Are you an atheist?

[Frothingslosh]

Murderboy's inept attempts to explain how the Bible actually means the opposite of what it actually says have served to push me nearly entirely into atheism, actually, simply due to my seeing even more clearly how self-contradictory, impossible, and straight-up EVIL most of the teachings and fables in it are. (In fact, pretty much anything not attributed directly to Jesus - and a few of the things attributed to him - would get you into a LOT of legal trouble REALLY quickly.)

 

[Mike375]

Murderboy's inept attempts to explain how the Bible actually means the opposite of what it actually says have served to push me nearly entirely into atheism, actually, simply due to my seeing even more clearly how self-contradictory, impossible, and straight-up EVIL most of the teachings and fables in it are. (In fact, pretty much anything not attributed directly to Jesus - and a few of the things attributed to him - would get you into a LOT of legal trouble REALLY quickly.)

Regarding the Bible as a pile of lies or whatever does not make one an atheist.

 

[Frothingslosh]

You asked a question; I answered it.

Arguing with me saying I don't understand why I did something simply makes it less likely that others will answer you.

Your inability to accept data with which you disagree is not my problem.

Besides, where did I say the Bible made me atheist? Fact: I didn't, because I'm not. Yet.

 

[dichotomous]

Mike, there are so many things in your post that I disagree with that I don't even know where to begin.

Well, you are talking to a genuine atheist right now, and no, I don't believe that what goes around comes around.

You do not need one iota of any sort of faith to understand evolutionary theory. That is a tragic misunderstanding that can easily be remedied by studying the subject. There are many great books on the subject, several by Dawkins himself in fact. In these books you will not find anyone asking you to take anything on faith. You will only find the evidence that lead us to our current understanding of evolutionary theory. Contrast that with the Bible. Yes the Bible is a historical document, but that in and of itself does not make anything that is written within the Bible true. You need a ton of faith to believe even a single page in the Bible, because there IS no evidence to go on.

The basis of evolutionary theory IS natural selection. What are you trying to say?

Hi there.

Interesting thread.

Natural selection?

Homosexuality is the conundrum for the Natural Selection theory, and, the reason for my rejection of the same. Natural selection would have eradicated the anomaly as being useless to its purpose.

Yet, throughout recorded history, homosexuality is there, in your face.

Not that I have any issue with homosexuality per se, just making an observation.

Alastair.

 

[Libre]

Hi there.

Interesting thread.

Natural selection?

Homosexuality is the conundrum for the Natural Selection theory, and, the reason for my rejection of the same. Natural selection would have eradicated the anomaly as being useless to its purpose.

Yet, throughout recorded history, homosexuality is there, in your face.

Not that I have any issue with homosexuality per se, just making an observation.

Alastair.

If I can take a stab at answering this, I would say that in order for natural selection to occur, the trait in question has to have a genetic component - in other words be transmitted from generation to generation in the genes.

There is no such genetic component to homosexuality - at least none that I've heard of. If a trait is not genetically transmitted, it can't play any role in natural selection or evolution.

Right?

 

[dichotomous]

yes, you are correct. If not genetic, then the factor, or trait cannot play a role in natural selection. But the G&L community are trying hard to get it proven than their preference is in fact genetic rather than something they choose.

So, pre-supposing they are proven correct, then, we arrive back at my original point, the gene that predisposes them to their sexual preference would have been eradicated by NS.

Right?

 

[Mike375]

The key point with homosexuals is they are produced by heterosexuals.

The only way natural selection could be applied to homosexuals would be if there was some test etc. that would predict if a heterosexual relationship would (or perhaps "even could") produce a homosexual. Now that would be when natural selection would come into play.

 

[dichotomous]

Mike

I didn't make my comment to be anti-homosexual. And I don't want my addition to this thread to be taken as such.

Natural selection, as a phenomenon in its own right, by it's own volition, operating at a level outside of our control,,,,,,would have eradicated the gene.

Homosexuality as genetic - renders the natural selection theory useless. A dichotomy.

 

[Frothingslosh]

In the past few decades, there has been a lot of research into the idea that human sexuality is on a scale, rather than being a binary toggle. From what I've seen, I think that is the most likely. This is, of course, made very difficult to study thanks to cultural forces that, for the last couple thousand years, have utterly condemned anyone who wasn't part of the majority who are straight.

If that is the case (I'm hardly a behaviorist - my own studies tend toward philosophy and physics), then it's not likely to be bred out of humanity any time soon.

 

[Mike375]

Mike


Natural selection, as a phenomenon in its own right, by it's own volition, operating at a level outside of our control,,,,,,would have eradicated the gene.

Homosexuality as genetic - renders the natural selection theory useless. A dichotomy.

The gene that causes homosexuality is coming from heterosexuals and as such I can't see how natural selection and homosexuality have any connection UNLESS as I said above there was some test that would demonstrate a particular couple would produce an offspring that is homosexual.

 

[Galaxiom]

Homosexuality is the conundrum for the Natural Selection theory, and, the reason for my rejection of the same. Natural selection would have eradicated the anomaly as being useless to its purpose.

This notion would apply for a trait that is encoded in a single gene but almost everything is more complex than that.

Start with the well known example of blue eyes. Two brown eyed parents can have a child with blue eyes because the blue gene is recessive. Add in more genes and the picture quickly becomes very complex.

An example where natural selection is clearly involved is the gene for Cystic Fibrosis. Those inflicted with the disease rarely live to reproductive age. A simplistic analysis suggests that it should have been eliminated from the population long ago. However the disease manifests only when two copies of the gene are present. A single copy affords resistance to tuberculosis leading to an increased chance of living to reproductive age for those individuals hence it persists in the population.

Homosexuality very probably has a substantial genetic component. Some of these genes could well lead to increased fertility. The persistence of homosexuality in populations of many species strongly suggests this is the case.

Natural selection applies not to individuals but to a population. A trait that brings a selective disadvantage to some individuals can still persist because it brings an advantage to others. A study in Italy suggested that the sisters of homosexual men may have a significantly higher average number of children.

 

[Galaxiom]

Natural selection aught to be self evident to any reasonable person.

Those who reject it in favour of their own flawed analyses seem incapable of considering the possibility that their lack of understanding is the problem rather than there being something wrong with the accepted position arrived at through the work of thousands of trained scientists.

I would find the dogged persistence in the face of coherent explanation by those such as Mike quite comical if it were not that they have the same rights to influence public policy as the rationally competent.

 

[Mike375]

Natural selection aught to be self evident to any reasonable person.

Those who reject it in favour of their own flawed analyses seem incapable of considering the possibility that their lack of understanding is the problem rather than there being something wrong with the accepted position arrived at through the work of thousands of trained scientists.

I would find the dogged persistence in the face of coherent explanation by those such as Mike quite comical if it were not that they have the same rights to influence public policy as the rationally competent.

I do not deny natural selection in fact I am just the opposite. However I do not believe (at least at this point in time) that natural selection results in a new species. Instead, it makes a version of the species dominant and that dominance could be to the point that another version of the species becomes extinct.

As to a lizard becoming a snake I can accept that but I don't accept or believe the pathway that is put forward.

 

[Galaxiom]

However I do not believe (at least at this point in time) that natural selection results in a new species. Instead, it makes a version of the species dominant and that dominance could be to the point that another version of the species becomes extinct.

Differences between versions become differences between species when enough difference is accumulated.

There can be enough genetic variation for a population to diverge into separate species when groups are geographically separated. It can be as little as birds singing a different mating call. Classic examples are the animals on the Galapagos Islands where groups on different islands diverge from a single ancestral population.

However, natural selection can only act upon what is present in the collective genomes of a population so the scope for change is limited. Radical change require new variants of genes which are provided by mutation over long periods of time.

 

[Mike375]

Differences between versions become differences between species when enough difference is accumulated.

There can be enough genetic variation for a population to diverge into separate species when groups are geographically separated. It can be as little as birds singing a different mating call. Classic examples are the animals on the Galapagos Islands where groups on different islands diverge from a single ancestral population.

However, natural selection can only act upon what is present in the collective genomes of a population so the scope for change is limited. Radical change require new variants of genes which are provided by mutation over long periods of time.

Perhaps I should have been clearer. By a different species I am talking about a complete change...such as lizard to snake etc.

Small theropod dinosaur to bird. That would take some doing as the animals are virtual opposites. The theropod is kangaroo like in the sense of week or small arms and chest muscles but big horsepower at the rear leg department which is just the opposite to the flying bird.

Of course in more recent times palaeontologists are now leaning to the small theropods being descendants of flightless birds.

Again, let me say I am not a denier, rather, I am a searcher looking for the answers. As I said before I am not a denier of evolution but the way it is presented, at least for me, has lots of gaping holes.

The legless lizard has always made me wonder and I have owned them. Apart from not having legs there is not one aspect of them that is even remotely like a snake. In fact they have more in common with a cat or dog than a snake. At this point in time the legless lizard suggests to me that species change, at least via a transition period, is limited to another version of the species.

One other animal I find interesting is the toothed whale whether a dolphin or killer whale etc. Although mammals they have simple reptilian type teeth.

 

[Galaxiom]

Remember that all we see today evolve from ancestral species. One modern species doesn't evolve into another modern species. Snakes and lizards evolved from common ancestors as did dogs and cats and humans. They all evolved from tetrapods which in turn descended from lobed finned fishes.

Many of the genes for related species are still incorporated but not expressed so it isn't so surprising that a mammal could have reptilian-like teeth. Mammals and reptiles both came from the same fish eating ancestors.

We even share more than ten percent of genes with earthworms which one would not immediately think of as being related. We even share many genes with microorganisms, mainly because we use similar chemical processes in our cells.

 

[Mike375]

Remember that all we see today evolve from ancestral species. One modern species doesn't evolve into another modern species. Snakes and lizards evolved from common ancestors as did dogs and cats and humans. They all evolved from tetrapods which in turn descended from lobed finned fishes

That is basically what I have been saying in general and Snakes and lizards evolved from common ancestors is a totally different game to snakes evolving from lizards.

There are many what I would call loose statements that leave out much of what is required.

For example, at the first page of this thread (I think post 12) Rabbie said
"For example if you had a mouse that was 1mm bigger than its parents and this was repeated at each generation It would take only 10 Thousand generations before it towered over an Elephant."

If that did happen each generation there would need to be some very big changes for it to reach elephant size and for the simple reason the volume/weight will increase as the cube but areas will increase as the square.

One problem is that much science is driven by funding to get a result. For example, the issue of whether dinosaurs were warm or cold blooded or perhaps we should be more scientific and say
endothermic or exothermic.

The reasons that animals like lizards etc. lack activity and endurance has nothing to do with being cold blooded. If we could change a monitor lizard to warm blooded the only difference would be in cold weather. Basically its lack of endurance is because of the heart type, very low blood volume and very low blood pressure. In addition when it walks it is similar to someone who is halfway through a push up. It also has a different system for breathing which can mean either it does not breathe when walking or running or air simply goes backwards and forwards between its lungs.

But there is one thing for sure and that is we won't finish with the correct answers on this thread

 

[Galaxiom]

That is basically what I have been saying in general and Snakes and lizards evolved from common ancestors is a totally different game to snakes evolving from lizards.

If you read my statement in context you will see I was referring to modern lizards and modern snakes.

While the precise sequence of snake evolution has not been determined (because snake skeletons are rarely fossilised due to their delicate structure) it is widely accepted that they evolved from ancient lizards. Some snakes still have vestigial hind limbs.

Yes it involves far more than just losing its legs. Moreover it didn't happen in a single step.

Imagine a lizard with a mutation that causes it to grow an extra vertebra in the thorax section of the spine. The gene to replicate the segments the usual number of times is already there. It is only a small change to that gene that causes the embryo to replicate just one extra time in the already segmented body structure.

It won't render the animal unfit to survive and the rest of the body will evolve over subsequent generations to compliment the change.

Now imagine that process being sporadically repeated. It happened once, it can easily happen again and the creature is perhaps prone to it because of the mutation. Not much genetic change but a significant morphological change increasing over generations. Offspring that are overly prone to randomly adding another segment won't do so well because the rest of the body cannot adapt fast enough. Those that don't do it often won't change much but those that do it at just the right rate could have some selective advantage.

Adding one extra segment every ten thousand generations, a million years would be more than enough for the thorax to entirely dominate the body. Yet every generation remained fit for its environment with ten thousand generations in between to adapt to the small changes.

Can you see a snake ultimately emerging from what was originally a lizard?

 

[Mike375]

If you read my statement in context you will see I was referring to modern lizards and modern snakes.

While the precise sequence of snake evolution has not been determined (because snake skeletons are rarely fossilised due to their delicate structure) it is widely accepted that they evolved from ancient lizards. Some snakes still have vestigial hind limbs.

Yes it involves far more than just losing its legs. Moreover it didn't happen in a single step.

Imagine a lizard with a mutation that causes it to grow an extra vertebra in the thorax section of the spine. The gene to replicate the segments the usual number of times is already there. It is only a small change to that gene that causes the embryo to replicate just one extra time in the already segmented body structure.

It won't render the animal unfit to survive and the rest of the body will evolve over subsequent generations to compliment the change.

Now imagine that process being sporadically repeated. It happened once, it can easily happen again and the creature is perhaps prone to it because of the mutation. Not much genetic change but a significant morphological change increasing over generations. Offspring that are overly prone to randomly adding another segment won't do so well because the rest of the body cannot adapt fast enough. Those that don't do it often won't change much but those that do it at just the right rate could have some selective advantage.

Adding one extra segment every ten thousand generations, a million years would be more than enough for the thorax to entirely dominate the body. Yet every generation remained fit for its environment with ten thousand generations in between to adapt to the small changes.

Can you see a snake ultimately emerging from what was originally a lizard?

Yes, I can accept the possibility you have described but there is much more.

I am heading to bed now and will repost tomorrow. For now I will just say a real big barrier to transition to snake is in the eating, killing etc. and the set up with the skull/jaws. There is also another big change that is needed to accompany all the vertebrae that develop as you have outlined.

As a side note I do not have a position of preference. In other words I don't have a starting position and then try to support that position.

Talk to you tomorrow.

 

[Alc]

I call them "born again" because their views are equally rigid.

And because of your tendency to use words to mean whatever you want them to mean, as opposed to their otherwise universally accepted meaning.

I knew it seemed familiar

'I don't know what you mean by "glory",' Alice said.
Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. 'Of course you don't — till I tell you. I meant "there's a nice knock-down argument for you!"'
'But "glory" doesn't mean "a nice knock-down argument",' Alice objected.
'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.'