Wherein I catch a professional creationist in a lie, pt.3

[tas8831]

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.

And that impression informs your position about 'not enough time' and all that?

 

[tas8831]

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.

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.

I think that most YECs do not consider the populational aspect of evolution, and this is the main reason why they are so impressed with big number arguments.

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.

I am inclined to believe that you are simply mis-remembering things.

 

[com7fy8]

All humans are born with something like 100-200 new mutations.

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.

 

[Speedwell]

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.

You are asserting that all of human behavior arose through random variation and natural selection, through biological evolution? What is your evidence for that?

 

[com7fy8]

You are asserting that all of human behavior arose through random variation and natural selection, through biological evolution? What is your evidence for that?

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.

 

[Speedwell]

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.

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.

 

[Brightmoon]

I 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.

. 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 prejudice

 

[PsychoSarah]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

You take the cake for presenting a problematic thing for your own religion. After all, how could it be moral to send people to hell on the basis of belief if people are born incapable of believing? Lucky for you and your fellow believers, there's no evidence that people are ever born incapable of being indoctrinated. Though, it is notably easier to indoctrinate children than adults. So, while I highly doubt a single person on this planet was born incapable of becoming a theist, it may be possible for a person to lose the capacity to become a believer without evidence as they get older.

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?

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.

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'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.

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.

 

[com7fy8]

Hi, Sarah I 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.

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.

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.

After all, how could it be moral to send people to hell on the basis of belief if people are born incapable of believing?

understood

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.

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.

Also, 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.

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.

 

[tas8831]

All humans are born with something like 100-200 new mutations.

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

Perhaps you could explain?

How many mutations (and please define what constitutes a mutation to you) would be required and how do you know?

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, 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.

What determines the 'good' mutation?

Are you looking at this is terms of reaching a goal, and that goal being what we have today?

Plus, in theory, there always could be coincidence which is not probable.

Yup.

So, what's your take on complexity and the marvelousness of things?

I think it is complex and marvelous.
I am constantly awed by nature.

I think there is beauty and other things which are so more and better than would be needed in order to survive.

Why do you think that and what is your evidence that this is so?
There are limits to the 'efficiency' of natural processes, and a lot of give and take. The extravagant plumage of some birds attracts mates very well, but it also makes them a target for predators. Trade off.
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? 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?

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?

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.

Why would there be?

'Joy' and such is very relative and subjective. What one person finds joy in may be upsetting to another. I cannot think of a single example of something that is truly universal in terms of 'feelings'. Which seems contrary to the notion of a single recent act of creation.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Hi, Sarah I 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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

And some amount of religion calls for someone who can be more submissive and not depending so much on physical strength.

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.

Also, 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.

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. Since

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.

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.

 

[com7fy8]

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

Perhaps you could explain?

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.

I think there is beauty and other things which are so more and better than would be needed in order to survive.

Why do you think that and what is your evidence that this is so?

This is simply my impression.

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. 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.

What determines the 'good' mutation?

I mean one which is selected and/or survives.

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?

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.

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?

My impression is that humans help to cause themselves to have various troubles.

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?

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.

 

[com7fy8]

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.

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.

And each individual can be unpredictable . . . being so unique, In my opinion.

Thank you for taking the time to deal with my stuff

 

[tas8831]

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.

Perhaps you could explain.

I have thought I was told that it can be even thousands of years before a new selectable, viable mutation shows up.

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.

But you have said that there can be many individuals of a species

There are ~7 billions members of the human species alive right now. It does matter what I said. It is a fact.

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.

All of them. All living offspring possess new mutations. Most of them neutral, some bad, some good.

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.

Exactly. So how can you say that there is not enough time, or not enough mutations?

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.

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 mean one which is selected and/or survives. And yet they survive and thrive.

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.

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.

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.

My impression is that humans help to cause themselves to have various troubles.

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.

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.

Not really.
But thanks.

 

[com7fy8]

You said that there are billions of mutations that humans have, if I understand you correctly. 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.

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.

But you are saying, if I understand you correctly, that there are many mutations which do pass on through sperm which do fertilize eggs.

Nearly all genes multitask.

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.

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?

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?

Do you believe that love comes as a product of how only physical atoms and energies have interacted?

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.

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????

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.

And, no, I don't have evidence for this. This is simply something I have thought of. So, I'm asking what you think And I am not requiring you, either, to have evidence.

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.

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?

Most mutations arise as errors or replication - and replication occurs every time a cell divides.

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.

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.

And how could unconscious matter and energy produce us with consciousness and contemplative abilities.

And how is it that they can do what is so highly intelligent, yet not make us intelligent enough to understand it?

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.

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

 

[tas8831]

You said that there are billions of mutations that humans have, if I understand you correctly.

Billions in the human species, yes.

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.

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.

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.

That does not matter, since the 100-200 estimate is premised on each new individual. They get them somehow, sperm, egg, both.

But you are saying, if I understand you correctly, that there are many mutations which do pass on through sperm which do fertilize eggs.

Of course. But of those that do, they add up to about 100-200 per person.

Nearly all genes multitask.

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.

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.

RE: multi-tasking, you are anthropomorphizing, I think. While you and I may multi-task (or at least think we may), that is, engage in more than 1 task at a time - talk on the phone and drive, for example - this is not what I interpret multi-tasking in genes is.

Remember that a gene is just a sequence of DNA that performs some function - we usually think that this function is to make protein, and that is often the case. But there are genes that make RNA, and regions of DNA that to not 'make' anything but instead control the way actual genes do things - how much of a protein to make, how often, that sort of thing.
If we focus on protein coding genes, we know that in many cases, individual proteins can have different functions (or be used for different things) in different cell types, different organs, or at different times.
For example, you may have heard of the protein Collagen (ignoring for now that there are several types of collagen) - it is put into some skin-care products, used to puff-up peoples' lips for some reason, etc. But collagen also forms the matrix of bone. It is found in cartilage.
Some gene products have a role in development, but a different role later on - despite the protein being the same and expressed in the same cells.
An example of this is the gene that encodes a particular cell surface receptor for a type of growth factor. We know that these receptors have various functions in adult cells (in this case, the growth factor that these receptors bind can initiate or influence cell division, such as after an injury). But these receptors also play a role during development, and we know this due the effects we see in people that have mutations in these genes (a certain type of dwarfism is caused by a mutation in one of these growth factor receptor genes).
THAT is what I mean by 'multi-tasking' - not that a gene 'knows' it has to do this this and this today or whatever. The gene just makes the protein.

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?

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.

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?

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 love comes as a product of how only physical atoms and energies have interacted?

Ultimately, probably. I see no other viable explanation. 'I just can't believe x' is not evidence against X and for Y.

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.

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.

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????

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.

Take a single cell - say, in your liver. Is it 'alive'? Is it 'conscious'? Does it 'feel' things, psychologically? If not, then is it OK for cells to be the product of unconscious and unfeeling atoms and other energy forms which are not alive and conscious? If not, why not?

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.

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.
Nature looks a lot more like nature did it than anything else, to me. But like I said, I really don't spend a lot of time on these sorts of issue, and I am fine with the notion that I simply do not have the answers to these sorts of questions.

And, no, I don't have evidence for this. This is simply something I have thought of. So, I'm asking what you think And I am not requiring you, either, to have evidence.

Understood.

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.

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.

So, how is it that atoms and energies so capable would produce us?????

Don't know.
Not to sound glib, but this is where I might be tempted to retort "How is it that a deity that transcends all of this - Who for no known reason, decided to create the universe - exists?" Same sort of question.

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?

Most mutations arise as errors or replication - and replication occurs every time a cell divides.

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.

I think so - I think we covered this above.

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.

I can see your position - but let me offer an analogy -

Nails are just chunks of metal. Pointy on one end, blunt on the other. They have the amazing capability of making houses. How is it that these chunks of metal have such capabilities?

Not a great analogy, I know, but I hope it makes my point. Atoms don't have capabilities, just properties. They can bind to other atoms and produce what we call molecules. Some molecules can interact with each others to make larger structures that exhibit actions that at some point allow movement (or whatever).
Emergence, baby.... Emergence.

And how could unconscious matter and energy produce us with consciousness and contemplative abilities.

Questions that people better than me are looking into.

And how is it that they can do what is so highly intelligent, yet not make us intelligent enough to understand it?

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.

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.

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.

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.

Agreed.

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

Hope my replies were at least relevant. I hope this does not come across as condescending or trite, but at least you seem to be actually thinking about this stuff. I cannot say the same for some others.

 

[com7fy8]

That does not matter, since the 100-200 estimate is premised on each new individual. They get them somehow, sperm, egg, both.

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.

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.

understood, I would say

But . . . according to my prejudice, not necessarily with any scientifically verifiable evidence >

The brain does function in the memory process, but deeper and spiritually our memory can be influenced. Our mind is spiritual at its roots but it functions in union with the brain so you can get the impression that the brain function is the whole of your mental function. But there are deeper things spiritual which can effect our brain function.

So, what about if a person is going berserk and you give the person a medicine and he or she acts more civil? Wouldn't this mean, I think you mean, that the person's personality is being effected by the physical medicine? Well, there can be a distinction to make > there is the idea that the medicine is effecting the brain to ease up the brain's bioelectrochemically crazy activity so you could believe that the person's personality is physical only and therefore its function is effected only by the medication; or > the personality is spiritual, but the physical medicine causes the brain to calm its physical function so then the deeper personality reacts to that nicer way of brain function by calming down. So, then, I mean there is the possibility that the spiritual mind is not actually controlled by the medicine but it reacts to the physical effect of the med. And people with different spiritual personalities can react differently to the same medicinal effect on the brain.

In my case, when I was given psychiatric medicine, I did not consider it to be a legitimate way to change my ways of thinking. So, by choice I did not respond to however the med made me feel. But instead I kept making an effort to get the correction which I understood I needed, and I found the med to interfere with me.

In some cases, I think, ones take a med and feel a little better and so they act nicer . . . in response to the pleasure of the medication. But, deeper, they are still spiritually selfish by nature. Their character has not been changed by the nice feeling drug. So, physically their brain experiences pleasure, and then they, deeper and spiritually, react to the pleasure by behaving more civilly.

This brings us to a problem I have with evolution. Possibly, it can foster selfish behavior. Possibly, ones like survival of the fittest because they are into competing and being superior to others; and so I consider it possible that their competitive and superiority seeking nature makes them compatible with the ideas of natural selection and survival of the fittest. And so, because of how they are spiritually, they are welcoming of the idea that all is physical and competitive with no answering to God.

But not all people are alike; so I need to discover each person and let each one speak for oneself.

Hope my replies were at least relevant.

You have shared clearly what you really have to say, I would say. So, thank you