"The Origin of Specious Nonsense"

robindch

mickrock wrote: »

Since each change is random it is unrelated to the one that preceeded it and to the one that will follow. If this process is allowed to continue for a long time will we end up with a far more sophisticated program with new functions and applications? By a similar process, can the genetic code in a single cell evolve into the genetic code of a horse?

You are forgetting the "selection" bit of Natural Selection -- the thing that happens after the random changes to make them non-random.

Random changes + selection of beneficial ones only = non-random results.

That's how it works.

Doctor Jimbob

robindch wrote: »

You are forgetting the "selection" bit of Natural Selection -- the thing that happens after the random changes to make them non-random.

Random changes + selection of beneficial ones only = non-random results.

That's how it works.

You'd get better results debating with a toaster.

Improbable

nagirrac wrote: »

Why are atheists so interested in Evolutionay Biology (will this thread get to a million comments)? Is it because it is the one theory that can be used to convince yourself there is no God? Is the thinking along the lines of "how could we possibly be made from God stuff if we are only a short head past an ape"?

The thinking cannot reasonably be because of how life emerged because we do not know at all how life emerged. Evolutionary Biology is hard, not as hard as Quantum Mechanics, but hard enough. Most people do not understand evolution and have no interest in it, regardless of beliefs.

The reason atheists are so interested in evolution is because religious people and christians in particular fight against evolution because of their religious beliefs. They think that evolution is incompatible with the belief that god created humans as they are as opposed to evolution which says that humans are evolved from earlier species. Groups in the US are fighting tooth and nail against evolution and trying to distort science and legislation in order to get their religious beliefs into science classrooms even though they are not scientific ideas at all. If christians didn't constantly try to tear evolution down in the name of their faith, atheists wouldn't have any reason to defend it and the only people who would be interested in it would be people who were interested in it for it's own sake.

The origin of life is not something that evolution deals with. What evolution is all about is the change over time of self replicating mechanisms. You're quite correct in saying that most people don't know the really nitty gritty details about evolution. That's exactly the problem. Religious people who know next to nothing about how evolution works feel that they can distort the science because it conflicts with their religious belief. From my own personal observation on these forums and in other places and in debates that I've participated in, atheists tend to have a better handle on how evolution works. I've had to correct people on both sides about the minutiae with regards to the exact mechanisms of some aspects of it, but most atheists seem to have a better grasp of the broad concept while christians tend to just not "get it".

I say all this as an atheist and as someone who has a formal education in biochemistry and evolutionary biology.

fitz0

Here's a site that might be useful to direct future mickrock's to. It's easy to read and has pictures, what more could you want?

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/index.shtml

nagirrac

doctoremma wrote: »

Thus, evolution undermines the very premise on which Christianity is built.

Thanks, I would agree with almost everything you said. I think you have to make a distinction though between fundamentalists who literally believe word for word everything in the Old Testament from more rational Christians who understand the concept of methaphor. I can have a conversation with a rational Christian but I cannot have a conversation with a fundamentalist Christian, it goes nowhere.

Christianity surely is a follower of Christ's teachings, and not a factual believer in ancient myths from the Hebrew Old Testament. I would place more value in Jewish interpretation of the Old Testament (it is their book after all) and most Jews accept Evolution and reject Creationism.

Jesus was quite critical of the difference between the true meaning and a literal meaning of scripture (Sermon on the Mount for example). Most rational Christians and all theologians would say that a literal reading of the bible misses the deeper meaning of the text, the meaning that the writers intended. I think this is the major cause of difference between some scientists and some religious, the irrational literal interpretation of the bible on both sides.

oldrnwisr

nagirrac wrote: »

Thanks, I would agree with almost everything you said. I think you have to make a distinction though between fundamentalists who literally believe word for word everything in the Old Testament from more rational Christians who understand the concept of methaphor. I can have a conversation with a rational Christian but I cannot have a conversation with a fundamentalist Christian, it goes nowhere.

Christianity surely is a follower of Christ's teachings, and not a factual believer in ancient myths from the Hebrew Old Testament. I would place more value in Jewish interpretation of the Old Testament (it is their book after all) and most Jews accept Evolution and reject Creationism.

Jesus was quite critical of the difference between the true meaning and a literal meaning of scripture (Sermon on the Mount for example). Most rational Christians and all theologians would say that a literal reading of the bible misses the deeper meaning of the text, the meaning that the writers intended. I think this is the major cause of difference between some scientists and some religious, the irrational literal interpretation of the bible on both sides.

The problem with the idea of balancing a literal interpretation with a metaphorical one is that there are some key events depicted in the Bible which have ramifications outside the story in which they are depicted and thus only a literal interpretation supports the overall narrative. Emma already explained this in the context of Adam and Eve. While we can recognise through scholarship that the christian creation myth is just a thinly veiled import of the Sumerian creation myth, interpreting the fall from grace as anything other than a historical event undermines the need to repent your sins which most Christian churches teach:

"By his sin Adam, as the first man, lost the original holiness and justice he had received from God, not only for himself but for all humans. Adam and Eve transmitted to their descendants human nature wounded by their own first sin and hence deprived of original holiness and justice; this deprivation is called "original sin". As a result of original sin, human nature is weakened in its powers, subject to ignorance, suffering and the domination of death, and inclined to sin (this inclination is called "concupiscence")
Catechism of the Catholic Church

There are certainly passages in the Bible which can and should be interpreted as metaphor or fable but there are other events which can only be interpreted as being historical events. This, of course, is where Christianity falls apart since it hangs its hat on several key historical events for which there is no corroborating evidence such as the resurrection.

Improbable

nagirrac wrote: »

Jesus was quite critical of the difference between the true meaning and a literal meaning of scripture (Sermon on the Mount for example). Most rational Christians and all theologians would say that a literal reading of the bible misses the deeper meaning of the text, the meaning that the writers intended. I think this is the major cause of difference between some scientists and some religious, the irrational literal interpretation of the bible on both sides.

I would replace the word scientists with skeptics because there is nothing in the bible that is really under the purview of science. There are a few major problems that skeptics have with religion. There are contradictions, in the form of what people said, in the form of what people did and in the form of what actually happened at certain events.

There is the fact that the bible was not written as the events it describes were happening. The actual writing down of the bible spanned around a hundred years iirc. People were writing about things that they had seen or that someone else had seen and told them about years or even decades ago. Needless to say, this can easily result in the contradictions mentioned earlier.

There is the fact that the bible has gone through a lot of translations, which opens up the door on mistranslations and is something that biblical scholars still struggle with.

All of this plus a lot of other things that I haven't mentioned leads to rational people concluding that the bible cannot be considered an entirely accurate account of historical events. There certainly may be parts that are accurate but how do you determine what is fact and what is not?

Also, as you yourself stated, there are parts of the bible that many christians interpret as metaphor and others interpret as literal. I haven't done as much research on this particular area as I would like to, but my guess would be that in a pre-scientific age, more people accepted the bible as literal. The metaphorical side seems to be gaining ground as science not exactly invalidates the bible but makes the events in it less amenable to literal interpretation. One example of this would be the story of Adam and Eve. I'm guessing that the majority of the people in the past would have believed in a literal interpretation of that story and it was only after science showed that humans arose much earlier in the timeline that there was a surge in the amount of people who adopted a more metaphorical approach. The same concept applies to the creation of the universe by god versus the big bang and god becomes credited for causing the big bang, the story of Noah and the flood versus the size of an ark you'd need to be able to store so many species (and forgetting the damn unicorns in the process. Noah was a douche) etc.

darjeeling

nagirrac wrote: »

Thanks, I would agree with almost everything you said. I think you have to make a distinction though between fundamentalists who literally believe word for word everything in the Old Testament from more rational Christians who understand the concept of methaphor. I can have a conversation with a rational Christian but I cannot have a conversation with a fundamentalist Christian, it goes nowhere.

Christianity surely is a follower of Christ's teachings, and not a factual believer in ancient myths from the Hebrew Old Testament. I would place more value in Jewish interpretation of the Old Testament (it is their book after all) and most Jews accept Evolution and reject Creationism.

Jesus was quite critical of the difference between the true meaning and a literal meaning of scripture (Sermon on the Mount for example). Most rational Christians and all theologians would say that a literal reading of the bible misses the deeper meaning of the text, the meaning that the writers intended. I think this is the major cause of difference between some scientists and some religious, the irrational literal interpretation of the bible on both sides.

I'm not religious, and I am a scientist. Unsurprisingly I think that fundamental literalist and pseudo-scientific approaches to the creation myths are wrong-headed. However, I do think the writers of Genesis were onto some key truths in the Adam and Eve myth.

They realised that sin requires understanding and knowledge, for it involves deliberately doing what you know to be wrong. They appreciated that in our potential for sin, we are set apart from less reasoning animals. Pleasingly, they even associated our sinfulness with our expanded crania - the cause of such difficult childbirth to Eve and all women after her ('in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children').

While we now know that we have a very different evolutionary history from that sketched in Genesis and we find the plot devices of the fruit and the serpent to be somewhat ridiculous, I still think the kernel of the myth resonates strongly: we sin when we mistreat others in a way that our evolved intelligence and empathy tell us that we should not.

Sarky

Well yeah, you can't do anything wrong unless you get together with people and thrash out what "wrong" is, which requires discussion and thought. Of course, different groups all have different ideas on what constitutes "wrong", which is why killing your daughter for looking at boys is acceptable somewhere while it's considered despicable elsewhere.

That's about the only thing Genesis gets right, but of course it's wrapped up in mysticism and vagueness so people can interpret it as they like. Because they have their own ideas on what constitutes right and wrong, somewhat ironically.

It's hugely amusing, and not a little bit sad as well, to see religious people argue for objective morality when a glance at any foreign affairs news, or even local issues like abortion or gender equality, will demonstrate that no such thing has ever existed, and most likely never will. But then religious folks rarely let reality get in they way of their righteousness.

darjeeling

Sarky wrote: »

Well yeah, you can't do anything wrong unless you get together with people and thrash out what "wrong" is, which requires discussion and thought. Of course, different groups all have different ideas on what constitutes "wrong", which is why killing your daughter for looking at boys is acceptable somewhere while it's considered despicable elsewhere.

That's about the only thing Genesis gets right, but of course it's wrapped up in mysticism and vagueness so people can interpret it as they like. Because they have their own ideas on what constitutes right and wrong, somewhat ironically.

It's hugely amusing, and not a little bit sad as well, to see religious people argue for objective morality when a glance at any foreign affairs news, or even local issues like abortion or gender equality, will demonstrate that no such thing has ever existed, and most likely never will. But then religious folks rarely let reality get in they way of their righteousness.

Yes, and I think that people who claim objective morality based on scripture are unaware of the extent to which they themselves select which parts of scripture are moral and which are not in accordance with the changing morality of their times.

Galvasean

oldrnwisr wrote: »

This:

Question Evolution - 15 Questions for evolutionists

I like how the very first question on their list has nothing to do with evolution.

Warning: This document contains monumental stupidity and reading it may cause your eyes to bleed.

dlofnep wrote: »

Let's analyse another mutation then, shall we - to see how a new function arise, benefiting the clade Eudromaeosauria. Earlier members of this clade through mutations had spawned feathers. Initially, these feathers were for little more than display and preserving heat - visible in some members such as Epidexipteryx. Epidexipteryx was feathered, but did not have remiges (wing feathers), and thus - did not have the ability to fly.



Different members had varying levels of feathers, some containing very basic remiges, some more fully developed.

Sinornithosaurus and Microraptor are two examples of dinosaurs which contained remiges. Now while it's doubtful that they had the ability to actually fly under power, it's most likely that they had the ability to glide extremely well.



It is speculated that this transition occurred not once, but actually twice during the history of Eudromaeosauria. Firstly in the Jurassic, where we see the primitive Epidexipteryx about 160-170 million years ago, followed by the more featured Archaeopteryx around 148 million years ago.

The second transition is seen in the Cretaceous, where the likes of Microraptor and others delved more towards gliding/flight, while others remained ground hunters eventually evolving into the highly successful Velociraptor and Deinonychus (Who also had feathers, but not the ability of flight).

There are countless cases of these beneficial mutations seen in countless different species.

Why a you no post in Palaeontology so much?!?!?

dlofnep

Galvasean wrote: »

Why a you no post in Palaeontology so much?!?!?

Preaching to the preached there I'll make a special effort to visit it more often!

[-0-]

It would be great if the creationists read this book and tried to refute it. Failure to do so means they fail at life.

http://www.amazon.com/Why-Evolution-True-Jerry-Coyne/dp/B002ZNJWJU/ref=pd_rhf_dp_p_t_1

pauldla

[-0-] wrote: »

It would be great if the creationists read this book and tried to refute it. Failure to do so means they fail at life.

http://www.amazon.com/Why-Evolution-True-Jerry-Coyne/dp/B002ZNJWJU/ref=pd_rhf_dp_p_t_1

Some of the user comments there are magnificent. I'll be adding that book to my wishlist. Thanks [-0-]

(Is that meant to be a TIE fighter, btw?)

dlofnep

I have read Why Evolution is True from cover to back a number of times - it is the best introductory book on Evolution, and covers a broad range of topics. If you want to argue the evidence which proves why Evolution is indeed true, this is the book for it It's my favourite book on the topic, including anything by Dawkins.

oldrnwisr

darjeeling wrote: »

I'm not religious, and I am a scientist. Unsurprisingly I think that fundamental literalist and pseudo-scientific approaches to the creation myths are wrong-headed. However, I do think the writers of Genesis were onto some key truths in the Adam and Eve myth.

They realised that sin requires understanding and knowledge, for it involves deliberately doing what you know to be wrong. They appreciated that in our potential for sin, we are set apart from less reasoning animals. Pleasingly, they even associated our sinfulness with our expanded crania - the cause of such difficult childbirth to Eve and all women after her ('in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children').

While we now know that we have a very different evolutionary history from that sketched in Genesis and we find the plot devices of the fruit and the serpent to be somewhat ridiculous, I still think the kernel of the myth resonates strongly: we sin when we mistreat others in a way that our evolved intelligence and empathy tell us that we should not.

I must disagree darjeeling. I don't think there is anything laudable in the Genesis narrative at any level. I certainly don't think to paraphrase your post that the authors (or more correctly editors) of Genesis had any understanding or knowledge.

If the authors really had the capacity to latch on to the truths you describe then it wouldn't be filled with the level of ignorance it contains. It wouldn't have the mistakes that it does, like that if you show striped patterns to cattle they'll have striped young:

"Jacob, however, took fresh-cut branches from poplar, almond and plane trees and made white stripes on them by peeling the bark and exposing the white inner wood of the branches. Then he placed the peeled branches in all the watering troughs, so that they would be directly in front of the flocks when they came to drink. When the flocks were in heat and came to drink, they mated in front of the branches. And they bore young that were streaked or speckled or spotted."
Genesis 30:37

or that bats are birds

"And these are they which ye shall have in abomination among the fowls; they shall not be eaten, they are an abomination: the eagle, and the ossifrage, and the ospray, and the vulture, and the kite after his kind; every raven after his kind; and the owl, and the night hawk, and the cuckow, and the hawk after his kind, and the little owl, and the cormorant, and the great owl, and the swan, and the pelican, and the gier eagle, and the stork, the heron after her kind, and the lapwing, and the bat."
Leviticus 11:13-19

or that insects have four legs

"All flying insects that walk on all fours are to be detestable to you. "
Leviticus 11:20

So that's a no for knowledge.

Now let's look at understanding.

These people had no capacity for understanding sin either, they certainly had a very poor moral compass what with being ok with animal sacrifice:

"And Abel also brought an offering—fat portions from some of the firstborn of his flock. The Lord looked with favor on Abel and his offering"
Genesis 4:4

"He offered a sacrifice there in the hill country and invited his relatives to a meal. After they had eaten, they spent the night there."
Genesis 31:54

and genocide, wiping out innocent men, women and children and animals with no evident capacity for sin:

"So the Lord said, “I will wipe from the face of the earth the human race I have created—and with them the animals, the birds and the creatures that move along the ground—for I regret that I have made them.”
Genesis 6:7

The god depicted in Genesis (and the rest of the Pentateuch, which is compiled from the same sources) is insecure, petty vindictive, small-minded and vain. There is nothing laudable in Genesis and little of note either except as a reminder of how far we have come from the primitive ignorant barbarism of the tribal goatherders who compiled this book (a word I use in its loosest sense).

Sarky

<looks at Leviticus>

God created an awful lot of abominations. Was he a jerk or just lacking in talent?

pauldla

Sarky wrote: »

<looks at Leviticus>

God created an awful lot of abominations. Was he a jerk or just lacking in talent?

Well, in fairness to him, what being with that level of power isn't going to go off the rails now and again?

No shrimp!
But...why?
Because I said so! Now, make the funny face again. Now jump on one leg. Bleat! Bleat like a little lamb! Send away all your disabled people, I can't stand them the sight of them. Especially the guys with the crushed testicles, they freak me out. Bring me more ice-cream!

Lev. 11:9–12; Lev. 21:18–23

Bannasidhe

pauldla wrote: »

Well, in fairness to him, what being with that level of power isn't going to go off the rails now and again?

No shrimp!
But...why?
Because I said so! Now, make the funny face again. Now jump on one leg. Bleat! Bleat like a little lamb! Send away all your disabled people, I can't stand them the sight of them. Especially the guys with the crushed testicles, they freak me out. Bring me more ice-cream!

Lev. 11:9–12; Lev. 21:18–23

Sometimes when reading that there book I get the distinct impression someone, somewhere, was making it up as they went along....

Galvasean

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Sometimes when reading that there book I get the distinct impression someone, somewhere, was making it up as they went along....

Mind = Blown :pac:

darjeeling

oldrnwisr wrote: »

I must disagree darjeeling. I don't think there is anything laudable in the Genesis narrative at any level. I certainly don't think to paraphrase your post that the authors (or more correctly editors) of Genesis had any understanding or knowledge.

If the authors really had the capacity to latch on to the truths you describe then it wouldn't be filled with the level of ignorance it contains. It wouldn't have the mistakes that it does, like that if you show striped patterns to cattle they'll have striped young:

[..snipped for avoiding mass quoting..]

The god depicted in Genesis (and the rest of the Pentateuch, which is compiled from the same sources) is insecure, petty vindictive, small-minded and vain. There is nothing laudable in Genesis and little of note either except as a reminder of how far we have come from the primitive ignorant barbarism of the tribal goatherders who compiled this book (a word I use in its loosest sense).

Well, I actually referred to one particular myth alone, and not to any of what you've mentioned here. I don't - and haven't said - that I think Genesis is either a source of scientific fact or of morality.

I do though think that some myths are useful shortcuts to thinking about ideas. If we look at the way that artists and dramatists have depicted some familiar myth as a way of getting their audience quickly up to speed with what's going on, and then gone on to explore that myth in a new and unfamiliar way that overturns preconceptions, I think we can see the value of myths.

The Genesis myth about the dawn of humanity is one such example. This year is the 500th anniversary of the Sistine Chapel ceiling frescoes, well known to us now, but shocking in their day for their bold humanist vision. And in our own time, the parallel Promethean myth can provide a germ for sci-fi epics.

This post seems to have taken us some way off where we started, but perhaps that rather proves the point!

murphyaii

quote from sir isaac newton


” This thing [a scale model of our solar system] is but a puny imitation of a much grander system whose laws you know, and I am not able to convince you that this mere toy is without a designer and maker; yet you, as an atheist, profess to believe that the great original from which the design is taken has come into being without either designer or maker! Now tell me by what sort of reasoning do you reach such an incongruous conclusion?”

:cool::cool::cool:

Sarky

You know Newton was also an alchemist? That's the thing about people who change the world. They're usually batsh*t insane.

Could you try harder plzkthx?

Beruthiel

Well that's me questioning everything I've believed up to now....

pauldla

murphyaii wrote: »

quote from sir isaac newton


” This thing [a scale model of our solar system] is but a puny imitation of a much grander system whose laws you know, and I am not able to convince you that this mere toy is without a designer and maker; yet you, as an atheist, profess to believe that the great original from which the design is taken has come into being without either designer or maker! Now tell me by what sort of reasoning do you reach such an incongruous conclusion?”

:cool::cool::cool:

Newtown didn't write in bright blue fonts....

seamus

If there's a designer, then who designed the designer?

Newton may have been brilliant in many ways, but he was an exceptionally eccentric man, often irrational in non-mathematical matters.

He had a great understanding of the physical but struggled greatly with the philosophical. Possibly because there was no way to express it experimentally or mathematically.

Just because Newton said something, doesn't mean it's right.

28064212

murphyaii wrote: »

quote from sir isaac newton*

*Citation needed

robindch

Going into the creationism thread unless anybody has any objections?

Bannasidhe

robindch wrote: »

Going into the creationism thread unless anybody has any objections?

Banish it to Room 101 by all means.

Edit: This appears to be the source of that gem of a quote http://www.evolutionnews.org/2005/11/dont_bash_it_til_youve_tried_o001656.html

coffee_cake

I didn't know blue font was a challenge to atheism