Total posts: 511
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
You sound as if unlimited and infinite are the same thing, but they are not. Unlimited, if I understand how you are using it, means all-encompassing. Mathematically, that is the set containing all things.
However, something can be infinite but not unlimited. If we represent the universe by the set of all numbers, there you can have many different infinite sets of numbers that do not contain all numbers. For instance, the set of all positive integers. Or the set of all real number between 1 and 2.
Logically, an infinite stack of paper does not logically preclude other things from existing.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
Ok, back to first principles.
Allele: one of two or more alternative forms of a gene.
In a Punnet square, each column represents one of a parent's two copies of a gene. Same with each row. If the two letters are different, that means the parent's two copies are different alleles. Each parent contributes only one of their copies to each offspring.
So in your example "By" represents an individual's two copies of the gene, not just one, with one copy being allele "B" and the other allele "y". When talking about a specific mutation, the "B" allele either contains the mutation or does not. Same with the "y" allele.
In your Punnet square, you use "B", "y" and "O", three different alleles. If you want to use it to track a mutation, you need to specify for each allele whether it contains the mutation or not. In your example, if "O" is the only allele without the mutation, then both "B" and "y" must necessarily contain the mutation. In that case, all four offspring inherit the mutation
Created:
Posted in:
The choice of labels has absolutely nothing to do with the correctness of the example. I chose the labels to so the example would match your lined Punnet square. Otherwise it would be the wrong Punnet square for the case where one parent has the mutation in one copy of the gene.
If you like, we can use B to represent a dominant brown-eyed allele and b to represent a recessive blue-eye mutation. One parent has one copy of the mutated gene (Bb) and the other has no mutated copy (BB). Both parents have brown eyes, because the brown-eyed gene is dominant. But look what happens with the offspring.
B b
B BB Bb
B BB Bb
All four children have brown eyes, yet two still inherit the inherit the mutation.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
Please study the link at the beginning of this post. It is ¼ for the 1st generation. 1/8th for the second, 1/16th for the third, and so on.
You are the one misunderstanding Mendelian inheritance.
Each individual has two copies of each gene (it's called being diploid). A mutation occurs in only one copy. That is why a gene in an individual is represented by two letters. If both letters are identical, both copies of the gene are identical. If the letters are different, the two copies are different.
We can use the Punnet Square you linked to determine what happens when only one parent has the mutation in only one copy of the gene. To do this, we use uppercase Y to represent the mutated gene and lowercase y the original gene. One parent is said to have genotype Yy and the other parent yy.
Now look at the cells in the table. Of the four possibilities, how many inherit the mutated Y gene? Two. That is 1/2.
Incorrect. It is only 25% chance and only for the 1st generation.
Do you see how it is 50% now?
You are also incorrectly assuming that the two siblings will mate and will be the right genders. Neither is likely.
I make no such assumption, because the inheritance rate is 50%.
This is incorrect. Until you learn how heredity works, it will be silly to continue along this track.
Replace "you" with "one of us" and I would agree.
Here is the math on it from the site.The probability of an individual offspring's having the genotype BB is 25%, Bb is 50%, and bb is 25%.
That example applies only when both parents carry the mutation in one copy of the gene, meaning both parents have genotype Bb, where b is the mutated gene and B is the original. In that case, 3/4 offspring carry the mutation.
So a) this is the wrong example to use for the case where only one parent has the mutation, and b) you have the math backwards: 25% is the chance that an offspring won't have the mutation.
The ratio of the phenotypes is 3:1, typical for a monohybrid cross. When assessing phenotype from this, "3" of the offspring have "Brown" eyes and only one offspring has "green" eyes. (3 are "B_" and 1 is "bb")
You are conflating carrying the mutation with having blue eyes. Of the 3 offspring with "B_", two are "Bb". They carry the mutation for blue eyes, even though they have brown eyes, because the gene for brown eyes is dominant.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
Our fundamental disagreement thus far is whether a mutation arising in individuals can spread through a population, so why don't we concentrate on that point for now.
I assume you accept that mutations can and do occur in individuals. But you assert that such mutations must always die out within a few generations.
One thing that may help to convince you is that the rate of inheritance is 1/2, not the 1/4 that you are using. That is because each parent has two copies of a gene. A child gets exactly one of those copies. If one of the parents copies has a mutation, there is a 50% chance a child will inherit it (assuming the other parent does not have the mutation).
All it takes for a mutation to begin spreading is for the first individual with the mutation to have more than one offspring with the mutation. If the first individual has two offspring, then there is a 25% change both will have the mutation. Three offspring, and there is 50% chance at least two will have the mutation (and 12.5% of the time three will).
For a mutation to increase, all it takes is for the average number of offspring produced by each individual with the mutation to be greater than 1. Fewer than 1 and the mutation decreases.
Does anything about this not seem plausible?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
Uh huh.
I have noticed a pattern where, when you misunderstand something, and someone tries to clarify, rather than attempting to understand their explanation, you question their honesty. It doesn't foster a productive discussion.
>Check out the TYPES heading. Read and learn.
So you meant expression of phenotypes. Are you really asserting that phenotypes can be predicted exactly? It should be evident to anyone that that is not the case, from the simple observation that two children with the same parents can look quite different.
>The single proto-chicken theory is dead Stronn. Mutations are not spread by single individuals.
Sure they are. Maybe you are not considering that an individual with the mutation can have more than one offspring, and each of those offspring can in turn have more than one offspring. In this way a mutation can increase in a population, potentially at an exponential rate.
Whether its one mutation or not, the principle is the same. Please tell us how animals change species. By your own admittal, It cannot begin by a single animal, and multiple animals cannot carry the same mutation at the same time. Can you explain the mechanics?
First, animals don't change species, populations do.
Speciation occurs when one segment of a population becomes isolated. Over a long period of time, two things happens. First, new mutations arise and spread through the isolated population, and second, the frequency of existing alleles changes in the population, with some alleles dying out.
Meanwhile, the same things happen in the population that is not isolated. Over time, the changes accumulate and the two populations become more and more genetically dissimilar. Once they become dissimilar enough that individuals of one population can no longer produce viable offspring with
individuals of the other population, we have two different species. (It is worth noting that neither one is the same as the original species.)
I see what you did. You are trying to be dishonest. Watch.
Again with the dishonesty accusation, when you did exactly what I described. Read it again..
Yet, in reality, as with even the imperfect example of blacks in America, we see its not a big if.
Seriously? Are you asserting that blue-eyed people only mate with brown-eyed people, or that blacks only mate with non-blacks? If not, then how can you possibly disagree that assuming either one is a big if?
Nice misdirection, but I mentioned no "black gene" or "white gene".>You said "gene for dark skin" which I unintentionally misquoted,….Uh huh.
Again with the dishonesty insinuation. No reasonable person would conclude that I changed "gene for dark skin" to "black gene" on purpose as some sort of misdirection tactic. They mean the same thing, and the only point I was making was that there is not just one gene controlling the trait.
As would happen with your proto-chicken. Its genes would have been mixed with those of non proto-chickens .….since no other individual in the population has the mutation yet. Just using your words buddy.
I addressed this above.
>Where do you get that black slaves had few mates with their genes?From the fact that 2 African blacks back then could not have had a fair offspring. There must have been mixing.
Yes, there must have been some mixing. But you are making an unjustified leap from "some" to "most." In fact, most blacks have two black parents, then and now.
But they did mate enough with others who did not share their genes for dark skin to begin to fade away. It isn't a perfect example, but it is telling. Imagine how much more it happened when there was only one individual with the mutation.
Yes, they mated enough with Europeans to spread genes for lighter skin throughout the population. Certainly nowhere near a majority of black offspring had a European parent, however.
Your correct answer to 3C shows that your theory of a proto-chicken is incorrect. That cannot behow chickens descended from dinosaurs. Maybe, chickens did not descend from dinosaurs at all.
Again, I think you did not take into account that individuals can have more than one offspring.
Without your proto-chicken idea, do you have an alternative?
By the "proto-chicken idea," I assume you mean mutations arising in single individuals. Now that I've explained it, I hope you understand how it works.
If not, consider this simplified example. Mutation A occurs in one individual. That individual produces two offspring with the mutation. There are now two individuals in the population with the mutation (not counting the parent). Each of these then produces two offspring with the mutation. There are now four individuals with the mutation. Each of these produces two offspring with the mutation....see where this is going?
Of course it is more complicated than that, since the number of offspring varies, and other individuals in the population are producing offspring too. But that is a synopsis of how a single individual with a mutation can spread it over successive generations.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@mustardness
Sorry, I'm not a fan of Trump. I do, however, know when a proposed system is pie-in-the-sky.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
We are talking hereditery genetics and it is a precise science. If I know the gene makeup of the parents, the rate of expression of the gene in offspring can be calculated. Let's forget the "ifs".
I meant "if" in the formal, logical sense. If X, then Y. If a mutation occurs in a single cell, then it follows that it occurs in a single individual. In other words, occurring in a single cell implies occurring in a single individual. This was in answer to your question about whether mutations occur in multiple individuals at once. They do not.
I don't know what you mean by "rate of expression". Gene expression is the process of genes coding for (usually) proteins. Perhaps you mean genetic makeup? If so, you cannot predict it exactly.
So we can eliminate the single proto-chicken theory. A single individual could not have been the answer.
I don't know what you mean by "single proto chicken theory." Do you mean a mutation starting in a single individual? If so, you have no basis to eliminate it as an option.
Thus the mutation you say created the proto-chicken must have occurred in multiple individuals at the same time! The odds of this are astronomical. Ultra astronomical. Do you have a mechanism for how the same random mutation would occur in multiple individuals at the same time?
No one mutation created the proto-chicken. I'm not sure where you got that idea. A proto-chicken was just your name for some species that was ancestors to modern chickens.
3C. If an individual and successive offspring of that individual keep mating with individuals that lack the gene for blue eyes, will the rate of blue eyed offspring resulting from these matings rise, stay the same, or fall within the population?If blue-eyed individuals only produce offspring with brown-eyed individuals, then the rate of blue-eyed offspring will tend to decrease.Then your proto-chicken genes would quickly die out in the gene pool, as there would be no mates with the gene. Each 1st gen offspring would be less likely to carry the gene by a quarter, 2nd gen by 50% less, 3rd gen by 75% and so on.
See what you did here? You asked what would happen if X was true. I answered that Y would happen. You then assumed that Y would happen, without ever bothering to consider whether X was indeed true. It isn't.
In other words, it is true that if every individual with allele A only produces offspring with individuals with allele B, then allele A becomes less frequent and eventually dies out. But that is a huge "if".
But when I asked you,If this/these proto-chicken(s) mated with an earlier generation that did not have the mutation, would that not hinder or stop the propagation of the mutation within the gene pool?You answered,Nope, makes no difference.Now you are admitting that it does make a difference.
See how you asked the question (I bolded the relevant part). Since I answered one of your previous questions by saying a mutation starts in a single individual, I interpreted your question it to be asking whether it made a difference whether that individual mated with members of previous generations. Again, it doesn't, since no other individual in the population has the mutation yet.
Nice misdirection, but I mentioned no "black gene" or "white gene".
You said "gene for dark skin" which I unintentionally misquoted, although I don't think the meaning is much different. My point was that there is no one gene that controls skin color.
If mutations spread through populations only by its carrier(s) producing offspring, where are all the very dark black offspring?
Why would you expect there to be very dark offspring in American blacks? As I explained, they are lighter skinned because their genes have been mixed with those of Europeans. The lighter skin of U.S. blacks is, in fact, an example of genes that promote lighter skin spreading through the population over the generations.
Yes. Like your proto-chicken, black slaves had few mates with their genes, so the incidence of dark skin in the gene pool virtually dispeared in 10 generations. And 10 generations is nothing in evolutionary terms.
Where do you get that black slaves had few mates with their genes? Most slaves had offspring with other slaves. Even today, most blacks have offspring with other blacks.
Your correct answer to 3C shows that your theory of a proto-chicken is incorrect. That cannot be how chickens descended from dinosaurs. Maybe, chickens did not descend from dinosaurs at all.Without your proto-chicken idea, do you have an alternative? This is what I mean when I say if you examine evolution closely, it falls apart. Most people accept the proto-chicken illogic without any critical thinking. But there is no way it can work given the beliefs of evolution. It is illogical.
It only falls apart if you misunderstand one or more key concepts.
As genetic studies on your proto-chicken would also quickly show that they were as much as 30% non-proto on average, and 100% given enough time.
I have no idea what "30% non-proto" means, since every member of the population is a proto-chicken.
Created:
Posted in:
They can, but that was not the question. Cells are found in individuals. Please address the question.
I thought I did. If a mutation occurs in a single cell in an individual, then it follows that it occurs in a single individual. While occasionally the same mutation might appear independently in different individuals, it happens so rarely that it is probably not a significant driver of evolution.
2A. Did these mutations that can be passed down to offspring occur only in individuals at a time, the whole group at once, or many individuals within the group coincidentally at the same time?
Individuals (aside from very rare events which we need not consider here).
I find this answer surprising, so I must ask some questions to understand better. I will use eye color as a placeholder example.3A. Was the blue eye color in humans caused by a mutation?
Yes. A recent analysis found that all blue-eyed people are descended from a common ancestor, whose OCA2 gene mutated between 6,000 and 10,000 years ago.
3B. If yes, is the gene for blue eyes recessive?
Yes, although there is more to it than that. Eye color is influenced by at least 12 different genes. So it is actually possible for brown-eyed parents to have a blue-eyed child and vice versa.
3C. If an individual and successive offspring of that individual keep mating with individuals that lack the gene for blue eyes, will the rate of blue eyed offspring resulting from these matings rise, stay the same, or fall within the population?
If blue-eyed individuals only produce offspring with brown-eyed individuals, then the rate of blue-eyed offspring will tend to decrease.
This does not reflect reality. For example, the gene for dark skin among blacks in America is almost gone. Hardly any black is dark anymore, though blacks brought to America during the years of slavery were very dark.If mutations spread through populations only by its carrier(s) producing offspring, where are all the very dark black offspring? Perhaps factors other than just having offspring affect a mutation's spread (and expression) through a population.
Skin color is actually a good example of the process. But first, realize that there is no "black gene" or "white gene." Skin color is determined by a combination of at least eight different genes, each with two or more alleles. Some alleles tend to promote darker skin, some lighter skin, depending on what other alleles they are combined with.
Africans who were brought to America have lighter skin because they produced offspring with people of European descent. Their offspring inherited some of the white-skin-promoting alleles from the European parent and some of the dark-skin-promoting alleles from the African parent. The result was skin that was darker than the typical European but lighter than the typical African. Genetic studies, in fact, have shown that blacks in some parts of the south are as much as 30% European on average.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
Chickens today were once dinosaurs having no feathers and no beaks.
More accurately, chickens today are descended from dinosaurs.
1. did the changes making them into chickens over time occur because of genetic mutations?
Yes.
2. Did these mutations occur in individuals, the whole group, or many individuals within the group coincidentally at the same time?
The mutations occur at an even lower level than individuals. They occur in individual cells. Each cell in your body can potentially have one or more own mutations. Most mutations, however, are not passed to offspring. It is only when a mutation occurs in a gamete (sperm or ovum) that it can be passed on to offspring. If a mutation occurs in a gamete, then it can be passed down to offspring, who then possess the mutation in every cell, including gametes, which is how it passes the mutation along to its own offspring. (A mutation can also occur during cell division in the zygote, in which case the offspring will possess the mutation in only some cells.)
3. If this/these proto-chicken(s) mated with an earlier generation that did not have the mutation, would that not hinder or stop the propagation of the mutation within the gene pool?
Nope, makes no difference. At any point in time, the population is just all living members of the species, regardless of age. A mutation spreads through a population by its carrier(s) producing offspring. This is, in fact, the simplest definition of evolution: the change in frequency of alleles (gene variants) in a population over time.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@mustardness
The only way you can achieve the wealth distribution you desire is by incredibly heavy-handed government intervention in the marketplace, which in the end results in everyone being poorer.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@IlDiavolo
I would not say that the reason there are several theories is because none of them convince us. Rather, I would say there are several theories because no single one of them provides a complete picture.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
It mated with other proto-chickens.All I want to know is who did your proto-chicken mate with
Go back far enough in chicken ancestry, and eventually you reach a generation that would be unable to mate with modern chickens. They could, however, mate with nearby generations. But there is no clear demarcation.
For instance, a chicken from a few hundred generations ago might successfully mate with modern chickens 99% of the time. Go back further, and you will get to a generation where the success rate drops to 70%. Further still, and the success rate drops more, until it reaches zero. There is no clear point at which you can definitively say that one generation is chickens while the previous generation is non-chickens.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@IlDiavolo
Non-darwinian theories of evolution don't deny that evolution occurred (assuming that we are talking about proposed scientific theories, not religious ones like ID), they just propose that natural selection is not the primary driver.
Probably the most widespread non-darwinian theory today is the neutral theory of molecular evolution, which holds that most mutations are neutral, therefore most evolution at the molecular level is the result of genetic drift rather than natural selection. Even proponents of the neutral theory, however, concede that at the macro level natural selection is paramount.
Lamarckism is making a bit of a comeback too, due to recent discoveries in epigenetics, although not in its original form. In fact, it is probably inaccurate to call it Lamarckism, since most serious proponents view it as working in tandem with, or on top of, natural selection.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
If the IOU's are exchangeable for currency, then they are just a surrogate for currency. If currency is tied to a nation's wealth, then so are the IOU's.
If someone exchanges their IOU for currency, then in the end you have done nothing but give them currency..
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
Evolution is a scientific theory because it explains multiple independent phenomena.
Lines of evidence for evolution include the following.
1. The fossil record.
2. Genetics (all life uses the same genetic code and molecular processes and related species share many homologous genes)
3. Comparative anatomy (related species have similar features)
4. Embryology (embryos of related species are often very similar, even when adults look very different)
5. The geographic distribution of species
6. Direct observation of changes in populations over time in nature
7. Direct observations of changes over time in populations in the laboratory in reaction to a vast variety of selective pressures
Created:
Posted in:
Logically, either life has always existed, or life has not always existed. If the latter case is true, then ambiogenesis occurred.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Pretty much anything Trump does is spun by his base to be a win.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
I thought Ultimate Reality simply meant The Truth. Yet now you say it also means something that cannot be known.
It also begs the question, if Ultimate Reality cannot be known, how do you know it exists?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
It completely transcends postulation, yet you understand what it means? Sorry, that is contradictory gibberish.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
Postulate: suggest or assume the existence, fact, or truth of (something) as a basis for reasoning, discussion, or belief.
You are postulating an Ultimate Reality.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
Merriam-webster...
"capitalized : the supreme or ultimate reality"
As I said, no dictionary I have seen defines God as "The Truth."
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
Of the sources you named, the only one I consider reliable is the dictionary, and I have never seen a dictionary that defines God as "The Truth."
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
Well of course, not after they leave the Church.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
You must think everyone is lying about why they are leaving the Church. Is is really that difficult to understand that, for many people, religion holds little interest? Not because they want to be immoral and follow their own pleasures, not because they hate God, but for the simple reason that they do not believe the claims of the religion are true.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
What fallacy is it when the wrongful use of a word by a large group of people is taken as the proper meaning?
No fallacy at all. Words mean what people agree they mean.
What fallacy is it to take the words of someone who is passingly informed about a subject to one who is a doctor of that subject?
Are you a doctor of religion, that we should take your definition over that of everyone else?
As I said, saying The Truth doesn't exist is a stupid and self defeating position, and that is what atheism toward my God means.
For the umpteenth time, that is not what God means.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
Apology accepted.
But I am telling you no lie when I say that if God really does mean The Ultimate Reality, which it does, it makes atheism towards this God a very stupid and self defeating position.
It means what people intend it to mean, and most people don't intend it to mean simply The Ultimate Reality, but I think you know that.
If you don't love The Truth, critical thinking naturally leads to arbitrariness. If you love The Truth, your critical thinking in theory would perform the function you say it would.What is the motivation for thinking critically?
The goal of critical thinking is to make better decisions. This includes decisions about what one believes.
Part of critical thinking is recognizing logical fallacies. One such fallacy is equivocation, which occurs when a key term in an argument is used in an ambiguous way, with one meaning in one part of the argument and another meaning in another part. You commit this fallacy when you equate God with Truth, when people don't simply mean Truth when using the word God.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vaarka
Right, most non-religious people are that way. They simply don't buy into religion.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
That's not what you mean because you know it makes your position stupid.So what do you do? You debate people who don't really understand theology and shrink away when someone who does tells you that you've been debating superstition of God rather than God.
You are committing the fallacy of appeal to motive. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_motive
Critical thinking alone will get you to truth about as well as tying a bunch of bottle rockets together to construct a space shuttle to the moon.Critical thinking without a love of the truth will simply lead you to reject everything, which actually takes about as much intelligence and thought as believing eveything.
I think you are confusing critical thinking with skepticism. Critical thinking is a method for evaluating information in order to make rational, objective judgements about what to believe.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
Yes, a definition that practically no one means when they debate religion. Just like your definition of God, which practically no one means when they debate God.One definition of religion from merriam webster...
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
You have it backwards. Critical thinking leads one to truth, not the other way around.I'm pretty sure that Loving The Truth will lead to critical thinking skills, and loving The Truth is my religion.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
What you call bad education is actually teaching critical thinking skills. The more people exercise critical thinking, the less religious they tend to be.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Just because there are exceptions does not mean that classification by race is useless or wrong. For instance, there are clear differences in disease risks between blacks, whites and asians. Is that racist?
Created:
Posted in:
Theists often misunderstand why most atheists don't believe, saying it is because they hate God, or don't wish to obey Him, or don't want to follow religious morality. This article describes the real reason, which most atheists already knew.
"What, then, is the real reason young Christians (and other religious believers) leave the faith? The answer lies in a prior, 2016 Pew Research Center survey which allowed respondents to answer in their own words. In this study, most “nones” said they no longer identified with a religious group because they no longer believed it was true. When asked why they didn’t believe, many said their views about God had “evolved” and some reported having a “crisis of faith.” Their specific explanations included the following statements:"
“Learning about evolution when I went away to college”
“Religion is the opiate of the people”
“Rational thought makes religion go out the window”
“Lack of any sort of scientific or specific evidence of a creator”
“I just realized somewhere along the line that I didn’t really believe it”
“I’m doing a lot more learning, studying and kind of making decisions myself rather than listening to someone else.”
“Religion is the opiate of the people”
“Rational thought makes religion go out the window”
“Lack of any sort of scientific or specific evidence of a creator”
“I just realized somewhere along the line that I didn’t really believe it”
“I’m doing a lot more learning, studying and kind of making decisions myself rather than listening to someone else.”
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
If something "was" true, it by definition is not eternally true.
So there are truths that are not part of the Ultimate Truth.
Certainly God is The Ultimate Reality, and that is what the word means.
Only according to you. Most dictionaries, and more importantly most people, use a different meaning for the word.
Simply knowing this there are many things that can be known about God from what is implied by this name.... but lets look at the definition you don't see as true...
Um, no. Even if you accept that God means The Ultimate Reality, that tells you nothing about the nature of the Ultimate Reality (whatever that is). It is just swapping labels.
"the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshipped as creator and ruler of the universe"Being - the quality or state of having existence
You are applying the wrong definition of Being. The one most people use for God is "A real or imaginary living creature or entity, especially an intelligent one."
Perfect - being entirely without fault or defect
According to what standard? How is perfection measured?
Power - ability to act or produce an effect
When people talk about power in relation to God, it implies conscious decision-making. The fact that something is true in no way implies any sort of consciousness or decision process.
Wisdom - accumulated philosophic or scientific learning or ability to discern inner qualities and relationships
Again, this implies intelligence and knowledge. Truth, in and of itself, does not possess wisdom.
Good - well-founded, cogent or true
More equivocation. When applied to God, most people define good as "possessing or displaying moral virtue" or "showing kindness".
The Ultimate Reality is certainly all of these things, and it is undeniable that The Ultimate Reality is worshipped as the creator and ruler of the universe.
Your entire case rests on giving the word "God" a definition that virtually no one else uses, when it is not your definition that people deny. That is textbook equivocation.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
The girl's virginity is tied to the wealth of America by her and the man's act of placing a dollar value on it .
That is not what "tied to" means.
If that is not what you mean by "tied to," then I have no idea what you mean, because that is the only way that money is tied to wealth: by people's agreement that certain goods and services are worth certain units of currency. If you mean something different, you have yet to define it. I have no idea how your IOU's can be exchangeable for wealth but not tied to it.
That doesn't mean her virginity becomes part of the wealth of America. It doesn't increase the supply of virginity or reduce the demand for virgins.
I never said it becomes part of the wealth of America. But by trading it for dollars, she is in essence trading it for part of the wealth of America. In that way it is tied to the wealth of America. In fact, if it is purchased by an American, it becomes part of the American trade deficit with China.
You are incorrect. Tell me, Is it an economic law that increasing the price of a product will cause a fall in demand?
Sure. All other things being equal, higher price results in less quantity being demanded.
Human nature cannot be summed up in a neat little law, and we have suffered through economic depressions and collapses thinking that it could.
I'm not saying that economic laws are simple, only that they exist. And there are other factors besides economics that play a role in people's behavior. But if you think the large-scale effect of introducing IOU'`s with the value of 10 times the current money supply cannot be predicted with some accuracy by economic theory, then you are mistaken.
Untrue. Breaking them does nothing to human nature. You think this only because you have "tied" them together in your mind. They do not describe how things are, but how things can be.
So if supply and demand stopped working, that would not be a reflection of a fundamental change in human nature.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
If both parties feel that thing has value. So a Chinese girl may "sell" her virginity for dollars. How is her virginity "tied" to the wealth of America? It isn't. People (some men) just believe it has value.
Sure it is. The girl's virginity is tied to the wealth of America by her and the man's act of placing a dollar value on it . They are both agreeing that her virginity is worth X dollars of goods and services.
And this is the point on which my argument is understood. We have economic laws, but they are not like the laws of physics. They do not describe how things are, but how things can be. They are made by man and are not irrefutable. Physical laws are discovered, not decreed.
Economic laws are descriptions of human behavior and are discovered empirically just like other physical laws. You are right that they are not immutable like laws of physics. They describe human behavior, and human behavior can, in principle, change. But do you really want to advocate for a policy that assumes human nature will change? That is what it would take for economic laws to cease operating. Counting on human nature changing is a horrible reason to advocate for a policy.
But if you are unable to see that, of course you will treat economic "laws" as if they are phsycal laws, and few breaking them as you would view breaking physical laws.
I see economic laws as reflection of human nature. Breaking them requires human nature to change. History is rife with economic systems that look good in theory, but do not take human nature into account. Communism, for instance.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
You think that 1(a) is ludicrous, but that doesn't mean it is. There is certainly a superstitious interpretation of that definition, but there is also a proper interpretation that is sound theology.
No, I think there is no evidence for 1 (a), therefore one ought not believe in its existence.
An example of a reality would be that Donald Trump is Zthe president of The United States. This is true. Before he was president, this was not true. After he leaves office, it will not be true. So a reality is a contingent existence. It is true in a context.To contrast, The Supreme Reality is eternally true, always true, and the foundation for any truths.A reality may become unreality.. or a truth may die, but The Truth does not die with a truth's death.
The statement "Donald Trump was a president of the United States" will be true forever, and so it eternal. Therefore is it part of The Truth?
But no, it is a ludicrous thing to deny God, and it also isn't helpful. More useful would be debating about the nature of God rather than debate God's existence. God obviously exists.
Again, denying God is ludicrous only if you define God as "that which is always true." But that is not how most people define God. Most people's definition of God includes attributes like omniscience, omnibenevolence, omnipresence, a desire to be worshipped, a system of reward and punishment, and intervention in day to day human affairs through such things as answering prayers, causing natural disasters and helping to write one of our books.
When atheists deny God, it is the existence of a being with these attributes they are denying. Plugging in "The Truth" for "God" is just equivocation.
So better than throwing out God and adopting the foolish position of denying reality, use that skeptical mind to embrace God and debate for the sake of truth, edification, and removing of superstition.
Again, equivocation. No one is denying reality.
Believing God exists. Does not imply that you believe anything other than The Truth exists.
Yes it does. See what I said above. In every monotheistic religion, God is described as much more than just truth. When someone says "God exists," 99.9% of the time they mean a conscious being, not merely eternal reality.
Believing that God exists doesn't imply that you accept Jesus, Mohammed, Moses, Tge Pope, Brahman or any of that stuff. How can you believe what you don't know? How can you believe what doesn't make sense to you? How can you believe something you can't have faith in?
For most people, believing God means exactly that. You will have to ask them how they can believe what they don't really know.
Created:
-->
@linate
it all depends on the definition
Atheist: a person who lacks belief in the existence of a god or gods.
Atheist: a person who believes that no god or gods exist.
Both definitions are used, but among atheists I think the first one is more common. Therefore calling a baby an atheist is appropriate.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
Okay, I'll simplify.What I propose is not tied to the countries wealth in ANY way. How much sovereign wealth the country has makes no difference to it's value.
A country's wealth is the value of goods and services it produces.
How can something be exchangeable for some of those goods and services, yet not be tied to them in any way?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Buddamoose
This is misrepresentative of fiat currencies. These currencies are still tied to commodities, but rather than it being a single commodity, its tied to the sovereign nations GDP, or the value of goods and services produced in a given year, and the ability of the sovereign state to pay its debts to a degree. The fiat currencies are still linked to a "basket of goods and services", but rather than being a single good such as gold, or two such as gold and silver, everything is included in the basket.
It was not a misrepresentation. The way fiat currency is linked to a basket of commodities is through supply and demand, not through government guaranteeing that X dollars are exchangeable for Y amount of commodities. A car is worth as many dollars as people agree it's worth. Yes, GDP affects the market, but through supply and demand, not through government guarantee of some fixed value. I would not call that "tied" in the same way as currency used to be tied to gold.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
Ah. You don't know what "pegged" means. Money is not pegged to the value of products, it is pegged to the sovereign wealth of countries. So that a dollar represents one unit of a country's wealth divided by how many dollars there are.Sorry. I thought any college grad would know this.
Why would any college grad know it, when it has not been true since 1971, when we officially abandoned the gold standard? At that time, we went from representative money, which is money that represents some underlying commodity, to fiat money, which is money that is backed only by the say so of government and people's agreement that it has value, not by any commodity. It doesn't sound like you are proposing anything different than fiat money. Please look up fiat money, and tell us how your proposed IOU's would differ.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
People are very confused about this subject, and the proof of this is that people actually deny that God exists, which is a ludicrous position to take.
It's ludicrous only if people use the same definition as you, but they don't. You are in the minority in defining the word as merely a synonym for reality. Most people use the word "god" to mean something closer to definition 1(a) than just 1 by itself.
I haven't yet seen you address the difference between "supreme" or "ultimate" reality and other types of reality. Do other types of reality even exist? If so, what distinguishes them from "supreme" or "ultimate" reality? If not, why apply an adjective at all?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
You always leave out the (a) part of definition 1.1 capitalized : the supreme or ultimate reality: asa : the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshipped as creator and ruler of the universeb Christian Science : the incorporeal divine Principle ruling over all as eternal Spirit : infinite Mind
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
Yes, it is very unclear. In your latest post alone, you say both of the following.
1. Give people a million dollars each.
2. It isn't money you are giving them.
Sorry, but that is incoherent. No one knows what you mean by dollars that aren't "pegged" to anything. I suspect you don't even know, but have backed yourself into a corner and now are maintaining your position no matter how silly it sounds.
If not, then answer the question of whether whatever you propose giving people can be exchanged for goods and services. Could I exchange it for a set of tires, or a car, or a haircut? If so, then how is it not "pegged" to the value of tires, cars, and haircuts? If not, then what value does it have for anyone?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
Because there is only so much milk, and the number of people has increased. Giving people money does not increase the number of people, and allows many to start a dairy business.
You really need to fact-check yourself before posting. Since 1970 milk production has increased faster than the population has grown. Yet the price of milk has still increased tenfold since the 1960's. Since 1970, total food production has averaged 2.3% growth per year, while world population has grown only 1.8% per year. (https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007%2F978-1-4615-2195-2_1). Yet the price of food has increased 3.96% per year. (http://www.in2013dollars.com/Food/price-inflation/1970-to-2018?amount=20). That is inflation.
That pertains now. How does more income change that? More people can now buy eggs, so note people use their one million to supply eggs. The market balances.
Increase the money supply, and people magically start producing more? Sorry, economics does not work like that.
Untrue. Money is pegged to the wealth of the country. That is how it's value is calculated. What I propose is NOT money.
Look up the definition of money. It is an IOU for goods and services, what economists call a store of value. You haven't proposed anything that in any way is different. In fact, your OP asked if giving everyone a million dollars would solve poverty. If you give someone a million X, and X can be exchanged for goods and services, then X is money. If you can't exchange X for goods and services, then I have no idea what you are proposing.
I know. You said it was not pegged to anything. Money is. This is not money. It isn't resources. It is not pegged to the country's wealth.
Again, if a unit of X can be exchanged for a certain amount of goods and services, then X is money. That is how money is "pegged" to wealth. If you mean something different, then thus far you have not explained it.
Some would, but most people who would quit do not actively contribute to the economy. How many scientists, doctors, researchers, professors, would quit? More people would go to school. The market would quickly compensate and balance.
Actually, many people would riot and bring down any government that enacted such an insane policy.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
This has some truth to it. But I think the market would fight this trend. Why would I now tolerate a 100% increase in say eggs just because I have more money? But generally, you are right prices would go up because demand would go up. But they would quickly stabilize.
It's not a matter of toleration. What choice do you have? There are a limited number of eggs, and everyone wants theirs.
Traditional money. Not this. The IOU's are not pegged to anything.
That is pretty much the definition of money: an IOU not pegged to anything.
Untrue. So many buyers with so much disposable income will spur business. Resources can be skills and expertise too.
Actually it would have the opposite effect. Many people would quit their jobs if they got a one million dollar windfall.
We are NOT allocating resources.
Of course we are. Money is how we measure the value of resources.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
Inflation is imaginary. With a digital IOU system (not money) there would be no inflation.
Sorry, but the only word for such a statement is ignorant.
In the 1960's you could buy a gallon of milk for 49 cents. Today, a gallon of milk costs $3.50. That is not imaginary.
A digital IOU system is what we have now. Only about 8 percent of the world's money is physical. The rest exists only on computers. Yet there is still inflation.
Created: