Evolution caught in the act: Scientists measure how quickly genomes change

Jan 01, 2010

Mutations are the raw material of evolution. Scientists at the Max Planck Institute for Developmental Biology in Tubingen, Germany, and Indiana University in Bloomington have now been able to measure for the first time directly the speed with which new mutations occur in plants. Their findings shed new light on a fundamental evolutionary process. They explain, for example, why resistance to herbicides can appear within just a few years.

"While the long term effects of genome mutations are quite well understood, we did not know how often new mutations arise in the first place," said Detlef Weigel, director at the Max Planck Institute in Germany. It is routine today to compare the genomes of related animal or plant species. Such comparisons, however, ignore mutations that have been lost in the millions of years since two species separated. The teams of Weigel and his colleague Michael Lynch at Indiana University therefore wanted to scrutinize the signature of evolution before selection occurs. To this end, they followed all genetic changes in five lines of the mustard relative Arabidopsis thaliana that occurred during 30 generations. In the genome of the final generation they then searched for differences to the genome of the original ancestor.

The painstakingly detailed comparison of the entire revealed that in over the course of only a few years some 20 DNA building blocks, so called base pairs, had been mutated in each of the five lines. "The probability that any letter of the genome changes in a single generation is thus about one in 140 million," explains Michael Lynch.

To put it differently, each seedling has on average one new mutation in each of the two copies of its genome that it inherits from mum and dad. To find these tiny alterations in the 120 million base pair genome of Arabidopsis was akin to finding the proverbial needle in a haystack, says Weigel: "To ferret out where the genome had changed was only possibly because of new methods that allowed us to screen the entire genome with high precision and in very short time." Still, the effort was daunting: To distinguish true new mutations from detection errors, each letter in each genome had to be checked 30 times.

The number of new mutations in each individual plant might appear very small. But if one starts to consider that they occur in the genomes of every member of a species, it becomes clear how fluid the genome is: In a collection of only 60 million Arabidopsis plants, each letter in the genome is changed, on average, once. For an organism that produces thousands of seeds in each generation, 60 million is not such a big number at all.

Apart from the speed of new mutations, the study revealed that not every part of the genome is equally affected. With four different DNA letters, there are six possible changes—but only one of these is responsible for half of all the mutations found. In addition, scientists can now calculate more precisely when species split up. and its closest relative, Arabidopsis lyrata, differ in a large number of traits including size and smell of flowers or longevity: Arabidopsis lyrata plants often live for years, while Arabidopsis thaliana plants normally survive only for a few months. Colleagues had previously assumed that only five million years had passed by since the two species went their separate ways. The new data suggest instead that the split occurred already 20 million years ago. Similar arguments might affect estimates of when in prehistory animals and plants were first domesticated.

On a rather positive note, the results of the US-German team show that in sufficiently large populations, every possible mutation in the genome should be present. Thus, breeders should be able to find any simple mutation that has the potential to increase yield or make plants tolerate drought in a better manner. Finding these among all the unchanged siblings remains nevertheless a challenging task. On the other hand, the new findings easily explain why weeds become quickly resistant to herbicides. In a large weed population, a few individuals might have a mutation in just the right place in their genome to help them withstand the herbicide. "This is in particular a problem because herbicides often affect only the function of individual genes or gene products," says Weigel. A solution would be provided by herbicides that simultaneously interfere with the activity of several genes.

Turning to the larger picture, Weigel suggests that changes in the human genome are at least as rapid as in Arabidopsis: "If you apply our findings to humans, then each of us will have on the order of 60 new that were not present in our parents." With more than six billion people on our planet, this implies that on average each letter of the human genome is altered in dozens of fellow citizens. "Everything that is genetically possible is being tested in a very short period," adds Lynch, emphasizing a very different view than perhaps the one we are all most familiar with: that evolution reveals itself only after thousands, if not millions of years.

Explore further: A different kind of green movement: Seedling growth in space

Related Stories

Sequencing thousand and one genomes

Sep 29, 2008

(PhysOrg.com) -- Researchers at the Max Planck Institute for Developmental Biology in Tuebingen, Germany, reported the completion of the first genomes of wild strains of the flowering plant Arabidopsis thaliana. ...

Charting ever-changing genomes

Jul 19, 2007

Instead of immutable proprietary software, any species’ genetic information resembles open source code that is constantly tweaked and optimized to meet the users’ specific needs. But which parts of the code have withstood ...

Tool helps identify gene function in soybeans

Dec 01, 2008

In the race for bioengineered crops, sequencing the genome could be considered the first leg in a multi-leg relay. Once the sequence is complete, the baton is passed forward to researchers to identify genes' functions. A ...

Midget plant gets makeover

Jun 22, 2009

A tiny plant with a long name (Arabidopsis thaliana) helps researchers from over 120 countries learn how to design new crops to help meet increasing demands for food, biofuels, industrial materials, and ne ...

Darwinian mystery may have been solved

May 11, 2006

U.S. scientists may have solved Charles Darwin's "abominable mystery" of flowering plants' rapid evolution after they appeared 140 million years ago.

Recommended for you

Team advances genome editing technique

13 hours ago

Customized genome editing – the ability to edit desired DNA sequences to add, delete, activate or suppress specific genes – has major potential for application in medicine, biotechnology, food and agriculture.

Studies steadily advance cellulosic ethanol prospects

Oct 20, 2014

At the Agricultural Research Service's Bioenergy Research Unit in Peoria, Illinois, field work and bench investigations keep ARS scientists on the scientific front lines of converting biomass into cellulosic ...

User comments : 246

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

marjon
1.5 / 5 (8) Jan 01, 2010
I'm still wondering how a new sexual species starts from such mutations.
How does the new species male find the new species female and reproduce new species offspring?
According to fossil records this has apparently occurred with humans.
Have any new species of humans been documented lately? Anyone check to see of one of an infertile couple may be a new species?
SincerelyTwo
4.9 / 5 (7) Jan 01, 2010
marjon; it's more like all humans are not the same, we are all diverged from one another but still capable of reproducing. our populations change in segmented groups depending on the environment/resources/etc.

it's not like tomorrow one of us will turn in to an ape and cannot reproduce with the rest of the species.

take the article on cockroaches for example, we can identify the entire spieces will diverge by some given percent, 0.1%-0.5%. well they found one species which was different by 3% and called that a new species. that cockroach can still mate with the 'regular ones'. which both will probably 'undo' and 'persist' certain altered genes.

so one retarded cockroach will create an off shoot that's more like an average of it, and changes like that occur all over the place probably.

after a while it's a huge change from the original population.
marjon
1.6 / 5 (8) Jan 01, 2010
From what I understand about species, they can only reproduce amongst themselves. A donkey and and horse can create a mule, but it is normally a sterile hybrid.
Drumprof
4.1 / 5 (7) Jan 01, 2010
Marjon: I recommend you read Richard Dawkins' new book, "The Greatest Show On Earth". In it, "Speciation" is VERY well explained. You will not be sorry you read it.
marjon
1.5 / 5 (16) Jan 01, 2010
Marjon: I recommend you read Richard Dawkins' new book, "The Greatest Show On Earth". In it, "Speciation" is VERY well explained. You will not be sorry you read it.

I would rather not. Thanks.
Why? I don't trust someone would try to use science to disprove faith, which is by definition belief with out proof.
Dawkins: "I believe, but cannot prove, that the same is true all over the universe, wherever life may exist. I believe that all intelligence, all creativity, and all design, anywhere in the universe, is the direct or indirect product of a cumulative process equivalent to what we here cal Darwinian natural selection."

Source: 'What we Believe but Cannot Prove'.
AdseculaScientiae
4.2 / 5 (13) Jan 01, 2010
@marjon

Your distrust is kind of shortsighted. Even if your own and Dawkins beliefs are conflicting, there is no need to object to everything he says or writes. His newest book is written by the biologist within Dawkins, not the antitheist within him. He clearly points out in the beginning of his book that this is not a book about religion, it's not about creationism vs. evolution. It's written at large to explain the workings of evolution in great detail and to give the reader a lot of data and proof to back up the theory of evolution. It's very well written and as a biologist and literature-lover myself, I sincerely second Drumprof. The book is great for biologists, creationists, scientists and the complete oblivious alike.

Don't let a arbitrary conflict in belief result in not picking up a great piece on evolution and the whole that makes it biology.
SincerelyTwo
3.6 / 5 (8) Jan 01, 2010
marjon, i base my beliefs on the natural world as it demonstrates itself, where you side with 'principles' your parents and peers taught you.

nature of reality > anyones opinion

the bottom line is, when you say 'you can't prove there isn't a god so how do you know you're not wrong' then i say 'exactly, you can't prove there isn't a zebra controlling the universe either, so you might as well drop it and focus on what you can directly and empirically know.'

how ever complex 'god' is, if it exists then it will be known directly eventually, ... or not. what i can tell you, is i wasn't born 'knowing' i will go to hell for being 'bad', so why should i assume so? there's no reason TO believe in god.
otto1923
2.5 / 5 (6) Jan 01, 2010
one retarded cockroach
ie the troll. 'Acknowledge me!' says the troll as he asks the same no-answer questions time and again.
Oh- and evolution is real, but there are occasional throwbacks.
BrianH
5 / 5 (2) Jan 01, 2010
Implicit in the article and research is the assumption that "mutation" is a random error-driven process. But certain locations are more prone to variance, and most "mutation"/speciation occurs one level higher or more: duplication of existing genes or coding, and methylation and silencing or re-activation of existing code.

Which implies a far higher leveraging and potency for explicit or implicit mutation "policies" embedded in the so-called silent DNA. Examination and enumeration of point mutations is a very weak method of locating or understanding such things.
BrianH
2 / 5 (1) Jan 01, 2010
P.S.
Didja hear about the dyslexic agnostic insomniac?
Lay awake abed every night, worrying and wondering about the existence of Dog!
otto1923
2 / 5 (4) Jan 01, 2010
Here's a question (for legitimate posters): 2 genius-level people have a baby. Chances are this new person will be smarter that the norm, but they will not be as smart as their parents. So where do genius-level people come from? Are there fewer now than in the past ie are humans a naturally devolving species (without the artificial benefits of universities and professions which bring the more intelligent together)? Are our brains too large and energy-hungry to survive natural selection without forced competition and surreptitious husbandry??
BrianH
5 / 5 (2) Jan 01, 2010
otto;
A small percentage of a large number may well/often does trump a high percentage of a small number. In commerce, it's called "making it up on volume".
:)
marjon
1.9 / 5 (12) Jan 01, 2010
My original question remains unanswered regarding how the first male and first female of a new species find each other and start the new species.
Humans have been breeding dogs and cattle for centuries yet an Irish Wolfhound and a toy poodle could mate and the offspring would still be dogs.
As for Dawkins, how can he separate his zealotry from his science? The AGW 'scientists' have had difficulty doing so.
It was amusing to note while reading Scully's 'The Demon and the Quantum' that physicists studying the origin of the universe were much less certain about its beginnings than the biologists who claim to KNOW how life began.
marjon
2.1 / 5 (11) Jan 01, 2010
marjon, i base my beliefs on the natural world as it demonstrates itself, where you side with 'principles' your parents and peers taught you.


Upon what do you base such beliefs about me? We have never met.

I ask a simple question and no one can answer?
BrianH
3 / 5 (1) Jan 01, 2010
marjon;
I've seen suggestions that the dog genome is a menu from which breeders select items via the "homeobox" gene. Direct manipulation of that gene would theoretically permit constructing a Great Dane by altering its coding in a fertilized purebred toy poodle's egg.
BrianH
3 / 5 (4) Jan 01, 2010
P.S.
The AGW 'scientists' lack not so much the ability to separate beliefs and motivations from their output, as willingness and inclination.
marjon
2.1 / 5 (10) Jan 01, 2010
"The nature of species is controversial in biology and philosophy. Biologists disagree on the definition of the term ‘species.’"
http://plato.stan...species/

Is this why no can answer the question? Species has no agreed to definition?
BrianH
4 / 5 (5) Jan 01, 2010
As for "first of a new species", such terminology is deceptive. Speciation is a gradient process, with some gradients steeper than others. Look up "punctuated equilibrium" and associated literature. Small populations under heavy environmental stress seem to be the "point sources" of significant changes.
BrianH
2.5 / 5 (2) Jan 01, 2010
As for "new species of humans", the answer is yes, sort of. Look up "homo floriensis". AKA "Hobbits". ;)
GrahamL
4.9 / 5 (8) Jan 01, 2010
marjon - in answer to your question 'How does the new species male find the new species female and reproduce new species offspring?'

Individuals of new species do not appear in a single generation. Populations of individuals change over long periods of time according to the laws of variation and natural selection. If part of a population becomes isolated from its parent population for long enough, that new population can accumulate change such that each individual is sufficiently different to those in the original population that breeding between them is impossible. They have by definition become two different species - and each has always consisted of males and females.
evoluent
4.9 / 5 (7) Jan 02, 2010
marjon - they key concept is "isolation". Two groups are divided and never mate. The individuals mate within their group, but over time their inner-group mutations become too many for them to mate with the other group. So the first male of a new species will have no problem finding the first female, since they and their parents share most of the same genes.
critica
4 / 5 (7) Jan 02, 2010
marjon,

Please don't waste the time of people on this site if you simply refuse to listen to the answers that have already been given to your question or to seek the answers where advised.
frajo
2 / 5 (5) Jan 02, 2010
Oh- and evolution is real, but there are occasional throwbacks.
This is the teleological fallacy. Quite wide-spread.
acarrilho
3 / 5 (3) Jan 02, 2010
Plenty of websites out there with the answer marjon would find to his taste and mindset. There's a strange thing called "scientific method" that marjon obviously doesn't trust, so Physorg is probably a waste of marjon's time.
frajo
2.5 / 5 (2) Jan 02, 2010
2 genius-level people have a baby. Chances are this new person will be smarter that the norm,
This new person might be smarter than both his parents, it might be dumber than most people, it might be anything between.
In fact I know several dumb parents with a brilliant child.
but they will not be as smart as their parents.
That's wrong.
marjon
1.7 / 5 (7) Jan 02, 2010
Plenty of websites out there with the answer marjon would find to his taste and mindset. There's a strange thing called "scientific method" that marjon obviously doesn't trust, so Physorg is probably a waste of marjon's time.

I don't trust the scientific method because it is conducted by fallible, egotistical people.
"A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it. "
"Anybody who has been seriously engaged is scientific work of any kind realizes that over the entrance to the gates of the temple of science are written the words: 'Ye must have faith.' " Max Planck

"ALL is heuristic." Koen, 'Discussion of the Method:...'
RubberBaron
4.3 / 5 (8) Jan 02, 2010
I don't trust the scientific method because it is conducted by fallible, egotistical people.

Unlike people who use faith as a 'method' eh?

"A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it. "

So, Einstein, Newton, Feynmann etc.etc. all had to wait for their opponents to die? Not that simple obviously. Quoting glib aphorisms does not prove your point at all.
acarrilho
4 / 5 (5) Jan 02, 2010
marjon must live in a cave, because I can't see how anyone can look around and not realize that if there's something trustworthy, it is the scientific method. It's alright not to trust scientists. Just learn the science yourself, and you can't go wrong. Otherwise, you have no rational choice but to rely on peer-review.
frajo
3.3 / 5 (4) Jan 02, 2010
I don't trust the scientific method because it is conducted by fallible, egotistical people.
This is, as pointed out by RubberBaron, not something separating science and non-science.
The most fundamental thing which separates science from non-science is Popper's principle of falsifiability.
It has been mentioned often enough on PhysOrg. But obviously you prefer not to take notice.
frajo
2.9 / 5 (7) Jan 02, 2010
marjon must live in a cave
marjon is a missionary person gathering karma for her afterlife by spreading her subjective truth into an environment she perceives as hostile and unenlightened.
marjon
1.4 / 5 (10) Jan 02, 2010
If lions and tigers can mate and produce a tion or liger, are lions and tigers separate species?
""Criticism of our conjectures is of decisive importance: by bringing out our mistakes it makes us understand the difficulties of the problem which we are trying to solve. This is how we become better acquainted with our problem, and able to propose more mature solutions: the very refutation of a theory ... is always a step forward that takes us nearer to the truth. And this is how we can learn from our mistakes"" Popper,http://www.eric.e...EJ812804
I am asking critical questions about conjectured theories. Is that not Popper's way?
I am still not satisfied my question has been answered here. Why hasn't a new species of dog (or cow) been created using selective breeding?
marjon
1.5 / 5 (11) Jan 02, 2010
marjon must live in a cave, because I can't see how anyone can look around and not realize that if there's something trustworthy, it is the scientific method. It's alright not to trust scientists. Just learn the science yourself, and you can't go wrong. Otherwise, you have no rational choice but to rely on peer-review.

Rely on peer review just as the IPCC has done?
Peer review seems more like a cheering section to promote the current fad. How many peers actually repeat the experiment? Thoroughly review the data?
I note that Pons and Flieschmann have been somewhat vindicated after their peers tossed them under a bus.
What is great about science is that one individual can change the world, if he is correct, regardless of what his peers believe.
acarrilho
3.5 / 5 (4) Jan 02, 2010
You have no idea what you're talking about, and you're disrespecting every scientist on Earth, even those that got you all the commodities you can't live without. You engage in gross generalizations and completely fail to realize the abuse and resource waste that would take place without peer-review.
Velanarris
3 / 5 (8) Jan 02, 2010
Is this why no can answer the question? Species has no agreed to definition?

The majority of the debate on this is settled. There are minor changes that are under review but the cursory definition is this:

A species is any group of organisms that are able to share genetic material resulting in viable and fertile offspring.

So mating two horses results in a viable horse which can then mate with another horse and have offspring.

Mating a horse and a donkey to get a mule results in sterile offspring (99% of the time), therefore mules are not a species and donkeys as well as horses are seperate species from one another.
marjon
1.6 / 5 (7) Jan 02, 2010
"On the other hand, the shift in Popper's own basic position is taken by some critics as an indicator that falsificationism, for all its apparent merits, fares no better in the final analysis than verificationism. "
http://plato.stan.../popper/
There seems to be much faith in Popper's falsifiability theory. How justifiable is it?
marjon
2.2 / 5 (6) Jan 02, 2010
You have no idea what you're talking about, and you're disrespecting every scientist on Earth, even those that got you all the commodities you can't live without. You engage in gross generalizations and completely fail to realize the abuse and resource waste that would take place without peer-review.

Don't take my word for it:

"Despite its importance as the ultimate gatekeeper of scientific publication and funding, peer review is known to engender bias, incompetence, excessive expense, ineffectiveness, and corruption."
http://www.scienc...142.html

Scientists are doing a fine job of disrespecting themselves as shown in the AGW emails.
acarrilho
4.2 / 5 (5) Jan 02, 2010
What Kaplan wrote about is one thing. What you wrote is a different thing entirely:

"I don't trust the scientific method because it is conducted by fallible, egotistical people."

This sentence is totally nonsensical. It's like saying you don't trust knives because some people kill with them. Never used one yourself? Know of a better way to cut things? There's nothing wrong with the scientific method or peer-review or their trustworthiness. If you have a problem with people than complain about the people.
acarrilho
5 / 5 (2) Jan 02, 2010
Let me rephrase... there MIGHT be something wrong with some localized peer-review, but if your problem is the human factor, complain about the human factor.
frajo
2.3 / 5 (3) Jan 02, 2010
"On the other hand, the shift in Popper's own basic position is taken by some critics
The set of "some critics" is smaller than the set of "all critics". And the set of "all critics" (of Popper) is AFAIK a lot smaller than the set of "all scientists". Every serious philosopher has to have his critics.
as an indicator that falsificationism, for all its apparent merits, fares no better in the final analysis than verificationism."
Those "some critics" have not more to offer than an "indicator". This means they have no convincing logical conclusions to strengthen their dislike of Popper's criterion. The use of undefined terms like "final analysis" is not helpful either.
There seems to be much faith
You don't need to have faith in your hammer to use it. The principle of falsification is a (very useful) instrument.
in Popper's falsifiability theory.
It's not a theory.
How justifiable is it?
There is no need to justify the falsification principle.
RealScience
4.7 / 5 (6) Jan 02, 2010
Marjon - people have not tried to create a new species of dog. According to what we can see from the fossil record, it would be easy to do and would only take a few thousand generations.

'Species' is not a black-and-white distinction.
As proto-species drift apart, it becomes harder and harder for them to breed, but there is enough variation within each group that some members of one group would still be able to breed with some members of the other group, with the proportion diminishing over time.

There also more sudden changes, such as when chromosomes split or merge. Most such changes are fatal, but some carriers survive and occasionally even breed. Re-regulating genes after such changes produces separate species faster - probably within a hundred generations.

But do you really WANT an answer to your question?
If so, read the sources suggested, or Google around and research the subject.
And if you don't want an answer, then why are you asking?
Nyloc
3 / 5 (2) Jan 02, 2010
Humanity continues to evolve with every new generation, but the rate of change depends on the amount of selective pressure. The rate of evolutionary change has slowed where modern medicine has removed a great deal of selective pressure. On the other hand, where the challenge of survival is the greatest, evolution has accelerated.
- since, in a large population, every possible mutation is being tested
- since extreme selective pressure will allow only those with an advantage to survive
- therefore, the largest evolutionary 'jumps' take place where survival is the most difficult
Famine, disease, and warfare present the harshest challenges for human survival. It follows that evolution is taking place the fastest in areas of the world where the populations are high and the challenges are the greatest. This suggests that the evolutionary future of humanity is in the third world where conditions are the harshest.
In the faces of the downtrodden you'll see humanity's future.
SincerelyTwo
5 / 5 (1) Jan 02, 2010
There's a very fundamental and clear perspective to take on this subject. Scientists do know by direct experimentation that gene expression is what 'directs' the formation of organic beings. The difference between any organic being and another can be quantitatively verified by analysis. A human and a rat will not have *identical DNA, at best similar in some regards.

So logically the differences of each past and currently evolving species is entirely based on the propagation and interference of genetic information.

Living creatures as we know them are a product of their DNA, and the difference between species can be objectively known, directly, as the difference of their DNA.

From that we can intuitively understand why the term species is so 'vaguely' defined, it infers on something *highly statistical in nature and addresses the full range of differences between genetic information.
SincerelyTwo
5 / 5 (2) Jan 02, 2010
What is a significant change in genetic information? It's relative significance. We don't seem to know what draws the actual line between two species being able to mate. In my use of the word species we could split animals up which represent a difference of 1% or 30% genetic information. It doesn't matter, we are living gradients, interpolated genetic information, we are all 'blurred' together through time.

'Significant jumps' in evolution probably occur because 'significant' expressions are modified, two legs versus four legs. That has a larger visual impact on the 'object' we percieve, but objectively in nature it's probably no different than the skin of an animal being altered.

Half the problems we see I'm beginning to recognize as only being an illusion of how we 'measure' importance based on what we visually recognize. But at the bottom of the chain, at the most basic level, it's information being modified, interference, degenerate organic 'information' from disease, etc.
SincerelyTwo
3.5 / 5 (2) Jan 02, 2010
The answers are always staring at you in the face, you may just *choose to not believe 'this' or 'that' because it makes you feel 'uncomfortable' or 'confused'. Nature doesn't care about your feelings or opinions, it exists as it does, and if you want the truth you just have to listen to what nature is trying to tell you without interference of personal opinions or prejudice derived from baseless 'principles'.

Science, as I have explained above, has proven the fundamental constituents of the animal kingdom. From there you can derive the rest logically and test to verify every deduction, which scientists have been and are in the act of verifying and validating.

If you can argue against that, I want to hear it, spoken from the foundations up.
otto1923
3 / 5 (2) Jan 02, 2010
must live in a cave
Trolls live under bridges.
Please don't waste the time of people on this site if you simply refuse to listen to the answers
You guys understand youre dealing with some serious emotional problems here? Trolls just want attention and they will keep you talking as long as they can to get it. This site isnt here for therapy. Ban the troll.
otto1923
3 / 5 (2) Jan 02, 2010
@Frodo
That's wrong.
I dont make things up. Do a little research. As has been stated offspring tend toward the norm.
otto1923
not rated yet Jan 02, 2010
This is the teleological fallacy.
WTF??
http://en.wikiped...eleology
-Uh, you want to explain your reply based on some accepted definition of this philosophical concept?
marjon
2 / 5 (4) Jan 02, 2010
The answers are always staring at you in the face, you may just *choose to not believe 'this' or 'that' because it makes you feel 'uncomfortable' or 'confused'. Nature doesn't care about your feelings or opinions, it exists as it does, and if you want the truth you just have to listen to what nature is trying to tell you without interference of personal opinions or prejudice derived from baseless 'principles'.

Science, as I have explained above, has proven the fundamental constituents of the animal kingdom. From there you can derive the rest logically and test to verify every deduction, which scientists have been and are in the act of verifying and validating.

If you can argue against that, I want to hear it, spoken from the foundations up.


From Koen's "Discussion of the Method", a partial list of heuristics: induction, deduction, arithmetic, science, logic, ....
http://www.nature...18b.html
marjon
1.8 / 5 (5) Jan 02, 2010
Humanity continues to evolve with every new generation, but the rate of change depends on the amount of selective pressure. The rate of evolutionary change has slowed where modern medicine has removed a great deal of selective pressure. On the other hand, where the challenge of survival is the greatest, evolution has accelerated.
- since, in a large population, every possible mutation is being tested
- since extreme selective pressure will allow only those with an advantage to survive
- therefore, the largest evolutionary 'jumps' take place where survival is the most difficult
Famine, disease, and warfare�present the harshest challenges for human survival.


How about places that have enabled the weak and sick to survive with medical treatments? In places where survival is difficult, such people would die. In a benign environment more variations should survive.
Shootist
4.6 / 5 (5) Jan 02, 2010
I'm still wondering how a new sexual species starts from such mutations.
How does the new species male find the new species female and reproduce new species offspring?


They don't. Early in the transition they remain cross fertile. Cows and American Bison can interbreed, as can camels and llamas They remain separate species and have been separated for at least 15,000 years, but they produce viable hybrids. Left apart, in a few thousand +- years portions of their populations would continue breading past (evolving) the ability to pro-create with formerly compatible sister species. Eventually the populations would shift significantly enough so that no inter-breeding could occur, or perhaps only "mules" would result from such unions.
Shootist
3.2 / 5 (5) Jan 02, 2010
It was amusing to note while reading Scully's 'The Demon and the Quantum' that physicists studying the origin of the universe were much less certain about its beginnings than the biologists who claim to KNOW how life began.


No biologist, worth being called a biologist, claim she knows the beginning of life.

Evolution is to some conservatives what AGW is to some liberals . . . Religion.

Evolution does not preclude creation by Yahweh, Odin or Chuthulu. In fact science doesn't have an opinion on the supernatural. If something cannot be measured it isn't science. I'm sure everyone here agrees that "God" cannot be measured; no matter their opinion of "God".
marjon
1.8 / 5 (5) Jan 02, 2010
No biologist, worth being called a biologist, claim she knows the beginning of life.

"Richard Dawkins elaborated on this image of the earliest living entity in his book The Selfish Gene: "At some point a particularly remarkable molecule was formed by accident. We will call it the Replicator. It may not have been the biggest or the most complex molecule around, but it had the extraordinary property of being able to create copies of itself.""
http://www.scient...for-life
Then Dawkins is not much of a biologist to you as he claims to know how life began?
Shootist
not rated yet Jan 03, 2010
No biologist, worth being called a biologist, claim she knows the beginning of life.

"Richard Dawkins elaborated on this image of the earliest living entity in his book The Selfish Gene: "At some point a particularly remarkable molecule was formed by accident. We will call it the Replicator. It may not have been the biggest or the most complex molecule around, but it had the extraordinary property of being able to create copies of itself.""
http://www.scient...for-life
Then Dawkins is not much of a biologist to you as he claims to know how life began?


Yes, those primitives are still around, or at least something that fits his description. They are called prions. They are not life (at least not life as we define life), but they do replicate.

However what Dawkins calls an accident; we'll never *know* what happened 'lo those gigayears ago.

What cannot be measured is not science.
JayK
3.6 / 5 (5) Jan 03, 2010
To address some of marjon's fallacies and ignorance for others that might actually pay attention:

Males and females never evolved separately. I don't know where people such as yourself developed such a poor strategy for discussing/debating evolution, but it really must stop. There are many species around the world that have no definable male/female organs, there are species that have interchangeable sexual modes, and there are asexual reproducing species. The vast myriad of reproductive methods that exists today is probably a small snapshop of the potential reproductive modes that have existed throughout time.

Now can you stop trolling with that little bit of inanity? It has gotten particularly old.
JayK
3.8 / 5 (4) Jan 03, 2010
How about places that have enabled the weak and sick to survive with medical treatments? In places where survival is difficult, such people would die. In a benign environment more variations should survive.


Human beings are a communal species. It isn't about survival of the fittest individual, it is about survival of communities and the species. For human beings it just so happens that our intelligence has evolved tools to increase our lifespans (primarily to increase reproductive opportunity) and one of those tools is medicine.
frajo
1 / 5 (1) Jan 03, 2010
Oh- and evolution is real, but there are occasional throwbacks.
This is the teleological fallacy. Quite wide-spread.
WTF??
http://en.wikiped...eleology
-Uh, you want to explain your reply based on some accepted definition of this philosophical concept?

When I write of something being teleological I don't neccessarily imply that's something to do with the philosophical direction you found a link for.
Teleological opinions about an object are those that assume the object has an (intrinsic) purpose.
Quite a lot of people assume that evolution serves an (intrinsic) purpose. Even many non-believers (atheists, agnostics) share this wrong concept.
Thus, when you speak of "occasional throwbacks" for evolution you imply that in your opinion evolution serves a (intrinsic) purpose.

We have to look at evolution as a set of interdependent stochastic processes without any intrinsic or extrinsic (strange) attractor.

Parsec
4 / 5 (2) Jan 03, 2010
The essence of the conflict between science and religion is basically one of communication. There isn't a conflict at all. Science is a method of building data into coherent theories about the way the universe actually works. It works only with the natural world, measuring only what can be sensed in some form. Religion, and spirituality are about all the rest.

By stoking the fires of this pseudo-conflict, religious leaders around the world are decimating their future. Any children they have that accept that science and religion are incompatible have 2 choices as they grow up:

a) Discard science and the information it provides
b) Discard the religion they grew up with and embrace science

In the first case, you end up with people who do not understand technology, in the second you end up with people who disavow their faith. Both are bad news for religion. The technology jobs are some of the best paying, and losing God is like losing part of your soul.
frajo
not rated yet Jan 03, 2010
2 genius-level people have a baby. Chances are this new person will be smarter that the norm,
This new person might be smarter than both his parents, it might be dumber than most people, it might be anything between.
In fact I know several dumb parents with a brilliant child.
but they will not be as smart as their parents.
That's wrong.

I dont make things up.
Yes, you do. By omitting relevant parts of the other's text, by changing the other one's nick.
Do a little research. As has been stated offspring tend toward the norm.
Now you use the word "tend" which denotes a statistical statement. As a statistical statement, it is true. But above you said
but they will not be as smart as their parents
which is not a statistical statement and not generally true.
Parsec
3.3 / 5 (4) Jan 03, 2010
In other words, being a Luddite or Creationist is a really good way to constrain oneself to the lowest rungs of the income ladder. I find it heartbreaking the people would actually do this to their children or themselves.
Parsec
4.5 / 5 (2) Jan 03, 2010
Darwin actually puzzled over this point himself however and its a good question. If offspring do tend to carry a mix of genes, how does anyone get to be an outlier? Very tall or very short people, very smart or very dumb, or any extreme should quickly make everyone average. I mean really, why isn't ANY population of individuals of ANY species essentially all the same?

The answer is because genetics simply doesn't work that way. It just doesn't. Look around you and you can see that it doesn't.
marjon
1.4 / 5 (9) Jan 03, 2010
The essence of the conflict between science and religion is basically one of communication. There isn't a conflict at all. Science is a method of building data into coherent theories about the way the universe actually works. It works only with the natural world, measuring only what can be sensed in some form. Religion, and spirituality are about all the rest.

By stoking the fires of this pseudo-conflict, religious leaders around the world are decimating their future.

Scientists are doing their share of stoking the fires of conflict.
marjon
1.7 / 5 (7) Jan 03, 2010
In other words, being a Luddite or Creationist is a really good way to constrain oneself to the lowest rungs of the income ladder. I find it heartbreaking the people would actually do this to their children or themselves.

If I teach my children God created life, how is that any different than what science is saying? Big Bang is a creation event and no one can yet create life from inorganic matter really can't explain how it happens.
As Scully noted, physicists who study cosmology acknowledge a possibility of some type of design to the universe.Biologists loose their jobs if they did so.
marjon
1.6 / 5 (8) Jan 03, 2010
How about places that have enabled the weak and sick to survive with medical treatments? In places where survival is difficult, such people would die. In a benign environment more variations should survive.


Human beings are a communal species. It isn't about survival of the fittest individual, it is about survival of communities and the species. For human beings it just so happens that our intelligence has evolved tools to increase our lifespans (primarily to increase reproductive opportunity) and one of those tools is medicine.

Does not medicine allow more genetic variations to survive potentially leading to a new species?
marjon
1.3 / 5 (6) Jan 03, 2010
To address some of marjon's fallacies and ignorance for others that might actually pay attention:

Males and females never evolved separately. I don't know where people such as yourself developed such a poor strategy for discussing/debating evolution, but it really must stop. There are many species around the world that have no definable male/female organs, there are species that have interchangeable sexual modes, and there are asexual reproducing species. The vast myriad of reproductive methods that exists today is probably a small snapshop of the potential reproductive modes that have existed throughout time.


There ARE species that DO have males and females. The only answer I have seen postulated is that a hybrid species, like a mule will become fertile and then create a new species.
I'll stop asking questions when I can obtain the answers. Sorry if such questions make some uncomfortable.
frajo
1 / 5 (1) Jan 03, 2010
Big Bang is a creation event
BigBang is a model. The current cosmological standard model, to be precise. It fits well into religions with a creation component. But there is no scientific statement that the mathematical singularity of this model implies a physical (real) singularity. Heisenberg's uncertainty principle forbids physical (real) singularities.
Alternative models fit well into religions like Buddhism or Hinduism. (Google for "ekpyrotic".) Or don't fit into any religion. (See M-theory or AdS/CFT.)
As Scully noted, physicists who study cosmology acknowledge a possibility of some type of design to the universe.
When a physicist gives such a statement, he is not giving a scientific statement, he is giving a non-scientific statement. The fact of some person being a scientist doesn't give all his statements scientific weight. When Einstein played violin his performance had no scientific character.
otto1923
2.7 / 5 (3) Jan 03, 2010
Teleological opinions about an object are those that assume the object has an (intrinsic) purpose.
So this is now your word then? How are proper English-speaking people supposed to understand you if you make up new meanings for words? Maybe when I say 'troll' some here think I mean level-headed scholar and not embarrassing waste of time and space.
otto1923
3 / 5 (4) Jan 03, 2010
To address some of marjon's fallacies and ignorance for others that might actually pay attention:

Males and females never evolved separately. I don't know where people such as yourself developed such a poor strategy for discussing/debating evolution, but it really must stop. There are many species around the world that have no definable male/female organs, there are species that have interchangeable sexual modes, and there are asexual reproducing species. The vast myriad of reproductive methods that exists today is probably a small snapshop of the potential reproductive modes that have existed throughout time.


There ARE species that DO have males and females. The only answer I have seen postulated is that a hybrid species, like a mule will become fertile and then create a new species.
I'll stop asking questions when I can obtain the answers. Sorry if such questions make some uncomfortable.
Ban--the--Troll
JayK
1 / 5 (1) Jan 03, 2010
marjon,
males and females didn't evolve separately. Asexual reproducing forms evolved the capability to reproduce by sharing genetic materials. Those species that were able to do that gained a genetic advantage, basically the new ability to speed up genetic changes. Take a look at the various species today that can reproduce asexually and sexually. Do some of your own research instead of posting inane questions for which you really aren't interested in the answers.
otto1923
1.5 / 5 (2) Jan 03, 2010
is a missionary person gathering karma for her afterlife by spreading her subjective truth into an environment she
Frankly I'm a little offended by this; I assume you're making the point that this person is female and so doesn't deserve to be treated like anyone else? It's painfully obvious marjoke doesn't know what they're talking about and doesn't realize how absurd they actually sound. It's painfully obvious they google topics and then shovel what they find into these threads only to GET ATTENTION. They quote people they've never read and don't understand only to be able to drop their names in hopes of tricking some innocent into one more response. You too should be condemning, ignoring, and demanding expulsion.
otto1923
1 / 5 (1) Jan 03, 2010
@FRAnz JOsef
Now you use the word "tend" which denotes a statistical statement. As a statistical statement, it is true. But above you said
but they will not be as smart as their parents
which is not a statistical statement and not generally true.
Now, go back and read it again if you can find it amongst the marjunk. The modifier 'chances are' applies to both clauses in that sentence. Read a little slower, you're not getting a little hysterical are you??
frajo
1 / 5 (2) Jan 03, 2010
Teleological opinions about an object are those that assume the object has an (intrinsic) purpose.
So this is now your word then? How are proper English-speaking people supposed to understand you if you make up new meanings for words?
I understand that you are not comfortable with this word although it is an entry in the Oxford Dictionary. Fortunately, we can do without.
evolution is real, but there are occasional throwbacks.
By using the word "throwback" you indicate that in your opinion evolution has at least two "directions", namely "forward" and "backwards". This is not the case. The Great Oxygenation Event about 2.4 billion years ago was no "throwback" of evolution. Nor was the extinction of the dinos. Nor will a possible extinction of homo sapiens be a "trowback".
otto1923
5 / 5 (2) Jan 03, 2010
Look up throwback and atavism. These words are all in the distionary, I believe you are using them incorrectly. By using the term throwback I was implying that they sometimes participate in fizzork threads.
frajo
3 / 5 (2) Jan 03, 2010
is a missionary person gathering karma for her afterlife by spreading her subjective truth into an environment she
Frankly I'm a little offended by this; I assume you're making the point that this person is female and so doesn't deserve to be treated like anyone else?

Frankly, once in a while I'm a linguistic feminist. :)
But it is interesting to learn that you are offended when a person of unknown gender is addressed as being female. Why not the other way round?
otto1923
not rated yet Jan 03, 2010
I understand that you are not comfortable with this word
No I actually like this word a lot and will often sleep with it under my pillow. I like to bend it's meaning a little in describing the intentions of Power-Wielders and Shepherds who have specific Goals in mind as they are making their Plans for us. The term was used to describe gods direction of things towards a divine goal. In husbandry or eugenics if you will, there is the goal of restoration or reversal of deterioration of a species; the concept can be applied to the evolving structure of society which cannot be and is certainly not allowed to evolve by itself. Directed evolution is the work of humankind as there is no god to do it for us.

And actually I was only superficially offended.
marjon
1.8 / 5 (5) Jan 03, 2010
is a missionary person gathering karma for her afterlife by spreading her subjective truth into an environment she
Frankly I'm a little offended by this; I assume you're making the point that this person is female and so doesn't deserve to be treated like anyone else? It's painfully obvious marjoke doesn't know what they're talking about and doesn't realize how absurd they actually sound. It's painfully obvious they google topics and then shovel what they find into these threads only to GET ATTENTION. They quote people they've never read and don't understand only to be able to drop their names in hopes of tricking some innocent into one more response. You too should be condemning, ignoring, and demanding expulsion.

I just love the tolerance of this community!
marjon
1.5 / 5 (6) Jan 03, 2010
marjon,
males and females didn't evolve separately. Asexual reproducing forms evolved the capability to reproduce by sharing genetic materials. Those species that were able to do that gained a genetic advantage, basically the new ability to speed up genetic changes. Take a look at the various species today that can reproduce asexually and sexually. Do some of your own research instead of posting inane questions for which you really aren't interested in the answers.

Assume a male 'new species' is created by a mutation. If a female 'new species' is created by the same mutation, how will they find each other if not in the same herd/community/continent? Mutation seems an unlikely mechanism for that type of species creation.
marjon
1.6 / 5 (5) Jan 03, 2010
BigBang is a model. The current cosmological standard model, to be precise.

"The Big Bang Model is a broadly accepted theory for the origin and evolution of our universe."
"It is beyond the realm of the Big Bang Model to say what gave rise to the Big Bang. There are a number of speculative theories about this topic, but none of them make realistically testable predictions as of yet."
http://map.gsfc.n...ory.html
What is the difference between a model and a theory?
jsa09
3 / 5 (2) Jan 03, 2010
Such a long thread - and so much meaningless discussion about something so basic.

Yes - ban the troll - anybody that persists in asking the same inane question regardless of how well they have been answered deserves the name TROLL.

Unfortunately Frajo is right Otto, we all need to be more careful and think before using a word like throwback.

I use it when breeding fish and my brightly coloured fish give birth to a dull looking fish that would be perfectly coloured to avoid a fish-eating bird but which looks pretty dull in my fishpond.

If left to their own devices my fish pond (after several generations) would end up full of boring coloured fish (subjective opinion inserted).

But of course I am wrong here as well. All mutations are just mutations, some types easier than others but all equal in variation regardless of what varies.
frajo
2.4 / 5 (5) Jan 03, 2010
Yes - ban the troll - anybody that persists in asking the same inane question regardless of how well they have been answered deserves the name TROLL.

I can't agree here. marjon is "difficult" but not a troll.
A troll is someone like "probes" (not sure if I remember the nick correctly) who drops on every occasion one single sentence containing "VaziMir drive" and "3.9 days to Mars" without any sensible reference to other comments or to the article.
To ban marjon would not be an act of honor.
JayK
3 / 5 (2) Jan 03, 2010
Assume a male 'new species' is created by a mutation. If a female 'new species' is created by the same mutation, how will they find each other if not in the same herd/community/continent? Mutation seems an unlikely mechanism for that type of species creation.

I don't think you're serious, but here:
Start with a species that reproduces through only asexual means.

Along the evolutionary pathway (thousands of generations) the species finds a way to share genetic material during reproduction, but maintains the ability to reproduce via asexual reproduction during times of stress or population decline.

Genetic selection and reproductive rates selects for populations that produce more rapidly through this newer sexual reproduction eventually reducing the ability to reproduce asexually.

Sexual organs and/or identity may or may not evolve in between the steps. There is really no need for male/female identities.
marjon
1.4 / 5 (7) Jan 03, 2010
Assume a male 'new species' is created by a mutation. If a female 'new species' is created by the same mutation, how will they find each other if not in the same herd/community/continent? Mutation seems an unlikely mechanism for that type of species creation.

I don't think you're serious, but here:
Start with a species that reproduces through only asexual means.

Along the evolutionary pathway (thousands of generations) the species finds a way to share genetic material during reproduction, but maintains the ability to reproduce via asexual reproduction during times of stress or population decline.

Genetic selection and reproductive rates selects for populations that produce more rapidly through this newer sexual reproduction eventually reducing the ability to reproduce asexually.

Sexual organs and/or identity may or may not evolve in between the steps. There is really no need for male/female identities.

All new species must start as asexual?
JayK
2.7 / 5 (3) Jan 03, 2010
All new species must start as asexual?


And that, fellow commenters, is the exact reason why marjon is a troll.
RealScience
4 / 5 (4) Jan 03, 2010
Marjon - You could try reading answers to your questions before asking them again.

As said before, a new species is generally not created by 'a mutation', but by many mutations over thousands of generations.

Since you don't read articles people have referred you to and you only acknowledge answer that let you ask a new question, it appears that you want to ask questions rather than get answers.

If so, then your approach is not honest.
So either read and acknowledge, or look yourself in the mirror and admit to yourself, and any God(s) that you believe in, that you are dishonest.

Asking questions to learn is fine, and this board is pretty tolerant of it.
But asking questions and ignoring the answers, or deliberately misinterpreting the answers so that you can ask more questions, is obnoxious, boorish behavior. Any moral God(s) would consider it a sin.
marjon
1 / 5 (3) Jan 03, 2010
From the article:
"Weigel suggests that changes in the human genome are at least as rapid as in Arabidopsis: "If you apply our findings to humans, then each of us will have on the order of 60 new mutations that were not present in our parents.""

In theory, a new human species (or any sexually reproducing species) could appear if those with compatible mutations mate?
otto1923
1 / 5 (1) Jan 03, 2010
@jsa09
The term atavism (derived from the Latin atavus, a great-grandfather's grandfather; more generally, an ancestor) denotes the tendency to revert to ancestral type. An atavism is an evolutionary throwback, such as traits reappearing which had disappeared generations ago.[2] Atavisms occur because genes for previously existing phenotypical features are often preserved in DNA, even though the genes are not expressed in some or most of the organisms possessing them
Thanks j for your reasoned response, throwback is oft misused but it does have a non-contentious meaning.
otto1923
1.5 / 5 (2) Jan 03, 2010
@realscience, frajo et al;
This troll has been here for some time now and their appearance was quickly noted by someone who apparently had prior experience with this, calling this person Marion. Tact and reasoning have subsequently been tried without success
a troll is someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room or blog, with the primary intent of provoking other users into an emotional response[1] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion
This wiki def is referenced in the physorg guidelines.
otto1923
1 / 5 (1) Jan 03, 2010
Assume a male 'new species' is created by a mutation. If a female 'new species' is created by the same mutation, how will they find each other if not in the same herd/community/continent? Mutation seems an unlikely mechanism for that type of species creation.

I don't think you're serious, but here:
Start with a species that reproduces through only asexual means.

Along the evolutionary pathway (thousands of generations) the species finds a way to share genetic material during reproduction, but maintains the ability to reproduce via asexual reproduction during times of stress or population decline.

Genetic selection and reproductive rates selects for populations that produce more rapidly through this newer sexual reproduction eventually reducing the ability to reproduce asexually.

Sexual organs and/or identity may or may not evolve in between the steps. There is really no need for male/female identities.

All new species must start as asexual?

otto1923
3 / 5 (2) Jan 03, 2010
After dozens of posts like the above in many threads it's clear why this troll should not be posting here. Mr vasimr had a sense of humor and quit after he made his point. The above is pretty obviously on some sort of jihad to disrupt, annoy, and flaunt. Or they're just completely oblivious.
RealScience
5 / 5 (1) Jan 03, 2010
Marjon - Ok, that question hasn't been answered directly in this thread.

It is very unlikely (but not theoretically impossible) that a single mating from an inter-breeding population would create a new species in one step.
A single change big enough to prevent interbreeding with the source population would typically cause death or sterility.

Typically even closely related species have huge numbers of differences accumulated during thousands of generations of separation.

For simplicity let's call it 10,000 changes (10,000 is "many, many" in Chinese). By 1000 accumulated changes the new group would probably be considered a sub-species, and it might be a bit less fertile with the source group.

If the new group doesn't interbreed then, more changes will accumulate, and by 5,000 changes interbreeding might be difficult (and people might argue about whether this was a subspecies or actually a new species).

Of course this is greatly simplified, but I hope that it is clear enough.
RealScience
5 / 5 (1) Jan 03, 2010
Otto1923: The bulk of Marjon's questions are repeats that have already been answered. That is as disrespectful of the answerers as if we were to go to a bible class and repeatedly spout evolutionary evidence after it was clear that we were bothering people.

Let us not sink to that level ourselves.
People rightfully down-rated Marjon's repeats and deliberate misinterpretations (such as 'the above'), but they also down-rated Marjon's few reasonable questions, which seems to me to be as much a misuse of the rating system as Marjon's repeats are of the comment system.

Marjon - this is a science bulletin board. Stay off if you object to the whole scientific method and just have an axe to grind, and I won't go to the local church and object to the Bible/Koran/name-your-flavor.

And no, that does not mean that science is a religion.
Don't quote half of an analogy out of context again.
Stick to legitimate questions that you actually want to listen to an answer to.
Wadsworth
not rated yet Jan 04, 2010
Marjon,-It is not very high or broad-minded of you to refuse to read Dawkins book. I am an atheist but I try to be as well acquainted with the Bible, apocrypha, Dead Sea and Nag Hammadi scrolls etc, as I can. Knowlewdge is acquired by opening books, not closinf (or burning) them.
rab96
not rated yet Jan 04, 2010
I have read a lot of theoretical constructions of how a new species MAY develop, but has anyone ever produced hard, experimental evidence of the evolution of a new species? Is there hard, experimental evidence of life originating from dead matter? If this is the case then we are dealing with hard science, otherwise it remains speculation. By the way, arguments ad hominem are not appreciated.
marjon
1 / 5 (4) Jan 04, 2010

Stick to legitimate questions that you actually want to listen to an answer to.

When I can obtain answers I will stop asking questions. Is that not how science supposed to work?
marjon
1 / 5 (3) Jan 04, 2010
Marjon,-It is not very high or broad-minded of you to refuse to read Dawkins book. I am an atheist but I try to be as well acquainted with the Bible, apocrypha, Dead Sea and Nag Hammadi scrolls etc, as I can. Knowlewdge is acquired by opening books, not closinf (or burning) them.

I have more important things to do than to read such biased work. Too bad Dawkins decided to be an evangelical atheist and give up biology.
marjon
1 / 5 (2) Jan 04, 2010
After dozens of posts like the above in many threads it's clear why this troll should not be posting here. Mr vasimr had a sense of humor and quit after he made his point. The above is pretty obviously on some sort of jihad to disrupt, annoy, and flaunt. Or they're just completely oblivious.

Given how the AGW 'scientists' responded to their exposed emails, I shouldn't be surprised at the intolerance I have been exposed here by asking simple questions that no one can answer.
"We don't know" is an answer as well.
And I suspect this site is open to the public for a reason. If you all want to stay protected from the real world, go somewhere else.
By the time the censors are finished, half my posts will be deleted. What tolerance! Such openness!
frajo
3.7 / 5 (3) Jan 04, 2010
Is there hard, experimental evidence of life originating from dead matter?
It's easy; you can do it yourself. Just go into your lab, put in a solar system with a planet of earth size, adjust the controls for the planet so as to simulate the parameters around 4 billion years ago - and wait just one billion years.
You'll see: it works.
And don't tell me it doesn't work before you haven't even tried.
Wadsworth
4.5 / 5 (2) Jan 04, 2010
Marjon,- try this: "Lifeless prion proteins" are capable of evolution.

http://news.bbc.c...5320.stm
Shootist
not rated yet Jan 04, 2010
But of course I am wrong here as well. All mutations are just mutations, some types easier than others but all equal in variation regardless of what varies.


Nonsense. All mutations are not equal, neither in function nor form. Some mutations do recall an earlier (less advanced) form. Some do not. Throwback is as good a term as any.

Are you shilling for some kind of Politically Correct view of change?
Wadsworth
1 / 5 (1) Jan 04, 2010
"Darwin's errors unearthed - Serious doubts about evolution are evolving. Flawed theory exposed... - www.ucg.org.uk/ad/ev/"

Is it part of Physorg.com policy to allow creationist hacking into a serious article?
Shootist
4 / 5 (4) Jan 04, 2010
I have read a lot of theoretical constructions of how a new species MAY develop, but has anyone ever produced hard, experimental evidence of the evolution of a new species?


At least a couple of times a year. I'm serious. The articles are right here at physorg. Last week, or three, an article about a newly evolved fruit fly. Not to mention e-coli continues to evolve right in front of our eyes.
Wadsworth
2.4 / 5 (5) Jan 04, 2010
Marjon,-What is the point of continually denigrating evolution without demonstrating a superior thory? Your questions imply that you already have 100% certain answers, and that our poor probabalistic scientific ones are just not good enough. So why not share this information with us? As a creationist you presumably believe that the Word of God is a total explanation for everything. But even if we accepted this, we would still want to know how exactly God-did-it.
So as you are contributing to a scientific forum please spell out exactly how God's Word manufactures new species,and allows males and females to find each other, and how "dead" matter becomes alive,--and why weak and sick people produce more variations and are more successful at breeding than are young healthy specimens.
You obviously have God's ear, so please do tell.
marjon
1.8 / 5 (6) Jan 04, 2010
Marjon,-What is the point of continually denigrating evolution without demonstrating a superior thory? Your questions imply that you already have 100% certain answers, and that our poor probabalistic scientific ones are just not good enough. So why not share this information with us? As a creationist you presumably believe that the Word of God is a total explanation for everything. But even if we accepted this, we would still want to know how exactly God-did-it.
So as you are contributing to a scientific forum please spell out exactly how God's Word manufactures new species,and allows males and females to find each other, and how "dead" matter becomes alive,--and why weak and sick people produce more variations and are more successful at breeding than are young healthy specimens.
You obviously have God's ear, so please do tell.

Is not the whole point of science to point out flaws in theories?
marjon
2 / 5 (4) Jan 04, 2010
Wadsworth:
I don't need to demonstrate a superior theory to ask questions about current theory.
If it makes the science community uncomfortable because they don't have the answers, that is something they must address amongst themselves.
"It's a good morning exercise for a research scientist to discard a pet hypothesis every day before breakfast. It keeps him young." Konrad Lorenz
otto1923
2.7 / 5 (3) Jan 04, 2010
Otto1923: The bulk of Marjon's questions are repeats that have already been answered.
Not only in this thread but many others. Same questions only one answer: 'god you soulless boffins.'

Youre all gonna realize sooner or later youre dealing with petty malevolence here, nothing more. One lonely godder. Konrad Lorenz for gods sake-

Ban the Troll
Ban her from Google too
Shes enjoying the hell out of this you all understand-
otto1923
1 / 5 (1) Jan 04, 2010
Marjon,-What is the point of continually denigrating evolution without demonstrating a superior thory? Your questions imply that you already have 100% certain answers, and that our poor probabalistic scientific ones are just not good enough. So why not share this information with us? As a creationist you presumably believe that the Word of God is a total explanation for everything. But even if we accepted this, we would still want to know how exactly God-did-it.
So as you are contributing to a scientific forum please spell out exactly how God's Word manufactures new species,and allows males and females to find each other, and how "dead" matter becomes alive,--and why weak and sick people produce more variations and are more successful at breeding than are young healthy specimens.
You obviously have God's ear, so please do tell.

Is not the whole point of science to point out flaws in theories?
otto1923
4 / 5 (1) Jan 04, 2010
I'm starting to feel like the Amazing Randy when he trys to explain to the scientists that Geller didnt REALLY bend the spoon with his mind-
You obviously have God's ear, so please do tell.
DONT engage the TROLL
Hernan
not rated yet Jan 04, 2010
Otto1923 -- With all the other "noise" I'm not sure if you fell your original question was answered. There's a part of my family that has produced a lot of very intelligent people. I suppose isolation and a reproductive competitive advantage would need to be there for a large amount of time for any genetic advantage to be manifested. Note! Clinical depression also "runs" in that part of the family.
marjon
1 / 5 (3) Jan 04, 2010
Just to make sure I understand what has been claimed to be the answer to my question regarding how a male 'new species' finds and mates with a female 'new species' is that it basically never happens.
Sexual species create hybrids like mules which then genetically drift into a new species.
Any mutation in sexual species would have to occur in both male and female at the same time, which I understand from you experts never happens?
Did I understand the answer? Note, I didn't ask about asexual species, but I keep getting replies regarding asexual species.
If a transgenic cow is created to produce human insulin, is that a new species?
otto1923
2 / 5 (1) Jan 04, 2010
@Hernan
As our brains are so oversized and overevolved therefore delicate and resource-hungry, age and environmentally-caused damage is common and affects both concentration and performance, I would assume. Defects can be the primary cause of depression or it can be the result of faulty cognition and the frustration this can cause. I tend to meet more fukkked up people than not. Intelligence is just as much the ability to use this tool effectively as it the initial configuration of the tool itself. Some brains may naturally less prone to damage than others. But the spread is a real one.
otto1923
Jan 04, 2010
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
mabarker
1 / 5 (3) Jan 04, 2010
The article above sez, *Everything that is genetically possible is being tested in a very short period of time* Evolutionists apparently think that shooting bullets at a computer more rapidly will lead to faster progress. A more reasonable conclusion from this study is that living things have not been suffering under a mutational load this heavy for *millions of years*, but for a much shorter time. That they can still survive is due to amazing systems of DNA repair which is evidencxe of creation. To say that these mutations are the *raw material of evolution* is like calling terrorists entrepreneurs.
marjon
1 / 5 (3) Jan 04, 2010
Otto1923: The bulk of Marjon's questions are repeats that have already been answered.
Not only in this thread but many others. Same questions only one answer: 'god you soulless boffins.'

Youre all gonna realize sooner or later youre dealing with petty malevolence here, nothing more. One lonely godder. Konrad Lorenz for gods sake-

Ban the Troll
Ban her from Google too
Shes enjoying the hell out of this you all understand-

Instead of deflecting, answer or keep quiet.
Such tolerance!
Censoring is always the first response of tyrants, no?
otto1923
not rated yet Jan 04, 2010
Marion remains an overweight born-again whose grasp of history relies totally on FAUX News - that who Marion is!

Can't answer the question? That's what happens when the PC left eradicates the history of western civilization from government schools.
It's OK to totally ignore the contributions made by Christianity for the past 2000 years, like ending slavery, but if a few of those Christians question evolution, they must be crushed. How tolerant!
And it is no surprise such 'tolerant' people can only fling insults instead of answers.
http://www.physorg.com/news176210945.html
-Another trail of ruin. Not my comment by the way, just someone else fed up. Maybe Marion can find her answers in this past thread or a previous one, or in a previous blog? A previous life as an Untouchable or Helot perhaps?
Shootist
not rated yet Jan 04, 2010
If a transgenic cow is created to produce human insulin, is that a new species?


If the cow is cross-fertile with a transgenic bull that makes insulin and is able to pass that trait to their progeny? At the same time neither newbull, nor newcow, is cross-fertile with oldcow or oldbull?

Using the back of the envelop definition used here? Yes.
marjon
1 / 5 (3) Jan 04, 2010
Marion remains an overweight born-again whose grasp of history relies totally on FAUX News - that who Marion is!

It's OK to totally ignore the contributions made by Christianity for the past 2000 years, like ending slavery, but if a few of those Christians question evolution, they must be crushed. How tolerant!
And it is no surprise such 'tolerant' people can only fling insults instead of answers.
http://www.physorg.com/news176210945.html
-Another trail of ruin. Not my comment by the way, just someone else fed up. Maybe Marion can find her answers in this past thread or a previous one, or in a previous blog? A previous life as an Untouchable or Helot perhaps?

I was always told by my science teachers there are no stupid questions.
Science is not practiced by the participants here?
Isn't science precise? Why can't you spell my name correctly?
Shootist
5 / 5 (1) Jan 04, 2010
Science is not practiced by the participants here?
Isn't science precise? Why can't you spell my name correctly?


You have eyes! can you not see? You have ears! can you not hear?
marjon
Jan 04, 2010
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Shootist
5 / 5 (1) Jan 04, 2010
you are a difficult person.

Mark 8:18 was not taken out of context. You have been shown truth and have willfully ignored it.
frajo
2.3 / 5 (3) Jan 05, 2010
Maybe Marion can find her answers in this past thread or a previous one, or in a previous blog? A previous life as an Untouchable or Helot perhaps?

Why can't you spell my name correctly?
otto1923 often insults people who don't share his view. He's a troll.
Wadsworth
not rated yet Jan 05, 2010
Instead of all this silly bickering amongst relative amateurs, why does Marjon and her "kind" not just go straight to primary sources and peer reviewed articles, or even take up science and do original research herself(?) if she(he, it) is so paranoid as to think there is a world-wide Darwinian conspiracy aimed just at her? Or Google, or even God-forbid, read a book?
marjon
1 / 5 (1) Jan 05, 2010
Maybe Marion can find her answers in this past thread or a previous one, or in a previous blog? A previous life as an Untouchable or Helot perhaps?

Why can't you spell my name correctly?
otto1923 often insults people who don't share his view. He's a troll.

My comment about spelling my name was censored. How long will this one last?
marjon
1 / 5 (1) Jan 05, 2010

Instead of all this silly bickering amongst relative amateurs, why does Marjon and her "kind" not just go straight to primary sources and peer reviewed articles, or even take up science and do original research herself(?) if she(he, it) is so paranoid as to think there is a world-wide Darwinian conspiracy aimed just at her? Or Google, or even God-forbid, read a book?

What is the point of this comment section if not to ask questions ostensibly of people who may know something about the issue? If you don't like my questions, don't answer.
Wadsworth
Jan 05, 2010
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Wadsworth
not rated yet Jan 05, 2010
--apart from which, it is much easier to ask questions than answer them. Science tries to do both. Have you never been irritated by a child's "why, why, why? constant interrogation?
Science is not perfectm or complete.-it is an ongoing (evolutionary) process. If you review the history of fatuous "God-of-the-gaps" arguments, you might even see what a total failure they have been, and continue to be.
frajo
1 / 5 (1) Jan 05, 2010
If you don't like my questions, don't answer.
You didn't like a lot of my questions.
marjon
1 / 5 (1) Jan 05, 2010
--apart from which, it is much easier to ask questions than answer them. Science tries to do both. Have you never been irritated by a child's "why, why, why? constant interrogation?
Science is not perfectm or complete.-it is an ongoing (evolutionary) process. If you review the history of fatuous "God-of-the-gaps" arguments, you might even see what a total failure they have been, and continue to be.

Wow, science isn't perfect? Couldn't tell that based upon how scientists seem to act when a pet theory is questioned or when they can't answer a simple question like how does life begin.
Given the fiasco of the AGW emails, a bit more public humility from the science community is in order.
But, maybe I am asking too much. Scientists are people too and certainly obtain an ego boost when they think they know more than everyone else.
Wadsworth
not rated yet Jan 05, 2010
You are quite wrong. The essence of science is that its practitioners review and question everything constantly. There are no "pet theories"; there are instead methods, evidence and provisional conclusions which are arrived at; everything is in the melting pot; if the evidence says otherwise then conclusions will be altered accordingly. There is no finished, complete and wrapped up revealed knowledge; there is instead, practical applications which work, and which predict new lines of research which correlate with previous work in a logically consistent and reinforcing progression. Proof of the correctness of this methodology is the "fact" (not theory), that when you turn on the light switch, the light actually comes on as expected; (example of a correct prediction based upon previous electrical science and technology). This is all very reasonable and logical; do you not yet understand?
Now explain to us how Intelligent Design works.
marjon
1 / 5 (1) Jan 05, 2010
Proof of the correctness of this methodology is the "fact" (not theory), that when you turn on the light switch, the light actually comes on as expected; (example of a correct prediction based upon previous electrical science and technology). This is all very reasonable and logical; do you not yet understand?

How do you know the lights will come on tomorrow? As the financial statements say, past performance is no guarantee of future performance.
I know how the process is supposed to work. I don't always see it working as you suggest.
I am still working on Koen's 'Discussion of the Method' which suggests ALL IS HEURISTIC. Given the nature of quantum mechanics and what is NOT known, how can you be really certain what you think you know is truth?
marjon
1 / 5 (2) Jan 05, 2010
The essence of science is that its practitioners review and question everything constantly.

There are many in the climate 'science' community that apparently don't.

Also, how do you falsify the random spontaneous life creation?
How would such random conditions be recreated in a laboratory if they are random and not known?
otto1923
1 / 5 (1) Jan 05, 2010
Wow, science isn't perfect? Couldn't tell that based upon how scientists seem to act when a pet theory is questioned or when they can't answer a simple question like how does life begin.
Ban--The--Troll
otto1923
1 / 5 (1) Jan 05, 2010
Censoring is always the first response of tyrants, no?
I would say that censoring is the effect of the load Marion dumps on these threads.
Wadsworth
not rated yet Jan 05, 2010
"How do you know the lights will come on tomorrow? "

Science uses probabalistic inductive reasoning. Given the laws of electrical theory, I am confident that the lights will very probably come on tomorrow,-just as they always have (since they were invented).

Likewise the Sun will probably rise tomorrow: Inductive Logic, plus Newton's and Kepler's (descriptive) Laws of Motion.

"There are many in the climate 'science' community that apparently don't."

References?

"Also, how do you falsify the random spontaneous life creation?"

Ever heard of Louis Pasteur?

I am assembling some detailed analytical questions about the mechanics of "Design" theory (intelligent or otherwise). As you are so fond of questions, would you like me to post them so you can give detailed answers?

marjon
not rated yet Jan 05, 2010
Reference:
""Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it," Phil Jones, director of the Climate Research Unit at the U.K.'s East Anglia University, complained in 2005 when a fellow scientist inquired."
http://www.ocregi...ate.html
marjon
not rated yet Jan 05, 2010
"For all these efforts, why haven't scientists made any inroads? It's because at its core, the objection to evolution isn't about science at all, but about perceived threats to faith and moral values. The only way to defuse the conflict is to assuage these fundamental fears. Yet this drags many scientists out of their comfort zone: They're not priests or theologians and don't know how to sound like them. Many refuse to try; others go to the opposite extreme of advocating vociferous and confrontational atheism.

Ironically, to increase support for the teaching of evolution, scientists must join forces with -- and show more understanding of -- religion. Scientists who are believers also need to be more vocal about how they reconcile science and faith. "
http://www.washin...5_2.html
otto1923
1 / 5 (1) Jan 05, 2010
http://www.google.../classic
Wow, science isn't perfect? Couldn't tell that based upon how scientists seem to act when a pet theory is questioned or when they can't answer a simple question like how does life begin

I would say that censoring is the proximate effect of the huge LOAD that Marion dumps on these threads.
marjon
not rated yet Jan 05, 2010
http://www.google.com/m/classic
Wow, science isn't perfect? Couldn't tell that based upon how scientists seem to act when a pet theory is questioned or when they can't answer a simple question like how does life begin

I would say that censoring is the proximate effect of the huge LOAD that Marion dumps on these threads.

Don't web sites make money based upon the number of times people check out the site?
The more 'load' the better for the site.
otto1923
1 / 5 (1) Jan 05, 2010
Wadsworth
3 / 5 (2) Jan 05, 2010
"scientists must join forces with -- and show more understanding of -- religion".

I don't agree. Religion just wants to infiltrate and take over science. The Catholic and Anglican Churches pretend to accept Evolution,--but only if they can tweak it by inserting God and souls into it. That is not science. Do not forget that in the 4th century Christianity effectively destroyed classical science and philosophy, and civilisation itself, because they had no relevance to "salvation". Then came the Renaissance and Enlightenment; now Christians are trying to destroy the results of these as well, and usher in another Dark Age.If they get their way we will be back to witch-burning and glossalalia,(speaking in tongues).
Javinator
5 / 5 (2) Jan 05, 2010
I certainly hope you're a troll. If not, this is quite depressing.

I am not a scientist and I am not an atheist.

Stop the hate, bring the love.
marjon
1 / 5 (1) Jan 05, 2010
I certainly hope you're a troll. If not, this is quite depressing.

I am not a scientist and I am not an atheist.

Stop the hate, bring the love.


Wad is a fine example of the intolerance of many scientists today. And he is factually incorrect regarding religion and science as many modern scientists were motivated into science to explore God's creation.
Karlsbad
1 / 5 (1) Jan 05, 2010
"...how a male 'new species' finds and mates with a female 'new species..'

It's been quite some time, but as I recall, it was relayed to me as a process involving the birds and the bees.

I wouldn't completely discount Stork theory, either.

For Gods sake, don't reply at me. I've read enough to know that I won't be back in this lifetime..
otto1923
1 / 5 (2) Jan 05, 2010
Trolls always gotta have the last word, makes them think they own the thread
Javinator
5 / 5 (2) Jan 05, 2010
I certainly hope you're a troll. If not, this is quite depressing.

I am not a scientist and I am not an atheist.

Stop the hate, bring the love.


Wad is a fine example of the intolerance of many scientists today. And he is factually incorrect regarding religion and science as many modern scientists were motivated into science to explore God's creation.


I was talking about you. You're pretty ignorant for someone who complains about ignorance and claims not to be a troll. You treat religion and science as if they are finite things. Scientists argue with each other as much as they argue with you. You just wouldn't see it because you're always on the same side of the arguement.
Wadsworth
5 / 5 (1) Jan 05, 2010
"as many modern scientists were motivated into science to explore God's creation."

Yes I realise that. Individual Christians, not their Churches, behaved in humanistic ways simply because they were human as well as Christian. In "those days" everyone was Christian,--you had to be, because it was cultural conditioning,--and besides, atheists were disempowered and disenfranchised, and quite liable to be severely penalised (including burning as a "heretic").
Thanks to secular humanism we are fairly free of Christian hate (not atheist hate,--we never burned anybody). To see how Christianity was, all you have to do is examine modern Islamic fundamentalism. It is not atheists who blow up air-liners. Sorry if plain speaking is too much for some of you. I am a philosopher, a scientist and a Doctor,--and not a troll. I leave that to Marjon.
otto1923
3 / 5 (4) Jan 05, 2010
Gentlemen,
Youre observing a pathology here, which is somewhat appropriate on this website. The troll responds not to the meaning of your words but to the attention they represent. This is a glutton who has been gorging herself on whatever she can elicit from you, in hopes of filling up that unfillable void that her logic-sucking religion has left her with. Curious really, like watching a sick dog eat its own foot from a safe distance.
otto1923
1 / 5 (2) Jan 05, 2010
Although we might conclude from further reflection and review that this morbidity likely existed prior to the trolls infatuation with emotional overconsumption, and this attachment is only a regrettable manifestation of the original, uh, problem.
marjon
not rated yet Jan 05, 2010
Thanks to secular humanism we are fairly free of Christian hate (not atheist hate,--we never burned anybody).

All the great atheists like Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Ill, Castro, etc. only murdered, millions. Hitler did burn a few people, though.
It's interesting that in all my interchanges like this on the web, it is always the 'tolerant' 'liberals' that first mention 'hate'. I wonder why that is?
marjon
not rated yet Jan 05, 2010
Yes I realise that. Individual Christians, not their Churches, behaved in humanistic ways simply because they were human as well as Christian. In "those days" everyone was Christian,--you had to be, because it was cultural conditioning,--and besides, atheists were disempowered and disenfranchised, and quite liable to be severely penalised (including burning as a "heretic").

What is your excuse for those who now freely choose to remain Christian with some atheists even becoming theists?
marjon
not rated yet Jan 05, 2010
Scientists argue with each other as much as they argue with you. You just wouldn't see it because you're always on the same side of the arguement.

I thought scientists were supposed to be more rational, thoughtful, less emotional. What is there to argue about if one has the supporting data?
otto1923
1 / 5 (2) Jan 05, 2010
I wonder why that is?
Cause you're an idiot?
marjon
not rated yet Jan 05, 2010
I wonder why that is?
Cause you're an idiot?

That's your excuse to hate someone?
otto1923
1 / 5 (1) Jan 05, 2010
frajo
4 / 5 (4) Jan 06, 2010
Scientists argue with each other as much as they argue with you. You just wouldn't see it because you're always on the same side of the arguement.

I thought scientists were supposed to be more rational, thoughtful, less emotional.
I thought Christians were supposed to be peaceloving. But then I read about the forth cruisade 1204 where Christians massacred Christians without reason.
What is there to argue about if one has the supporting data?
[1] Have a look at PhysicsForums' "Beyond the Standard Model" forum.
[2] Inform yourself about the Homo floresiensis. The data can be interpreted by competing theories.
[3] All scientific theories follow the principle of falsifiability. Religious scriptures don't.
[4] Scientific competition is a motor of scientific progress.
Wadsworth
5 / 5 (1) Jan 06, 2010
Marjon,
Hitler was a Catholic. Read "Mein Kampf" and his speeches and you will see what a good Christian (and anti-semite) he was. Martin Luther had set the tone for mass murder in his book "On the Jews and their Lies";-and he was a good Christian. Stalin did not murder because he had theological opinions about the non-existence of God,--but because he was a ruthless politician,-and had been brought up in the culture of the autocratic Tsarist/Orthodox Church axis. Pol Pot and Mao had been raised in the Buddhist tradition; are all Buddhists murderers? Tell that to the Dalai Lama. Anyway, we are "off topic"; this is a science forum.
Wadsworth
not rated yet Jan 06, 2010
"What is your excuse for those who now freely choose to remain Christian with some atheists even becoming theists?".

What about de-conversions? There are more atheist web-sites and individual atheists and agnostics than ever before.
How about at least 93% of top scientists in the National Academy of Science,--and even more in the Brisitish Royal Society?

(Can someone tell me please, how to do the inserted comments in faint print?)
otto1923
not rated yet Jan 06, 2010
Hit the quote button next time, you'll see what to type. Bitte schön.
marjon
1 / 5 (2) Jan 06, 2010
Private quotes from Hitler:
"National Socialism and religion cannot exist together."
"Christianity is an invention of sick brains: one could imagine nothing more senseless, nor any more indecent way of turning the idea of the Godhead into a mockery.... .... When all is said, we have no reason to wish that the Italians and Spaniards should free themselves from the drug of Christianity. Let's be the only people who are immunised against the disease. (p 118 & 119)"
Hitler's Secret Conversations 1941-1944 published by Farrar, Straus and Young, Inc.first edition, 1953
http://www.doxa.w...ler.html

Sounds like some atheists I have heard.
Wadsworth
5 / 5 (1) Jan 06, 2010
In his "table talks" he did indeed say uncomplimentary things about Christianity, but the fact remains that he never relinquished his Catholicism, he signed a Concordat with the Pope Pius XII, and the Vatican celebrated his birthday until the end,-as well as assisting prominent Nazis to escape the Allies. But there are so many lies told, we can never be sure of history; it is written by the winners afterall. But why should a handful of atheists be interested in lying about Hitler's religion or lack of it? It would serve no useful purpose for them. But for Christian fanatics it is extremely useful to be able to spread the lie that Hitler was an atheist, in their war on unbelievers.
At most, I would consider Hitler to be a "lapsed" Catholic. Mosyt of the Catholics I have ever met have been lapsed. Why don't we get back to science?
Wadsworth
3.7 / 5 (3) Jan 06, 2010
"Private quotes from Hitler:
"Christianity is an invention of sick brains: one could imagine nothing more senseless, nor any more indecent way of turning the idea of the Godhead into a mockery".

Marjon: From this we can deduce that Hitler was much influenced by reading Nietzsche (who was an atheist),
--and also that as he complains about "mocking the Godhead",-which is something no atheist would do,-and that therefore Hitler himself was not an atheist.

Muslims also condemn Christianity's Trinity as a heretical polytheistic perversion of the one true Godhead (Allah). So was Hitler a Muslim?
One cannot draw simplistic black and white conclusions from all this muddle.
danman5000
not rated yet Jan 06, 2010
Private quotes from Hitler:
...
Sounds like some atheists I have heard.

Nice use of the classic Reductio ad Hitlerum to further your trolling agenda. I was wondering when you were going to go in that direction, and you didn't disappoint. This thread has been a very entertaining read - thanks for refraining from useful and pertinent discussion!
Phelankell
not rated yet Jan 06, 2010
Private quotes from Hitler:
"National Socialism and religion cannot exist together."
Then why did he endorse Nordic Paganism amongst his inner circle?

Sounds like some atheists I have heard.

There's one hard and fast rule to the world. Politicians don't speak the truth, they speak what you want them to think is the truth.

Hitler may have spoken against christianity, and catholicism in particular but that wasn't until the, predominantly Christian, US entered the fray.
otto1923
not rated yet Jan 06, 2010
http://atheism.ab...gion.htm
-This is the link I posted in a previous thread which the troll failed to respond to. I also pointed out that das Heer buckles had 'Gott mit Uns' stamped on them. NSDAP was a bonafide religion in itself- it had a prophet and messiah who promised to deliver his chosen people and promised land from the clutches of unworthy masses; it had shrines like Wewelsburg, martyrs like those killed in the Beerhall Putsch, and revered icons like the Blutfahne and the Spear of Destiny. Ahnenerbe apologists were charged with tracing Germanic spiritual as well as racial history throughout the past and into Tibet. It was indeed based on Gott as one can tell by the frequency Hitler used the word in writings and speeches. Doesnt matter what the man himself believed. Doesnt matter what the Pope believes. It matters only what the people believe and what theyre willing to do based on the strength of it.
otto1923
not rated yet Jan 06, 2010
I also countered the trolls accusations that xianity was not in fact the bloodiest progenitor of conflict in history, with nice links to prove the point. Troll ignores them there, forgets them here. I suppose trying to sell Mussolini on communism would have been easier except Mussolini was a salesman and a pragmatist; he could sit comfortably on both sides of the fence. Marion is just a serious defective with an open microphone here.
Also, how do you falsify the random spontaneous life creation?
How would such random conditions be recreated in a laboratory if they are random and not known?
My case is rested.
otto1923
not rated yet Jan 06, 2010
Reductio ad Hitlerum- nice reference danman, thanks for knowledge-
marjon
3.4 / 5 (5) Jan 06, 2010
Since the discussion has evolved to this, the definition of faith is belief without proof.
Religion is considered a faith, belief without proof.
Of what value is any attempt to disprove religion, a belief without proof?
It seems redundant.
The only rational position regarding faith is agnostic.
Wadsworth
not rated yet Jan 06, 2010

"Of what value is any attempt to disprove religion, a belief without proof?"

Because of the harm it does.

"The only rational position regarding faith is agnostic."

You are getting there slowly.
marjon
1 / 5 (1) Jan 06, 2010

"Of what value is any attempt to disprove religion, a belief without proof?"

Because of the harm it does.


Are you missing my point on purpose?

Faith, belief WITHOUT proof.

It seems irrational to attempt to disprove (which atheists try to do) faith (belief without proof). But atheists claim to be rational. Does this mean atheists are irrational regarding faith?
marjon
1 / 5 (2) Jan 06, 2010
" The first approach is conflict. In this war between science and religion, science views religion as an illusion; religion views science as human hubris or an attack on scriptural truths.
The second approach holds the two in sharp separation. The National Academy of Science said in 1981, for example, that science and religion are "are separate and mutually exclusive realms of human thought."
The third and fourth approaches to science and religion involve interaction - either as an exchange of ideas or as a final "integration" of the spiritual and the physical.
"It's very hard to defend the idea that all 'real' knowledge is on the science side, and none on the religion side," Mr. Clayton said. "Everyone knows it's false. You can know you love your wife and know that life is meaningful. You know certain actions are wrong.""http://www.deepsc...hy/faith and science.html
Wadsworth
1 / 5 (2) Jan 07, 2010


Are you missing my point on purpose?

Faith, belief WITHOUT proof.

It seems irrational to attempt to disprove (which atheists try to do) faith (belief without proof). But atheists claim to be rational. Does this mean atheists are irrational regarding faith?

If there is a point to all this, it seems very convoluted. You are apparently saying tht science is impotent to attack Faith because faith is not provable and has no epistemic content.
This sounds like a classic "shifting-the-goalpost tactic,--much the same as removing God to a safe distance "beyond the Universe" where nasty scientists can't get at him to do him harm; why bother?
Wadsworth
not rated yet Jan 07, 2010
"religion views science as human hubris or an attack on scriptural truths"

That is its problem; it cannot understand that scientific logic and empiricism has replaced ancient myths, mostly spread by violence..
Wadsworth
3 / 5 (2) Jan 07, 2010

"The third and fourth approaches to science and religion involve interaction - either as an exchange of ideas or as a final "integration" of the spiritual and the physical".

That raises another problem; there is no demonstrable "spiritual" to integrate with.
frajo
1 / 5 (1) Jan 07, 2010
Of what value is any attempt to disprove religion, a belief without proof?
Because of the harm it does
Yes, it did a lot of harm and it still does.
But we err if we only look at the dark side of religion. We have to take into account both sides.
Wadsworth
1 / 5 (1) Jan 07, 2010
"It's very hard to defend the idea that all 'real' knowledge is on the science side, and none on the religion side," Mr. Clayton said. "Everyone knows it's false. You can know you love your wife and know that life is meaningful. You know certain actions are wrong."

How can it be hard to defend when we do succesfully defend it already by reason, logic and empiricism? Didn't just say earlier, that religion is FAITH, and not knowledge,-you are contradicting yourself.
I have knowledge that I love my wife (not faith).
I believe my life can be meaingful if I take the trouble to make it so. If I was to sit in a corner for 70 years doing nothing,--then my life would not have meaning, either for myself or anyone else.
I can believe certain actions are wrong,-largely due to local cultural conditioning. If I was a Christian then worshipping Ganesh would be wrong; if I was a Hindu, worshipping Ganesh would be right. It's all relative.
What about Universal values? Is killing always wrong?
frajo
1 / 5 (1) Jan 07, 2010
If there is a point to all this, it seems very convoluted. You are apparently saying tht science is impotent to attack Faith because faith is not provable and has no epistemic content.
There's nothing convoluted. The realm of non-falsifiable statements (religion etc.) and the realm of falsifiable statements have the empty set as intersection.
Using the word "impotent", i.e. not able, is misleading. It is no deficiency when science can't make statements about love and affection.
And it is no deficiency when faith can't make statements about the appropriate cosmological model or QCD.
But for both realms there are humans who claim that "their" realm has the supremacy. Human hybris.
Wadsworth
not rated yet Jan 07, 2010
Frajo--well I am a not an expert on set theory, but I don't really see its relevance in this case; perhaps it has some."Impotent",-was my interpretation of what Marjon was apparently trying to say, and I agree with you that science is not impotent in the face of the fact of love and affection; on the contrary, these are adequately covered by evolutionary theory and sociobiology.On the other hand, faith can say what it likes (and it does),about scientific subjects (and they ARE now scientific subjects, not theological ones),-like cosmology and QCD(?)-is this a reference to Quantum ChromoDynamics,-or something else? As for hubris;if you are a post-modern relativist,you might be one of those who claim that there is no absolute knowledge of anything,and that all is just opinion, and one theory is as good as another.Is that what you are saying?Its absolute truth or falsity would be to jump out of a top-floor window, because the theory of gravity does not have supremacy over faith in flying.
marjon
1 / 5 (1) Jan 07, 2010
Of what value is any attempt to disprove religion, a belief without proof?
Because of the harm it does
Yes, it did a lot of harm and it still does.
But we err if we only look at the dark side of religion. We have to take into account both sides.

Science has done no harm?
I recall something about eugenics about 100 years ago that inspired some German leaders and Mengele's 'research'. There were those two bombs dropped in Japan, countless deaths from malaria and who knows how many deaths from chemical and radiation caused cancers.
Science has no dark side?
marjon
1 / 5 (1) Jan 07, 2010


Are you missing my point on purpose?

Faith, belief WITHOUT proof.

It seems irrational to attempt to disprove (which atheists try to do) faith (belief without proof). But atheists claim to be rational. Does this mean atheists are irrational regarding faith?


If there is a point to all this, it seems very convoluted. You are apparently saying tht science is impotent to attack Faith because faith is not provable and has no epistemic content.
This sounds like a classic "shifting-the-goalpost tactic,--much the same as removing God to a safe distance "beyond the Universe" where nasty scientists can't get at him to do him harm; why bother?

You did not answer the question. Is it rational to use science to prove (or disprove) a faith (belief without proof)?
Wadsworth
not rated yet Jan 07, 2010
"Science has done no harm?"

Yes of course science can be misused, like any other human activity, but on the whole, it is not (atheistic) scientists who are clamouring to damage and pollute the world,--rather it is the politicians who highjack it for their own ends, even in a "democracy"; (Tony Blair's invasion of Iraq?). Einstein's discovery of special relativity lead ulimately to atoms bombs and Hiroshima, though you could say that was a good thing as it terminated the Japan war and saved countless (American) lives,--perhaps even some Japanese ones.
Yet do we really want to sacrifice knowledge of the structure and origin of Matter because of the misdeeds of politicians? Does science cause malaria, and (non-radiation) cancers? I thought it was busy trying to prevent and cure both,--usually in the face of-pig-ignorance. Overpopulation is another chief cause of our woes .
Wadsworth
not rated yet Jan 07, 2010
"You did not answer the question"

Sorry, I must have missed something. No, one cannot disprove "Faith",-not even logically, certainly not empirically. This I think, is because "Faith" is not a proposition,and therefore cannot be dealt with logically. All one can do is to point out its self-confessed vacuousness, ie its lacking of any kind of epistemology. On the other hand, "Faith", not being content with being vacuous, then starts making epistemological claims, eg about a Superman Creator living in the sky (somewhere), called "God", and about how the Universe came into being, how Life originated, and their own fanciful version of "On the origin of species". These claims can then be dealt with logically and empirically. So the answer is "No" and "yes".
Phelankell
not rated yet Jan 07, 2010
You did not answer the question. Is it rational to use science to prove (or disprove) a faith (belief without proof)?


Is it rational to have faith when evidence to the contrary exists?
otto1923
not rated yet Jan 07, 2010

What about Universal values? Is killing always wrong?
 1 There is a time for everything, 
       and a season for every activity under heaven:
2 a time to be born and a time to die, 
       a time to plant and a time to uproot,
3 a time to kill and a time to heal, 
       a time to tear down and a time to build,
4 a time to weep and a time to laugh, 
       a time to mourn and a time to dance,
5 a time to scatter stones and a time to gather them, 
       a time to embrace and a time to refrain,
6 a time to search and a time to give up, 
       a time to keep and a time to throw away,
7 a time to tear and a time to mend, 
       a time to be silent and a time to speak,
8 a time to love and a time to hate, 
       a time for war
and a time for peace... But not Today.
marjon
1 / 5 (1) Jan 07, 2010
Yes of course science can be misused, like any other human activity,


Do you believe religion can be misused, like any other human activity?

it is not (atheistic) scientists who are clamouring to damage and pollute the world


What do you call 'scientists', like those promoting world wide carbon taxes, who are willing to lie to achieve their 'utopia'?
marjon
1 / 5 (1) Jan 07, 2010
You did not answer the question. Is it rational to use science to prove (or disprove) a faith (belief without proof)?


Is it rational to have faith when evidence to the contrary exists?


That is the definition of faith, belief without proof.
Evidence is not truth. By definition, the science process is supposed to be always collecting and evaluating evidence. Scientists should always be ready, willing and able to change based upon the 'evidence'.
otto1923
not rated yet Jan 07, 2010
13 That everyone may eat and drink ...this is the gift of God.
Wadsworth
not rated yet Jan 07, 2010


Do you believe religion can be misused, like any other human activity?

Surely the answer is obvious.

What do you call 'scientists', like those promoting world wide carbon taxes, who are willing to lie to achieve their 'utopia'?

Is it utopic to try and clean up the Earth?
otto1923
not rated yet Jan 07, 2010
18 I also thought, "As for men, God tests them so that they may see that they are like the animals. 19 Man's fate is like that of the animals; the same fate awaits them both: As one dies, so dies the other. All have the same breath; man has no advantage over the animal.
Wadsworth
not rated yet Jan 07, 2010


Evidence is not truth. By definition, the science process is supposed to be always collecting and evaluating evidence. Scientists should always be ready, willing and able to change based upon the 'evidence'.

--and so they are (if they are good scientists). Can we say the same about religious faith?
You say evidence is not truth,--how could it be?-except in so far as "evidence" is collected in support of theories, and if persuasive enough may be used to give weight to a scientific theory which for practical purposes may be regarded as a "fact". But lets not start going round in circles again; we have discussed this already.
Remind me again; what is the purpose of this discussion?

BTW,--I may be away skiing for a week from tomorrow if I am not stranded here on the island of Jersey by appalling snowy weather. Hope you can manage without me.
otto1923
not rated yet Jan 07, 2010
Everything is meaningless. 20 All go to the same place; all come from dust, and to dust all return. 21 Who knows if the spirit of man rises upward and if the spirit of the animal goes down into the earth?"
 22 So I saw that there is nothing better for a man than to enjoy his work, because that is his lot. For who can bring him to see what will happen after him?

skiing
Reminds me of that scene in 'Day After Tomorrow' when that Brit guy sticks his head outside the helicopter door-
Phelankell
not rated yet Jan 07, 2010

That is the definition of faith,
No, the definition of faith is as you said:
belief without proof.
It is not belief in the face of contrary findings. To repeat a process when the effects of that process are contrary to expectations, and not revisitng those expectations is called insanity.

Evidence is not truth.
Never said it was. But a fact is a fact. The fact here is that the tennents of the religion are self contradictory and as such, non-evident by definition.
By definition, the science process is supposed to be always collecting and evaluating evidence. Scientists should always be ready, willing and able to change based upon the 'evidence'.

And at what point in time are they not when it comes to faith?
marjon
1 / 5 (3) Jan 07, 2010
" We’ve learned that being religious or spiritual has a very profound effect on who we are, has a very profound effect on our biology and on our brain, and what we’ve found more recently is that not only does it have a profound influence on who we are, but it actually can change our brain and to change ourselves over times."

"I don’t think that our science is going to be able to definitively prove that God exists or doesn’t exist. It is, ultimately, a leap of faith."
"When you have those kind of positive, optimistic beliefs in the world, in God or religion, depending on the person, that that really, over the long haul, seems to be the thing that really provides a benefit for us in terms our mental state and in terms of our physical health and well-being."
http://www.pbs.or...in/3597/
Phelankell
not rated yet Jan 07, 2010
Recreational drugs have much the same effect marjon. Would you suggest that using recreational drugs is also a good thing?
Wadsworth
not rated yet Jan 08, 2010
I like a tipple of Calvados myself. See you next week perhaps. Reg
marjon
1 / 5 (3) Jan 08, 2010
Recreational drugs have much the same effect marjon. Would you suggest that using recreational drugs is also a good thing?

Imagine, NOT having to put toxic chemicals into your body and one achieves the same results.
I see the harm in toxic chemicals. Where is the harm of spirituality and meditation as measured by the scientists referenced above?
Phelankell
not rated yet Jan 08, 2010
Imagine, NOT having to put toxic chemicals into your body and one achieves the same results.
I see the harm in toxic chemicals. Where is the harm of spirituality and meditation as measured by the scientists referenced above?

Religion may not be a toxic chemical, but at least one can identify a toxic chemical. Toxic ideology, however, is a wholly different matter, and as such, is far more dangerous.
Phelankell
not rated yet Jan 08, 2010
Ok marjon, here's a prime example of why religion is harmful.

The medical practice of abortion has been around longer than Christianity has been in existence. Christians decry the act of abortion, primarily because it's "an affront to God to engage in coupling without the potential to create life."

Do you understand why that's the case? Do you understand that now it's considered murder by Christians simply because we have the scientific knowledge to prove that a fetus is alive?

Christian sexual education stated that when two people have sex the man would inject the woman with a infinitesimal man that would grow and develop within the woman, and that if you had a daughter rather than a son that your wife had done something horrible to the child when it was in the womb.

This toxic ideology resulted in an unknown number of deaths and spousal abuses. Do you think that ideology is beautiful and just? Think a loving and gentle God would allow that? So which is more toxic now?
otto1923
not rated yet Jan 08, 2010
HERE are prime examples of why religion is harmful:

(CNN) -- In his weekly address, President Obama said that the Christmas Day airline bomber acted under orders from an al Qaeda branch in Yemen, which "trained him, equipped him with those explosives and directed him to attack that plane headed for America."

KUALA LUMPUR, Malaysia — Three Christian churches were attacked with firebombs Friday as tensions rose in a dispute over whether Christians could use the word “Allah” in this largely Muslim nation.

Authorities in Egypt confronted over a thousand Christian protesters in Nagaa Hammadi who were outraged over the January 6 murder of six co-religionists as they celebrated the Orthodox observation of Christmas. Assailants unleashed a hail of bullets from a car as a congregation left services at a local church.

-Of course theyre not your civilized western variations are they? Not at the present time anyways. Not in this week's headlines. Stupid godders.
Phelankell
not rated yet Jan 08, 2010
-Of course theyre not your civilized western variations are they?


Islam is a western religion.

I wouldn't characterize any of the big three western religions to be particularly civilized, especially as tehy promote stoning people to death and killing people with different opinions on deism.
marjon
1 / 5 (2) Jan 08, 2010
Christianity is harmful because it states murdering a baby is wrong?
All living things seem to want to survive.
marjon
1 / 5 (2) Jan 08, 2010
Politics is dangerous, too. Millions were murdered by socialist regimes because they did not want to be subjugated by tyrants.
marjon
1.5 / 5 (2) Jan 08, 2010
Automobiles are dangerous with over 40,000 people killed each year.
marjon
1 / 5 (4) Jan 08, 2010
-Of course theyre not your civilized western variations are they?


Islam is a western religion.

I wouldn't characterize any of the big three western religions to be particularly civilized, especially as tehy promote stoning people to death and killing people with different opinions on deism.

Democrats and other socialists promote murdering of babies and killing the aged and infirm.
marjon
1 / 5 (2) Jan 08, 2010
Imagine, NOT having to put toxic chemicals into your body and one achieves the same results.
I see the harm in toxic chemicals. Where is the harm of spirituality and meditation as measured by the scientists referenced above?

Religion may not be a toxic chemical, but at least one can identify a toxic chemical. Toxic ideology, however, is a wholly different matter, and as such, is far more dangerous.

Yes, governments (USSR, China, DPRK, Germany, Cambodia, Rwanda, ....) have been proven to be deadly for millions.
Phelankell
5 / 5 (1) Jan 08, 2010
Christianity is harmful because it states murdering a baby is wrong?
All living things seem to want to survive.

Christianity is harmful because it setup an environment where in order to be accepted in society and not lose your property you would have to have sons. If your wife didn't conceive a son, the only manner by which to rectify the situation was to murder her.

Remember Henry the Eighth?

Yes, governments (USSR, China, DPRK, Germany, Cambodia, Rwanda, ....) have been proven to be deadly for millions.

All of which were driven by religous conflict. The conflict of the religious against the un-religious. If there was no religion there would have been far fewer people killed.

Without Judiasm there is no Jewish scapegoat.
Without Bahat there would be no khmer rouge,
without eastern orthodox there would have been no czar mandates
and without christianity DPRK wouldn't have been introduced to western empirialism.
Phelankell
5 / 5 (1) Jan 08, 2010
How about the ills of religion?

How about the native americans? slaughtered in the millions and potentially billions by Christians and Conquistadors.

The missions in Africa perpetuate the Catholic edict of Corpus Connubi causing the death of millions of Africans through their prevention of administering birth control.

And certainly don't forget, Christianity was complacent on all levels in regards to Hitler and his execution of the Jews.

Religion is the guilty party here. Atheists act alone. The religious act with the will of the church.
otto1923
not rated yet Jan 08, 2010
I wouldn't characterize any of the big three western religions to be particularly civilized, especially as tehy promote stoning people to death and killing people with different opinions on deism.
Forgive me if I wasn't as clear as I needed to be? I was referring to variations? As in sects/denominations/regional fundamentalist types. Versteht? Behavior I might add which can be exhibited by any religionist when the conditions are right. As they inevitably are when either side begins to feel the effects of the First Mitzvah- by fruitful, multiply, overrun the infidel, and take everything god says he doesn't deserve- land, food, women, his life, etc. Aggression being the reason for that edict. It enables rulers to get the rabble all pointed in the proper direction at the proper time.
otto1923
3 / 5 (2) Jan 08, 2010
Democrats and other socialists promote murdering of babies and killing the aged and infirm
The troll is starting to froth again. In her case religion is a selfish and grave enabler. Without it she would perhaps come to grips and seek out real help? We all quit sooner or later, one way or another-
marjon
1 / 5 (2) Jan 08, 2010

Without Judiasm there is no Jewish scapegoat.
Without Bahat there would be no khmer rouge,
without eastern orthodox there would have been no czar mandates
and without christianity DPRK wouldn't have been introduced to western empirialism.


If some people were not black, they wouldn't have been made slaves.
Now the skinny people are picking on the fat people making laws taxing sugar and fat.
Without people there would be no people for people to pick on.
otto1923
not rated yet Jan 08, 2010
Trolls exhibit the same symptoms as stalkers. I remember when Howard stern called up the robin givens stalker just to see what they had to say. After attempts at logic, emotional appeals, veiled threats, etc. Howard was exasperated. 'Don't you get it??' he yelled. No, of course not. They're wired backwards. They see disagreement as rejection, rejection as encouragement. Like social dyslexia.
otto1923
not rated yet Jan 08, 2010
Defectives of this sort may be attracted to the herds of religionists because they suspect they would be the only kinds of people who would accept them and their serious personal shortcomings. Not True! Therapists and especially 12 step groups would. I suggest first becoming honest with themselves about the exact nature of their problem, admitting their powerlessness over it, and then seeking the help they know they need. Better than puking all over these threads or being laughed at on national radio.
Now the skinny people are picking on the fat people making laws taxing sugar and fat.
Its a disease not a disgrace!
marjon
1 / 5 (2) Jan 08, 2010
Christianity is harmful because it setup an environment where in order to be accepted in society and not lose your property you would have to have sons. If your wife didn't conceive a son, the only manner by which to rectify the situation was to murder her.

I don't recall Jesus requiring wives be killed for not bearing sons. Paul actually recommended that men should not be married or have a family in order to better serve God. The Shakers tried that, for a while.
Phelankell
not rated yet Jan 08, 2010
If some people were not black, they wouldn't have been made slaves.
Now the skinny people are picking on the fat people making laws taxing sugar and fat.
Without people there would be no people for people to pick on.
and so in one fell swoop you've completely disarmed my argument, but, you've also completely disarmed your own. Without people there'd be no religion. Meaning religion, just like malice, is manufactured by man. My statements on the topic are complete. Unless you want to argue another fallacy of the church I think we're done.
marjon
1 / 5 (3) Jan 08, 2010
Without people there'd be no religion. Meaning religion, just like malice, is manufactured by man.

Therefore, you must be encouraging the elimination all people?
otto1923
not rated yet Jan 08, 2010
completely disarmed my argument,
Yeah, it was slimed hehee
Would god exist if everybody who believed in him were dead? (no) ha
marjon
1 / 5 (2) Jan 08, 2010
completely disarmed my argument,
Yeah, it was slimed hehee
Would god exist if everybody who believed in him were dead? (no) ha

completely disarmed my argument,
Yeah, it was slimed hehee
Would god exist if everybody who believed in him were dead? (no) ha

God existed before people, so, yes.
Phelankell
not rated yet Jan 08, 2010
Without people there'd be no religion. Meaning religion, just like malice, is manufactured by man.

Therefore, you must be encouraging the elimination all people?

Nope, I encourage the education and enlightenment to the truth of reality for all people. Through wisdom comes prosperity.Interesting that you go there. It shows extreme bias against atheists.
God existed before people, so, yes.
If you can't prove that then it can't be used as a logical argument.
marjon
1 / 5 (1) Jan 09, 2010
Nope, I encourage the education and enlightenment to the truth of reality for all people. Through wisdom comes prosperity.Interesting that you go there. It shows extreme bias against atheists.

What is truth? What is reality? Who decides,you?
As for bias, this applies: ""Why do you see the speck in your brother's eye but fail to notice the beam in your own eye?"

How can you prove the existence of the universe if it cannot be proven to exist before the Big Bang?
frajo
1 / 5 (1) Jan 09, 2010
the truth of reality for all people.

Reality as in local realism of QM entanglement?
Through wisdom comes prosperity.
For whom? For the wise one or for his boss/slave master/inquisitor?
Phelankell
not rated yet Jan 09, 2010
Through wisdom comes prosperity.
For whom? For the wise one or for his boss/slave master/inquisitor?
For all who prosper. The goal of mankind should be to ensure equal opportunity for prosperity to all. Not to hand out prosperity. Much like you must be pious to benefit from religion, you must want to succeed in life in order to do so.

How can you prove the existence of the universe if it cannot be proven to exist before the Big Bang?
That is a logical fallacy, as the two are not related. It's akin to me asking you "How can you believe in God if you can't prove how he came to be?"
marjon
2.3 / 5 (3) Jan 09, 2010
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal,...they are endowed ....with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. —"

This belief has resulted in the deaths of millions because some believe this and some do not. Since this idea has caused so much malice, it should be immediately rejected and ridiculed, no?
Phelankell
not rated yet Jan 09, 2010
This belief has resulted in the deaths of millions because some believe this and some do not. Since this idea has caused so much malice, it should be immediately rejected and ridiculed, no?

Again, you're making a tenuous logical connection.

My examples above are based on direct edicts of religous institutions responsible for acts such as the crusades, corpus connubi, conquistador conquest of south america, etc. Direct action is causative, indirect action is not. Secondly, you're quoting the words of man, which we all know to be fallible. I'm speaking about the words of your "God" who is allegedly infallible.

"I voted for George Bush so I'm partly responsible for the war in Iraq" rings true.

"I woke up this morning and we went to war with Iraq, so waking up caused a war in Iraq" doesn't hold true. Bring some direct causatives or you're merely being a sophist troll.
marjon
1 / 5 (1) Jan 09, 2010
My examples above are based on direct edicts of religous institutions responsible for acts such as the crusades, corpus connubi, conquistador conquest of south america, etc

As you say, man is fallible. 200 years ago blood letting was thought to be the best way to treat disease.
When was the last time a Pope or a Christian King called on Christian soldiers to conquer?
Pope John Paul II played a significant part in liberating millions suffering under communism.
God's message hasn't changed. Fallible people misinterpret the message to suit their quest for power.
Is that the fault of the idea or fallible people?

Again, you're making a tenuous logical connection.
The connection does exist, no?
otto1923
3 / 5 (2) Jan 09, 2010
what is Truth? What is Reality? Who decides,you?
No, me. Bwap! Barf.
'God is dead.' -nietzsche
'Nietzsche is dead.' -god
'God doesn't exist because he is not necessary. Would the god of all settle for being superfluous? Absolutely not. Religionists resist science because science continuously makes them look silly, which is the one thing they fear most.' -otto
otto1923
1 / 5 (1) Jan 09, 2010
How can you prove the existence of the universe if it cannot be proven to exist before the Big Bang?
Of course sometimes they insist on being imbeciles without any help from science at all. Hey I'm sorry but can anyone out there who knows anything about the subject at all, not laugh out loud upon reading that quote? Ignorance like this is schooling gens of impressionable young minds, or it wants to. How can we not want to feel militant towards evil like this? Religion must go or the world is done. The only faith we need is the faith that we can contain malignance such as this.
otto1923
1 / 5 (2) Jan 09, 2010
Contain? I meant eradicate. Religion is Everything that is wrong with the world today. Without it we would soar. Without religion there would truly be heaven on earth. Religion itself is the whore of Babylon. It follows civilization wherever it goes preying upon the weak and lonely, whispering sweet nothings in their ears while picking their pocket. Slay the Nazarine. Drown the Prophets.
Phelankell
2.3 / 5 (3) Jan 09, 2010
When was the last time a Pope or a Christian King called on Christian soldiers to conquer?
2001 The American "crusade" against terrorism. The religious undertones were frightening.
Pope John Paul II played a significant part in liberating millions suffering under communism.
Only helping frightened catholics escape from the persecuting godless heathens by your bias.
Is that the fault of the idea or fallible people?
As I've said before. You have to prove the idea didn't come from fallible men first.
The connection does exist, no?

A tenous logic is one that is not justifable in a straight forward manner. Typically this is understood to be either unprovable or circular logic. So no, the connection doesn't exist outside of your logic loop.
frajo
1 / 5 (1) Jan 09, 2010
Much like you must be pious to benefit from religion
To be pious is neither a necessary nor a sufficient precondition to benefit from religion. Wikipedia:
The family of a certain papal official made and unmade popes for fifty years. The official's great-grandson, Pope John XII, held orgies of debauchery in the Lateran palace.

you must want to succeed in life in order to do so.
As the meaning of "success" varies individually this statement is not falsifiable. It is meaningless. You can be a heir without having wanted to.
frajo
1 / 5 (1) Jan 09, 2010
How can you prove the existence of the universe if it cannot be proven to exist before the Big Bang?

Hey I'm sorry but can anyone out there who knows anything about the subject at all, not laugh out loud upon reading that quote?
The BigBang is just the contemporary mainstream cosmology (the standard model of cosmology). It has been patched a lot to allow for many observations which originally didn't fit. Inflation, dark matter, dark energy. This model has severe problems. One of the problems is the missing equivalence between the mathematically clean concept of a spacetime singularity and the physical impossibility of any singularity.
Thus, questioning the reality of the BigBang model is a valid position. In fact, there are quite a bunch of alternative models some of which don't need physical singularities at all.
otto1923
not rated yet Jan 09, 2010
How can you prove the existence of the universe
This question, coming from a non-intellectual in a non-philosophical venue, has nothing to do with the Big Bang and everything to do with a big void where a reasoning thought-machine should be. The Troll seeks to incite and inflame. The question is nonsense.
The BigBang is just the contemporary mainstream cosmology
Sez you. I say both you and I have no idea. But the universe is here. Care to debate that?
otto1923
3 / 5 (2) Jan 09, 2010
Heres a taste of just what xianists are capable of, given the right conditions; which can occur at any time in any place.
http://en.wikiped...massacre
The total death toll in Lebanon for the whole civil war period was around 20,000-300,000 victims.
marjon
1 / 5 (2) Jan 09, 2010
Heres a taste of just what xianists are capable of, given the right conditions; which can occur at any time in any place.
http://en.wikiped...massacre
The total death toll in Lebanon for the whole civil war period was around 20,000-300,000 victims.

Why do you bring up a statistic with such high uncertainty? Not very scientific.
Phelankell
not rated yet Jan 09, 2010
As the meaning of "success" varies individually this statement is not falsifiable. It is meaningless. You can be a heir without having wanted to.
But that isn't a measure of success. There is far more to life than wealth, even for us atheists.
marjon
2 / 5 (4) Jan 09, 2010
As the meaning of "success" varies individually this statement is not falsifiable. It is meaningless. You can be a heir without having wanted to.
But that isn't a measure of success. There is far more to life than wealth, even for us atheists.

What is the NIST standard definition of 'success'?
frajo
1 / 5 (1) Jan 10, 2010
As the meaning of "success" varies individually this statement is not falsifiable. It is meaningless. You can be a heir without having wanted to.
But that isn't a measure of success.
That is one measure in the set of all measures of "success". This set is infinite and lacks consistency. E.g. a (Buddhist, Christian) monk may finish his life successfully by not having gathered any material wealth whereas a WallStreet broker might consider suicide in this situation.
There is far more to life than wealth,
Not strong enough. Wealth even might be detrimental to life. Its unfairly uneven distribution certainly is.
even for us atheists.
Nice try :)
I'm on the side of that guy who said
I know that I don't know anything. But he, over there, doesn't even know this much.

Phelankell
5 / 5 (1) Jan 10, 2010
And this is where the fundamental atheists/theist argument sits.

Theists have a goal to their life: Enter the afterlife in a way that's beneficial to their "eternal soul".

Atheists find their own meaning and attempt to reach that goal in the worldly existence.

As the meaning of "success" varies individually this statement is not falsifiable. It is meaningless.


So would that mean that all non-falsifiable things are meaningless? For example, God?
otto1923
1 / 5 (1) Jan 10, 2010
Not very scientific
How would you know?
How can you prove the existence of the universe
Duh- what?
otto1923
not rated yet Jan 10, 2010
The BigBang is just the contemporary mainstream cosmology
Frajo is reminding me of the priest who would interpret the babblings of the drooling Delphic oracle in a politically meaningful way. Perhaps the trolls basement is full of natural gas fumes?
marjon
1 / 5 (1) Jan 10, 2010
Atheists find their own meaning and attempt to reach that goal in the worldly existence.


Is this a provable statement for all atheists or your belief?
Phelankell
Jan 10, 2010
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
marjon
1 / 5 (2) Jan 10, 2010
Prove it wrong.

If an atheist, like CS Lewis (among others), finds his meaning by becoming a Christian, does that count?
That falsifies the theory about atheists finding their own meaning.
otto1923
not rated yet Jan 10, 2010
Plop drops another name. Trolls are supposed to be strong enough to lift and haul very large and pretentious names. In a big sack. They get them from google lists of pretentious names. How do I know? I've seen those lists while using google to confirm and expand on what I already know. Unlike trolls who just want to collect big deal names to plop in threads to impress nobody but themselves.
frajo
1 / 5 (1) Jan 11, 2010
reminding me of the priest who would interpret the babblings of the drooling Delphic oracle in a politically meaningful way.
Don't mix up the site, the Pythia, the interpreters, the carefully crafted double meanings. As Kroisos (Croesus) of Lydia didn't understand what it means to destroy a mighty empire.
otto1923
not rated yet Jan 11, 2010
Please frajo add a link to the wiki article like I do or I might think you're trying to impress me. I know what Delphi and the sibyls were- their handlers the priests ran the world back then. They were what is today- Empire.
Phelankell
3 / 5 (2) Jan 11, 2010
If an atheist, like CS Lewis (among others), finds his meaning by becoming a Christian, does that count?
That falsifies the theory about atheists finding their own meaning.

Care to explain the falsification? I don't see one. If CSLewis followed his pursuit into religion, then religion would be the element that satisfied his meaning. It doesn't remove the individualized realization. Otherwise if one Christian converted out of christianity that would be proving the entire religion false by your logic above.
marjon
1 / 5 (3) Jan 11, 2010
If an atheist, like CS Lewis (among others), finds his meaning by becoming a Christian, does that count?
That falsifies the theory about atheists finding their own meaning.

Care to explain the falsification? I don't see one. If CSLewis followed his pursuit into religion, then religion would be the element that satisfied his meaning. It doesn't remove the individualized realization. Otherwise if one Christian converted out of christianity that would be proving the entire religion false by your logic above.

CS Lewis proved atheism false by becoming Christian?
Your statement only requires ONE atheist not finding meaning or not wanting to find meaning to falsify. The odds are pretty good there is at least one atheist to falsify your statement.
Phelankell
3 / 5 (2) Jan 11, 2010
CS Lewis proved atheism false by becoming Christian?
That's what you said, not me.

Your statement only requires ONE atheist not finding meaning or not wanting to find meaning to falsify.
But in your example there is no statement on CS Lewis not finding meaning. I'm now of mind that you're a simple troll.
The odds are pretty good there is at least one atheist to falsify your statement.
Find one person on the entire planet who has never performed an action for their own self benefit. You will never find one.
marjon
1 / 5 (3) Jan 11, 2010
Atheists find their own meaning and attempt to reach that goal in the worldly existence.

"Self-benefit" == 'meaning'?
This was the phrase to falsify. Viktor Frankl discovered a few in the concentration camps of NAZI Germany.
otto1923
5 / 5 (2) Jan 11, 2010
Uh oh. The troll cites the non-falsifiability of the human language itself. You say tomato I say tomato. Do words mean things? Not quite. Just because you are confident of your understanding of what 'falsifiability' means, doesn't mean there isn't someone out there who couldn't convince you it means something slightly different. No I'm not serious troll I'm making fun of you. Plop goes Frankl fresh from google. FOAD
marjon
2.5 / 5 (4) Jan 11, 2010
What does FOAD mean?
Words are the only way to communicate here, as limited as that may be. Therefore, precision is required and terms must be agreed to.
frajo
1 / 5 (1) Jan 12, 2010
Please frajo add a link to the wiki article
se ti glossa;
like I do
:)
or I might think you're trying to impress me.
Impression is in the eye of the beholder.
Phelankell
1 / 5 (1) Jan 12, 2010
Therefore, precision is required and terms must be agreed to.

Then give us a precise definition of every term you've used above, as you've waffled on the definitions of each to the point of obfuscation.