- May 5, 2017
- 5,611
- 3,999
- 56
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Married
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Thank you for taking the time to tell me what you have to say.
It is just an impression I get, that a very high-level functioning thing in an organism would need more than one gene to produce it all.
I was taught that evolution involves selection of mutations of DNA which are survivable, and it can take thousands of years for a given species to get yet another viable mutation.
I was taught this by ones who believe evolution is scientific; they did not teach us that such a manner of evolution was produced by God.
This would answer to my consideration that there might not be enough time for enough good mutations to produce all the present species on this earth. Thank youAll humans are born with something like 100-200 new mutations.
You are asserting that all of human behavior arose through random variation and natural selection, through biological evolution? What is your evidence for that?This would answer to my consideration that there might not be enough time for enough good mutations to produce all the present species on this earth. Thank you
I, of course, have not calculated the probability statistics, for if there were consideration of time only, or if considering time and the number of individuals available for some next good mutation.
Plus, in theory, there always could be coincidence which is not probable.
So, what's your take on complexity and the marvelousness of things? I think there is beauty and other things which are so more and better than would be needed in order to survive.
For maybe an overly simplified example, we don't need to enjoy a blue sky; so there might not be the need for mutations which would be involved in producing the behavior, in us, of enjoying a blue sky.
understood > I see you could believe that certain behavior is produced by genes, while other behavior depends on gene-produced structures and capabilities but circumstances and nurturing might be more involved in producing the actual behavior.You are asserting that all of human behavior arose through random variation and natural selection, through biological evolution? What is your evidence for that?
Comparing theists and atheists (and I mean thoughtful ones, not just nominal believers/nonbelievers who never really think about it) both theists and atheists are using the same capacity; self-aware intelligence, metacognition, the knowledge of good and evil, call it what you will. The atheist has answers which satisfy him for all of the same questions which faith answers for the theist. So I really don't think there is a qualitative difference between theists and atheists. They all ask the same cosmic questions and arrive at different answers for largely contingent reasons, much as a Presbyterian and a Hindoo have done the same thing.understood > I see you could believe that certain behavior is produced by genes, while other behavior depends on gene-produced structures and capabilities but circumstances and nurturing might be more involved in producing the actual behavior.
So . . . in general, do you believe there is certain behavior which is directly determined by genes? Maybe you think that what people call instincts would be considered genetically determined, for example all birds of a species making nests the same basic way. And a newborn baby seems to have both the structure and the drive to feed; possibly you might consider both the structure and the behavioral drive to be produced more directly by genes, than by circumstance . . . if there is only physical existence.
But . . . in order for there to be certain behavior which is not genetically dictated in detail, still wouldn't non-genetically produced behavior need to have basic structures and functional abilities which are determined by genes? If this were the case, I think then that even non-genetic behavior would be genetically dependent.
Let's take the behavior of actually experiencing God who is pure of generally known human problems, like fear and unsatisfied pleasure cravings, and His pleasantness and goodness of His love is better than all love which a person has experienced through other than the identity of Jesus, what the religious person experiences to be better than physical and not helped by any physical means or self willing. Wouldn't the capacity for this have to be somehow evolved, even if genes did not directly produce such experience? And if all is physical, wouldn't there have to be some genetically determined ability which makes others antagonistic to this? Whether or not genes actually produce the God love experience > Romans 5:5, Psalm 63:3 > or the antagonism and denial, I would think if all is physical then genes would somehow have something to do with why one human turns out one way and another the other.
So, if you choose to deal with this with me > do you think that genes are involved in who experiences God and who doesn't? It seems there are individuals of the same situation and nurture who can come out the exact opposite. Do you agree or disagree? Why do you think this can happen?
My hypothesis/theory is that children in the same family can have differing personalities so each one has space to fulfill one's interests without others wanting and competing for the same thing; therefore even identical twins can have distinct personalities which are not decided by genes. I think this could fit with either evolutionist or nonevolutionary ideas, though.
. I’m a Christian I’m just not an evolution/common descent denier . I also will accept factual scientific information over biblical info because science doesn’t work on beliefs . That’s MY personal prejudiceI guess, from your standpoint, we could say it simply is my prejudice that God made it all.
My devotional appreciation, which is not scientific proof, of course, is that the universe and living things are made by God and this is why they are so beyond our ability to understand it all. Because God's ways are "past finding out" (Romans 11:33), and these ways of His are working in medical things and animal behavior and so this is why humans never really figure things out
So, by the way, I think God has created it all, plus He now is in and through it all, with His ways "past finding out" managing how our bodies work and other things.
So, you might say this is my prejudice and simply how I see things. I don't think it is in reach of our logic and physical science, then.
But I have had thoughts.
One is if there is nothing in existence but what is physical, then atoms and molecules have interacted, by scientific and therefore predictable principles, to produce a big bang, then to eventually yield by evolution human beings. And then what has happened? We humans, if only physical factors are working, have evolved into atheists, theistic evolutionists, and Bible fundamentalists and Muslims and others . . . as the product of evolution's physical interaction of atoms and molecules.
And it would mean that atoms and molecules alone have yielded humans with atheist and Christian fundamental and other moral systems. And it would mean that my body's physical function all by itself has brought me from being a perpetual bully and perverted person, to being a goody-goody two-shoes Roman Catholic, to being a Bible fundamentalist who was criticizing everyone including other fundies, to now experiencing God correcting me to do what He personally guides me to do in His peace while having hope for any and all people to personally share with God through Jesus.
This . . . so far in my seventy-plus years on this earth . . . is how I have developed. If people think that mutations of genes have produced me and my experience . . . I'll bet they haven't figured out how. I simply believe God has changed me; I have been selfish and negative and nasty and critical, but I have experienced God's love to be kind and personal and caring and sharing and gentle and quiet and not conceited to pick and choose who is good enough for me to love. Molecules and psychiatric medications did not do this.
So, of course, I am coming from my experience, and how I would say my character has been changed. I find that we tend to believe what fits with our character and how we want things to be.
There are people who want comparison and competition, and evolution seems to fit with this. So, this is what I consider > that we humans can tend to believe what fits with what we want or how we choose to see things.
So, after how I have been changed, my prejudice has changed with it.
Any behavior which isn't learned, such as how we reflexively close our eyes if we perceive some object getting a bit too close to them, has genetic roots. But stuff like washing your hands? Not so much, no. However, the dislike of filth that lead to us developing the practice of washing hands is partially instinctual, and thus, genes do contribute some to that. Most human behaviors and personality traits are some mix of both genes and our environment, with the latter usually contributing more.understood > I see you could believe that certain behavior is produced by genes, while other behavior depends on gene-produced structures and capabilities but circumstances and nurturing might be more involved in producing the actual behavior.
So . . . in general, do you believe there is certain behavior which is directly determined by genes? Maybe you think that what people call instincts would be considered genetically determined, for example all birds of a species making nests the same basic way. And a newborn baby seems to have both the structure and the drive to feed; possibly you might consider both the structure and the behavioral drive to be produced more directly by genes, than by circumstance . . . if there is only physical existence.
Yes, I do have to have hands in order to wash them, I suppose XD. I wouldn't go so far as to say that makes washing hands genetic, though. I mean, humans have the capacity to bite each other's faces as a form of greeting, but having the capability in no way means it's likely to become a regular behavior.But . . . in order for there to be certain behavior which is not genetically dictated in detail, still wouldn't non-genetically produced behavior need to have basic structures and functional abilities which are determined by genes? If this were the case, I think then that even non-genetic behavior would be genetically dependent.
Nope; studies have shown that feeling as if you are communing with another entity during prayer is directly tied to praying repeatedly with the expectation that something other than yourself will respond. It is self willing, people just become less and less aware that it's their own voice in their head when they do this for long periods of time.Let's take the behavior of actually experiencing God who is pure of generally known human problems, like fear and unsatisfied pleasure cravings, and His pleasantness and goodness of His love is better than all love which a person has experienced through other than the identity of Jesus, what the religious person experiences to be better than physical and not helped by any physical means or self willing. Wouldn't the capacity for this have to be somehow evolved, even if genes did not directly produce such experience?
There's no notable correlation between genetics and belief, as far as I am aware. For example, I am an atheist, but my mother converted to Christianity in her 40s and my father has always been one.And if all is physical, wouldn't there have to be some genetically determined ability which makes others antagonistic to this? Whether or not genes actually produce the God love experience > Romans 5:5, Psalm 63:3 > or the antagonism and denial, I would think if all is physical then genes would somehow have something to do with why one human turns out one way and another the other.
Most of the time, people end up with the same religious beliefs as the people that raised them. Atheists usually don't indoctrinate their children into atheism, but since people default to it, the pattern applies to atheist families as well. Why some people in the same family end up with different beliefs is a matter of different experiences. No atheist would remain such if they thought they saw a legitimate miracle, so a person that did (regardless as to whether or not the miracle was real) may end up becoming the only child that's a Christian. A lot of Christians find themselves unable to hold on to their faith if their beliefs consistently contradict scientific evidence, which is why YECs in particular tend to change their beliefs as they get older, either becoming atheists or OECs.So, if you choose to deal with this with me > do you think that genes are involved in who experiences God and who doesn't? It seems there are individuals of the same situation and nurture who can come out the exact opposite. Do you agree or disagree? Why do you think this can happen?
I'd say it is a matter of experiences. No one defaults to being a theist at birth, so all variations in religious beliefs have to be a matter of environment. While certain personality traits may make it easier or harder for a person to be indoctrinated, there isn't a single personality trait that atheists have in their number that theists don't.My hypothesis/theory is that children in the same family can have differing personalities so each one has space to fulfill one's interests without others wanting and competing for the same thing; therefore even identical twins can have distinct personalities which are not decided by genes. I think this could fit with either evolutionist or nonevolutionary ideas, though.
I think what I experience is different than what you describe here. I do not pray in order to hear from God . . . to hear a voice. But I trust God to do with me howsoever He pleases, in His peace, and I do not know what He is going to do, even moment by moment while I am more into this.Nope; studies have shown that feeling as if you are communing with another entity during prayer is directly tied to praying repeatedly with the expectation that something other than yourself will respond. It is self willing, people just become less and less aware that it's their own voice in their head when they do this for long periods of time.
understoodAfter all, how could it be moral to send people to hell on the basis of belief if people are born incapable of believing?
I think that because women in general still can tend to be physically not as strong as men, they can tend to use more sensitivity and nurturing and communication as their means. And some amount of religion calls for someone who can be more submissive and not depending so much on physical strength.Interestingly enough, though, there is a weird connection between gender and religion. Women tend to be more religious than men to a notable extent. Don't ask me why, I have no idea.
Perhaps you could explain?This would answer to my consideration that there might not be enough time for enough good mutations to produce all the present species on this earth. Thank youAll humans are born with something like 100-200 new mutations.
What determines the 'good' mutation?I, of course, have not calculated the probability statistics, for if there were consideration of time only, or if considering time and the number of individuals available for some next good mutation.
Yup.Plus, in theory, there always could be coincidence which is not probable.
I think it is complex and marvelous.So, what's your take on complexity and the marvelousness of things?
Why do you think that and what is your evidence that this is so?I think there is beauty and other things which are so more and better than would be needed in order to survive.
Why would there be?For maybe an overly simplified example, we don't need to enjoy a blue sky; so there might not be the need for mutations which would be involved in producing the behavior, in us, of enjoying a blue sky.
More like from the standpoint that if there are any "spiritual" entities they either don't actually bother to interact with us with any frequency or they can't.Hi, SarahI would say you have made yourself clear . . . but, I would say, from the standpoint that all existence is physical and that there is no spiritual being and not spiritual beings with personalities.
I'm not saying you pray to god in order to hear it; it's a matter of expectation, not intent. You expect to have a spiritual experience when you pray, and years of praying with that expectation makes your brain automatically produce what you want. It's not even hard for our brains to do, since they do it when they process senses all the time (particularly with vision and hearing). For example, because of where cones are in your eyes, the periphery of your vision shouldn't be in color, but your brain makes you interpret it that way by filling in what colors it expects.I think what I experience is different than what you describe here. I do not pray in order to hear from God . . . to hear a voice. But I trust God to do with me howsoever He pleases, in His peace, and I do not know what He is going to do, even moment by moment while I am more into this.
XD last I checked, men didn't communicate via punching all the time, and buff women didn't act like men. While men and women do have some differences in communication, I don't think you would like the implications those differences would have if you associated them with religion. It's kinda well known that women are pretty mean and unsympathetic towards other women they aren't particularly close to. I actually hate working in all female groups for this reason, especially if the group consists of all women that already know each other but don't know me. If how women treat each other is the reason more women are religious than men, then it isn't because women are so warm and welcoming to other women joining the church. It's because they are insufferable jerks to the ones that aren't already a part of it.I think that because women in general still can tend to be physically not as strong as men, they can tend to use more sensitivity and nurturing and communication as their means.
Like I said before, there doesn't seem to be any trend in personality traits when it comes to religion specifically. I think your perceived "assertiveness of atheists" is inflated due to the fact that only the most assertive atheists would even bother to discuss and debate on here.And some amount of religion calls for someone who can be more submissive and not depending so much on physical strength.
Oh look, you have a testable hypothesis. All you have to do to test it is count the men and women attending churches, and categorize the churches based on whether the pastor is male or female. Heck, you might be able to just email pastors and have them count for you. SinceAlso, if religious groups use men mainly as leaders . . . I can see how some number of women might be more interested in listening to a guy, and seeing a guy up front, than men might. But this can vary in different cultures. I have been where men were turning out to be no-shows after getting women pregnant; and the women with their children could have the help and father figure support of male pastors in their churches.
Religions don't fall into patterns associated with genetics; regardless as to where your ancestors came from and the genes of your parents, your likely religion is most strongly determined by the predominant religion of the area you live in and whether or not you are raised to be religious.So, it can be different for different women, I would say.
And from this I can see that even if physical genes had a lot to do with how a person's behaviors developed, there would be so many unique individuals with so many factors effecting each one, that it would be impossible to do a well-controlled statistical study.
All humans are born with something like 100-200 new mutations.
There are about 130 million humans born/year. That means that there are at least 13 billion new mutations in the human 'gene pool' added per year.
This would answer to my consideration that there might not be enough time for enough good mutations to produce all the present species on this earth. Thank you
I have thought I was told that it can be even thousands of years before a new selectable, viable mutation shows up. But you have said that there can be many individuals of a species, so it would not be only a matter of time, but how many individuals are available to produce viable mutations.Perhaps you could explain?
I think there is beauty and other things which are so more and better than would be needed in order to survive.
This is simply my impression.Why do you think that and what is your evidence that this is so?
I don't know. I would think if all changes depended on physical means, that you would need a lot. I mean, if separate genes were needed for each change; but if genes can multi-task, then fewer might be needed.Pick a common example - human-chimp from a common ancestor on the order of 5-10 mya.
How many mutations would have been required?
I mean one which is selected and/or survives.What determines the 'good' mutation?
And yet they survive and thrive. One thing I think of is that God blessed His creatures in the beginning; I understand that this is why creatures have kept going, in spite of all the problems they have faced.What interests me, in terms of this debate, is why a 'perfect' Creator would have done it the way it was done. WHY put giant filoplumes on peacocks when they hinder its ability to fly (they still fly fine, but they labor to get into the air and have reduced flight times compared to peahens) only to attract mates?
My impression is that humans help to cause themselves to have various troubles.Why make humans bipeds and burden us with the tendency to have back and joint problems and hemorrhoids? Could not an Omniscient have been able to come up with a better way?
We plan to be removed from this earth before natural causes take us all out. And, in spite of all the troubles, we have increased to over seven billion on this planet. I am not sure this speaks to all of your question, or any of it.I suspect that in response, you might offer The Fall - but if all of humanity is cursed for the 'sins' of our ancestors, why 'curse' us with eventually extinction via mutation and then give us means by which we can remove a large percentage of such mutations?
last I checked, men didn't communicate via punching all the time, and buff women didn't act like men.
It's kinda well known that women are pretty mean and unsympathetic towards other women they aren't particularly close to.
And each individual can be unpredictable . . . being so unique, In my opinion.your likely religion is most strongly determined by the predominant religion of the area you live in and whether or not you are raised to be religious.
Who told you that? I suppose for a SPECIFIC one, that could be the case. But some recent evidence indicates that beneficial mutations may be more common than previously believed.I have thought I was told that it can be even thousands of years before a new selectable, viable mutation shows up.Perhaps you could explain.This would answer to my consideration that there might not be enough time for enough good mutations to produce all the present species on this earth.
There are ~7 billions members of the human species alive right now. It does matter what I said. It is a fact.But you have said that there can be many individuals of a species
All of them. All living offspring possess new mutations. Most of them neutral, some bad, some good.so it would not be only a matter of time, but how many individuals are available to produce viable mutations.This is simply my impression.
Exactly. So how can you say that there is not enough time, or not enough mutations?Pick a common example - human-chimp from a common ancestor on the order of 5-10 mya.
How many mutations would have been required?
I don't know.
Nearly all genes multitask. And "physical means"? Most mutations arise as errors or replication - and replication occurs every time a cell divides. By the time a typical sperm is produced, there may have been dozens or hundreds of rounds of DNA replication that produced it, for example.I would think if all changes depended on physical means, that you would need a lot. I mean, if separate genes were needed for each change; but if genes can multi-task, then fewer might be needed.
So do those with bad mutations (up to a point). It is not as if those without a particuar beneficial mutation are on their last leg, barely alive. It is that those with beneficial mutations, in the right conditions, may do a bit better than those around them.I mean one which is selected and/or survives. And yet they survive and thrive.
I have always, even when I believed, thought that evolution is a very empowering thing. From a human-centric point of view, look at all that had to have been overcome for all those millenia such that we are alive today. For a very long time, I have found that to be far more empowering and noble than merely having been created on a whim.One thing I think of is that God blessed His creatures in the beginning; I understand that this is why creatures have kept going, in spite of all the problems they have faced.
Many do, this is true. My back and knees and ankles are shot due to my time in the military, for the most part. But I have also known people who had pretty 'normal' lives and still have back and joint issues. I should think that an omniscient designer could have come up with a better plan.My impression is that humans help to cause themselves to have various troubles.
Not really.We plan to be removed from this earth before natural causes take us all out. And, in spite of all the troubles, we have increased to over seven billion on this planet. I am not sure this speaks to all of your question, or any of it.
But that is a pretty high level of capability, for atoms and molecules to be able to combine into DNA and to develop multi-tasking DNA, and to eventually produce us humans.Nearly all genes multitask.
But . . . of course . . . many such cells are not involved in producing reproductive cells. So, their mutations would be mute, in evolution, wouldn't they? And, no, you never said they would. But in case, as a general principle, cells reproducing rather often yield mutations, then this would mean that sperm producing activities can have mutations so there could be evolution < this is what I think you are saying.Most mutations arise as errors or replication - and replication occurs every time a cell divides.
You said that there are billions of mutations that humans have, if I understand you correctly.
All true, in a way. But what I was referring to regarding the 200-ish mutations that all of us have - those ARE what we get from mutations in the gametes. And since there are 7 billion or so humans alive, 7 billion times - lets say just 100 = 700,000,000,000 mutations in the human 'gene pool' (not an accurate term, I suppose - genome-pool?). I was not counting mutations in somatic (non-reproductive) cells. For example, I fully expect that by the time you are 50, you skin cells, the cells lining your intestines, etc., are probably loaded with mutations - and you are correct, those do not get passed on. But my kids, and your kids (I assume you have some) all have potentially a couple of hundred mutations you did not as an embryo.But, of course, if some number of these billions are only in non-reproductive cells, these would have not a chance of passing on to make a new individual. But, of course, you never said that non-reproductive mutations could help the process of evolution.
That does not matter, since the 100-200 estimate is premised on each new individual. They get them somehow, sperm, egg, both.Plus, there are many sperm cells which do have mutations, but their mutations can't be involved in producing a new individual if they are not joined to an egg to fertilize it.
Of course. But of those that do, they add up to about 100-200 per person.But you are saying, if I understand you correctly, that there are many mutations which do pass on through sperm which do fertilize eggs.
DNA is not formed de novo from atoms. Yes, ultimately all molecules are made from atoms, but things like nucleotides/nucleosides in, say, a human, are made from other nucleotides/nucleosides or are made from 'raw materials' - the Wiki has a nice (if slightly technical) description of the process here.But that is a pretty high level of capability, for atoms and molecules to be able to combine into DNA and to develop multi-tasking DNA, and to eventually produce us humans.Nearly all genes multitask.
You are going off on a tangent here - I am more of a 'brick and mortar' guy, this high-falutin' philosophy stuff is something I have little desire to discuss. But I am vaguely familiar with the concept of emergence, wherein (and this is a very over-simplified and probably not even very accurate way to characterize it) the 'whole' is greater then the 'sum of its parts' and this is basically just the way things work sometimes. There is a lot of material out there on this, here is just a sampling.If all in existence is atoms and various sorts of physical energy, then would this not mean that non-conscious, non-intelligent stuff has produced us humans who have intelligence and consciousness, plus the ability to talk about this?
Do you believe that atoms and energies are unconscious?
No. Atoms are just stuff. I don't know how life as we know it came to be, and to a certain extent, I don't really care. Once life began, however, the theory of evolution explains much of what happened thereafter. Intelligent Design, creationism, etc., just offer platitudes, what ifs, just so stories - none of which are bolstered by any actual supportive evidence.Do you believe that atoms and various physical energies have had the creative ability to produce us humans who have more or less been not creative, in a number of cases?
Ultimately, probably. I see no other viable explanation. 'I just can't believe x' is not evidence against X and for Y.Do you believe that love comes as a product of how only physical atoms and energies have interacted?
And yet what you think can be altered by physical activity/inputs. Applying mild electric currents to various parts of the brain, for example, can cause a patient to experience certain memories, or to perceive certain smells, or to feel a certain way. It seems to me that if the 'mind' were extracorporeal, then such stimuli should not matter, and Phineas Gage should have been the same old Phineas after his accident as before.Whatever you believe, I am not going to expect you to give me evidence. Because I simply don't believe physical things have the ability to prove or disprove what we think.
Ultimately, yes. And please remember that I do not have any expertise in this, nor have I done a great deal of reading on the overall topic, it just isn't my thing.So . . . do you believe that we with our ability to talk about this, plus have the conscious experience that we do, are products of unconscious and unfeeling atoms and other energy forms which are not alive and conscious????
I think that the manner in which we live (and by we, I mean all living things) is so haphazard and in many cases absurd that to consider the possibility that we are NOT the result of mere 'dumb atoms' bouncing around is hard to take seriously.If all in existence were produced by atoms and energies which interact according to verifiable physical principles, I would think humans would be doing better than we do, with a lot more order if we are the product of only physically orderly atoms and energies. No, I can't prove this, but what do you think, personally, if you please to say.
Understood.And, no, I don't have evidence for this. This is simply something I have thought of. So, I'm asking what you thinkAnd I am not requiring you, either, to have evidence.
You seem to be implying that in a naturalistic point of view, these atoms 'intended' to make us? That is what I get from your phrasing. If that is so, then I would have to say that in the admittedly little I know about these concepts (e.g., naturalism) I have not seen such sentiments. Quite the opposite.If atoms and various interacting sorts of physical energy all by themselves produced us humans with our high level of intelligence and ingenuity, I would think this could mean that atoms and various energy forms have a high level of capability; and yet humans have not demonstrated, in general, that we have such capability, plus we don't seem to have much success at understanding it all, either . . . in my opinion. And no I do not have proof or evidence of this.
Don't know.So, how is it that atoms and energies so capable would produce us?????
But I do understand, then, how you could ask, why has God with such capability produced us humans who live the way many of us can?
I think so - I think we covered this above.But . . . of course . . . many such cells are not involved in producing reproductive cells. So, their mutations would be mute, in evolution, wouldn't they? And, no, you never said they would. But in case, as a general principle, cells reproducing rather often yield mutations, then this would mean that sperm producing activities can have mutations so there could be evolution < this is what I think you are saying.Most mutations arise as errors or replication - and replication occurs every time a cell divides.
I can see your position - but let me offer an analogy -But, like I have offered, I think atoms and energies with such high capability as the only influence would produce better than us humans the way we have been doing things.
Questions that people better than me are looking into.And how could unconscious matter and energy produce us with consciousness and contemplative abilities.
You are presuming that it took what we call intelligence to do it. I get that position, but I do not find it very satisfactory.And how is it that they can do what is so highly intelligent, yet not make us intelligent enough to understand it?
I can, too, in a way - or at least a deep desire for it to be so. But I hope that even such people possess this intelligence you keep referring to and at some point will realize that their opinions are not the ultimate 'placeholders' of truth, and that there are people who can address these issues (and often times with evidence on their side) better than themselves.I think there are people who believe that all in existence is God or some sort of conscious being. I can see they could have logic for believing this.
Agreed.But a problem I can see with this is how there is very good stuff of physical creation, but humans have been making a major mess of it. So, I would think logic would indicate that not all in existence is good.
But is this evidence? I would say no. But I think I can look at what there is and see this, even though I can't actually prove it to someone else.
Thank you for taking the time to deal with my stuff
When I was studying evolution and genetics, may be they did not have the DNA viewing technology to detect so many mutations. But for some while, I think, they were guessing that there were mutations because of how certain characteristics and functions were showing up where there had been no previously known genes to produce them.That does not matter, since the 100-200 estimate is premised on each new individual. They get them somehow, sperm, egg, both.
understood, I would sayAnd yet what you think can be altered by physical activity/inputs. Applying mild electric currents to various parts of the brain, for example, can cause a patient to experience certain memories, or to perceive certain smells, or to feel a certain way. It seems to me that if the 'mind' were extracorporeal, then such stimuli should not matter, and Phineas Gage should have been the same old Phineas after his accident as before.
You have shared clearly what you really have to say, I would say. So, thank youHope my replies were at least relevant.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?