Life, The Universe, And Everything

[Grandpa Harley]

As I've said before the Bible is an interesting anthropological history of how one of the major religions developed in its theological view, from God of war and thunder made good to the prophet Jeremiah's almost Hellenic views...

 

But to treat it as a true history or factual is just delusional... especially when God starts speaking to you

[freeman]

Does it take a superior intellect to see this? I don't get it

 

Absolutely not! I have never understood this myself!

 

Willful ignorance????????????????????

 

Most definitely! Christians, in everday aspects of their lives question everything. However, talk about their religion and they question NOTHING!

[webmdave]

"I was working on the sink and I just couldn't stop the leak. No matter what I tried, the leak just got worse. I cried out, 'Jesus! Help me!' and I heard an audible voice: "I AM A PLUMBER." Immediately an idea came into my head and I had that old sink fixed in 2 minutes flat."

 

Wheat or chaff, Buddy?

Good question, and I haven't a clue. Seems a little too little, ya know? Why would God care about the plumbing? On the other hand, young Christians have a reputation for having their prayers answered; stupid things like praying for a parking spot near the mall entrance or some equally banal request. Either God thinks they need the encouragement early on, or they're just silly, or who knows. They all seem to outgrow that stuff after awhile, just like our kids outgrow their own egocentric immaturity. So perhaps your father-in-law needed a little encouragement, or perhaps he's just being silly. I'd file that one in the TBD bucket; not information I'm going to use as I make my life decisions.

Buddy

 

 

Good decision: to not base your life on some guy's silly "vision."

 

Perhaps you should hold a mirror up to yourself.

 

The reason I say that is because my father-in-law, because of his "real experience," considers himself someone that should be listened to. Your posts remind me of him.

 

It is easy to dismiss the nonsensical experiences of others, isn't it, Buddy? Your so-called experiences are equally insubstantial, except, obviously, to you. My father-in-law KNOWS that GOD speaks to him. No one on earth can convince my father-in-law that he's probably only hearing his own subconscious longings when "GOD SPEAKS TO ME." I imagine you are equally impervious to the suggestion that your mind, as great and logical as you pridefully brag, is every bit as susceptible to creating illusions to fulfill some subconscious longing you can't admit, or won't admit, or don't even realize.

 

So, to answer your question: Every unsubstantiated claim you make is chaff.

 

Our minds are not mapped, yet. We barely understand ourselves, and spiritual epiphanies and religious ecstasies such as you are basing your life on exist in every single religion on the planet. Pop some peyote, and you'll have amazing religious visions. Lick some LSD and you'll see GOD.

 

You, Buddy, have entirely too much faith in your own abilities. If I saw "angels" (optical illusions and hearing of voices in my mind), I wouldn't become a believer in your religion -- I'd be seeing a doctor.

 

Sincerely.

[BuddyFerris]

The environmental stress as an instigator of major evolutionary change is not a post-hoc idea. ... one thing about the environmental stress model is that it is a low energy solution. The mutations may work or not, but to stand still is ti ensure extinction. Thus, what appears to be a superificially noisy and waste method of change is actually pretty efficient... and I don't see the need for a creator in that mechanism...

 

So... Eggs...

Grandpa,

Let me not belabor this math question unnecessarily. I'll grant you that the process of mutation and change is irregular and can be externally provoked; subsequently, it is surprisingly efficient at arriving at a survivalist solution. Your description does succinctly capture that phenomenon and leaves little room for challenge. While you see no need for a creator in that mechanism, I find it difficult to apply broadly in the absence of one.

 

I wrote the annoying paragraphs below, using your referenced articles from the last time this came up. It seems like a bit of a harangue to rehearse the same stuff again, but I genuinely don't see your easy solution. So I removed the numbers and generated them again from scratch; same (pretty much) results. I'm sure I'm missing something. Feel free to help me out by filling in the blanks in the narrative below, or blow it off if you like. I'm following your lead on this one. Not a trick question; I'm just not getting what your saying.

 

The five sense functions are obviously up-select candidates, and unlike the mentioned adaptations where a minor chemistry problem is solved by breaking a gene pattern, the evolution of sight or hearing requires a series of physical and in some cases non-beneficial intermediate changes. For a non-beneficial and therefore non-selectable mutation to persist in the gene pool requires a sequence of near-miraculous (bad choice of words) events.

Consider the light-sensitive spot, enroute to becoming an eye, for example. We're told the spot develops a depression which deepens through distinct mutation/generations. Let's make up some believable numbers for the process. We'll use the articles you referenced earlier HERE and HERE for a sanity check.

 

- Our light-sensitive-spot equipped worm or whatever replicates.

Generation one gives us mutations in the gene set that will eventually support sight.

There are perhaps 300 genes associated with just the photo-receptor cells (Harvard study, 2001)(there are thousands associated with the eye functionality)

Say there are ___ variants for each gene site (range depending on the genome).

We'll use mutation rates from the references (___ to ___), even though they're higher than for our proto-worm.

Per the reference then, generation one will have one representative for each single gene variation for every ______ individuals.

Per the reference, generation one will have one representative with any 10 of the required 300 gene variations for every _____ individuals.

Adjustments for variance and circumstantial Hot spot variance in mutation rate reduce the required individuals to ______.

If, as we suspect, this first (or any one subsequent) intervening stage is a non-beneficial change, generation two will not select for the change and will continue counter-mutation. Generations two through ____, therefore will have one representative with ~3% of the work done toward producing a photo-receptor cell in the middle of its' light-sensitive spot for every _____ individuals (best case), and more reasonably, one representative for every ______ individuals. That's a lot of worms. Assuming a one inch creature, that's enough to stretch from here to the sun and back say _____ times. Thats more individuals than there have been hominid individuals in the last ____ million years or so. And we still haven't made much progress toward functional vision.

 

 

You can see my problem. For the record, I'd be perfectly happy with a one-shot big bang and nothing afterwards.

Hope you had a great weekend.

 

Buddy

[webmdave]

Here's my comment on the entire evolution discussion: It doesn't make a damned bit of difference if scientists have accurately unraveled the mystery of life or not.

 

Posit: If all evolutionary science is in error, we do not default into the un-dead, flying, zombie, God-Man myth of Jesus. If evolution can be "proven" false, then we have to go back to the drawing board. The drawing board -- ignorance -- is the the default position. Not JESUS JESUS JESUS JESUS JESUS JESUS. Or, across the pond: ALLAH ALLAH ALLAH ALLAH ALLAH ALLAH.

 

It is a false logic that says JESUS IS GOD, because "I don't understand how life evolves." In fact, it's willful stupidity.

 

With Buddy's "GOD DID IT," Buddy still can't explain how "GOD DID IT." What I mean is this: Buddy seems to be centering in on details in evolutionary theory that seem lacking. Evolutionary theory is about trying to understand the mechanism whereby life has evolved. Buddy wants to say "GOD DID IT." But that answer will do nothing for answering how it was done. GOD DID IT is the ceasing of searching for answers. GOD DID IT is the stifling of thought. GOD DID IT is the choking out of all inquiry, trading off the science of delving into nature for lazy, metaphysical, armchair philosophizing and resting on expanding laurels.

 

Evidence, Buddy. That's what required. Get off the chair. Bring to us a shrubbery. Or, a little green man, or Big Foot. All myths have the same amount of evidence.

 

Good luck.

[Grandpa Harley]

I haven't referenced any articles...

 

and you're still ignoring the fact that the generational populations of where eyes evolved measured in tens of thousands a year. All variations of eyes, including iris 'camera' like ones, are found in these populations that still can have 500+ generations in a week... Basically,you can throw specious maths at it all the time... just because it's unimaginable to you doesn't mean it's not the least energy solution... the major biological features and functions we see in some form in some animals... I susbscribe to the view that 'higher' animals were a result of symbyosis... The 'colony' organisms like certain sponges, where disparate unicellular organisms perform specific function... there are close parallel for examples in how smile moulds behave when stressed (lack of water, trauma to the layer, the latter being more critical) and the way blood clots in 'higher' animals... another one of those that IDers like to kick around... basically, the blood clotting mechanism is self limiting... so is slime mould forming a moving 'clot'... The 'complex' things you seem to bring up aren't... the interim stages of all biological systems can be found in the chain... it's impressive because of chance... we even see multiple solutions to the same problem... the mammalian eye vs the Cephlapod eye vs the Arcachnid eye vs the Reptilian eye (which is pretty Avian). There is fossil evidence of different eyes which 'failed' It seems you designer wasn't that good... and on to my personal distaste for the 'designer' paradigm:

 

If you're right, and there is a designer, then it's game over... of course it bloody works, it's designed... it's not a miracle, simply designed. No wonder in a system designed by something capable of designing a universe working.... it's supposed to. No mystery. It's actually pretty damn dull... God made it! Woo fucking hoo... why should I be impressed by that? It's just an ugly solution, and very, very boring.

[Grandpa Harley]

Nice rant, Dave

[Grandpa Harley]

BTW, Buddy, why are you insisting on something as complex a worm? The animals I'm referring to are no where near that complex or slow breeding...

 

One of the comments on phyto-plankton discoveries of 'species unknown to science'... it's assumed by the wider public that they've alway been there and we've just not spotted them... the equally likely scenario is that they may only have developed since the last time any one looked...

 

Speciation (as in an inability to swap DNA with another superficially similar organisms) has been observed in 5 to 10 years between separated diatom populations...

[freeman]

Scientist theorize that the eye developed from a light sensitive spot. They have collect much data to support this theory. The exact mechanism (mutation) are not fully understood, yet!

 

The great thing about science is that if data rules out a hypothosis or even challenges a theory, science will start over and admit the mistakes in past assesments. Science is about discovery! Theology is the opposite of science! God Did It means no advancement in science!

 

I think that all christians should carry a Medi alert braclet that says "Do Not Resuscitate, God Has Called Me Home!". Due to advancements in science, medicine has saved people from god's death hand.

 

Just because we don't know everything does not mean God Did It! Ok, you have a problem with some of the numbers, just don't assign a diety to fill in the gaps.

[Grandpa Harley]

As a comment, understanding the universe appears to be understanding the mathematics of very large numbers and geometry...

[BuddyFerris]

The holocausts of the 20th century may be traced both to ideological roots and to specific leaders. Though popular figures in their day, we now call them criminals, and correctly so. Milosevic, Suharto, Lenin, Pol Pot, and Mao ZeDong join Hitler and Stalin in body count crimes. Collectively, they probably murdered upwards of 70 million people. Shall we examine their ideologies? Will we find that they were unwittingly made to be criminals by exposure to ideology, or will we find that they were deliberate in applying whatever practice suited them in their quest for power, wealth, and prestige? I'm persuaded to the latter.

May I ask you, could anyone of these evil people have done anything alone, or did they need a group of supporters and people who believed in them? Of couse they need their followers. And that's the problem. Through ideology, the evil leaders can control the masses and make believers out of them. Do you know anything about why the Nazi soldiers did all those horrific things? Do you claim that all Germans were evil during WWII and that's why they did what they did? You basically replaced the blame on ideology to blame the race and culture!!! The same thing you say we can't do!!!

 

So what is it? The Germans are inherently evil, or Nazi ideology brain washed them to do evil things?

Progress, however slight.

 

Looks like the several of us might generally agree that concepts and principles may be evaluated both on content and use.

Content is not invalidated by misuse, but misuse may well illustrate the validity of the concept and the failure of the user to measure up.

 

Nazi concepts of racial superiority (evaluated for content) fail the tests of science and reason; further (evaluated for use) they fail on review against natural law.

Hitler, a proponent of the Nazi ideology, is found to be a criminal by implementation of the ideology.

Nazi soldiers who directly participated in the crimes against humanity are criminals also. Although the leaders bear the greater responsibility for the policy, the soldiers are not excused, again on the grounds of natural law. The German people were culpable in several circumstances by virtue of inactivity in the face of full knowledge.

 

The Mei Lei massacre was a terrible event but a triumph for the rule of law.

The ideology: a gook is a gook (evaluated for content) fails the test of reason; deliberate misrepresentation of human beings as inconsequential. The rape and murder (evaluated for use) fail on review against international and military law. The soldiers were not excused their misbehavior even if they were under orders. They were held accountable for behavior directed without the support of a 'lawful order', and found fully culpable.

 

 

The Point? Individuals are fully responsible for their actions. Where they lead others into misbehavior, they bear additional guilt. Where they allow themselves to be influenced, they retain a portion of the guilt.

 

Having said that with adequate clarity, let me agree also that there are dangerous ideologies. Communism probably wasn't; socialism probably wasn't; democracy probably isn't; religion occasionally is; white supremacy obviously is; nationalism occasionally is; racism always is; and so on.

 

Adam Smith's the Wealth of Nations is the ideological source document for capitalism and the free market economy. Evaluated for use, we get mixed results. Is the ideology flawed? Probably not.

 

From the 3rd century forward, the Christian ideology (evaluated for use) gets mixed results. Is the ideology therefore flawed? Not on the basis of that argument alone. The use case stands on its own, and the individuals and institutions are accountable. The ideology needs to be evaluated prior to and separate from the use case for a reasonable conclusion to be reached.

 

I won't suggest that the church (national church, regional church, etc., as it emerged from the 3rd century and after) was other than as we've described. I will suggest that it wasn't a product of the ideology so much as it was a product of the use case (or misuse) which is rife with corruption, greed, and deceit, none of which is attributable to the ideology.

 

Buddy

[Grandpa Harley]

IT was corrupt at its inception... Just look at the 'Church Fathers' - Eusebius, Athanasius et al... any good that came from the church is a side effect, not its primary function... which was crowd control. Eusebius pulled the greatest trick of all... he took the disparate teachings of an anarchist, and twisted them into a religion to control an empire... Taking the Tarsean view of three distinct Gods in a hierarchy, and Byzantine 'One true God' and melded them such that both were correct and to observe either alone was a heresy and punishable by deathis masterful... having said that the mess of which traditions worked with the new view and which didn't weren't properly resolved for another 1100 years (if you're Roman Catholic) or 1125 years for the Synod of Dordrecht's Protestant take on the whole sorry deal.

 

To get an idea of the span of the texts pre-Nicacea I'd recommend Rev. Dr. Robert M. "Mad Bob of the HP Lovecraft Glee Club" Price's "The Pre-Nicene New Testament: Fifty-four Formative Texts". Always nice to come across a book where in the author is expert enough to take the original texts and translate them...

[Ouroboros]

...

producing a photo-receptor cell in the middle of its' light-sensitive spot for every _____ individuals (best case), and more reasonably, one representative for every ______ individuals. That's a lot of worms. Assuming a one inch creature, that's enough to stretch from here to the sun and back say _____ times. Thats more individuals than there have been hominid individuals in the last ____ million years or so. And we still haven't made much progress toward functional vision.

...

A couple of times from here to the sun? That's extremely short distance. Our solar system is microscopic in comparison to the galaxy. And our galaxy is microscopic to the size of the universe. So you can talk numbers like billions stretches between the sun and us, and it still doesn't measure up. The current estimate of stars in the universe are around 70,000,000,000,000,000,000,000. That's 1,000,000,000,000 times more than humans on our planet. It's 70,000,000,000,000 times more than animal species. You see, large numbers do exist in fact and observable, and just because they're large it doesn't make them impossible or unreal. The truth is that reality deals with very large numbers and a very large universe, so scaring me with numbers doesn't work.

[BuddyFerris]

I haven't referenced any articles...

 

and you're still ignoring the fact that the generational populations of where eyes evolved measured in tens of thousands a year. All variations of eyes, including iris 'camera' like ones, are found in these populations that still can have 500+ generations in a week....

Dang, Grandpa. I think I inappropriately attributed an earlier post to you. My apologies. Yep, it was Dano who challenged the math.

 

BTW, Buddy, why are you insisting on something as complex a worm? The animals I'm referring to are no where near that complex or slow breeding...

 

The case for evolution (as described) depends on being true for small and large creatures. I used the worm as a complex multi-cellular creature differentiated from the bacterial (single cell) fast breeders intentionally. Bacteria can do 500 generations in a week. Worms can't. Homo sapiens can't. If a worm is going to evolve an eye, it's going to have to do it in a very small number of generations and a very small population size, comparatively speaking. A malaria victim will be infected with about 10^12 malarial parasites. That's about the same as the total number of primate individuals in the line leading to homo sapiens in the last 10 million years. The malaria parasite will adapt to a toxin (medicine) like quinine in about 10^20 replications with random variation. There haven't been that many primates in the history of the world. I don't need a 'God did it' solution, but it looks more like design than random chance just from the numbers. I've read a lot of hot air answers, but I haven't heard a reasonable one yet.

 

I'm not greatly invested in the evolution controversy, but I'd like to think the discussion is reasonable and honest on both sides; thus the question.

Buddy

[BuddyFerris]

A couple of times from here to the sun? That's extremely short distance. Our solar system is microscopic in comparison to the galaxy. And our galaxy is microscopic to the size of the universe. So you can talk numbers like billions stretches between the sun and us, and it still doesn't measure up. The current estimate of stars in the universe are around 70,000,000,000,000,000,000,000. That's 1,000,000,000,000 times more than humans on our planet. It's 70,000,000,000,000 times more than animal species. You see, large numbers do exist in fact and observable, and just because they're large it doesn't make them impossible or unreal. The truth is that reality deals with very large numbers and a very large universe, so scaring me with numbers doesn't work.

HanS, we're counting worms here, not stars. Just little one-inch worms. The math for eye-evolution needs more worms. Will somebody please tell us what happened to the worms. We have missing worms, here; a lot of missing worms. Sorry, got carried away.

Buddy

[Ouroboros]

You mean about 150-200 billion generations of worms isn't enough? (assuming that a worm can't lay egg until a week after "birth", and the worm came to this world 3 billion years ago.) If an eye requires 300 mutated genes, that still leaves almost a billion generations between each one.

 

You're trying to wow yourself with big numbers and get to some point of "wow, that's so big so it's impossible". And it doesn't work. You're building assumptions on assumptions and create large numbers you can't comprehend.

 

Btw, you brought in the sun and the distance there. I'm sorry. I won't ... if you won't.

[BuddyFerris]

Here's my comment on the entire evolution discussion: It doesn't make a damned bit of difference if scientists have accurately unraveled the mystery of life or not.

Concur. Emphatically.

Neither my personal philosophy nor yours are based on that particular discourse. It does make for a great study though; absolutely fascinating.

Buddy

[Grandpa Harley]

Misapplication of statistics is what it is... It's clearly possible since it happend... it's like tossing a coin and it landing on it's edge. in the case of genetics it needs to happen once as an advantage for it to rapidly become fixed (as has been observed experimentally) Seems to me you're deliberately being disingenuous... or terminally lacking in imagination when it comes to denkwerk...

 

Lets try and spell it out...if the eye evolved (as it did) in the primitive type organisms, it would have taken off quickly in groups that needed it. Any further development would continue the eye theme while ever it needed it.... you seem to discount that the eye has been 'invented' several times... it's a statistical likelihood simply by virtue of the fact there are eyes... Seems to me you're using 'it looks like design so it has to be design' with a minimal grasp of statistics (even less than mine) to support a weak postulate.

 

Question. Since, statistically, chances of the precise sperm meeting the precise ovum that produces you, or me, is of the same order of magnitude as two atoms of Oxygen producing one atom of Gold at STP (273.15 K and one atmosphere of pressure) is it chance or design?

 

As to hot air... that's the pot shouting to the kettle 'Yo! Ma Nigga" since I've seen little from you other then hyperbole and cant...

[Grandpa Harley]

Here's my comment on the entire evolution discussion: It doesn't make a damned bit of difference if scientists have accurately unraveled the mystery of life or not.

Concur. Emphatically.

Neither my personal philosophy nor yours are based on that particular discourse. It does make for a great study though; absolutely fascinating.

Buddy

 

Whoa Neddy... you're the one who dragger the whole eye crap up... so the 'I'm not really basing anything on that sort of thing' shit rings wholly hollow... Seems to me your accusations of 'Hot air' and like so many of your other comments

 

BULL SHITTING TO DISTRACT WHEN YOU'RE BACK FOOTED

 

Hypocrite...

 

Why the fuck are you here? That's a simple question you've not answered...

[Mankey]

[Grandpa Harley]

and Homo evolved from something with eyes... most worms I know of evolved to become 'eyeless' from a visioned precursor. The eye is in the genome, it just has to fire up again, and that can happen quickly in terms of the generational powers of the animal involved. or they die out...

 

More straw men than scare crow festival...

[Ouroboros]

Buddy,

 

Each worm gives a bunch of offspring. Lets say none of them gets a mutation. Then some thousand generations later, just one of lineage gets one mutation that gives that worm a little bit more chance of survival. Lets say 1.1 against 1. Now this worm will have more offspring and eventually have a larger family than other worms and generations later it will occupy more than the original worms. It doesn't mean the original worm disappeared, but this new worm manage to live under a different environment. Now lets change this, that many worms have many differerent mutations in each generation. That means that you have large number of possible good or bad genes. The good ones survive longer and have more offspring, and thousands of years later, you will have a lineage of worms that can thank their worm-god for their ancestor that got that special "gift" - a mutation - that gave them the ability to recognize light and avoid birds. Now, we're not even at the first billion generations yet, and we have another 199 billions to go. It isn't hard to understand or accept. The problem is that you look at the probability in a sequential manner, while it is parallel. Many mutations happens simultaneous, and with higher organisms you also have the mixing of different chains of mutations.

[Grandpa Harley]

The guy's a troll, Han...

 

BUDDY

 

WHY THE FUCK ARE YOU HERE?

[Ouroboros]

Yeah, you're right. I'm quite tired of his charade.

 

He's a Christian.. not he's not... he believes God create the world, universe and animals... no wait, he believes in evolution... somewahat... no, not really.. but yeah, kind off... but he's a Christian... or maybe not... *sigh*

[Mankey]

Here's my comment on the entire evolution discussion: It doesn't make a damned bit of difference if scientists have accurately unraveled the mystery of life or not.

 

Posit: If all evolutionary science is in error, we do not default into the un-dead, flying, zombie, God-Man myth of Jesus. If evolution can be "proven" false, then we have to go back to the drawing board. The drawing board -- ignorance -- is the the default position. Not JESUS JESUS JESUS JESUS JESUS JESUS. Or, across the pond: ALLAH ALLAH ALLAH ALLAH ALLAH ALLAH.

 

It is a false logic that says JESUS IS GOD, because "I don't understand how life evolves." In fact, it's willful stupidity.

 

With Buddy's "GOD DID IT," Buddy still can't explain how "GOD DID IT." What I mean is this: Buddy seems to be centering in on details in evolutionary theory that seem lacking. Evolutionary theory is a trying to understand the mechanism whereby life has evolved. Buddy wants to say "GOD DID IT." But that answer will do nothing for answering how it was done. GOD DID IT is the ceasing of searching for answers. GOD DID IT is the stifling of thought. GOD DID IT is the choking out of all inquiry, trading off the science of delving into nature for lazy, metaphysical, armchair philosophizing and resting on expanding laurels.

 

Evidence, Buddy. That's what required. Get off the chair. Bring to us a shrubbery. Or, a little green man, or Big Foot. All myths have the same amount of evidence.

 

Good luck.

Induction is not revelation. If belief in jezues is so necessary then we would not be stuck with faith or mere probabilities and instead we would have certainty from God as to his existence. Everyone would have certainty. That we are asked to have faith is glaringly suspicious....

 

If God made everything then Gods fingerprints are on every single thing -making it impossible to infer a God from creation. Either the theists God created all things or he did not create all things. If he did not create all things then why call him God? If he did create all things then in trying to infer God from creation we can not in any way make a distinction. Either God created all things or he didn't. No way to know. We are stuck with induction. Christians are stuck with Faith. Faith is not consistent. It is make believe based on bare hope.

 

ID and creationism is not a method its just argument from ignorance.