Jump to content

Guided evolution (split from Evolution not limited to life on earth?)


Luc Turpin

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Luc Turpin said:

The study implied that under environmental stress, bacteria manipulate their DNA and create circumstances to increase the rate of transcription mistakes in order to find a way of surviving under stress.

No it didn't, enviromental stress altered the DNA and in some cases that helped it to survive, I haven't read the study; but I didn't really have to...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, dimreepr said:

No it didn't, enviromental stress altered the DNA and in some cases that helped it to survive, I haven't read the study; but I didn't really have to...

Stuck without a paddle in high water; need to find the study.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Luc Turpin said:

There are many reasons for not reading it,

just hope its not vindictive

TBH I don't really care, we're all just playing a parlour game; I win, if I can change your mind...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

TBH I don't really care, we're all just playing a parlour game; I win, if I can change your mind...

I would like it if it was evidence that could change your mind, not me or anyone else.

since joining the forum, my mind has changed somewhat on things.

the physics group in one of the forums changed my mind on qm and the observer effect. They did it with facts, knowledge and math.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said:

I would like it if it was evidence that could change your mind, not me or anyone else.

since joining the forum, my mind has changed somewhat on things.

the physics group in one of the forums changed my mind on qm and the observer effect. They did it with facts, knowledge and math.

Congratulations, you've learned something; now for the next level where knowledge isn't fact...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, Phi for All said:

I assume this is that weak macro vs micro argument creationists always bring out.

...not only creationists. There's a lecture of N.dG.Tyson, astrophysicist, in which he says that life on Earth made of the same elements the Universe does. And that the Universe is inside us. Now i understand it's absolutely true.

21 hours ago, Phi for All said:

I'm not sure if it's a language barrier, or a reasoning barrier, or just you trying to obfuscate because you have no good arguments, but this response is just weird. I gave you a scenario about my imaginary neighbors, I told you what they were thinking because they told me. I was asking you what you would do if faced with that situation in real life. You answered it, briefly, when you said you would tell them the truth. Ever since then, you've avoided answering further.

I just wanted to show you how people can be wrong in their religious beliefs, like all of us can be wrong. The difference is, science uses information we can TRUST, so we don't get caught in a process where we just blindly believe things we can't support.

But it was imaginary situation, you could think of any plot, but you've chosen this one. So you literally made your neighbors think that all swans are white. And asked me whether i would tell them that there were black ones. As if it was the most tragedy in their lives. Well, it depends whether i'm ready to ruin someone's beliefs. And it's up to a person to attach to one's beliefs or not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, iNow said:

You’ll need to define that for me, but the simple answer is likely an evolved tendency toward aligning with group norms and an upbringing within a culture that reinforces them socially. 

 

8 hours ago, npts2020 said:

Seems to me conscience comes from ones personal philosophical leanings. Consciousness, on the other hand, is one of those "eye of the beholder" type things where it means exactly whatever the person using the term wants it to mean unless there is some other agreed upon definition

Wikipedia doesn't know what  conscience is. For me it is religious concept.

"Although humanity has no generally accepted definition of conscience or universal agreement about its role in ethical decision-making"

 And i'm not alone with my question. There is a book with exactly the same question. -where does conscience come from? And the thought is that "conscience  is generally universal and  innate in all of us"

It's a good thought.

And i don't think it's "evolved tendency".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, mar_mar said:

...not only creationists. There's a lecture of N.dG.Tyson, astrophysicist, in which he says that life on Earth made of the same elements the Universe does. And that the Universe is inside us. Now i understand it's absolutely true.

Well, that's something completely different. Of course we're made up of the same elements the universe has available. That doesn't mean individuals evolve during their own lifetime. Evolution's effects are only seen as succeeding generations happen. 

It's very difficult to talk science with you when you have SO MANY misconceptions and yet you still think your arguments from ignorance are relevant. You don't know what you don't know, and it shows.

39 minutes ago, mar_mar said:

But it was imaginary situation, you could think of any plot, but you've chosen this one. So you literally made your neighbors think that all swans are white. And asked me whether i would tell them that there were black ones. As if it was the most tragedy in their lives. Well, it depends whether i'm ready to ruin someone's beliefs. And it's up to a person to attach to one's beliefs or not.

The benefit of a thought experiment is that you can arrange the situation to fit a need. I needed you to tell me how you would deal with a neighbor who didn't understand something but believed his god had done it, that's all. You first told me you would tell them the truth, but now it sounds like you would let them believe what you know is a lie (that god is the one taking care of their trash). I've known a LOT of Christians who believed like this, that it's better to let someone believe in a lie than to question their faith. 

It's funny though. It sounds like you want to tell people about the lies of science and other religions, but when it comes to YOUR religion, it's better to let people believe what they want. Isn't that funny?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, mar_mar said:

 

Wikipedia doesn't know what  conscience is. For me it is religious concept.

"Although humanity has no generally accepted definition of conscience or universal agreement about its role in ethical decision-making"

 And i'm not alone with my question. There is a book with exactly the same question. -where does conscience come from? And the thought is that "conscience  is generally universal and  innate in all of us"

It's a good thought.

And i don't think it's "evolved tendency".

What you think doesn’t matter much. This is science, so it’s what you can demonstrate. Science is a shared endeavor; there are no “personal truths”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, mar_mar said:

Wikipedia doesn't know what  conscience is. For me it is religious concept.

This is not in the religion section so there is no need to bring it up religious concepts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said:

Lead on

OK, See this one...

34 minutes ago, mar_mar said:

...not only creationists. There's a lecture of N.dG.Tyson, astrophysicist, in which he says that life on Earth made of the same elements the Universe does. And that the Universe is inside us. Now i understand it's absolutely true.

But it was imaginary situation, you could think of any plot, but you've chosen this one. So you literally made your neighbors think that all swans are white. And asked me whether i would tell them that there were black ones. As if it was the most tragedy in their lives. Well, it depends whether i'm ready to ruin someone's beliefs. And it's up to a person to attach to one's beliefs or not.

It depends on the value of coloured swan shit...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, mar_mar said:

Wikipedia doesn't know what  conscience is. For me it is religious concept.

None of this has anything to do with evolution, but how do you explain how so many atheists live moral, compassionate lives without a god to urge them or force them into it? How do you explain when non-religious people have a very well-developed conscience? Could it be that morality doesn't need religion to be effective? Could it be that judging people the way you do isn't really moral at all? I actually think it's immoral that you love a god that wants to torture me for eternity. Shame on you!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

Well, that's something completely different. Of course we're made up of the same elements the universe has available. That doesn't mean individuals evolve during their own lifetime. Evolution's effects are only seen as succeeding generations happen. 

It's very difficult to talk science with you when you have SO MANY misconceptions and yet you still think your arguments from ignorance are relevant. You don't know what you don't know, and it shows.

I say about large elements and large processes in small.

11 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

The benefit of a thought experiment is that you can arrange the situation to fit a need. I needed you to tell me how you would deal with a neighbor who didn't understand something but believed his god had done it, that's all. You first told me you would tell them the truth, but now it sounds like you would let them believe what you know is a lie (that god is the one taking care of their trash). I've known a LOT of Christians who believed like this, that it's better to let someone believe in a lie than to question their faith. 

It's funny though. It sounds like you want to tell people about the lies of science and other religions, but when it comes to YOUR religion, it's better to let people believe what they want. Isn't that funny?

it's a lie in YOUR opinion. what is the evidence??

and i noticed that it was incorrect example in the core.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, mar_mar said:

I say about large elements and large processes in small.

All right, I have no idea what you're talking about.

1 hour ago, mar_mar said:

it's a lie in YOUR opinion. what is the evidence??

*sigh* Is it hard for you to focus? My made up neighbors had a made up situation where they didn't understand how their garbage was being handled. They thought it was because they prayed for it, but I know it's because the city has a collection agreement. One is a lie (especially if I don't correct them), the other is the truth. My evidence is the bills I get from the city, and if I get up early enough, I can actually observe garbage collectors (not gods) picking up the trash.

My question was designed to get you to see how sometimes the things people believe have no foundation in the real world. I wanted you to see what it's like to watch someone with bizarre religious beliefs struggle to explain the natural world when you know differently. 

1 hour ago, mar_mar said:

and i noticed that it was incorrect example in the core.

Are you trying to say that my premise is bad? OK. Here's another. There are some Christians who believe that their god tests their faith by using snakes like in the Bible. They bring venomous snakes into church and people handle them because the preachers tell them their god will keep them safe. It killed so many of the faithful that most states made it illegal, but you can still do it in West Virginia. 

Do you think I should say nothing when I hear about someone who does this, because it's part of their faith in their god? Or do you think I should tell them it's a lie, and they are very likely to get bitten and die if they do this? What would you tell them? I'm going to guess based on past postings and say you'll be going with a fallacious response, most likely a No True Scotsman fallacy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

All right, I have no idea what you're talking about.

If some similar changes occurres to the large group of living creatures, for example living in the different parts of the world, how would you estimate these changes? And if they can't communicate? If these are animals? And trees? And I insist that changes are similar. If something happens to the group, happens to 1 also. You forget about individuality.

34 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

My evidence is the bills I get from the city, and if I get up early enough, I can actually observe garbage collectors (not gods) picking up the trash.

Here is your question. And it's not about religion or faith.

I read, that God gives a task to a man, but doesn't decide it for him, or her.

Edited by mar_mar
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Luc Turpin said:

Stuck without a paddle in high water; need to find the study.

While searching for my infamous study on bacteria reschuffling their DNA deck, I stumbled on these:

Evolution is not as random as previously thought - ScienceDaily.url

The title is interesting, the article even more. There seems to be a non-randomized process at play in evolution

These Species Can Recode Their Own Genetics.url

Squid and octopus can edit and direct their own brain genes - New Scientist.url

"Unlike other animals, cephalopods – the family that includes octopuses, squid and cuttlefish – do not obey the commands of their DNA to the letter.'

Squid and octopus can edit and direct their own brain genes - New Scientist.url

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/5/2024 at 12:11 AM, mar_mar said:

No, judgement is those white spots. And it seems like one have to accept what science says without questions.

Really?? I think this theory of evolution and a theory of bb are exactly matter of faith.

I've no idea what in the world is being said here. Could someone re-parse these sentences for me?

Edited by AIkonoklazt
Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, AIkonoklazt said:

Could someone re-parse these sentences for me?

Translated: Stupidity from time waster who shows zero signs of comprehension, good faith, and should’ve been shown the door weeks ago 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, iNow said:

Translated: Stupidity from time waster who shows zero signs of comprehension, good faith, and should’ve been shown the door weeks ago 

Oh. For a moment I got all excited because I thought the "bb" that was typed was just missing a "q". I love my beef medium rare.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, iNow said:

Translated: Stupidity from time waster who shows zero signs of comprehension, good faith, and should’ve been shown the door weeks ago 

Sir, if you so smart, could you please answer all those open questions of science

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/sep/01/20-big-questions-in-science

 

 

And I still don't understand is evolution a change or development? So simple question, why don't you answer.

 

Edited by mar_mar
Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, mar_mar said:

And I still don't understand is evolution a change or development? So simple question, why don't you answer.

You've shown that you aren't really interested in the explanations that have been put forth. Like all the other creationists before you, you mock what you don't understand, and flee from rigorous questions. Have faith that you're as ignorant now as when you showed up. Keep pouring god into those gaps in your knowledge! Wishing you all the best elsewhere.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.