Total posts: 1,817
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Yes, sure, this is the case in the US where there is such an obscene inequality growing more and more. Americans don't care about it, of course, as long as they keep wars in the Midlle East.
By the way, this kind of tax policies are applied in social democrat countries, especially in Europe. They understand that their people are an important asset for their development, which is why they socially support them, giving them a fair quality of life like good education, good housing, good healthcare, good social security. All of it at a low cost.
Il Diavolo
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
It depends on gold price and the wage for a digger.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
I think you're wrong. Many countries are choosing gold and not the green bills for their reserves nowdays because the US is not trustwrothy anymore. Gold is the metal of reference when it comes to money and economy since it has an intrisic value (if I understand correctly whta "instrinsic" means). Besides, neither people nor governments decide how much the gold costs, it's the law of supply and demand that fixes the price, or in other words it's the market that do so. So, if society collapses, what it's going to increase its price is for sure the things that have more demand and less supply, as food and water, and probably the gold because its production will decrease.
Il Diavolo
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Unproductive people don't create wealth, so it's only fair to side with productive people.
They're unproductive if government doesn't give them social assistance.
And yeah, it's fair to side with rich people when it comes to finance wars, terrorists and dictators.
Il Diavolo
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Oh they may be money but money doesn't have intrinsic value. It only has the value of whatever it represents or the value we agree it has. So you owe me ten money. But the link was awesome.
If you're trying to say that money is symbolic because the material which it's made of has no value (obviously, it's a piece of metal or paper, it's not made of gold anymore), you're quite correct.
But in the past money used to have intrinsic value until we decided to "trust" the US in order to use its dollars instead of gold to trade internationally. I wonder if the US is still trustworthy.
Il Diavolo
Created:
-->
@WisdomofAges
Are you Australian?
Created:
Religions are plagued of false idols, including me. You said nothing new.
Il Diavolo
Created:
-->
@mustardness
As long as they're signalled.
As when you see the signal "no trespassing, guard dogs on duty", or when you see "Registed Gun Owner, no trespassing". Would you dare to trespass? I wouldn't.
Il Diavolo
Created:
Posted in:
It all depends on tax policies. The States is known to side with rich people, namely banks, and disregard the poor and the middle class, so I am not surprised about the tremendous inequality going on in this country.
It's not that complicated. Do you want less rich people and more middle-class families? Put more taxes on the rich and use these taxes in more social projects.
Il Diavolo
Created:
Posted in:
Human beings are social animals, what can you expect?
However, meditation has somehow proved that it's possible to overcome loneliness and even isolation. Budhist monks are used to spent long periods of isolation, just to give an example. Besides they claim it's a good thing, lol. So yes, it's possible to get isolated without suffering from depression or this kind of mental problems.
Created:
Posted in:
And what is the average salary at present?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Alec
So do you think it can happen in the near future? Because I was kidding, my American friend.
Created:
Posted in:
Shame on California.
What's next? Recognise Spanish as second language?
Created:
A big double thick wall won't resolve anything. Landmines in the border can.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
If it's Spanish, it should be "Vaya con Dios".
Created:
Posted in:
Well, the definition is clear. An agnostic believes it's impossible to know whether there is a God or not. I personally believe the Gods of many religions, including the Christian God, are very caricaturesque, which doesn't mean Gods don't exist.
But going further with the defintion, I think there is a lot of things we don't know about how the concept of God arose. At least this is not clear to me, which makes me an agnostic. I mean, people are not so idiot or crazy to make up something that has gone deep into societies like the concept of God. There migh have been something that triggered the idea of God. I tend to believe for example that the Gods ancient societies used to worship were in reality beings of other planets, It's quite clear that in front of an advanced civilisation people would think they are magic beings, which reminds me by the way that when the spanish conquerors arrived at America for the first time, the indigenes believed they were Gods.
All in all, we don't take a position because there are things to elucidate as yet.
Created:
Posted in:
Everybody comes back. Besides, you love us, so you can't leave us no matter how much you want it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
If they had balls,they would pick a side.
Doing what all people do? This is not to have balls.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
I think being agnostic is more of a way to find the truth. We don't believe there is a God, but we don't either believe there isn't a God. I mean, we're just interested in finding the truth, meaning that we don't take a position. In my particular case I drew some conclusions about it, which is God is something that might have always existed but people misinterpreted all along.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
I tried to say that we don't have to believe in anything we hear from people. Not all people do that, or have the balls to reject it. People are used to just go with the flow. This is probably the reason why people are likely Christians if they grow in the Western civilisation.
I have beliefs, of course, but other kind of beliefs not associated with religion.
Created:
-->
@Analgesic.Spectre
Designed by unintelligent design (i.e. evolution).
That seems to be a contradiction. It's like stating that a monkey is capable of making a work of art.
Created:
Posted in:
I, as an agnostic, don't have beliefs in ghosts or weird creatures. I just try to understand what happen with people that have beliefs, like Christians or atheists. I just want to understand what the source of these beliefs are. Of course there might be an explanation for that, beginning with the fact that people have in their DNA the gene of "the believer", which means people are born to believe, it's almost genetic. Besides, I value most of these beliefs as an important drive for people's lives, but I also criticise most of it, specially atheists' beliefs, because it could be harmful for the society.
On the other side, as well as humans tend to believe in abstract things, there are others that also believe in not-proven scientific things that could turn out to be a hoax at any moment, like for example the people who believe in theories of flat earth, evolution, abiogesis, and the like.
I would say that the agnostics use all the time their common sense, and according to that they have the balls to call into question the status quo.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
Geezes, I still don't get it. What did I miss? Lol.
Does it have to do with the fact that Jesus died for our sins and then it was not necesary to give up our money to get in heaven any longer?
Created:
-->
@Ramshutu
I was referring to macromutation, of course. What you have shown is a case of micromutation, which is basically adaptation to the environment.
That is why I said these people would be the same after all, no major changes. That they can't interbreed with other people doesn't mean they "evolve".
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
You mean when Rome adopted the Christianity as its official religion? I'm sorry, I don't get it. What does it have to do with Jesus's advise?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@janesix
Rich people are slaves of their money, which means if they lose it they would likely kill themselves, jumping off the buildings as if it were the stock market crash of the 20's. So when Jesus asked the rich man to give up his money, he was trying to prove whether he was spiritually ready, but he wasn't of course.
I'm not sure if rich people are necesary in this world. What I know though is that the rich has the same or even worse problems that the poor, spiritually speaking.
Created:
And what kind of species this experiment would lead to? I see these people would be the same after this peculiar experiment.
Besides, speciation has never been proven, and I doubt it will be proven anytime soon.
Created:
Posted in:
I think all depends on the definition you give to "tune". Your opponent assumed a definition and she/he is constructing her/his arguments based on it. You can also assume a definition in order to prove your statement.
I don't believe there is such a Christian God, so I can't help you more in that matter.
Il Diavolo
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ramshutu
I've showed you that it's not turning on or off in genome that lead to macroevolution, this is microevolution though. Thought the example of feathers would have been enough. I would like to bring more examples, but I think I made my point.
I just want to add that it's true I don't like darwinism, but only because it is a foolish theory that implies randomness (random mutations) and mindless process (natural selection) are the main engine for the evolution of such extraordinary complex living beings.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ramshutu
Your argument is like saying that to go from your home city to Washington D.C using left, right, forward and backward: but you need to invent a whole new direction to get to New York. Now - New York is still the same lefts and rights - just in a different order.
No, it's not just lefts and rights. Evolution is not a mindless process. It's like saying a computer program is just 1's and 0's, it doesn't make sense because the group of 1's and 0's has a meaning depending how they're arranged.
As in the genetic code for feathers, you need information as to how feathers should be constructed. Without it, it's a blindless process. Now, I'm not saying this is impossible, the issue is that darwinists think it's natural selection that makes that possible. Common sense and a bit of knowledge about science and maths tell this is quite difficult.
Il Diavolo
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stronn
You said that a naturalistic perspective is insufficient to explain evolution. Naturalistic means non-supernatural, so of course I took that to mean that supernatural forces are required to explain evolution. You should have used the correct term if you meant that natural selection is insufficient to explain evolution.
This is the term the article used.
Just because we have discovered that natural selection is not the only way traits change does not mean that natural selection is not the primary way traits change. Natural selection is still quite sufficient to account for the vast majority of changes over time, including speciation. Even without epigenetic change, speciation would still occur due to natural selection.You are portraying epigenetics as some alternate evolutionary theory, when really it is just a refinement of current theory. Epigenetics does not preclude natural selection. Just as Einstein's theory does not mean Newton's theory was wrong, epigenetics does not mean Darwinism is wrong.
This is what I take issue with. Natural selection is useless.
As to epigenetics, it's fair enough.
Il Diavolo
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Analgesic.Spectre
That is not the fine-tuning argument. Again, you are completely ignorant as to what fine-tuning refers to. I'm going to show your posts to my friends so that we can laugh at you.
Fine-tuning attempts to prove the existence of an intelligent creator, in any case, and not necessarily a God of a particular religion.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
Are you saying the problem lies on random mutations?
If it's that, I completely agree. It's possible that the proble is either random mutations or natural selection, or even both.
Il Diavolo
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ramshutu
And again - you’re understanding of the genome is grotesquely naive.There are no “wing” genes in ANY genome. There are hox genes - and regulation sequences that can regulate or unregulate gene expression that encourages or inhibits cell specialization, growth and division at particular times in the development of the organism. All of those are broadly common to all animals, and very close in all terrestrial vertebrates.In that respect the genes from an arm and a wing are inherently the same genes and the same things, just with modified regulation and expression of those same genes.
I've never said "wing" genes, I said "wing" code, which can encompass several genes.
But still, you're wrong. Let's focus how a wing evolved, because it has evolved anyway. The question is whether it evolved or not like you said.
Let's assume first that birds evolved from dinosours. I say "assume" because there are some doubts about it according to some findings of apparently a "bird" that existed before dinosours. (https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21328574-400-reptile-grew-feather-like-structures-before-dinosaurs/). In any case, there's a consensus among scientists that feathers evolved from reptile's scales. There have been some experiments in alligators genome in order to induce them to grow feathers instead of scales by turning some genes on and off as you described (https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-42082489). What they got were not presicely feathers but a sort of appendages. And according to scientists: "The reason the gene doesn't cause the development of a fully feathered alligator is that unlike birds, alligators don't have the underlying genetic architecture evolved to support these central feather-making genes, or hold the structures in place on the skin." This shows that in order to get a new species, macroevolution in other words, new genetic information should be put in the DNA code, in this case the feather-making genes.
So macroevolution is not about just new gene expressions but new genetic information. An arm and a wing are differents.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ramshutu
I would say darwinism is the real simplistic way to explain evolution.
At any rate, you're considering animal's traits as if they were already in all the living being's genome. So, are you saying, for example, that a cat has in its genome the code to grow wings?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stronn
Naturalism typically means a belief that natural processes account for everything in nature, as opposed to supernatural. So of course I took your statement that the article says a naturalist perspective was insufficient to explain evolution to mean there must be some supernatural explanation. I now understand what you actually were trying to say.
I've never mentioned "supernatural" forces. Lol. But thank you anyway for making my point in the OP, that anyone daring to criticise the Synthetic Theory or darwinism is a superstitous guy.
The article does not say that natural selection is not enough to explain evolution. It only says that natural selection is not the only process by which traits can change from one generation to the next. Of course, being written for a popular audience, it uses hyperbole to spin epigenetics as calling into question all of Darwinism. The fact is that under modern evolutionary theory natural selection remains the primary mechanism of evolutionary change, sufficient to explain most evolutionary change, especially long-term changes resulting in speciation.
And what is the difference?
No, natural selection is incapable of explaininig diversity of species or the evolution.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
In your intro you said something about how gene modification alone doesn't cause one animal to mutate into another, so I thought you might find this interesting...A chicken embryo with a dinosaur-like snout instead of a beak has been developed by scientistsANd mammals have a common ancestor.
According to this article, birds already have in their genes the code of their ancestors, namely that new genetic information is not added to their genome. They're not creating new functionality nor an organ or member, but it's just a change, or a replacement.
I was referring to new genetic information like, for example, the iris of an eye, or an organ with a new functionality. Netiher gradualism nor natural selection can explain that properly, completely and acurretely. You cannot get new information just turning on or off genes, for that you need to add new genetic information.
Il Diavolo
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ramshutu
ROFL. You are spewing the same rant over and over again without contributing anything to this debate. I've heard so many times that discourse that I can repeat it by heart.
You're making the same mistake. Gradualism is being replaced by macromutation which is other way to see changes in the genome and could explain better macroevolution. As Keith pointed out, it's been in the debate long time ago, but now it's getting conspicuous among scientists.
With macromutation all your posts collapse like a house of cards.
Il Diavolo
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
'Macromutation' is a newish word for an old idea that was called 'saltation'. It's the idea that new structures or species appear already fully formed and was a mainstream, orthodox theory of biology upto the C19. Darwins new idea was that change was gradual and 'macro' evolution resulted fom the accumulation of many 'micro' events over extended periods of time.The debate over 'gradulism' and 'saltationism' was setted a very long time ago and no biologist today is a saltationist.note also thst Darwin knew nothing about genes or mutation. Darwinism requires that offsprning resemble (but are not absolutely identical to) their parents and siblings. Mutation and epigenetics both fit in with darwinism.
Thank you, Keith, for contributing to this debate. But I'm afraid Saltationism, or macromutation nowadays, is gaining more popularity among Darwinists and scientists in general as an alternative to gradualism.
Actually, it's been considered for Modern Synthetic Theory. The eternal question is still the same, is it possible that random mutations, natural selection, macromutations and punctuated equilibria explain macroevolution?
As to mutation and epigenetics, there is no problem with them. The main problem is natural selection as the main driver of evolution.
Il Diavolo
Created:
Posted in:
This is not good, not at all.
Everything the US touch turn to rubbish. Did anybody say Central America?
Created:
Posted in:
Seems to me this is another way to endure life as it is, believing that what happen to us, either good or bad, is God's will.
I prefer the buddhist way, it makes more sense.
Il Diavolo
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ramshutu
For example you asked about macro and microevolution, and claimed that big “traits” don’t exist in the DNA and so can’t evolve. I pointed out that you’re thinking about traits incorrectly, that changes normally involve simply making things bigger and smaller - which allows you to cover antelope to whale transitions and many other jumps.
I refuted that with the fact that scientists introduced a new hypothesis, macromutation, which basically states that macroevolution relies on big saltations or changes instead of gradual or small changes.
No real answer to that, instead you implied that this requires animals to have substantially plastic genomes and body plan
Nooo. I was trying to be ironic as you were saying that an animal can evolve "making this one bigger here and making this one smaller there". It's not that easy, as if animals were plasticine.
Instead you asked ANOTHER question about micro and macro mutations, which I pointed out you fundamentally don’t seem to understand - the micro and macro deacrobe the EFFECT not the mutation itself.
You said micromutations and macromutations were essencially the same. This is what I understood, which is not true. Macromutation entails major changes in the phenotype without several changes, only the enough to turn a species to a new one. But to be honest I didn't find more information about it since it's under research, or I would say it's unexplicable.
nstead of answering anything in that post, you’ve now gone onto ask YET ANOTHER question and demanded to see a macromutafion producing a new species.Not only is none of that an answer to what I said, it’s not even something I specifically claimed at any point
The only thing I'm asking you is to prove your claim that macroevolution happens turning on and off some genes. I tell you this is not possible but only if you introduce new information in the genome.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
What are you trying to show us? Speak.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ramshutu
I think I addressed all your posts.
But feel free to show me what I requested. That would put an end to this thread and I will go with the tail between the legs.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
A mammalian arm, wing and flipper have the same number of bones and joints arranged in a somewhat (but not totally) different configuration.Macro-evolution has been observed in the stickleback - http://www.bozemanscience.com/stickleback-evolution
This is not macroevolution, but micro-e, almost adaptation to a hostile environment.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stronn
Have you actually read the article? 'f so, you are either misunderstanding or misrepresenting it. It mentions nothing about naturalism, or that a naturalist perspective is insufficient to explain evolution. Epigenetics is, in fact, just another naturalistic process.
Yes, I did. Maybe I didn't explain myself properly. When I say naturalistic perspective, I refer to the belief that natural selection is the main engine or mechanism for evolution, because it's the nature that make evolution possible, which is not so true according to the article.
What the article says is that random mutations and natural selection are not enough to explain evolution. Darwinism disregards several factors such as epigenetics and other discoveries like for example horizontal evolution which states that genetic information might be transfered from other organisms.
Il Diavolo
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ramshutu
Would you mind presenting a case of macromutation, no matter if it was induced in a lab, in which just turning on and off genes it's possible to turn one species to another one?
If it's that easy as you say I guest scientists migh have proved it in a lab. But remember, only turning on and off genes as you said, it's not allowed to create new information.
I can't imagine a mice growing wings just turning on and off some genes. That would be a technological breakthrough.
Il Diavolo
Created: