Total posts: 511
Posted in:
-->
@janesix
Fuck with the makeup of bricks and you can't build a house. It doesn't prove genes have anything to do with brain development.
Huh? Your analogy just proves my point.
If you mess with bricks, and the result is that you cannot build a house, then clearly bricks have something to do with building a house.
If you mess with genes, and the result is altered brain development, then clearly genes have something to do with brain development.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@janesix
...and those proteins comprise structures in the brain.
Alter specific genes in an embryo, and you can drastically affect brain development.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
The question isn't whether humans have intrinsic worth, but at what point a collection of cells becomes human.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@janesix
Behavior isn't genetically encoded.
What a silly assertion. Brain development is unequivocally genetically encoded.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
I wasn't attempting to answer the question about where the information for a chicken came from. I was merely taking issue with Grugore's assertion that DNA is a language.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
I'm not sure which part of what I said you think is not right. I did not mention random chance or natural selection.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@EtrnlVw
The converse of naturalism would be supernaturalism, which asserts that non-material things have an effect on the physical world.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
It's not so much that there is an evolutionary advantage to dying, but that what happens to older members of a population is unimportant from an evolutionary standpoint.
That is because most organisms die long before they reach old age. The have accidents, or get eaten, or contract some non-genetic disease. Because older organisms comprise a smaller and smaller fraction of the population, their survival has less and less effect on the survival of the species as a whole. Deleterious mutations that affect the old don't get filtered out by natural selection because there is no evolutionary advantage to doing so.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Grugore
You left out a crucial defining characteristic of language. Language communicates information from one mind to another. That is not what DNA does, therefore it is not a language.
The fact that particular sequences of DNA produce particular results does not mean those sequences have "meaning" in the same way words have meaning. Claiming such is a fallacy of equivocation. It is akin to saying that atmospheric conditions have meaning because particular conditions produce particular results.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Grugore
I don't think very many people suggest that the universe created itself. It came into being through some process, assuming it has not always existed. There is no reason to call that process a Creator, or assume it has a non-naturalist origin.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
I wish you hadn't said that. Now I keep floating out of my chair, and objects I drop just hang in midair.Do you know that gravity is a lie?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tejretics
How do you know they are sexist trolls? Maybe they really identify as a F-35 fighter aircraft.That would just open up to sexist trolls writing in their gender as "F-35 fighter aircraft" -- which I've seen trolls on DDO say and do.
Created:
-->
@Mopac
I didn't claim any of these things
Do you believe any of those things are true?
Created:
-->
@Mopac
In fact, I am not making any extraordinary claims at all.
You are if you claim it this ultimate reality has intelligence, communicates with us, answers prayers, wants our worship, cares what we do, helped write one of our books, sent part of itself to us in human form, metes out punishment and reward, or is responsible for an afterlife. The existence of ultimate reality may not be an extraordinary claim in and of itself, but each of these is.
Created:
Posted in:
The whole history of these books [the Gospels] is so defective and doubtful that it seems vain to attempt minute enquiry into it: and such tricks have been played with their text, and with the texts of other books relating to them, that we have a right, from that cause, to entertain much doubt what parts of them are genuine.
--Thomas Jefferson
Created:
-->
@Goldtop
If you defend yourself by shooting an attacker, then you are intentionally harming them, but it is not evil. So any definition of evil needs something more than just intentional harm.
Created:
-->
@Goldtop
Too simplistic. By that definition, self-defense would be evil, and I think we can all agree that self-defense is not evil.How about defining evil as "intentionally harming others" and good as "not intentionally harming others"? Does that cover it?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@janesix
You don't think black holes exist? The evidence for them is very strong.
Created:
Posted in:
There is no God -- that's the conclusion of the celebrated physicist Stephen Hawking, whose final book is published Tuesday.
The book, which was completed by his family after his death, presents answers to the questions that Hawking said he received most during his time on Earth.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@janesix
This article is eight years old. I wonder if the theory has been tested during this time, but I couldn't find anything else on the subject. I am also wondering if they are genetically identical, they should know that by now.
That was the point of the article, that the populations were genetically tested, and were found to be so genetically similar that their genes must still be mixing with each other. They won't be identical, though. Only twins and artificially created clones are genetically identical.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@janesix
I think of morality as fundamentally intertwined with the well-being of sentient beings. An action is right to the extent that it tends to promote such well-being, and wrong to the extent that it tends to decrease such well-being.
So it comes down to whether well-being is subjective or objective. I tend to think it is both. There are many components of well-being. Some are objective, like health. Some are subjective, like personal fulfillment.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@janesix
The article itself gives a possible explanation.
"Today, most scientists think the species travel a deepwater conveyor belt called the thermohaline circulation, the ocean-wide phenomenon responsible for currents such as the Atlantic's Gulf Stream. Because cold water at both poles changes salinity and sinks as it spreads, it forms discrete submarine rivers that descend at the equator and resurface at opposite ends of the planet. Along the way, temperatures only waver between 2 to 4 degrees Celsius, consistent enough for most polar dwellers to survive. The creatures themselves make the journey from one pole to its antipode suspended as larvae or eggs, or as live adults, reproducing over generations on their 9,500-kilometer trek before arriving 400 to 600 years later. To return to their pole of origin it could take another 1,600 years because of prevailing currents."
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@janesix
Ok, so you are saying there is a small error rate from the designed optimal.
What makes you think those particular numbers are canonical for the Moon?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@janesix
What do you mean by canonical?
In math, canonical means a standard form, but it looks like you mean something different.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@janesix
Moon radius: 1079.38 miles
Moon diameter: 2158.76 miles
Sun radius: 432,169 miles
Sun diameter: 864,338 miles
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@EtrnlVw
Correct me if I am wrong, both naturalism and materialism both have the same meanings?
They are very close, but not exactly the same. The difference is that naturalism does not assert that non-material things do not exist, only that they have no effect on the physical world. Materialism asserts non-material things do not exist. If you are a materialist, you are also a naturalist, but the converse is not necessarily true.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
"Science is systematic knowledge acquired by the application of logic to observation."
Objective: (o.1) (of a person or their judgment) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts. (AND/OR) not dependent on the mind for existence; actual.
That definition of "objective" explicitly states "of a person or their judgement", yet you are applying it to a body of knowledge. I don't see how a body of knowledge can be said to be objective. Accurate or inaccurate would be more appropriate adjectives.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@janesix
Yes, many important things will occur on Earth.
None of them will be due to the precession of the equinoxes.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Goldtop
The fact that he cannot accurately predict your actions does not mean that your actions are unpredictable in principle, or due to freewill. After all, we cannot accurately predict earthquakes. I don't think you would claim that earthquakes are due to freewill.If it is was simply cause and effect, why didn't you accurately predict all of my answers?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
How did you measure mood?
Over 10 days, you were only in 3 different moods?
What if you are in more than one mood at once?
Did you control for time of day?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
I agree that 2nd degree murder was probably the correct verdict, but one aggravated assault charge for each shot fired seems kind of ridiculous. All the shots were part of one criminal act; they were not separate acts. It's like charging someone who gets in a barroom fight once for each punch they throw.
In this case, the multiple aggravated assault charges are just the prosecutor playing to the public outcry.
Created:
Posted in:
Yes, it is great. It wouldn't surprise me if one of the sentences it generates is "God means the Ultimate Truth."
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bsh1
It seems like that could be abused. If I don't like someone, what is to prevent me from just reporting every post they make?Reports are anonymous. I can only see who was reported, not who did the reporting.
Ideally each reported post is evaluated independently based on its content, but we know that the more someone has been reported, the more likely their borderline posts are to be judged as crossing the line. Also, knowing who is a chronic reporter would help you take their reports less seriously.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ramshutu
if two parents have a recessive gene - the child has a 50% chance of having two recessive genes - and then having whatever genetic disorder comes with it - sickle cell anemia, cystic fibrosis, red hair, etc.
Red hair is a genetic disorder? Heh.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Goldtop
I don't know what articles you are referring to, but Science and Nature are both among the top peer-reviewed scientific journals.
Created:
-->
@Mopac
Ok, for the purpose of argument, say I accept that God (defined as Ultimate Truth) exists. How does that tell us anything about the nature of this Ultimate Truth? I don't see that it gets us to deism, much less theism.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
Readers can judge for themselves which one of us is being petty.
Since you are no longer making even a token effort at actual debate, I'm done trying to get you to address the point. Readers can verify easily enough which one of us is correct.
Created:
-->
@Mopac
Even if one accepts that God means Ultimate Truth, where does that get you? It tells you nothing about the nature of this Ultimate Truth. It doesn't get you to deism, much less theism.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
You've returned to me constantly and you've been somewhat civil. Thanks, but I thought you were suspicious?
A suspicion isn't a certainty, so I gave you the benefit of the doubt.
You are wrong. It isn't my responsibility to educate you. And my purpose is not your education.
No, I'm not wrong. Anyone with a high school understanding of Mendelian inheritance knows that if one parent is genotype BB and the other parent Bb, 50% of offspring will inherit a b.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Buddamoose
She might have technically violated the California statute, but perjury? Nope.
Psychologist: an expert or specialist in psychology.
She is a professor of clinical psychology. I would say that makes her both an expert and specialist in psychology, whether or not California requires a license to practice psychology.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
And what is the functional difference to you between your suspicion and fact? Because youy behavior for both looks the same.
In this case, the functional difference is that, the more I suspect that someone is engaging in willful misrepresentation, the less likely I am to engage in discussion, and the less civil any discussion will be.
For what it's worth, after your last post I'm leaning back toward you just having a basic misunderstanding of the difference between inheritance and expression and not communicating it very well rather than actually being willfully dishonest.
What if when it's a single genetic mutation? Lol. Cue the jargon.
As I said, the study and article have nothing to do with the probability of inheriting mutations, single or otherwise. They are about predicting the effect of mutations on phenotypes.
No sir. It is saying that a key assumption in evolution theory is false. But you deleted that part. Wonder why? If you delete it, it doesn't exist huh?
I responded to what you quoted in your post to me. How could I delete something you did not put in your post?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
Mutations are recessive, and recessive genes do not get expressed in offspring at a .50% ratio when only one parent carries the mutation. The ratio is .25%.
The question under discussion was the probability of inheritance, not the probability of expression. You continue to conflate the two. Not only that, but you don't even have the probability of expression correct.
Take blue eyes as an example. Blue eyes are due to a recent mutation in one gene. Call the original version B and the mutated version b.
Each person is one of BB, Bb, or bb depending on whether they have zero, one or two copies of the mutated gene. Because b is recessive, only someone who is bb has blue eyes. BB and Bb both have brown eyes. That is what it means for a gene to be expressed.
So if you are Bb, you do not have blue eyes, but you still carry the mutation. You have inherited the mutation, but it is not expressed.
Our debate was about how a novel mutation that occurs in a single individual could spread, so the applicable case is where one parent is BB and the other is Bb. Look what happens.
B b
B BB Bb
B BB Bb
How many of the four offspring have the blue-eyed mutation (inheritance)? Two, or 50%.
How many of the four offspring have blue eyes (expression)? None, or 0%.
Yes, it is as straightforward as addition.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
And let me guess, your suspicions are the same as reality right?
If I thought it was fact, I would have stated it as such, not called it a suspicion.
Here is an example of how I state a fact: you are wrong that the probability of inheriting a single mutation from one parent is 25%. It is, in fact, 50%. It is not a mater of me having a suspicion that you are wrong, or of my opinion differing from yours. Your claim is as factually wrong as saying 2+2=5.
What is uncertain is which of two possibilities are true. Either you truly misunderstand basic Mendelian inheritance and Punnet squares, or you intentionally misrepresent your understanding. Initially I leaned toward the former, but after you held to your claim despite exhaustive explanation and multiple examples at the level of high school biology, I now suspect the latter, especially since you seem intelligent enough that you ought to be able to grasp such a basic concept.
A new study of fifty bird species from the Andes now rules out any possibility of predicting evolution on a single genetic mutation.
That sentence (and the study) has nothing to do with the probability of inheriting mutations. All it is saying is that you can't predict the effect a single mutation will have on a trait, because traits result from many mutations acting in concert.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
As Ramshutu observed, after someone thoroughly dismantles your argument and exposes your lack of scientific understanding, rather than trying to address any of their points (I suspect you know you can't), you ignore everything they said and bring up some other Creationist talking point. One can't help but conclude that you have little interest in making a good faith attempt to understand the science behind evolution.
In another thread, you demonstrated that you do not even grasp simple inheritance. You asserted that a mutation in one copy of a one parent's gene has a 1/4 chance of being passed to an offspring, when anyone who has taken high school biology should know it is 1/2. Anyone can look up Cistic Fibrosis for an example.
Created:
-->
@Mhykiel
While I would agree that religiosity is part of human nature, it does not follow that newborns have religious beliefs. Lots of things that are part of human nature do not manifest until one gets older. The ability to walk, for instance, or speak. A desire for self-actualization. Sexual desire.
The most you can conclude from the fact that children as young as two show glimmers of religiosity is that religiosity can start to manifest as early as two. But a two-year-old is a far cry developmentally from a newborn.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
I've never seen a logically coherent definition for free will.
Me either. I think it is because the idea of freewill is intimately linked with consciousness, and we do not understand consciousness. If we did, then a workable definition might be the ability to make conscious choices.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
I used an example to help you visualize that each parent has two copies of the gene and passes only one copy to offspring because you failed to grasp that basic concept from Punnet squares. But if you absolutely must have a Punnet square where one parent has one capital letter and one lowercase letter, and the other parent two capital letters, then look here.
Notice how two of the four offspring inherit the lowercase letter?
Yes the mutation must occur in a zygote or gamete. Guess what? Gametes (and only gametes) carry only one of an individual's two copies of each gene. That is, in fact, how one and only one copy from each parent is passed to each offspring.
Bow out if you want, but you are missing the chance to correct a misunderstanding you have of a basic concept in biology.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
Here is an illustration where only one parent has the mutation in one gene copy. Observe that two of the four children have the mutation.
Created: