Define 'species'

[mikeynov]

Mark seems incapable of demonstrating the sort of knowledge required to indicate that he understands the sort of material he's attempting to use to bolster his case (this being most notable by the fact that his evidence doesn't actually bolster his claim, and is limited in scope to NOT supporting ONE hypothesis in regards to sexual reproduction).

Mark, I don't really think this is ad hominem, and I want you to consider its ramifications:

You don't know what a eukaryote is, something taught THE VERY FIRST DAY OF INTRODUCTION TO BIOLOGY.

Yet you feel qualified to lecture people on mutations, genetics, and any number of other subjects.

Seriously consider the extent of your own knowledge of biology before ranting and raving on how stupid science is and how they haven't come up with anything substantive supporting common descent. Now, Aron-Ra was trying to get you to understand just this, but your inability to actually respond to rebuttals and properly answer people's questions caused you to lose that debate, though having lost, you still don't seem to be 'getting' what people are saying.

I propose every argument is more or less a variation of the following

* Mark says something absurd
* Other people correct Mark
* Mark fires back with largely unrelated thoughts about philosophy and the cult of naturalism
* People try to steer the argument back to the topic at hand
* Mark might present 'evidence' that really has nothing to do with his YEC claims
* Other people refute that evidence and offer counter-evidence
* Mark ignores all counter-evidence and restates his argument as if he's already won the debate

 

[yossarian]

There is no selective advantage demonstrated for large populations given the parameters in the study. More mutations translate into less of a selective advantage, that is why they are deletreous.

this makes no sense, and is certainly not a conclusion of the paper

Baloney

no, its a simple and obvious fact to those who can read and understand the scientific literature

I can't decide if you are really reading this article or just writing the first thing that comes to mind.

no, i'm accurately portraying it, to counter your bizzare conclusions

With all the documentation that goes into a paper like this I would suggest you follow the bibliography. I did and found that this is perfectly consistant with related studies, no selective advantage so it is still an unsolved mystery why such a transition would occure. The obvious conclusion, except to the most adamant apologist for Darwinian evolution, is that it never happened.

thats a ridiculous conclusion, for at least two major reasons

1) organisms capable of both sexual and asexual reproduction actually do reproduce sexually - so there MUST be some advantage

2) the paper only adresses a single hypothesis on the reasons for the origin of sex

The evidence is abundant and yet you have yet to offer a shred of proof. This is exactly what you guys accuse creationists of and you are worse.

yeast genome duplication, mosquito esterase duplication, hox expansion, the nylonase bacteria, the drosophila sperm axoneme protein etc..

you've clearly figured out how to use pubmed - go search

You cited nothing, ever, not even once.

1: Nature. 2004 Apr 8;428(6983):617-24. Epub 2004 Mar 07. Related Articles, Links
Click here to read
Proof and evolutionary analysis of ancient genome duplication in the yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae.

Kellis M, Birren BW, Lander ES.

The Broad Institute, Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02138, USA. manoli@mit.edu

Whole-genome duplication followed by massive gene loss and specialization has long been postulated as a powerful mechanism of evolutionary innovation. Recently, it has become possible to test this notion by searching complete genome sequence for signs of ancient duplication. Here, we show that the yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae arose from ancient whole-genome duplication, by sequencing and analysing Kluyveromyces waltii, a related yeast species that diverged before the duplication. The two genomes are related by a 1:2 mapping, with each region of K. waltii corresponding to two regions of S. cerevisiae, as expected for whole-genome duplication. This resolves the long-standing controversy on the ancestry of the yeast genome, and makes it possible to study the fate of duplicated genes directly. Strikingly, 95% of cases of accelerated evolution involve only one member of a gene pair, providing strong support for a specific model of evolution, and allowing us to distinguish ancestral and derived functions.

PMID: 15004568 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

1: Genetica. 2003 Jul;118(2-3):233-44. Related Articles, Links

Origin and evolution of a new gene expressed in the Drosophila sperm axoneme.

Ranz JM, Ponce AR, Hartl DL, Nurminsky D.

Department of Organismic and Evolutionary Biology, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA 33143, USA.

Sdic is a new gene that evolved recently in the lineage of Drosophila melanogaster. It was formed from a duplication and fusion of the gene AnnX, which encodes annexin X, and Cdic, which encodes the intermediate polypeptide chain of the cytoplasmic dynein. The fusion joins AnnX exon 4 with Cdic intron 3, which brings together three putative promoter elements for testes-specific expression of Sdic: the distal conserved element (DCE) and testes-specific element (TSE) are derived from AnnX, and the proximal conserved element (PCE) from Cdic intron 3. Sdic transcription initiates within the PCE, and translation is initiated within the sequence derived from Cdic intron 3, continuing through a 10 base pair insertion that creates a new splice donor site that enables the new coding sequence derived from intron 3 to be joined with the coding sequence of Cdic exon 4. A novel protein is created lacking 100 residues at the amino end that contain sequence motifs essential for the function of cytoplasmic dynein intermediate chains. Instead, the amino end is a hydrophobic region of 16 residues that resembles the amino end of axonemal dynein intermediate chains from other organisms. The downstream portion of Sdic features large deletions eliminating Cdic exons v2 and v3, as well as multiple frameshift deletions or insertions. The new protein becomes incorporated into the tail of the mature sperm and may function as an axonemal dynein intermediate chain. The new Sdic gene is present in about 10 tandem repeats between the wildtype Cdic and AnnX genes located near the base of the X chromosome. The implications of these findings are discussed relative to the origin of new gene functions and the process of speciation.

1: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2004 Nov 8 [Epub ahead of print] Related Articles, Links
Click here to read
Evolving protein functional diversity in new genes of Drosophila.

Zhang J, Dean AM, Brunet F, Long M.

Department of Ecology and Evolution, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL 60637.

The mechanism by which protein functional diversity expands is an important evolutionary issue. Studies of recently evolved chimeric genes permit direct investigation of the origin of new protein functions before they become obscured by subsequent evolution. Found in several African Drosophila species, jingwei (jgw), a recently evolved gene with a domain derived from the still extant short-chain alcohol dehydrogenase (ADH) through retroposition, provides an opportunity to examine this previously undescribed process directly. We expressed JGW proteins in a microbial expression system and, after purification, investigated their enzymatic properties. We found that, unexpectedly, positive Darwinian selection for amino acid replacements outside the active site of JGW produced a novel dehydrogenase with altered substrate specificity compared with the ancestral ADH. Instead of detoxifying and assimilating ethanol like its Adh parental gene, we observe that JGW efficiently utilizes long-chain primary alcohols found in hormone and pheromone metabolism. These data suggest that protein functional diversity can expand rapidly under the joint forces of exon shuffling, gene duplication, and natural selection.

PMID: 15534206 [PubMed - as supplied by publisher]

hows that for starters

Mutations are eliminated by natural selection, they are not accumulated. You are continueing to talk in circles which makes my part in this discussion so easy it's embarassing.

utter garbage that even a first year biology student could refute

natural selection acts on phenotype, not genotype - so it depends completely on what effect on phenotype a given mutation has, as to its fate decided by selection

Get this through you're head, no selective advantage = extinction. Read Darwins Origin of Species or anything on the modern synthesis...anything at all.

get this through your head - sexually reproducing species aren't extinct - so what you think is so obvious is quite obviously wrong

the paper DID NOT demonstrate that sex provides no selective advantage, it demonstrated that synergistic epistasis is not a selective advantage

again, this is simply you extrapolating unwarranted conclusions

I did address that point and the antagonistic effects equal the synergestic one blowing you're argument to pieces.

it does nothing to my argument - sex exists, and occurs - so clearly you've made some bad conclusions somewhere along the way

whether epistasis is antagonistic or synergistic really doesn't adress the fact that sex occurs in organisms capable of both types of reproduction

What part of natural selection is too hard for you to understand. Try to concentrate...no selective advantage = extinction.

try to understand mark

-the paper did not say there was no selective advantage in sex

-organisms which reproduce sexually are not extinct

-no selective advantage for any particular trait does not = extinct, because a trait may be selectively neutral and also because selection acts on the whole phenotype, not just one particular trait, meaning that populations can (and actually do) carry selectively deleterious traits

Logic requires a yes or no response and the selective advantage question for the transition from asexual to sexual evolution of living organisms is no.

no IT ISN'T
this paper only answers no to the following question
"Is synergistic epistasis as an explanation for the selective advantage for sex?"

Thus no demonstrated mechanism which is what I would expect for conceptual theory that is based in presumption.

you've confused "mechanism" for "selective advantage". They're not the same thing

Oh right, you prefer the ones that keep producing one null hypothesis after another.

I prefer the theory which has numerous confirmed hypotheses and predictions, as opposed to the one which makes neither

I understand the science, the paper and I know why you are not interested in the actual evidence. There has not been one shred of evidence offered to counter me and I had a ton of stuff to support what I am saying. What happened is no one could counter the argument so I just let you guys argue in circles.

You clearly don't understand the paper, or even the process of science

you don't really have an argument, you have a bunch of muddled up assertions

That's right most mutations are either deletreous or harmfull. The rare beneficial mutation is not capable of making evolutionary changes on a macro scale.

this is one of those muddled up assertions

And again the hypothesis is found to be null so we have no demonstrated mechanism for evolutionary change

again, this is an unwarranted generalization from a paper which is specifically only dealing with a question of selective advantage for a particular trait - and not the mechanism by which it arose

I am glad you are enjoying the discussion, for me its fish in a barrel.

everybody here who knows the slightest bit about biology and genetics knows that you're completely out of your depth in these arguments mark

Because there are just as many antagonisitic ones as synergestic ones.

confirming that you are erroneously referring to mutations as antagonistic or synergistic, and furthermore, confusing antagonistic and synergistic with harmful and beneficial respectively

Right, and so we can discard deleterious mutations as having what it takes to evolve single celled organisms from asexual to sexual organisms.

yes of course mark - sometimes the sun shines through the clouds and theres a ray of logic and coherence in your posts

nobody was ever suggesting that deleterious mutations were responsible for the evolution of sex

Mendel's laws are the exact opposite of the Darwinian concept of a single common ancestory. The key difference is in demonstrated proof, stasis is the rule and evolution as it is drawn up in evolutionary trees is a myth.

mendel's laws are about allelic inheritance, they're not really the opposite of evolution - in fact, they provide a mechanism for evolution to occur

stasis is not the rule in evolution
and mendel's laws do not actually hold in real life

It should be embarassing that the only substantive proof for evolution is found in the work of a creationist and the largest bundle of null hypothesis is being produced by an agnostic secularist.

its embarassing that your knowledge of genetics hasn't managed to make it past mendel - else you'd know that substantive proof of evolution is provided by modern genetics

Darwin was wrong and this is being proven in so many ways it boggles the mind that his model is so popular amoung secular apologists for evolution.

you're talking out of your nether regions - its utterly amazing that you think you have more insight into evolution that vastly more qualified biologists

 

[mark kennedy]

this makes no sense, and is certainly not a conclusion of the paper

Then lets see what else you have in store since this one went right by you.

no, its a simple and obvious fact to those who can read and understand the scientific literature

I will agree that it is simplistic

no, i'm accurately portraying it, to counter your bizzare conclusions

The only conclusion I came to is that mutations, especially deletrious ones, are not demonstrated mechanisms for evolution.

thats a ridiculous conclusion, for at least two major reasons

1) organisms capable of both sexual and asexual reproduction actually do reproduce sexually - so there MUST be some advantage

2) the paper only adresses a single hypothesis on the reasons for the origin of sex

1) There is no demonstrated mechanism and the origin of sexually reproducing organisms is a mystery.

2) The paper clearly demonstrated that on of the hypothesis are wrong and cited examples of how it is still just a theory.

yeast genome duplication, mosquito esterase duplication, hox expansion, the nylonase bacteria, the drosophila sperm axoneme protein etc..

You are going to have to do a little better then that to impress me that such a thing is possible.

you've clearly figured out how to use pubmed - go search

What exactly do you want me to search for?

hows that for starters

I have never offered quotes from anything without an explanation as to the relevance. Quotes are fine as long as you can explain the relevance.

utter garbage that even a first year biology student could refute

Which leaves me to wonder why you can't

natural selection acts on phenotype, not genotype - so it depends completely on what effect on phenotype a given mutation has, as to its fate decided by selection

Natural selection preserves the most favored races...have you never read Darwin?

get this through your head - sexually reproducing species aren't extinct - so what you think is so obvious is quite obviously wrong

Now get this through you're head, asexual reproducing organisms do not go on to being sexually reproducing organisms. Thats a fact no matter how many ways you rationalize it.

the paper DID NOT demonstrate that sex provides no selective advantage, it demonstrated that synergistic epistasis is not a selective advantage

Wrong again, the article demonstrated that there were twice as many disadvantages to mutations as advantages. I think if you read the paper you understand this.

again, this is simply you extrapolating unwarranted conclusions

A trick I learned from argueing with evolutionists.

it does nothing to my argument - sex exists, and occurs - so clearly you've made some bad conclusions somewhere along the way

Oh wait...now I get it...sex exists so all sexually reproducing organisms must have emerged from asexually reproducing ones...why didn't I see it before?

whether epistasis is antagonistic or synergistic really doesn't adress the fact that sex occurs in organisms capable of both types of reproduction

The fact that sex occurs really tells us less then nothing about how asexual organisms made this transition.

try to understand mark

-the paper did not say there was no selective advantage in sex

-organisms which reproduce sexually are not extinct

Now you try to understand...sexually reproducing organisms were full formed at the original creation and reproduced according to kinds.

-no selective advantage for any particular trait does not = extinct, because a trait may be selectively neutral and also because selection acts on the whole phenotype, not just one particular trait, meaning that populations can (and actually do) carry selectively deleterious traits

Are you actually denying that natural selection eliminates the inferior elements of the race in when resources become scarce? Congradulations, you just found the fallacy of Darwinian evolution. Consider this, if they carry deletrious traits then why do we call the deleterious?

no IT ISN'T

Yes it is

this paper only answers no to the following question
"Is synergistic epistasis as an explanation for the selective advantage for sex?"

Yes and cites sources that confirm that the transition from asexual reproduction to sexual reproduction is a mystery to biology, genetics and natural science.

you've confused "mechanism" for "selective advantage". They're not the same thing

Natural selection is the mechanism for evolution, at least it is the primary one. Don't you know about the modern synthesis, this is a primary tenant.

I prefer the theory which has numerous confirmed hypotheses and predictions, as opposed to the one which makes neither

So you prefer a theory that produces null hypothesis over God. Thanks for the clarification.

You clearly don't understand the paper, or even the process of science

I understand both and I think you do as well. In the quote I adopted there are two kinds of people that propagate the myth of evolution...which one are you?

you don't really have an argument, you have a bunch of muddled up assertions

That is better then a bunch of convoluted presumptions.

this is one of those muddled up assertions

Notice you could not explain why.

again, this is an unwarranted generalization from a paper which is specifically only dealing with a question of selective advantage for a particular trait - and not the mechanism by which it arose

There is no mechanism for which it arose...it never happened.

everybody here who knows the slightest bit about biology and genetics knows that you're completely out of your depth in these arguments mark

Everyone? Who is everyone? Who are you talking about?

confirming that you are erroneously referring to mutations as antagonistic or synergistic, and furthermore, confusing antagonistic and synergistic with harmful and beneficial respectively

That is exactly what the terms mean...want an etymology lesson?

yes of course mark - sometimes the sun shines through the clouds and theres a ray of logic and coherence in your posts

Thank you

nobody was ever suggesting that deleterious mutations were responsible for the evolution of sex

My point has allways been that mutations do not drive evolution. That is all that I am saying. I cited and did the best expositional post I could based on it trying to make that point. I would really just like you to admit one thing with no strings attached. There is no selective advantage for the transition from asexual reproduction to sexual reproduction the the tests described in the article. That is really all I can ask and I don't think its an unreasonable conclusion.

mendel's laws are about allelic inheritance, they're not really the opposite of evolution - in fact, they provide a mechanism for evolution to occur

You do realize that this series of experiments are nonmendelian in nature right? Please tell me you understand this and don't make me explain it.

stasis is not the rule in evolution
and mendel's laws do not actually hold in real life

No you misunderstood...stasis is the rule in nature...evolution actually happens suddenly. Mendel's laws demonstrate how hybrids are produced from existing species and how they can be predicted. Darwin proposed that we all emerged from a warm little pond...big difference.

its embarassing that your knowledge of genetics hasn't managed to make it past mendel - else you'd know that substantive proof of evolution is provided by modern genetics

Modern genetics is based on the work of Mendel and he was a creationist. His laws are just that, scientific laws. Darwin's theory of natural selection is conceptual and never produced anything remotly resembling a law in science. Mendel does not need Darwin, Darwin needs Mendel.

you're talking out of your nether regions - its utterly amazing that you think you have more insight into evolution that vastly more qualified biologists

What is truly amazing is that again the greatest minds in the world are captivated by a myth. It is a sad commentary on the culture when the truth is subordinate to convention. It is truly amazing that a theory that produces null hypothesis so consistantly can be considered a reliable basis for hypothesis in the first place. Very sad indeed.

 

[Ondoher]

Everyone? Who is everyone? Who are you talking about?

Me for one.

 

[mark kennedy]

Me for one.

But you are not everyone you are Ondoher.

 

[Tomk80]

The existance of organisms that demonstrate sexual and asexual behavior was never an issue. The question is about asexual single celled organisms evolving into sexually reproducing precursors to the vast number of species that do that throughout natural history. My contention is simply this, the descent from a single celled organism is a myth, pure and simple. I have read a number of the papers cited in the article and these results have been duplicated in every empirical test that I am aware of. This is not an isolated instance where a hypothesis demonstrates that the single celled common ancestor model is flawed, this is to be expected when you base you're science on mythology.

The existence of sexually and asexually reproducing species is what would be expected if such a transition from asexual to sexual would have occurred. Furthermore, if the mutational deterministic hypothesis was the only possible explanation for the forces responsible for the development and maintenance of sexual behavior, there would be no reason for these species to be still in existence. Furthermore, sexual behavior shouldn’t be so wide spread if the hypothesis would be the only possible explanation. Based on this we know there must be more explanations than this one. We don’t need to ‘invoke’ evolution to conclude that there should be other explanations for the beneficial nature of sexual behaviour.



I know your contention is that common decent is a myth. However, and that is the issue here, this is not something you can conclude from the article you cited. I don't know about the other articles cited, but if they would have evidence against the transition discussed, you should have cited those or cited them as a comprehensive study. This article on itself does nothing to strengthen your or my case.

The only question that is answered is the one that asks if deletreous mutations produce synergetic effects that offer selective advantage for mutated strains. The answer is that there are synergestic effects but they are offset by the anagonistic ones. This is empirical that the hypothesis is null and it is consistant with the related studies that have found this to be true on a macro scale.

The question has been answered and as we continue to unlock the mysteries of the genome this myth will eventually unravel itself.

Mark, could you please define synergistic and antagonistic for me? From reading what you write it seems you are having a very different definition of it then I have, which can only hinder discussion.

 

[yossarian]

The only conclusion I came to is that mutations, especially deletrious ones, are not demonstrated mechanisms for evolution.

great conclusion mark - one that any sensible person came to a long time ago

1) There is no demonstrated mechanism and the origin of sexually reproducing organisms is a mystery.

2) The paper clearly demonstrated that on of the hypothesis are wrong and cited examples of how it is still just a theory.

its not about mechanism - its about the reason, its a why question, not a how question

You are going to have to do a little better then that to impress me that such a thing is possible.

like quote every article indexed on pubmed pertaining to evolution?

I have never offered quotes from anything without an explanation as to the relevance. Quotes are fine as long as you can explain the relevance.

its a separate argument, who knows how long we could end up arguing about any of those articles, given your track record

Which leaves me to wonder why you can't

I just did

Natural selection preserves the most favored races...have you never read Darwin?

yes, I have read darwin, and more importantly, i've read modern population genetics textbooks and research articles - your continual reference to darwin seemingly indicates that you aren't aware of the advances made in biology in the last 150 years

Now get this through you're head, asexual reproducing organisms do not go on to being sexually reproducing organisms. Thats a fact no matter how many ways you rationalize it.

but they do mark - organisms which are capable of both switch between the two

Wrong again, the article demonstrated that there were twice as many disadvantages to mutations as advantages. I think if you read the paper you understand this.

I ceased being surprised about your utter lack of comprehension several posts ago

the article demonstrated that synergistic epistasis between deleterious alleles is balanced out by antagonistic epistasis - no conclusion at all can be made about mutations in general

Oh wait...now I get it...sex exists so all sexually reproducing organisms must have emerged from asexually reproducing ones...why didn't I see it before?

your ridiculous argument was that because this paper showed no selective advantage for sex (which is the wrong conclusion), that therefore sexual reproduction would lead to extinction

remember?

no selective advantage = extinction.

why aren't we extinct mark?

The fact that sex occurs really tells us less then nothing about how asexual organisms made this transition.

yes, whats your point. Neither does the paper you reference - it doesn't adress the how, but the why

Now you try to understand...sexually reproducing organisms were full formed at the original creation and reproduced according to kinds.

ignoring that you've used that most nebulous of words, why aren't sexually reproducing organisms extinct, if sex provides no selective advantage and

no selective advantage = extinction

Are you actually denying that natural selection eliminates the inferior elements of the race in when resources become scarce? Congradulations, you just found the fallacy of Darwinian evolution. Consider this, if they carry deletrious traits then why do we call the deleterious?

no, I am not denying that - I am saying that having one or more deleterious traits does not automatically mean that an organism has a fitness of zero

Yes and cites sources that confirm that the transition from asexual reproduction to sexual reproduction is a mystery to biology, genetics and natural science.

yes mark, so what?

Natural selection is the mechanism for evolution, at least it is the primary one. Don't you know about the modern synthesis, this is a primary tenant.

in this instance, the issue is of selective advantage for sex - it is not attempting to adress the actual transition from asexual to sexual reproduction in terms of the genes involved in that transition

So you prefer a theory that produces null hypothesis over God. Thanks for the clarification.

I didn't say that mark - the yeast genome duplication (to cite a specific example) is a clearly confirmed hypothesis of evolution

Notice you could not explain why.

theres nothing to explain, you made a statement without the slightest bit of evidentiary support - an assertion by any other name

There is no mechanism for which it arose...it never happened.

the transition is made by organisms alive today which produce both sexually and asexually

That is exactly what the terms mean...want an etymology lesson?

its amazing, utterly amazing, that despite having explained this to you for several posts now, you still don't understand these terms

synergism is a type of epistasis, not a type of mutation
antagonism is a type of epistasis, not a type of mutation

epistasis is the interaction between two or more genetic loci producing a phenotype

synergism can be between harmful, or beneficial mutations
likewise for antagonism

it has nothing to do with etymology - its to do with understanding and using biological terms correctly (was etymology responsible for your "eukaryotes" blunder in the other thread)

given that the whole paper is primarily about these isses, and that you're still confused about what the terms mean - i'd say my assessment of your understanding of the paper is accurate

My point has allways been that mutations do not drive evolution. That is all that I am saying. I cited and did the best expositional post I could based on it trying to make that point. I would really just like you to admit one thing with no strings attached. There is no selective advantage for the transition from asexual reproduction to sexual reproduction the the tests described in the article. That is really all I can ask and I don't think its an unreasonable conclusion.

i'll admit that the removal of deleterious alleles via synergistic epistasis is not supported by the data, and therefore cannot be said to be an advantage that sexual reproduction provides over asexual reproduction

You do realize that this series of experiments are nonmendelian in nature right? Please tell me you understand this and don't make me explain it.

of course

No you misunderstood...stasis is the rule in nature...evolution actually happens suddenly. Mendel's laws demonstrate how hybrids are produced from existing species and how they can be predicted. Darwin proposed that we all emerged from a warm little pond...big difference.

stasis isn't the rule

hardy-weinberg equilibrium is violated constantly in nature

mendels laws are about allelic inheritance, evolution is about how allele frequencies change in populations over time, due to a variety of forces - the foremost being selection

Modern genetics is based on the work of Mendel and he was a creationist. His laws are just that, scientific laws. Darwin's theory of natural selection is conceptual and never produced anything remotly resembling a law in science. Mendel does not need Darwin, Darwin needs Mendel.

in part, yes, they are based on mendel's work - but since mendel we've discovered that his laws are not actually laws - they don't hold in reality

modern genetics draws on numerous discoveries made since mendel - mendelian genetics is a simplified version of the real thing

What is truly amazing is that again the greatest minds in the world are captivated by a myth. It is a sad commentary on the culture when the truth is subordinate to convention. It is truly amazing that a theory that produces null hypothesis so consistantly can be considered a reliable basis for hypothesis in the first place. Very sad indeed.

you've found one instance of a null hypothesis, and ignored all the successes - which is why you think you see things more clearly than people with far more expertise than you

 

[Aron-Ra]

What I have been trying to convince you is that a voice-religion is not insanity. This might be my final argument on the issue.

Most parents feel wronged when their children disobey their voice. Why? Can the child prove he is not hallucinating?

Yes. Did you ever see "A Beautiful Mind"? John Nash realized that he could tell if he was seeing one of his hallucinatory people by asking other people if they could see them too. My child can see me, and so can everybody else. You can't say that about God. With God you're told to imagine he is there, and convince yourself that he is, whether he really is or not. That's the auto-deceptive nature of faith.

Can he prove that the voice is real?

Everyone can hear me, except those who can't hear anything. And even the deaf can tell that I'm really there, and really talking. You can't say that about God either. With God, you're expected to listen for that still, small voice in your head, and assume that it must be God talking, whether he really is or not. That too is the auto-deceptive nature of faith.

Can he prove that the parent should be an authority figure?

Yes, by several means, especially by the fact that a parent often makes their mandates impossible to refuse. There is no way to determine if God even exists, much less that such a thing is an authority. But a parent's authority is easy to prove.

You say you want a reason to believe in God, not voice. Would you let your children off the hook so easy?

The difference is that my kids have reasons to believe in me, lots and lots of them. Unlike God, I make my presence, and my authority, and my loving guidance, all a matter of undeniable fact. God doesn't. With God, you have to imagine he's there, and imagine what he wants or would say to you.

Suppose your child said, "I"m sorry, Dad, or whoever you think you are, I'm still waiting for a scientific reason to believe in you, so I'm just not going to obey your voice until then. People who heed voices are just INSANE! That's RELIGIOUS! I would NEVER do that!"

No problem. Unlike God, my presence and my authority can be verified objectively through any number or type of tests my child wants to apply. You certainly can't say that about God.

Mr. Aron-Ra, I have a feeling that you wouldn't let your child off the hook so easy. You can rant and rave until the cows come home that obeying voices is insanity, but I fail to see the consistency.

There's an old saying that realizing you need help is the first step to getting it.

Parents feel that their children have a sense of right and wrong (a conscience) that morally constrains the child to obey the parent. When the parents feel that the children are disobeying the voice of conscience (for example by disobeying the parents' voice), they punish the child.

If God exists, He is our father, and the voice of conscience came from Him. In a sense, the voice of conscience is His voice in a preliminary sense.

I don't think that is true. What evidence do you have which leads you to this conclusion over the alternative explanation that parental authority is first a matter of imprinting, and then a matter of earned respect?

When the conscience warns us that God might exist, those who respond to this warning by seeking Him will, as their reward, hear His real voice. That's my opinion, that's what I believe the Bible teaches. I don't know where you got the idea that the Bible ties our salvation to priests.

Because the priests wrote these stories in the first place. All religion is a mechanism to give power and position to the priests.

Paul says we are saved by the faith of Abraham (Rom 4:1ff). Abrahams got faith by hearing God's voice (Gen 15:6). He heard it, it sounded convincing, it sounded authoritative, and He believed it. Abraham did what any good child would do. Priesthood is ipso facto in the sense that Abraham first had to hear the voice in order to hear about priesthood.

Abraham might have been a skitzoid, but I think it more likely he was invented as a story to plead for the manipulative mysticism of faith.

You would say that Abraham did evil by trying to kill his son. Evil is doing something believed to be immoral.

Immoral is a subjective term based on societal norms. "Evil" is selfishness or apathy which victimizes another. If Abraham did what he did, it would be evil, no matter what society you're from. Think about the poor kid in this case! Your dad is ready to slaughter you because he loves his delusion more than you. And his delusion can't really be the all-powerful entity it pretends to be because it demands such petty evil merely to prove belief in it.

It is my opinion, based on my expereince with God, that He used His power to force Abraham to believe that he was doing the right thing. And He forced Abraham to believe that disobeying the voice is immoral. When a person has no choice what to believe, he is not doing evil. The one controlling his mind is perhaps evil.

That's a good point too. It is my opinion, based on my experience with a number of different spiritual beliefs that a truly supreme being would never make such petty and inconsistent, traumatizing demands for no reason. Instead, he should give a reason, a good one, one that can't be cured by Thorazine.

Was it evil for God to so command Abraham? A father can command his child to kill a chicken. That's not evil even though the chicken actually dies. Abraham's son did not even die, so it's not entirely clear where the so-called evil comes in.

A truly supreme being, even just a mildly superior being, would never require any such atrocity in its honor. Nor would it be pleased with anyone who bathed in the blood of an innocent animal pointlessly slaughtered. Nor would it enjoy the smell of burning flesh. In fact, a truly supreme being wouldn't really do anything Biblical.

Orthodox Christianity assumes that Christ alone atones. I have a problem with that assumption but I can't debate it here. I would say that Christ is responsible for 99.99% of the atoning, but the salvation of many depends on our little contribution as Christians. So we have to suffer too. How much suffering should we gear up for? Well, that's precisely why God tested Abraham in this way, namely to SHOW us how much we should be willing to suffer, and to what extent we are required to obey the voice. God gave up what was most dear to Him - His Son.

No he didn't. The way your story reads, Jesus is an immortal, and more importantly, he knew he wouldn't really die. Atheists and others have made the same sacrifice, (of their OWN lives) and for them it was permanent, so it meant a lot more. Jesus just spent the Easter week-end in a Hell that was ruled by him anyhow. So big magic daddy wasn't missing out on anything, and JR came back after a three-day week-end. Big deal.

And even if it did mean more than just that, there still wasn't any point to it, and it was all completely unnecessary. This idea was conceived by humans because no "superior" intelligence would have condoned it.

Here we see that Abraham is asked to give up the same thing. The moral of the story is not to kill our kids.

No. The moral is "obey the priests". The Bible is full of God-condoned child abuse.

The moral is that we are supposed to obey the Voice even if it costs us everything that we hold dear.

If God were really GOD, he wouldn't need us to do anything, and wouldn't have wanted us to behave like Abraham.

You speak as though God is portrayed as having fun testing Abraham this way. If you know Yahweh, you would know that it broke His heart to test Abraham like this, and He only did this to have Abraham become a model of obedience for all generations.

I guess we'll never know since neither of us knows Yahweh. But if he did as you say, it was a sick thing to do, and not at all necessary.

Tell me, do you like it when people around you obey their voice of conscience? Or would you rather have them mistreat you?

I would rather they listen to reason over the voices in their head. Conscience is a voice within one's self, but it is our own voice. We evolved as societal animals. Only behaviors which are conducive to society are rewarded or encouraged. There is no reason or benefit in mistreating someone else, and that sort of thing is punished by society anyway.

Abraham's example inspires many people to obey their voice of conscience even when it costs them dearly.

I have the same problem with this story as I did with the Bhagavad-Gita. When I read that, I was impressed with King Arjuna. I admired him very much, and I could see why a god would want to be in the company of such a man. But much to my amazement, Krsna turned him around and destroyed in Arjuna everything that was noble or honorable about the man. Consequently, Arjuna was reduced to a tool of faith, ready and willing to murder his own family at the will of his Christ. The whole silly concept sickens me.

 

[JAL]

Yes. Did you ever see "A Beautiful Mind"? John Nash realized that he could tell if he was seeing one of his hallucinatory people by asking other people if they could see them too. My child can see me, and so can everybody else. You can't say that about God.

Your child becomes convinced of your voice's authority based on certain experiences. If God exists, He could make His voice instantaneously convincing, and this is precisely what we Christians attest to. Your child senses that obeying your voice is the right thing to do. If God gives a Christian that same sensation/intuition, the same obligation arises. You cannot have it both ways. You cannot obligate your child while denying such obligation of God's children. Sight isn't necessary because even a blind child has an obligation to the parents. Now admittedly the blind child should be given extra time to develop this sense of responsibility, but God's voice can impart a sense of obligation instantaneously.

So what of John Nash? It's a conscience issue. For instance let's suppose one of these hallucinated people seemed to be standing in front of his moving car. Should he put on the brakes or just run him over? It's a conscience issue. If John is so convinced of the illusory nature of the image that his conscience has no reservations, he should go forward. But if there is enough suspicion that the image is real such that his conscience has compunctions, he has an obligation to put on his brakes.

So the issue for the Christian is NOT whether God is real, or whether the voice is legitimate. It's an issue of conscience. Suppose I hear something, and my consciense says, "Wait a minute. What that voice is commanding might be immoral. It might be good to give this some more thought, more prayer, more research, etc." This is time to "put on the brakes." But suppose my conscience says with irrevocable conviction, "You'd better act immediately. What that voice is commanding is definitely the right thing to do." Then it would be wrong to ignore it. A Christian is one whose conscience says, "That voice is so convincing that for me to deny that God is speaking would be immoral." As a a Christian I am well aware that I MIGHT be wrong. It's possible God doesn't exist. But that's not the issue. The issue is conscience.

With God you're told to imagine he is there, and convince yourself that he is, whether he really is or not.

I'm sorry people have told you this. Often it's based on a misreading of Hebrews 11. No. The voice is supposed to convince you. You are not supposed to convince yourself of anything. That is what Heb 11 is actually teaching. It's the conscience that urges you to seek Him, and His voice in response to your pursuit is supposed to convince you that He is real.

Everyone can hear me, except those who can't hear anything. And even the deaf can tell that I'm really there, and really talking. You can't say that about God either. With God, you're expected to listen for that still, small voice in your head, and assume that it must be God talking, whether he really is or not. That too is the auto-deceptive nature of faith.

Same response as above. You should NEVER try to convince yourself that God is speaking. Unfortunately, many Christians do precisely that from time to time and encourage others to do th same. I call it presumption, that is, presuming God to speak when He is not. The Bible in one place calls it presumption, and in other places refers to it as false prophesying.

There is no way to determine if God even exists, much less that such a thing is an authority. But a parent's authority is easy to prove.

What do you mean a parent's authority is easy to prove? Because society considers the parent authoritative? Why should the child agree with the morals of socieity? Shouldn't he think for himself? Who are we to dictate morality to him? True, he might benefit from heeding his parents, but that is a utilitarian goal. Most parents have more than utility in mind. They actually feel that the child has WRONGED them. Why? Because the child seems to be violationg his own sense of right and wrong (his conscience). And the same with adults. You want to say that either God or Abraham did evil. Evil? Who gets to decide what evil is? Evil is hard to define without mentioning conscience. I already intimated as much in my last post.

The difference is that my kids have reasons to believe in me, lots and lots of them. Unlike God, I make my presence, and my authority, and my loving guidance, all a matter of undeniable fact. God doesn't.

Wrong. That's precisely how I define God's voice, namely as that experience where one is undeniably convinced that God is speaking. But to be precise, there are different degrees of undeniability. The louder God's voice becomes, the greater is the degree of undeniability. The louder the voice, the more obligatory is the allegiance. The same is true with your kids. The kid isn't very obligated when he feels, "I couldn't quite make out what Dad was telling me to do. I think he was telling me to clean my room, but I really can't be sure." Note, however, that at this point the child has an obligation to ask his dad to speak louder. The Bible refers to this as "prayer." All of us, in my opinion, hear God in the preliminary sense of the voice of conscience. This obligates us to ask Him to speak louder, so that we might know for sure that He exists. The reason most of don't pray for this revelation is that we really DON'T want to know the truth (what kid really wants to clean his room?). The Bible refers to this negligence of conscience as "sin."

No problem. Unlike God, my presence and my authority can be verified objectively through any number or type of tests my child wants to apply. You certainly can't say that about God.

See my discussion of John Nash above. The issue is not whether the image is hallucinatory. It's an issue of conscience.


You go on to express outrage at how the God of the Bible acts. This is understanadable. One generally has doubts about Yahweh's character until the Voice is heard. Based on your statements, it seems very evident you are not currently hearing it.

Your dad is ready to slaughter you because he loves his delusion more than you.

I sincerely hope that if God ever put my Dad to the same test as Abraham, that my Dad would be equally faithful. Of course I would resist him unless the Voice (and/or my voice of conscience) persuaded me that he was doing the right thing.

And [this God] can't really be the all-powerful entity it pretends to be because it demands such petty evil merely to prove belief in it.

It wasn't to prove belief in God. As I argued, it was to put Abraham through TEMPORARY suffering necessary for the ETERNAL redemption of fellow men.

Nor would [a supreme being] be pleased with anyone who bathed in the blood of an innocent animal pointlessly slaughtered. Nor would it enjoy the smell of burning flesh.

Agreed. He specifically says in Psalms, as recited in Hebrews, that He took no pleasure in these things. Let me give you an analogy. Does God take pleasure in divorce? No! He hates it. But guess who commanded divorce? God! Jesus says it because our hearts were hard. Rather than have the two so angry at each other that they kill each other (which in fact happens sometimes), He gave us divorce. Thus God's commands are often accomodations to men. Many ancient peoples WANTED religous ceremonies and felt spiritually unexercised without them. So God gave them what they wanted - a tangible religion. When He took pleasure in the ceremonies (such as sacrifices), it wasn't the ceremonies themselves, but the OBEDIENCE. Obedience ushers in the fullness of His presence such that it physically saturates everything - even the ground. "Take off your sandals, Moses, because you are standing on holy ground." When that Presence physically saturated the burning flesh, the odor became pleasing - the aroma of Christ to which Paul later alludes (2Cor 3), NOT the aroma of burning flesh. The sacrifices for sin also taught them a lesson - that sin brings death, and it ain't pretty.

So there was much praticality in the law - but of course you aren't really looking for it, because you only want to find bad things in the Bible since you don't like the Bible. Understandable. Until the voice wins your love and respect, that's a natural reaction. That's why I don't respond to all your objections about the Bible. You'll never see it in a positive light until the voice so convinces you.

No he didn't. The way your story reads, Jesus is an immortal, and more importantly, he knew he wouldn't really die. Atheists and others have made the same sacrifice, (of their OWN lives) and for them it was permanent, so it meant a lot more. Jesus just spent the Easter week-end in a Hell that was ruled by him anyhow. So big magic daddy wasn't missing out on anything, and JR came back after a three-day week-end. Big deal.

You presume to know for sure that atheistic martyrs suffered more than Christ. That's an interesting opinion, but just an opinion. Nor was Christ's suffering three days, but 30 years, in my view. (And I also differ with orthodoxy's assumption that the Son's suffering has ended. But this is not the time and the place for an exposition of Heb 6:6 which says that those who continue to sin "cruicify to themselves the Son of God afresh." Trust me, you won't have any idea how much suffering the Son puts forth until judgment day. Look at it this way. How is it possible for God to really understand how much each individual suffers without subjecting at least part of Himself to such suffering? I say, Impossible!).

If God were really GOD, he wouldn't need us to do anything

Here too I part with orthodoxy. Orthodoxy defines God as impassible (incapable of suffering). But I fail to see how such a God can suffer on the cross. Orthodoxy responds, "by hypostatic union" as though a technical term such as that removes the apparent logical contradiction. MY God has need of fellowship. Failure to meet this need would have created far more total suffering (since God is huge) than all human suffering in hell. Hence it would have been unjust for Him not to meet this need. The need is for real love, which involves free will. Abraham's sacrifice was an example of free will.

 

[Aron-Ra]

Your child becomes convinced of your voice's authority based on certain experiences. If God exists, He could make His voice instantaneously convincing, and this is precisely what we Christians attest to.

Actually, most Christians claim the very opposite, that the voices in your head shouldn't be trusted because God doesn't talk to people this way.

The difference is that my kids have reasons to believe in me, lots and lots of them. Unlike God, I make my presence, and my authority, and my loving guidance, all a matter of undeniable fact. God doesn't.

Wrong. That's precisely how I define God's voice, namely as that experience where one is undeniably convinced that God is speaking.

Well, I can't be wrong in this case, can I? After all, belief in God is still a matter of faith. That means it IS possible to deny it, which is what I'm doing now.

I am not hearing God's voice now, that's true. But then neither are you. Neither of us have ever heard him. And there are plenty of former evangelists now turned atheist to prove that point for me.

Let me quess, they're all deceived by "the devil", right?

Jal, I'm not going to press the issue since your delusion is impervious to logic or reason. But it would violate my conscience if I didn't at least bother to state that your belief system is the very definition of insanity. And please believe the depth of my sincerity when I say that people who believe as you do really do frighten me for that very reason.

 

[JAL]

Actually, most Christians claim the very opposite, that the voices in your head shouldn't be trusted because God doesn't talk to people this way.

Take a look at the official creeds of the Protestant Reformation. They are unanimous that the inner voice is the basis of our belief in God and Bible. They refer to it as the inner witness of the Holy Spirit. John Calvin originated this doctrine. What you have pointed out is that most Christian's don't ramify this assumption consistently. They start off with voice and often end up somewhere else.

I am not hearing God's voice now, that's true. But then neither are you. Neither of us have ever heard him. And there are plenty of former evangelists now turned atheist to prove that point for me.

Please. This is hardly proof. The bible tells us that since the day of Adam it is our very nature to suppress the truth (Rom 1:18). So I'm not going to stake my eternity on the experience, or lack of it, undergone by others. THAT would be insane.

Again, I argued at length that the main issue is not whether the voice is legitimate. The issue is conscience.

Jal, I'm not going to press the issue since your delusion is impervious to logic or reason. But it would violate my conscience if I didn't at least bother to state that your belief system is the very definition of insanity. And please believe the depth of my sincerity when I say that people who believe as you do really do frighten me for that very reason.

I'm convinced that I obey the Father's voice for the same reason that your children obey your voice, namely experiences that leads to a belief/conviction. The main issue is conscience. If you think it's insanity for me to obey my conscience, then fine. Preach the same to your children and watch them end up in jail. You say I scare you? I'll tell you what scares me, namely people who have no regard for conscience.

You speak of me as more scary than other Christians. Really? George Bush went to war based ON HIS OWN OPINIONS. This has been true throughout church history. My view is that I would have to KNOW that God is speaking (in the sense that I CANNOT question it). Why? Because my conscience tells me not to kill. Therfore the voice would have to totally rewrite my conscience. All all the religious wars of history need never have happened.


I'm not denying that you have some good reasons for rejecting a voice-based religion. I can respect that opinion. But to call it insanity is going way too far. It is tantamount to regarding my kids as insane for obeying my voice.

 

[Aron-Ra]

I'm convinced that I obey the Father's voice for the same reason that your children obey your voice, namely experiences that leads to a belief/conviction. The main issue is conscience. If you think it's insanity for me to obey my conscience, then fine. Preach the same to your children and watch them end up in jail. You say I scare you? I'll tell you what scares me, namely people who have no regard for conscience.

Like yourself, for example?

I am keenly aware of matters of conscience. I have often been told that I am empathetic, sensative, caring, etc. Not online of course, but by everyone who knows me in real life. But you have confused matters of conscience with matters of delerium. And no, teaching my children to think analytically, logically, and critically, will not land them in jail, where 80% of the prisoners are Christian. Both my children are atheists, and are both much more concious of conscience than most of the Christians I have ever met, and that is especially true of the really adamant believers who usually seem to have no conscience at all, and many times no conciousness either.

Say what you will here, but I'm not going to reply to you again.

 

[Split Rock]

It doesn't happen in nature, we are not the result of random naturalistic processes. Our ancestors were created by God, fully formed, and begat the generations that followed according to kinds.

Who is saying that we are the result of "random natualistic processes?" You continually parrot this nonsense you get from The Discovery Institute, despite the number of times you are told that random processes alone are NOT sufficient for evolution!

Where is the evidence that we were created "fully formed?" Why does the fossil record not support this? Why do the paintings in Egyptian pyramids (build thousands of years ago) show the same animals that exist today if all the diversity we see is due to evolution within "kinds" over the last few thousand years?

Mendel was right and Darwin was wrong, live with it.

Yes, Mendel was right anout genetics, and Darwin was wrong about genetics... who is arguing with you about that?

 

[JAL]

Like yourself, for example?

I am keenly aware of matters of conscience. I have often been told that I am empathetic, sensative, caring, etc. Not online of course, but by everyone who knows me in real life. But you have confused matters of conscience with matters of delerium. And no, teaching my children to think analytically, logically, and critically, will not land them in jail, where 80% of the prisoners are Christian. Both my children are atheists, and are both much more concious of conscience than most of the Christians I have ever met, and that is especially true of the really adamant believers who usually seem to have no conscience at all, and many times no conciousness either.

Say what you will here, but I'm not going to reply to you again.

You're not going to reply? Great. I see no need for you to reply. Since you here affirm conscience, then we stand agreed. My conscience leads me to obey the voice that I hear. If your conscience tells you differently, I have no quarrel with you. The only thing that can be asked of anyone, in my opinion, is to obey their conscience. As I said, I cannot expect you to obey God's voice until it persuades your conscience. However, if you were to say that you would disobey the voice even if your conscience is telling you to obey it, then I would say you are being inconsistent.

Thanks for the statistics. I'm not proud of them, nor of my own lifestyle. On the other hand, why should the statistics surprise me? If most people are religious, wouldn't prison understandably reflect that percentage?

But what most troubles me about the statistics is that all or most of the former prisoners I have met became Christians in prision. In other words the data you present could actually constitute remarkable evidence for the value of religion. Prison probably has a way of softening the heart toward God. Sometimes you have to hit the bottom of the abyss before you are willing to look up.

 

[Split Rock]

That is exactly what the terms mean...want an etymology lesson?

You are the one who needs the lesson.

Synergistic: the action of two or more substances to produce an effect that neither alone could accomplish.
www.2020tech.com/health/glossary.html


Antagonistic: opposing or neutralizing or mitigating an effect by contrary action
www.cogsci.princeton.edu/cgi-bin/webwn