We are all looking at the same evidence - really?

[mickiio]

What are 'variants'?

Take eyes for instance. If you have two brown eyes and they carry BB two dominant browns - those are the variants. If you have two browns with a B (brown dominant) b (blue recessive) mated with another Bb, you have a 1 in 4 chance of getting blue eyed puppy. You would have a 50 % chance of a Bb. If it followed the probabilities, they would come out BB ( no blue eyed variant), Bb (brown eyes, but carries blue eyed gene), Bb, & bb which would be a blue eyed pup. This is JUST eyes. There are many other traits carried in the chromosomes with many other possible variants.

 

[lasthero]

Take eyes for instance. If you have two brown eyes and they carry BB two dominant browns - those are the variants. If you have two browns with a B (brown dominant) b (blue recessive) mated with another Bb, you have a 1 in 4 chance of getting blue eyed puppy. You would have a 50 % chance of a Bb. If it followed the probabilities, they would come out BB ( no blue eyed variant), Bb (brown eyes, but carries blue eyed gene), Bb, & bb which would be a blue eyed pup. This is JUST eyes. There are many other traits carried in the chromosomes with many other possible variants.

So when you say 'variants' what you mean are 'genes'.

 

[mickiio]

So when you say 'variants' what you mean are 'genes'.

variant - a form or version of something that differs in some respect from other forms of the same thing or from a standard.

It is different. If you are being "precise" it would be a "different" gene.

 

[lasthero]

variant - a form or version of something that differs in some respect from other forms of the same thing or from a standard.

When talking about biology, it helps to use terms that biologists actually use. Not 'variant'.

It is different. If you are being "precise" it would be a "different" gene.

So...genes, then.

 

[paul becke]

Why you need good self control when arguing with creationists.

View attachment 164783

Why do you call yourself an agnostic, when you are so sure that the world was not created (evidently, by an all-powerful god) ? Is 'atheist chic' a thing of the past now among young people who want to be perceived by their peers as 'cool' ? Dawkins is a cretin, but at least he's forthright about his atheism.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Why do you call yourself an agnostic, when you are so sure that the world was not created (evidently, by an all-powerful god) ? Is 'atheist chic' a thing of the past now among young people who want to be perceived by their peers as 'cool' ? Dawkins is a cretin, but at least he's forthright about his atheism.

An agnostic can accept the evidence that tells us how the world was made, now life evolved etc.. In fact even Christians can believe that. There are Christian groups that believe that God used the natural laws of our universe. Just as most Christians do not believe that God orders every single event that one does, if that is the case there is no free will, there are also Christians that do not believe that God had to be responsible (at least not directly) for how planets, stars, or even galaxies are made. In fact the Catholic Church seems to follow that train of thought. The theory of evolution is acceptable in your church.

 

[paul becke]

An agnostic can accept the evidence that tells us how the world was made, now life evolved etc.. In fact even Christians can believe that. There are Christian groups that believe that God used the natural laws of our universe. Just as most Christians do not believe that God orders every single event that one does, if that is the case there is no free will, there are also Christians that do not believe that God had to be responsible (at least not directly) for how planets, stars, or even galaxies are made. In fact the Catholic Church seems to follow that train of thought. The theory of evolution is acceptable in your church.

One crucial point : All Christian religions, properly so-called, believe that all matter originated by God's creative will and power. The Catholic church isn't fussy about what people consider are the the 'whys and wherefores' of their later manifestation, that's true. Francis isn't either. The Church took a 'caning', as a result of the misrepresentation by atheists of the facts concerning the Galileo business, and decided it was sufficient for it to concentrate on its theology of the divine Creation.

However, while the behaviour of some things could be so routine, as to be left to behave according to automatic processes, the very maintenance of each item, however microscopic, requires God's will for its existence to be maintained. Nothing has a life independent of God's will.

All of this presupposes the reality of matter, as we understand it, but as you perhaps know, some of the great pioneers of quantum physics, such as Niels Bohr, have pointed out that matter, as such, does not exist.

From Wikiquote :

“Everything we call real is made of things that cannot be regarded as real.”
― Niels Bohr

"There is no quantum world. There is only an abstract quantum physical description. It is wrong to think that the task of physics is to find out how nature is. Physics concerns what we can say about nature..." - Niels Bohr

• • As quoted in "The philosophy of Niels Bohr" by Aage Petersen, in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists Vol. 19, No. 7 (September 1963); The Genius of
  • Science: A Portrait Gallery (2000) by Abraham Pais, p. 24, and Niels Bohr: Reflections on Subject and Object (2001) by Paul. McEvoy, p. 291
  • 
    
  • 
    
  • One way people have looked at it is that God thinks his creation. Sorry about the bullets.

 

[Subduction Zone]

One crucial point : All Christian religions, properly so-called, believe that all matter originated by God's creative will and power. The Catholic church isn't fussy about what people consider are the the 'whys and wherefores' of their later manifestation, that's true. Francis isn't either. The Church took a 'caning', as a result of the misrepresentation by atheists of the facts concerning the Galileo business, and decided it was sufficient for it to concentrate on its theology of the divine Creation.

However, while the behaviour of some things could be so routine, as to be left to behave according to automatic processes, the very maintenance of each item, however microscopic, requires God's will for its existence to be maintained. Nothing has a life independent of God's will.

All of this presupposes the reality of matter, as we understand it, but as you perhaps know, some of the great pioneers of quantum physics, such as Niels Bohr, have pointed out that matter, as such, does not exist.

From Wikiquote :

“Everything we call real is made of things that cannot be regarded as real.”
― Niels Bohr

"There is no quantum world. There is only an abstract quantum physical description. It is wrong to think that the task of physics is to find out how nature is. Physics concerns what we can say about nature..." - Niels Bohr

• • As quoted in "The philosophy of Niels Bohr" by Aage Petersen, in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists Vol. 19, No. 7 (September 1963); The Genius of
  • Science: A Portrait Gallery (2000) by Abraham Pais, p. 24, and Niels Bohr: Reflections on Subject and Object (2001) by Paul. McEvoy, p. 291
  • 
    
  • 
    
  • One way people have looked at it is that God thinks his creation. Sorry about the bullets.

How did atheists ever misrepresent the Catholic Church's screw up in regards to Galileo? I know that there are apologists that still try to excuse the abuses of the Church in that matter. But they are usually laughed at.

And Bohr of course was right. What we call "reality" is merely a large scale quantum effect. Do you have any evidence for your claim that God's will is necessary for the least bit of matter to continue its existence? It seems that you are bordering on taking away free will, which has all sorts of negative results if you want to claim that your God is just.

 

[Loudmouth]

variant - a form or version of something that differs in some respect from other forms of the same thing or from a standard.

It is different. If you are being "precise" it would be a "different" gene.

Just to help clarify, there is a difference between gene and allele. In your example of eye color, there is the eye color gene. For that eye color gene, there are multiple alleles (e.g. B and b).

As it applies to these debates, one should remember that at each gene location we only carry two alleles, one from each parent. We are what is called diploid because we have a double copy of our genome. Bacteria have a single copy and are haploid. There are no recessive and dominant alleles in bacteria like there is in eukaryotes.

Since we only carry two alleles it limits the variation that a small population can carry. Two humans will carry just 4 alleles between them, at most. If we move to 8 breeding pairs that is just 32 alleles if none of them share a parent. If they do share a parent, such as with Noah's family, that number further diminishes. For some human genes there are thousands of known alleles. The same for other species. Therefore, the idea that all the current variation could come from a limited population just isn't realistic.