The Anti-theist Thread

[BeardofPants]

Just a couple of things.

Darwinism. Many people cite evolution as a random process. They could not be more wrong. Many facets are factored for in the process, not least including Natural Selection (Survival of the fittest), sexual selection, cultural selection, genetic drift, mutation etc etc. Notice that most of these processes have 'selection' in their names (selection is NOT a random factor). Based on genetic studies, random factors (random mutations, point mutations, crossing over, etc) only account for 1 - 2 % of the processes of biological evolution. This is because most mutations are neutral, in that they don't affect the organism. Therefore, evolution as a process is all about selection, not random factors. Thus evolution can not be compared to a wind blowing through a junk yard to make a boeing 747.

If you were going to create an analogy of a junkyard, evolution would be if someone found a part to improve the fitness of their boeing 747. Then someone liked that extra part so much, they nicked it, and applied it to their plane. Pretty soon, all boeing 747s have swiped that part to increase the fitness of their planes, and are renamed boeing 767s. And the older, weaker model, has died out. Now, no part of this was random, thus, can the same be said of evolution. Organisms constantly selecting for the strongest possible fit. Yes, random factors can be involved, but they are only a small part of the equation.

Darwin's missing link was genetics. He was not trying to find a missing link per se, he was just trying to understand why there was so much variety in his galapagos finches, among other things. His five year mission ( ) on the Beagle, was to select samples from around the globe, of flora, and fauna. His Origin of the Species, was just a by product of this voyage. Remember, Darwin was deeply religious, as was his wife (a pastor's daughter), but he was still drawn to the conclusion that the force controlling the diversity of the flora/fauna he found was part of a process, in which natural selection played a small part. His belief basically means Survival of the Fittest. And random factors just don't cut the mustard. How are you expected to survive millions of years of competition, and so forth, if your species is being randomly selected for? No, this is not possible, as is the analogy of the wind blowing through the junk yard. But I digress, Darwin had the mechanisms right, he just couldn't understand the process of genetics (not discovered until the neo-Darwinism revolution, involving Mendellian genetics). He could understand how competition acted upon the organism, as well as selection processes, but he couldn't understand how a red flower, and a white flower, could produce a) a white flower, b) a red flower, and c) a pink flower. This was his missing link.

[Cirdan]

How random is a mass extinction due to a asteroid impact? Selection isn't about strongest, it's about survival. The reason that a hairless bi-ped species with no natural weapons except a large brain, now dominates the face of the earth is cooperation among the species to survive. Until the next asteroid. that is. DNA is altered by many factors including mutation, virus, chemical, and sequencing errors by RNA. If the DNA doesn't change niether will the species. Most mutations are benign; that's why so much of our genome structure is non-functional.

[FrodoFriend]

I agree with jerseydevil - "god was invented to explain things we didn't (and/or don't) understand." As my anthropology professor told us, religion is a social mechanism invented to explain the unknown (dreams and origins), and to provide a sense of stability (by promising bliss for the righteous and punishment for the wicked). These features are pretty much common in all religions.

Also agree with BeardofPants: evolution is not merely random. It's not conscious (the animals aren't thinking "Oh, she has nice genes, I'll mate with her!"), but not random either. The things that don't work die out, leaving only the fittest alive. Hence, adaptation & evolution. Why this is confusing to people, I don't know.

[jerseydevil]

I do agree with you concerning the misunderstanding with evolution. But still so many people blindly accept the bible saying that we just appeared out of no where as we are. I've heard so many say there are no examples of evolution. But there are - maybe the natural world takes longer - but all anyone has to do is look at cars or phonographs.

Thomas Edison invented the phonograph - which today has basically evolved into the DVD player. I feel this same process works without intervention through genetics. A certain color flower attracts bees - therefore more of that flower reporduces. A plant has a genetic defect that makes it poisonous - animals avoid it. This plant's offspring that carry this defect live on, while the others get eaten.

I went to Catholic School all my life - but we were taught evolution. Nuns even said that Adam and Eve was a story to explain a concept that they did not understand. When I was in Indiana - people were shocked that a religious school would teach that.

I know that my two posts don't really explain why I don't believe in god. Basically what it boils down to - is I see no proof. I've had people say all I have to do is look at the mountains and the trees and the natural things around me. But science explains those things. To me the mountains were created by molten lava or plate techtonics. Trees evolved during the course of millions of years of evolution.

Maybe we don't understand the Big Bang - maybe we will never fully understand the origin of the universe or ourselves. But looking at things - the concept of god has always seemed to be used more as a way of controlling people - or a way of giving people false hope about things. The story of hell - even when I was little - always seemed a way to scare people into following a "good" life. I don't need heaven or hell to know how to treat people or to know how I want to be treated.

[FrodoFriend]

Originally posted by Cirdan
How random is a mass extinction due to a asteroid impact? Selection isn't about strongest, it's about survival. The reason that a hairless bi-ped species with no natural weapons except a large brain, now dominates the face of the earth is cooperation among the species to survive. Until the next asteroid. that is. DNA is altered by many factors including mutation, virus, chemical, and sequencing errors by RNA. If the DNA doesn't change niether will the species. Most mutations are benign; that's why so much of our genome structure is non-functional.

Sure, an asteroid that big is random - but how often does it happen? In all the history of the Earth (4-5 billion years, I believe), not more than ten times? I think that would definitely fit into BoP's 1 - 2%.
And the strongest are the ones who survive - not necessarily physically strongest, but the ones with the strongest features/capabilities for the current environment.

[FrodoFriend]

I don't need heaven or hell to know how to treat people or to know how I want to be treated.

Very good point, JD. I totally agree.

[BeardofPants]

Originally posted by Cirdan
Selection isn't about strongest, it's about survival.

I beg to differ, Survival of the Fittest is a phrase that most people understand - hence it's usage. However, selection is all about selecting for the strongest fitness. Survival is a byproduct of that.

[jerseydevil]

I agree with BeardofPants - survival is only a by product of natural selection. If the meteor theory about the extinction of the dinosaurs is true - mammals had no role in choosing they would survive. They survived because they were small and could hide in borrows. And they were small because if they were big - they got eaten by the dinosaurs.

[Cirdan]

My only point was that the definition of fittest changes constantly and that species fall in and out of favor due to random events. Selection is the mechanism driving evolution. The random events like mass extintions, continental drift, etc are the "roads' the determine which way evolution can go. It will be interesting when all the genomes are mapped and we won't have to depend on the occasionally spotty fossil record see what came from where.

There have been 10 extinctions (3 > 90% of existing species) in the last 500,000 years.

I wonder if humans will cause the next one?

"God is dead, and no one cares,
if there is a hell.
I'l see you there"
NIN

I'm off for a dip in the gene pool

[mirrille]

Yeah. I think that the "survival of the fittest" thing seems to confused alot of people too. Evolution is all about adaptation. Fittest really means "best adapted" in the context of natural selection. A fish is a very fit organism in a pond, but put it in a desert and it'll die pretty quick. A cactus is well adapted to a desert, but stick in in a pond and it'll die pretty quick. Your survival really depends on your ability to make it in that environment. Change the environment, and you've changed the playing field. And sometimes you get mass extinctions. An asteriod is a pretty big change in environment.

Btw, I don't think genome mapping can really tell us where things came from any more than the fossil record. Genome mapping can tell us what is there now. We can compare genes from one organism and see if it is present, or something similar is present in another. The thing is, deciding what are "true homologues" (i.e. came from a common ancestor) is a huge problem in genomics. We are basing things on sequence similarity, but there are other ways that genes can get passed around other than by a common ancestor. E.g. viruses, plasmids and other horizontal transfer. Also, maybe 2 organisms had a common ancestor, but over time, common genes get lost. It's really hard to make deductions on the past based on something like that. Still, there's tons of information coming out of these genomics projects. It's fun.

[Cirdan]

Your right about the genome factor. I remeber know that you mentioned it. I've really only read Matt Ridley's book and I think it was out of date by the time I got to it. I was thinking that linking the homologous genomes to the oldest living species and extrapolating backward. I live just a few miles from Human Genome and Celera, peaking my interest. I applied for a job at Celera and got the guided tour. The terrabyte database systems they use are awesome. Are you in the field or studying it?

[BeardofPants]

Originally posted by Cirdan
My only point was that the definition of fittest changes constantly and that species fall in and out of favor due to random events. Selection is the mechanism driving evolution. The random events like mass extintions, continental drift, etc are the "roads' the determine which way evolution can go.

Yes, to a certain extent that is true. However, most environmental changes were/are not random, they were gradual. Granted, a couple of meteorites are pretty random, but glacial maximums, and inter-glacial periods do not suddenly spring up the earth, they are gradual events. That can not account for the random factor in evolution. Granted, these changes have caused significant extinctions, but that was probably more due to a lack of adaptation, or selection fitness, rather than random-ness. Again, ditto for continental drift, for the majority of the time, these movements are gradual.

[Cirdan]

Not all are gradual, in a geologic time frame. The human factor has proved that movement of species into new areas compete with or deplete species formerly successful species into extinction. The human mingrations during the last ice age wiped out many large mammal species. They were adapted but delicious! Volcanoes can do serious damage as well. Yellowstone is a caldera 10 times the size of krakatoa. Look at the rate of desertification in the sahara and gobi deserts. Rapid change has occured in a timeframe measured in 10's and hundreds of years.

Cirdan must sleep zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

[BeardofPants]

Good point! lol! Delicious... mmmmm.... Yes, that's true, the human impact has been rather large.

[jerseydevil]

With climatic changes - we're not even sure how much is man made and how much is natural at this time. We're only just starting to understand how everything is interrelated. Man is definitely affecting the environment though.

For instance in Hawaii - it was man that introduced cats to the islands. The natural wildlife had not evolved to defend itself against that kind of predator. That is not a natural occurence. Thousands of native plants and animals became extent by us introducing a small mammal. Now if the cat had evolved on the islands - then the native species would have evolved along with it and would have grown a defence against the cats.

Nature generally is slow to react. When looking at evolution - you have to look at natural changes, not changes that are caused by external sudden events (like man or volcanoes). Man is the only species on earth that affects everything. We are the only species on earth that can go around the world in less than a day's time. We can bring a virus from the heart of Africa to the streets of NY within 7 hours.

Our evolution has caused a problem with the balance of nature. In some respects - we have become too smart. During the 20th century we have been able to change the world in a blink an eye. But at that time - we did not fully understand the impact. We are now starting to understand these effects.

The balance of nature is there - but we have skewed that balance in a way that nature has not been able to catch up with. Who knows - maybe some major virus or a meteor will wipe us out and give nature a chance to correct the damage.

This thread seems to have gone slightly off topic.

[jerseydevil]

BeardofPants - I spend 15 minutes on the above post and you come and sneak in ahead of me.

[BeardofPants]

Originally posted by BeardofPants
Good point! lol! Delicious... mmmmm.... Yes, that's true, the human impact has been rather large.

Can't help it, Jerseydevil! Good points though about humankind knocking nature out of whack. One of the reasons I don't particularly subscribe to the ecosystem - everything in balance argument.

I just had a thought, though, generally H. sapiens migrations were gradual as well. So the adaptated animals usually had plenty of chances to avoid being hunted to extinction. However, humans have definately had an imbalanced impact in the modern arena, per se. So, I'll concede that one!

[jerseydevil]

Well ancient man also had a benefit too. For one thing - we were able to survive in the cold by creating warm clothing. For another we could make weapons. The Mammoth's only real enemies were the Sabor Toothed Tiger. They had to get up close to kill the mammoth and risked their lives in doing it. We had the brains to make spears that could be thrown - and also the brains to trap the animals. We could kill the mammoths without risking our lives as much. There is controversy right now as to whether ancient man even hunted mammoths though.

Since man has been able to produce weapons - especially the spear - we have had an advantage over nature. Nothing in nature - unless it has a hard shell, has a defense against a thrown spear. The ones that have the defense such as turtles - are slow and easy prey for man (except the snapping turtle). Nature never caught up to handle the spear, then we had bow and arrows and now we have guns.

[BeardofPants]

Yes, but you have to remember that population numbers would figure into the equation first. For instance, if a small group of nomadic H. erectus migrated into a new area, their impact would be only slight. However, if it was a larger group of early homo sapiens, which exhibit the first signs of mass herding, and hunting, then their impact would be significantly greater. Just because H. erectus, and H. sapiens had weapons, did not mean that they had a significant advantage over their prey. It is the sheer number of the population, that is the actual weapon. Remember also, that to bring a mammoth down - if they actually did that - required a great amount of skill, and a relatively large task force.

[afro-elf]

Cirdan

I totally agree that the mind a largely unknowm area

Maybe it was a knee jerk recation on my part. sorry if I placed you there.

Usually when I hear people speak of the "magic" of love they are often pointing to some supernatural cause.

I think that conscious and all that follows is an emergent property.

mysterous yes, supernatural no.

Uranium and cesium are used for dating

Uranium was what I was thinking thanks

What's your specialty? You sound well educated.

As far as specialty I have to say I lack one trully

I've a AA in General studies and health sciences

and that was only because i didn't know what to study

my BA was Philosophy . the focus was asian so I really didn't develop any HARD reasoning skills. Just was naturally inquistive.


My MA is in ESL

however, i've a few blaring weaknesses that I'm JUST beginning to correct

I'll try to word this without sounding like a prig

I had enough intelligence to "beat" many, a good short time memory for taking tets, and can be quite Tenacous if I what to know something

however I can be lazy so my knowlededge in kinda broad BUT not very deep,

and I am organized as well as I like.

example anduril makes points very lucid.

I have the ability to do so but not the "habit or training" of organinzing my thoughts in a succinct manner

I need time away from the battle to reflect and organize.

that is why I like the discussions here (past and present)
because many here have those skills i wish to develop

and I NEED to be an an environment that challenges me or I'll be stuck in mode of "Raw ability"


anyway I got tried of wasting my time with indo/sino mysticism

and found a great respcet for science 'cause it gets things done

after I finish writing project that working on,

I will start a personal Science studies endeavor and hopefully re-enter school in Jan to study bio-tech