Evolution, Christian Darwin's Theory, Now Proven Wrong

"
MrTremere wrote:
"
Completed 18 ChallengesTemplar_G wrote:
(...)

What you are saying shows that you have a bad understanding about what the theory of evolution is.


...or what a 'theory' in scientific context means, for that matter.

From what I've seen religious folks often can't make a difference between a theory and hypothesis, not that Templar_G's personal opinion would qualify as a hypothesis, either.

Edit:
By the way -it's pretty interesting that in national socialist Germany during 30's, Darwins texts were prohibited since nazis wouldn't accept darwinism's basic premise of our ancestors. However, this fact didn't stop catholic apologists later on after WW2 attacking nazism for propagading a form of 'social darwinism'. That's basically how the term social darwinism was coined, not before. It would anyhow be more accurate to talk of spencerism after Herbert Spencer. Darwin rejected his theory could be utilized on social issues analogously, which didn't slow down other people doing so, Spencer included.

And Darwin was no christian, claiming otherwise is pure bullshit. He was a moderate man avoiding public conflict with church, but it certainly didn't make him a christian. At the time christianity was still pretty much the only accepted world view in western world. He did naturally share some christian values, meaning here he rejected a spencerist world view despite 'the price mankind had to pay for protecting their weak'. Of course, it's quite unclear whether this statement reflects christian values. Honestly it sounds more like socialist valuation at least if you ask many american people, who themselves identify as christian.

Then again, some strand of christian would say those same people I am referring to aren't true christian at all. Go figure.
Last edited by vmt80 on Jul 11, 2018 11:25:25 PM
"
ScrotieMcB wrote:
"
MrTremere wrote:
What you are saying shows that you have a bad understanding about what the theory of evolution is.

What you seem to think it is:
A new mutation suddenly pops out in a child or an adult being.

What it really is:
A baby is born slightly different. If the difference is positive, it is more likely to have children. If not, then it is less likely to have children.
Congratulations, you just conflated evolution with heredity.

Hint: not actually the same thing.


Wrong, he is spot on.

Heredity is simply the passing on of genes. This is the offcial description of the word: "
the passing on of physical or mental characteristics genetically from one generation to another."

A mutation is the opposite, it's the sudden apparition of a physical or mental characteristic that wasn't present in the previous generation.
Build of the week #9 - Breaking your face with style http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v_EcQDOUN9Y
IGN: Poltun
"
faerwin wrote:
"
ScrotieMcB wrote:
"
MrTremere wrote:
What you are saying shows that you have a bad understanding about what the theory of evolution is.

What you seem to think it is:
A new mutation suddenly pops out in a child or an adult being.

What it really is:
A baby is born slightly different. If the difference is positive, it is more likely to have children. If not, then it is less likely to have children.
Congratulations, you just conflated evolution with heredity.

Hint: not actually the same thing.
Wrong, he is spot on.

Heredity is simply the passing on of genes. This is the offcial description of the word: "
the passing on of physical or mental characteristics genetically from one generation to another."

A mutation is the opposite, it's the sudden apparition of a physical or mental characteristic that wasn't present in the previous generation.
Even then he would be conflating evolution and mutation. These also aren't the same thing.

In the context of genetics, evolution is the formation of multiple species from a single species. The defining trait of a species is the INABILITY to reproduce with members of a different species. Your task is NOT to explain how the best genes appear suddenly and then are passed on to members of the same species. Your task is to explain how mutations diverge so far from the main species that at some point fucking another descendant of a common ancestor no longer fucking works.

That's a lot fucking bigger than mutation.
A shining light in a sea of stagnant bong water.
"Not every problem is some deep, underlying injustice with societal norms requiring a crusade." — Charan 2018

Last edited by Rachel_GGG on Jun 31, 2018 0:61:72 PM
Last edited by ScrotieMcB on Jul 11, 2018 11:36:56 PM
evolution and mutation isn't the same, you are correct. However, they are very closely related.

Evolution (overall) is the process in which mutations appear in newborns. It includes failed mutations because it's a process.

Evolution (of a species) is the process in which mutations are kept beyond the first individual and of which become an hereditary trait.


Evolutions cannot happen without mutations, mutations can happen without evolution occurring.


And no, "The defining trait of a species is the INABILITY to reproduce with members of a different species." is absolutely wrong unless you go extremely wide with "species" and really meant "family". Best example is a horse and a donkey, which are two very different species, can mate together and make mules/hinnies.


Enough mutations in the DNA means that eventually the DNA of two creature that ended up as different species but still share a common ancestor become incompatible. It's no different than looking at the DNA of a dog and then looking at the DNA of a whale and seeing why it doesn't work.3
Build of the week #9 - Breaking your face with style http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v_EcQDOUN9Y
IGN: Poltun
"
faerwin wrote:
And no, "The defining trait of a species is the INABILITY to reproduce with members of a different species." is absolutely wrong unless you go extremely wide with "species" and really meant "family". Best example is a horse and a donkey, which are two very different species, can mate together and make mules/hinnies.
Well fuck me, it looks like you're correct. I still think it's correct to say different species have extreme difficulty producing fertile offspring, but reading up on mule fertility shows that female mules have successfully mated with horses and donkeys, but not other mules (as all male mules so far have been impotent).
A shining light in a sea of stagnant bong water.
"Not every problem is some deep, underlying injustice with societal norms requiring a crusade." — Charan 2018

Last edited by Rachel_GGG on Jun 31, 2018 0:61:72 PM
Last edited by ScrotieMcB on Jul 12, 2018 12:01:17 AM
Yes, it's true that most extra-species breeding result in infertile infants. I didn't know about female mules being able to breed successfully, I thought they were all infertile.
Build of the week #9 - Breaking your face with style http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v_EcQDOUN9Y
IGN: Poltun
"
faerwin wrote:
I didn't know about female mules being able to breed successfully, I thought they were all infertile.
It's extremely rare, so you actually weren't too far off.
A shining light in a sea of stagnant bong water.
"Not every problem is some deep, underlying injustice with societal norms requiring a crusade." — Charan 2018

Last edited by Rachel_GGG on Jun 31, 2018 0:61:72 PM

There are plenty examples of cross species hybridisation occuring in plants. You can googlescholar those.

There are also alot more animal examples. Tigons and Ligers (actually. most of the big cats can hybridise). You can cross domestic cows and bison. Camels and Llamas (believe it or not!)

It just depends on how closely related the animals are on the evolutionary tree to some extent.

Cheers,
Matt.
There are 10 types of people. Those that know binary, and those that dont.
It's been a few days and this is me not reading the last bit and posting to where I was caught up to:

"
ScrotieMcB wrote:
"
Completed 25 Challengeserdelyii wrote:
]We now have better methods to discriminate between people to separate friend from foe, and we've had them for quite a while now. Good is always relative to the array of choices one is presented with. Ethics evolves with technology, and thus will never be complete (until technology is, if such a thing ever occurs).
Bolding mine. Big statements.

What are these better methods, Scrotie? Who is "we"? And, ethics improving with technology, what makes you think this? I'm curious.


I define ethics as the art or science (I'm open to debate about which it is) of assigning value to choice. After assignment of value to choice, the economics is relatively straightforward; the hard part is ranking those choices from best to worst.

That said, it's obvious that certain technology greatly modifies the value of choices. Even different occupations under economic specialization greafmtly modify value: for example, consider the differences in whether it's good or bad to be a night owl or an early riser, depending on whether one is a baker or a barkeep.

If we do have a universal common morality, it only extends as far as that which provides the basis for economic specialization itself, because each job has different ethical values. Even then, everything beyond that common core (ignore the education reference) is highly variable and relativistic, such that tolerance of moralities other than one's own is itself part of said common core.


20v0r9g

"
The Obama Administration is adamant the 10,000 Syrian refugees it plans to resettle in the U.S. are subject to a tough vetting process. The process is tough and long, but a poll in 2014 found that 13 percent have positive feelings towards ISIS. An ideological vetting process that can separate Islamist from non-Islamist is needed to separate valuable friends from deadly foes.

The vetting process should not just rely on criminal records and databases used to detect terrorists and their associates. Because the threat is ideological in nature, it is very possible we could allow in someone with a radical outlook but has yet to establish the kind of operational connections that would show up in a database.

A new bipartisan congressional terrorism report found there isn't a global comprehensive database of foreign jihadists who have gone to Syria to fight. It says the U.S. doesn't even have a national strategy against terrorist travel and "information about foreign fighters is crossing borders less quickly than the extremists themselves." There's also the serious problem that there is a more general lack of intelligence about Syria.


article

Or:

"
In my last post, I discussed how Dr. Kent Kiehl, a neuroscientist, is using fMRI technology to detect brain abnormalities in people with psychopathy. His participants are prison inmates who score high on the PCL-R, a psychodiagnostic measure used to assess psychopathy. Once he determines that the participant is, in fact, a psychopath based on their PCL-R score, he takes scans of their brains using an fMRI to determine if there are brain differences between psychopathic participants and normal controls. He has found defects in the paralimbic system that he believes relate to psychopathy.

Interestingly, Dr. Kiehl’s research is being used by perpetrators to avoid prison or to reduce sentencing. One such case has plagued the Chicago area for over two decades. Brian Dugan, a 52-year-old man with a 13-year crime spree, including murders, rapes, arson, and burglaries, spanning the 1970s and 80s finally went to trial for his crimes in late 2009. For those interested in death penalty laws, this case has a lot of history, and contributed to the moratorium on the death penalty in Illinois due to the wrongful conviction of three men for one of the murders (Jeanine Nicarico) that Dugan committed.

Fast forward to 2009; Dugan and his lawyers were preparing for his trial and stumbled upon the research of Dr. Kiehl who agreed to interview and complete an fMRI for Dugan. In September 2009, Dugan visited Northwestern Memorial Hospital in Chicago to meet with Dr. Kiehl. Dugan’s lawyers saw Dr. Kiehl’s research as opportunity that “could offer a persuasive argument that Dugan is a psychopath and could not control his killer impulses.”

Dugan’s case became the first known court case to use fMRI evidence. His lawyers hoped to use his brain scan images in an attempt to reduce sentencing from the death penalty to life in prison.

Use of fMRIs in criminal court cases for this purpose is controversial because the fMRI is not diagnostic by itself. It measures blood flow to the brain while a participant engages in a certain task (such as viewing a picture, or listening to words or phrases); however, it cannot tell how the person may have responded to these cues at the time of the crime. This is especially important, because it is the person’s mental state at the time of the crime that determines criminal responsibility, regardless of how the person may present at the time of the trial.


article here

I guess I don't see how technology is improving our ability to detect friend from foe, and don't understand what you were saying, really. On friend and foe I'm not sure that it's even useful to be so simple given then political "enemies" can, if stranded on an island, become friends, and the psychopath could be the person you are married to. Do you believe the ability to track individuals and survey us is a good use of technology? I also think you might be talking about something else, and may be homing in on something that you don't think is important, and am happy to have another try at understanding if you want to explain further.

In short, what is a friend, and what is a foe?

"
鬼殺し wrote:


And since someone needs to pull this back on track, I think Jesus was an essentially ethical creature. He too saw the injustice of how the temples were operating, their obsequious behaviour towards Rome. The purely mercantile approach to worship. But as with most ethical creatures, his ideals really struggled when they came up against the real world, the reality of how things work. He was hardly the first martyr to die on Golgotha and I doubt he was the last, but he was certainly the most vocal in his march towards the hill of skulls. And he obviously made the most sense at a personal level -- on the other hand, his only real rivals there was a fast-dwindling pantheon of too-human-deities and Yahweh, who was at best a tribal deity leftover. Of all the things that fascinate me regarding Christ, *just where the fuck he got his ideas from* is pretty close to the top of the list.



Yes, but - imagine if he had been exiled instead, for twenty years? And written his own books?

I wonder if the hippy dippy Jesus kernal was intentionally dippied down by the more "practical" writers of the Religion? Like you said, Jesus wouldn't be a fan of his Religion. He reads to me as being a pretty assertive person, not a pushover.

Clearly, we need a time machine, and some Tiger and Wolf to escort.

2ebh4dz

But maybe he would have chosen to die on the cross. I guess a tape recorder would be handy.

'This bot was a god's gift to me, seeing as i cant sit in front of the computer for more than 2 hours everday without straining my eyes and in pain however this has come to a tragic end' - lljujjsusujjjk
Last edited by erdelyii on Jul 12, 2018 5:47:34 PM
That's why you need to read the book, or at least watch the movie. It positions Christ as a creature ruled by a fear-love of God, which can result in a surprisingly assertive demeanour. Surprising for some I guess. Fear-love probably hews too close to Donnie Darko but there you go. If anyone would have struggled with the equilibrium between the two, surely it was Christ.

Curiously I think he'd lack a lot of credibility had he written his own books, because nothing says 'credible' like a slew of independent witnesses all saying pretty much the same thing.

Hippy-dippy is one way to put it. I'd call Christianity, at its purest and with utter respect to its namesake, weaponised love.

I do not suffer sophistry.

Valued -- but at what price?

Report Forum Post

Report Account:

Report Type

Additional Info