from being used for science communication purposes in the US.

 

[Pogo]

Yes but evolution(natural selection) has no foresight………….. NS cannot *say*I won’t select this new trait, because within 100 generations it there will be no resources.

No it can't say that, but traits do not show up everywhere at once so in the valley where the grandfather and all progeny suddenly doubled their life span all goes well till they run out of food and die and thus Natural Selection eliminates this allele/trait from the population in that valley, but the next valley over survives and eventually moves in to the now empty valley.

 

[leroy]

No it can't say that, but traits do not show up everywhere at once so in the valley where the grandfather and all progeny suddenly doubled their life span all goes well till they run out of food and die and thus Natural Selection eliminates this allele/trait from the population in that valley, but the next valley over survives and eventually moves in to the now empty valley.

ok but in that case the whole population would go extint, not just the ones with the allele ....agree?

 

[Pogo]

Yes but evolution(natural selection) has no foresight………….. NS cannot *say*I won’t select this new trait, because within 100 generations it there will be no resources.


Assume a mutations that resulted in a 1% increase of life span (the ape will get old 1% slower that the rest)

Why would this mutation be negative? Any limitation of resources would not affect him in particular,

Note the question mark at the sentence…. I am asking a question because I dont´know the answer.

Re 1% cha

Yes but evolution(natural selection) has no foresight………….. NS cannot *say*I won’t select this new trait, because within 100 generations it there will be no resources.


Assume a mutations that resulted in a 1% increase of life span (the ape will get old 1% slower that the rest)

Why would this mutation be negative? Any limitation of resources would not affect him in particular,

Note the question mark at the sentence…. I am asking a question because I dont´know the answer.


..

If this individual would live 1% more than the rest of the population he would have 1% more time than the rest to find a girl friend and reproduce, so it would be an advantage for him……….. In this case the descendants would tend to live forever given that every once in a while a 1% life span mutation would occur

Or perhaps it would be neutral, perhaps even if he lives 1% more time than the average, his fertile years are the same, so his probability of reproduction would be the same……. In this case genetic drift would likely filter these 1% mutations.

But I don’t see a negative effect, at least not any negative effect related to “limited resources” ………..or perhaps you are seeing something that I didn’t see.

Your original scenario implied no death and so we gave you the infinite growth absurd solution. In this one percent case the answer is it depends and we will know when it happens. This is because the there is no absolute answer with foresight as to exactly what will happen. The longer life span may allow for more progeny in which case they will take over the next valley very slowly or maybe something else. This is why you do research and publish papers. It is evolution an a 1% change is random relative to it's evolutionary effect depending on its environment.

 

[Pogo]

ok but in that case the whole population would go extint, not just the ones with the allele ....agree?

In that valley, yes but the non mutated from the next valley would survive.
This gets to be very complicated math wise and generally is computer modeled with a large number of variables.

 

[leroy]

Guess what, we have more words. In this case you are conducting a survey of knowledge who knows what. You ask someone is a or b closer and they respond a and so you now have one response or data point or input into your survey. In the case of a survey you would not use testimony but a word indicating a single piece of information.
Our friend GPT when asked "what do you call the answers to survey questions?"
Says:
"The answers to survey questions are commonly referred to as "responses" or "survey responses." These terms encompass all the answers provided by respondents to the questions asked in a survey. Additionally, depending on the context, they may also be referred to simply as "data" or "survey data.""

Again, testimony is not a word that is used. This is American scientific English and along with King's English which is occasionally different covers most standard English usage.

The problem is that the word testimony in English has connotations of Law and Religious fervor which are outside of the meaning set for scientific terms. I will try an analogy, imagine there is an inoccuous English word for a woman, but when the direct translation of that word is used in some Spanish idioms, it is considered a low class insult. Testimony is sort of that where whatever it means to you as a Spanish speaker, to us it carries connotations that keep it from being used for science communication purposes in the US.

The problem is that even if you are correct, this should have not been a relevant problem……..at worst you should have said, “yes Leroy based on how you define “testimony” you are correct testimonies could be evidence, ….. but it would be better if you use some other word.

BTW even with your restrictions, there is nothing in your concept of “testimony” that implies that testimony means “without evidnce”

 

[Pogo]

In that valley, yes but the non mutated from the next valley would survive.
This gets to be very complicated math wise and generally is computer modeled with a large number of variables.

Ok, another concept. if you have this runaway growth what usually happens is that the population crashes and a few survive to repopulate the area. This can be cyclical as with foxes and mice.

 

[Pogo]

The problem is that even if you are correct, this should have not been a relevant problem……..at worst you should have said, “yes Leroy based on how you define “testimony” you are correct testimonies could be evidence, ….. but it would be better if you use some other word.

BTW even with your restrictions, there is nothing in your concept of “testimony” that implies that testimony means “without evidnce”

@leroy, we never said that, that was your misinterpretation. What we said was that testimony may or may not be associated with evidence, but scientific statements such as papers are and it is not the speaker that is primary in the reference.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Do you view God as Santa Clause (someone that obviously and certainly doesn’t exist) or do you view God as Aliens (we don’t know, perhaps they exist perhaps no,)

When a Christian refers to "God," I assume that he means the god of Abraham. Although I am an agnostic atheist, meaning I do not say that gods don't exist (how could I know that even if correct?), some gods can be ruled out by their descriptions. The flood story is preposterous. It depicts an immoral and stupid god, one that is said to be perfect and perfectly good, who regretted having made man, and who cruelly drowned virtually all terrestrial life because it was unhappy that humans were imperfect just as it created them and then attempted to fix the problem using the same breeding stock. Thus we have the imperfect perfect god who is unfair, sadistic, and not too smart.

This god is also said to have created reality in six days in a specified order of steps. That didn't happen. Nor was there a Tower of Babel. That god doesn't exist any more than Marduk or Odin do.

But the deist god, who allegedly set up the universe to run without it and who is nowhere to be found, how can one say that that didn't happen? I have no reason to believe it did, but no grounds on which to say that it didn't.

So if I ask a scientist about his experiment, would that count as testimony?

I suppose so. Use the language as you like.

I got a knock on the door recently from the Testigos de Jehová, and when I saw them, I asked, Testigos?, they said yes, and I spoke with them a bit. I only mention that because of the word testigo (witness), which to me captures the flavor of the word testify. I prefer to not use that word for most discourse.

It was an interesting discussion lasting very little time despite me being polite, friendly, and willing to talk. They began by describing the world as going to hell in a basket and seemed to assume that I would agree. I said that the world has never had so many safe, well-fed, educated people than it does now. That pretty much ended the discussion. It was as if they had never heard that answer before and were unprepared to go on after hearing it. They said thank you and goodbye to me in just a few minutes. I thought it odd:

What community is that? in what city ? to me it is hard to even imagine a community of English speaking people that is isolated from the rest …….. I didn’t know that such communities excisted.

We live in Ajijic on Lake Chapala in the state of Jalisco an hour south of Guadalajara. The population is mostly Mexican, but it's an attractive location for Canadians and Americans, many of whom know little or no English, and so business have arisen to cater to that community.

Here's why we love it here. The weather is excellent, we're surrounded by natural beauty, the local culture is friendly and colorful, and the prices are good even though they're relatively high for most of Mexico due to gentrification, and not just by we foreigners, but also, the wealthier, fashionable Guadalajarans (tapatios) who treat our community as a weekend retreat (we've been officially designated a Pueblo Magico), buy second "country" homes here, and like to spend when they arrive:

There's another large expat community closer to you, San Miguel de Allende, also a Pueblo Magico.

If you ever decide to visit Lake Chapala in Jalisco, please let me know. I'd love to meet you and show you and your family around.

 

[YoursTrue]

@leroy, we never said that, that was your misinterpretation. What we said was that testimony may or may not be associated with evidence, but scientific statements such as papers are and it is not the speaker that is primary in the reference.

You're making a big issue over the use of a word. That's sad. So why do you think if a scientist or group of scientists state a conclusion that is not testimony to their point of view?

 

[YoursTrue]

@leroy, we never said that, that was your misinterpretation. What we said was that testimony may or may not be associated with evidence, but scientific statements such as papers are and it is not the speaker that is primary in the reference.

(huh?)?

 

[blü 2]

Who said Adam would not have known what he was doing?

When (in the story) Eve ate the fruit, she had no concept of good or evil because God had expressly denied her this.

Therefore she was incapable of forming any intention to do wrong.

Therefore she was incapable of sin.

Exactly the same is true of Adam.

More importantly, NOWHERE in the Garden story, Genesis 2-3, does it say that Eve or Adam sinned. The word 'sin' doesn't appear. Nor does it say that death entered the world as a result ─ God's critters were always going to die, otherwise there wouldn't have been a tree in the Garden called the Tree of Life.

In the story, God kicked Adam and Eve out of the Garden for one reason and for one reason only, which is set out clearly in Genesis 3:22-3 ─ namely to protect [his] own position.

The notion that there was a Fall of Man and that it was the result of eating the fruit is found nowhere in the Tanakh. What is found in the Tanakh, you may recall, is the clear statement that sin can't be inherited ─

Ezekiel 18:20 The soul that sins shall die. The son shall not suffer for the iniquity of the father, nor the father suffer for the iniquity of the son; the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself.​

So Paul had zero scriptural basis for his silly claim.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Just use a dictionary. The question remains why you are so confused about the meanings of common words. And why you refuse to adjust your misapplication of words, and continue to post confusing comments due to your poor and inaccurate word choice. If English is your second language I can understand the confusion.

Because you have some weird motive that has nothing with truth and knowledge.


You posted a link. You offered your personal interpration of what the link reported. I disagreed with your interpretation. You admit to not having any expertise, so why you think your opinion about findings in science is definitive, and superior to those with a better education, and better reasoning skill, and better language usage, supports what @Dan From Smithville said about not taking your psts seriously.

If you can't get science right, and can't get language right, then it's a you problem. It's not the rest of us.

I've almost completely lost interest in engaging with some of the contributors to these evolution threads. I can't hardly figure out what they are talking about half the time. And if you correct them or point out any flaws in what is presented, the next thing seems to be cries of persecution for 20 posts. Or responses that I find nonsensical and baseless without any merit.

I've come to the conclusion that you can only repeat yourself so many times before realizing these questions and claims don't come up to learn anything or enter into legitimate debate or discussion. At least, that is my take. I'd rather talk with some of the atheists than many of the people claiming they are Christian like me. The fruit that is offered doesn't seem to fit the claim as I understand it. I find that it isn't so much belief in God that is driving this, but belief in a doctrine or what some group of church leaders demand.

But don't let me stop you guys from bringing up established knowledge, theory and sound reasoning. That I am still interested in discussing.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I used to watch it as well, and I'm almost 70. I always equated them with Cheney and Bush. Trump and Stephen Miller might be the closest thing to them today, although Trump is also motivated to take over the world, and Miller has competition from the likes of Bannon and Stone.

You might enjoy this from

["Are you ponering what I'm pondering?"]

"Sure, Brain, but how are we going to find chaps our size?

"I think so, Brain, but this time you put the trousers on the chimp.

"I think so, Brain, but where will we find a duck and a hose at this hour?

"Well I think so, Brain, but if we didn't have ears, we'd look like weasels.

"Well, I think so, Brain, but where do you stick the feather and call it macaroni?"

"I think so, Brain, but burlap chafes me so."

"I think so, Brain, but me and Pippi Longstocking... I mean, what would the children look like?"

"I think so, Brain, but this time, you wear the tutu."

"I think so, Brain, but isn't Regis Philbin already married?"

"Uh... yeah, Brain, but where are we going to find rubber pants our size?"

"I think so, Brain, but culottes have a tendency to ride up so."

"I think so, but where will we find an open tattoo parlor at this time of night?"

"I think so, Brain, but if they called them sad meals, kids wouldn't buy them."

"Uh, I think so, Brain, but we'll never get a monkey to use dental floss."

"Well, I think so, Brain, but I can't memorize a whole opera in Yiddish."

[and many, many more]

I watched them too. They are hilarious.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Because it is like when your wife sends you to the store for tartar sauce and you come back with cream of tartar and insist it is the same thing no matter what she says. Eventually she just rolls her eyes at you and smiles.

What? Those are different things?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

We will get to exponential growth and being smothered by rabbits another day.

I'm working on it. It's tough job but some rabbit has to do it.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Actually it turns out to be negative because it uses up limited resources without creating progeny.

Longevity is generally outside of natural selection. Once a sexually reproductive organism exceeds the reproductive phase of life, there is no means to select for whatever traits are driving longevity. All the selection would have taken place at a younger age. I suppose it is possible to have some positive selection in a species like humans where you know something of the family history and purposefully go after a mate that comes from a family with a generally known long lifespan. But that doesn't seem like a sustainable paradigm.

If you don't know you will live a long time and you find out you are, having reached great age, your breeding period in life is generally done when that knowledge becomes useful.