Religion

[Dan Corson]

I don't believe in deities of any kind. I pave my own path, I will rot when I die and I'm fine with that! I'll be a good person, try to make what I do when I'm here count and try to die old as dirt and with no regrets. That's enough for me! An afterlife seems redundant to me... and I don't mean that in, like, a mean or negative way! I guess I just think one life is enough.

Make the best of it because it'll definitely be gone too soon!

[Karui]

This is my longest lived thread thanks to you.
It was quite amusing to read all that.

[Darkmoon]

There is a randomness to mutation, but it's actually a very ordered process.

The initial mutation that can be passed on usually occurs at random (but mutations can be induced with chemicals called mutagens). It's usually at low frequency, and can occur at any point in the genome.
More often than not if there is a mutation, nothing happens. It occurs in DNA which doesn't code for anything, and is totally harmless.

But every now and then a mutation will disrupt a gene's coding sequence, and the gene won't function correctly.
And much much much much much more rarely, a gene will mutate in such a way that it benfits the organism in some manner.

Now, the inital mutation is random. But if you had a mechanism that allowed you to make the exact same alteration to the gene, and did it over and over and over and over again to different populations, then the responding change in the population afterwards would occur identically in each population, every time.

That's a bit abstract if you're thinking large animals, like herds of Zebra or something. But if you think with a much simpler organism like bacterium, and say you had a vial, and such a way to alter a glucose metabolising gene, that new let it metabolise glucose and galactose (a closely related molecule).
If you kept the glucose only bacteria in a vial with glucose and galactose. Then mutated one single bacterium so that it could metabolise glucose and galactose, then you would see that gene frequency increase in the exact same proportion, in any number of vials that you'd care to introduce the mutation into.

That's a VERY simplified view of what goes on. But the key point is that the initial mutation occurs at random, but what happens afterwards is predictable and reproducible, depending on where the mutation occured (be it benefical mutation, deleterious mutation, or silent mutation).

I can agree with this. The mutation itself is random, but the results predictable.

Anyway, Im going to try to involve myself less and less into this discussion. Feel free to reply, but dont be offended if I will reply in short segments. I have a habbit of turning these arguments into blazing hot ones, the 2 year old reH religion thread got pretty damn nasty.

Honestly? I've sorta lost the reason why we're debating this point. It doesn't seem terribly relevant to the topic, and I'm reaching the limit of my A-Level biology knowledge at this point. I think it's wisest to simply go with the idea that I disagree that we have a biological destiny we can't override.

[Lilith]

Well I for one am glad that this thread is doing well and staying fairly friendly so far. We should all get a medal for keeping it civil.

As stated earlier about the whole mating and instincts argument. It is true that humans choose whether or not to mate for several reasons, same as some animals do. On the other hand, humans choosing to breed for pleasure is also similar to what some animals do in nature. Pigs and dolphins are two creatures known so far to mate for pleasure. (Oh, and I'm just bringing it up so this isn't brought up as an argument for further separating humans from animals) The same thing can be witness with homosexuality. Many people attribute homosexuality as a purely human characteristic, but it is also found in nature. Flamingos have been known to form male male couples and steal eggs from other pairs to raise them.

[Member_of_STARS]

I see, I seem to getting it slightly wrong. I would disagree with the idea though. Evolution itself still strikes me as intrinsically random.

Evolution is always caused by outside stimuli. Direct or indirect. The word "random" is used because those affecting events cant be recorded for whichever reason.

Well, the idea behind this argument is that we aren't controlled by our biology. It's a factor of our behavior, not the entire story. Humans have a fear of fire by instinct, after all, and yet people can and will go into a burning building given sufficient cause.

Thats because as social beings, were often commanded by our need to help out fellow man. What at first glance appears to be a decision made ignoring all instincts is actually an instinctive decision, just different ones. For example, running into a burning house for social acceptance (look at me, Im a god damn hero). You cant simplify these things.

Well, the idea is that an animal feels a desire to mate, it acts upon that feeling, either attempting to attract a mate or taking more direct action. Humans are different, in that we way up the various pros and cons and reach a decision based on those.

As a social species, we take into consideration our own readiness as parents. What you see as a logical, instinct-ignoring decision to not to mate because of whatever reasons, is actually an instinctive decision to not to mate. The problem here is that were also having sex for pleasure, so you need to separate these two. Just like a moose will not mate if a year is rough, people wont choose to mate because they arent ready. Its a similar process, just infinitely more complex.

No, I'm saying it's a non-beneficial mutation. Which is exactly the same as beneficial mutation which would lead to evolution, only horrible. And by the theory of evolution, those children are far less likely to reach adulthood and breed to pass on those mutations, right? Whereas if one of them was born to be seven foot superman with a sexual magnetism they would be more likely to breed and pass on those characteristics. Sadly, that didn't happen. Mutation is far too often horrible.

Summing up two paragraps- individual mutations, while being the cornerstone of evolution are a subject to stimuli just as much as evolution in the wider sense (species splintering depending on their habitat). So far, the experiments which are created to prove evolution theory (bacteria, even insects) have all taken place by exposing the subjects to drastic changes in their environment. To give you a blunt example, our feet and hands havent developed randomly to accomodate for better walking and more efficient use of tools. Its the walking and tools which changed us. If you apply reason to ethnic groups and their geographical heritage, youll see that the reason were all different is because the outside environment has shaped us this way.

Possibly. I don't feel we would be classified as animals, since I feel humans can operate against there base biological instincts.

See Maslows Pyramid for reference. Since were more complex, were governed by much bigger variety of instincts.

No animal, for example, commits suicide as it reduces the species as a wholes chance to succeed.

This would be completely true if we didnt feel fear and instincts kicking in to keep us from taking our lives. Youre not shutting anything out, the process is still taking place. It seems as if youre claiming suicide is a result of cold and calculated reasoning. In vast majority of cases, its not, and they can easily be tied to social issues (which in turn can be tied to our basic needs).

There's no proof, one way or the other. Just possibilities and arguments and theories. It wouldn't be faith if we knew.

The problem with faith is that theres less and less room for superstition. The fact that we can explain throughly and in detail how a person becomes religious, should make anyone doubt in their beliefs.

What can I say? I have help from above...a spell checker built into my browser. Also, the lord smaketh the unbeliever's spelling. Just for a laugh.

Haha, Im not talking about spelling. It seems like Ive hit a mental block.

Anyway, Im going to try to involve myself less and less into this discussion. Feel free to reply, but dont be offended if I will reply in short segments. I have a habbit of turning these arguments into blazing hot ones, the 2 year old reH religion thread got pretty damn nasty.

[TheSelfishGene]

There is a randomness to mutation, but it's actually a very ordered process.

The initial mutation that can be passed on usually occurs at random (but mutations can be induced with chemicals called mutagens). It's usually at low frequency, and can occur at any point in the genome.
More often than not if there is a mutation, nothing happens. It occurs in DNA which doesn't code for anything, and is totally harmless.

But every now and then a mutation will disrupt a gene's coding sequence, and the gene won't function correctly.
And much much much much much more rarely, a gene will mutate in such a way that it benfits the organism in some manner.

Now, the inital mutation is random. But if you had a mechanism that allowed you to make the exact same alteration to the gene, and did it over and over and over and over again to different populations, then the responding change in the population afterwards would occur identically in each population, every time.

That's a bit abstract if you're thinking large animals, like herds of Zebra or something. But if you think with a much simpler organism like bacterium, and say you had a vial, and such a way to alter a glucose metabolising gene, that new let it metabolise glucose and galactose (a closely related molecule).
If you kept the glucose only bacteria in a vial with glucose and galactose. Then mutated one single bacterium so that it could metabolise glucose and galactose, then you would see that gene frequency increase in the exact same proportion, in any number of vials that you'd care to introduce the mutation into.

That's a VERY simplified view of what goes on. But the key point is that the initial mutation occurs at random, but what happens afterwards is predictable and reproducible, depending on where the mutation occured (be it benefical mutation, deleterious mutation, or silent mutation).

[Darkmoon]

Yes and yes. I think. I may be slightly lost.

[Karui]

What exactly are you two arguing? Religion or validity of evolution?

[Darkmoon]

Im not calling you ignorant. However, if you believe that you fall into a category where you would rather follow blind faith and superstition than geniuine curiosity, then perhaps you are. But Id say thats very unlikely.

Fair enough. Obviously, I question things. A lot. It's how I was trained.

You dont understand the theory. Like I said, the theory doesnt state that everything is predetermined. The theory merely states that nothing is random. Theres noone or nothing writing down events which will unfold, you shouldnt compare the theory to religion.

I see, I seem to getting it slightly wrong. I would disagree with the idea though. Evolution itself still strikes me as intrinsically random.

No we dont. You cant compare a human being to an animal, while claiming that on basic and biological level we are all destined and forced to breed and that every time we dont, we "act against our biology". Cows are not using MacBooks. Our breeding is influenced the same way others species are. The whole biological aspect, instincts and the whole shabang is completely different for humans, and as a matter of fact- we are acting completely inline with our instincts. Considering that it takes up to 13-15 years to raise an offspring, considerably smaller breeding frequency is perfectly normal. Social aspect of breeding is not going against ones nature.

Well, the idea behind this argument is that we aren't controlled by our biology. It's a factor of our behavior, not the entire story. Humans have a fear of fire by instinct, after all, and yet people can and will go into a burning building given sufficient cause.

What are you trying to prove here? That our behaviour is influenced by social (macro) and biological (micro) factors? Youre merely proving the "cause->effect" theory. It doesnt really help your will/instinct separation argument either. Our social stimuli to breeding can easily be compared to food shortages being connected to wild hares reduced breeding. Its exactly the same thing, its just more complex.

Well, the idea is that an animal feels a desire to mate, it acts upon that feeling, either attempting to attract a mate or taking more direct action. Humans are different, in that we way up the various pros and cons and reach a decision based on those.

Show me one species which developed in a way which killed them off entirely. Theres nothing random about evolution when its proven that species adapt to surrounding environment (or rather the changes the species goes through to adapt). Skin colour, eye colour- nothing random about it.

Well, that would go completely against evolution, wouldn't it? The idea is that the beneficial mutations give them an edge that allows them to secure more food or survive and are more likely to breed, whereas a mutation that has a negative effect would make that member of a species less likely to survive to breed and pass on it's mutation. Saying that, I do believe several species adapted to such a specific extent that a small change in environment caused them drastic problems. I'm not sure if any of them have died or not though.

You know, this is like saying that the children who were born after the Chernobyl accident are "a failure in evolution".

No, I'm saying it's a non-beneficial mutation. Which is exactly the same as beneficial mutation which would lead to evolution, only horrible. And by the theory of evolution, those children are far less likely to reach adulthood and breed to pass on those mutations, right? Whereas if one of them was born to be seven foot superman with a sexual magnetism they would be more likely to breed and pass on those characteristics. Sadly, that didn't happen. Mutation is far too often horrible.

The problem here is that we are animals. Even your choice to believe in a soul has been perfectly explained as a phenomenon where an observer cannot observe himself so he separates himself (soul) from the observed event (body).

Possibly. I don't feel we would be classified as animals, since I feel humans can operate against there base biological instincts. No animal, for example, commits suicide as it reduces the species as a wholes chance to succeed. No, lemmings don't actually jump off cliffs. If the population gets too large, predators and starvation bring it back inline. No animal gets depressed and goes find a trap to stick it's head in. At least, I'm not aware of any of them.

But that's my personal opinion, rather than a hard act.

Thats not proof of our divine origin.

There's no proof, one way or the other. Just possibilities and arguments and theories. It wouldn't be faith if we knew.

[EDIT] Hot damn, my English really sucks here, but somehow I find it difficult to formulate my thoughts. Youre having some outside help, Darkmoon...

What can I say? I have help from above...a spell checker built into my browser. Also, the lord smaketh the unbeliever's spelling. Just for a laugh.

[REmaster]

"God is good. God is great. I am hungry. Let me stuff my face."
- 'G r a c e' at 2009 Thanksgiving dinner, spoken by yours truly. Now that's what I call religion.

Hmm, that strongly resembles my thankgiving lol.

[Lilith]

I'm so happy this thread hasn't erupted into giant outbursts yet!

As far as evolution goes, I do think its a legitimate idea and theory. To me science and evolution can go hand in hand with some aspects of religion. If one is religious, who's to say that how scientists say things happen isn't how God made it? Example of both going together to me is:

The Big Bang happened, but that's just how God started creating the universe. 'Days' in the bible in reality were actually billions of years and just described like that so earlier man could comprehend the story.

[Member_of_STARS]

Mmm, I'd disagree. For a start, I do wish you'd stop refering to me as ignorant because of my beliefs. Simply put, though, I feel that a chemicle and physics explanation simply doesn't work. Not when it gets to people, as you yourself point out.

Im not calling you ignorant. However, if you believe that you fall into a category where you would rather follow blind faith and superstition than geniuine curiosity, then perhaps you are. But Id say thats very unlikely.

It is possible that in the moment of the Big Bang the life span of Stars and Galaxies were pre-determined, but people were not.

You dont understand the theory. Like I said, the theory doesnt state that everything is predetermined. The theory merely states that nothing is random. Theres noone or nothing writing down events which will unfold, you shouldnt compare the theory to religion.

We act too often against our own nature, against our own biology.

No we dont. You cant compare a human being to an animal, while claiming that on basic and biological level we are all destined and forced to breed and that every time we dont, we "act against our biology". Cows are not using MacBooks. Our breeding is influenced the same way others species are. The whole biological aspect, instincts and the whole shabang is completely different for humans, and as a matter of fact- we are acting completely inline with our instincts. Considering that it takes up to 13-15 years to raise an offspring, considerably smaller breeding frequency is perfectly normal. Social aspect of breeding is not going against ones nature.

It's a biological instinct to breed, for example, an inbuilt desire inherent in all humans. And yet many people decide to overide that for a variety of reasons. The chemicle desire is there, but human will has refused it.

Human will is exactly the same chemical/electrical impulse which compels us to breed and is actually natures own way to limit breeding when circumstances are not favouring the decision. You can use speculation to come to any conclusion, but instincts tend to regulate all species breeding habbits and its perfectly normal for humans to breed less. Its just more complicated.

Equally, we feel lust but the saner among us don't act on it automatically. There are layers of social concepts that are an equal influence on our actions, along with our biology and our own personality.

What are you trying to prove here? That our behaviour is influenced by social (macro) and biological (micro) factors? Youre merely proving the "cause->effect" theory. It doesnt really help your will/instinct separation argument either. Our social stimuli to breeding can easily be compared to food shortages being connected to wild hares reduced breeding. Its exactly the same thing, its just more complex.

Well, I'd certainly disagree with this. Evoloution is entirely trial and error.

Show me one species which developed in a way which killed them off entirely. Theres nothing random about evolution when its proven that species adapt to surrounding environment (or rather the changes the species goes through to adapt). Skin colour, eye colour- nothing random about it.

One leg instead of two. Albinoism. Blindness. It's rare that one will achieve a positive result and go on to breed more succesfully than the standard members of it's species.

You know, this is like saying that the children who were born after the Chernobyl accident are "a failure in evolution".

I certainly disagree with the idea that biology is the only reason for our choices. With animals, maybe. With people?

The problem here is that we are animals. Even your choice to believe in a soul has been perfectly explained as a phenomenon where an observer cannot observe himself so he separates himself (soul) from the observed event (body).

As I've pointed out, we act against our own body too often.

Thats not proof of our divine origin.

[EDIT] Hot damn, my English really sucks here, but somehow I find it difficult to formulate my thoughts. Youre having some outside help, Darkmoon...

[Vector]

"God is good. God is great. I am hungry. Let me stuff my face."
- 'G r a c e' at 2009 Thanksgiving dinner, spoken by yours truly. Now that's what I call religion.

[Darkmoon]

Its not unlikely, it makes perfect sense. Im not talking about a piece of literature being written, describing which events will take place during the next 20 billion years. Thats religion, thats ignorant people trying to make sense of a situation they are (yet, or at all) unable to comprehend. Im talking about a simple concept, where pretty much every event today, can be seen as a direct consequence to events predating it (leading to it) and this chain pretty much goes on and on to the Big Bang. The theory isnt about events on macro-level (people, events, days, nights, whatever), but shit going on on subatomic levels. Its just the scale and ammount of these events is so vast, that its just better to call it "random". Heres your own example-

Mmm, I'd disagree. For a start, I do wish you'd stop refering to me as ignorant because of my beliefs. Simply put, though, I feel that a chemicle and physics explanation simply doesn't work. Not when it gets to people, as you yourself point out.

It is possible that in the moment of the Big Bang the life span of Stars and Galaxies were pre-determined, but people were not. However, I must point out, religious folks believe the same thing. They simply believe there was a guiding will to the event rather the ratios of chemicles and forces involved being in the correct ratios for this event and that

Human beings are EXTREMELY predictable on simple behavioural level. Utilization of body language to push people in certain subconscious ways directly proves just how simple people are (on macro level). Theres nothing chaotic about those chemical reactions either (micro level), every reaction has been/was/is started because certain reactions or events predated it (lead to it). Those reactions are directly influenced by what you eat and what youre doing, aswell as hormones, which are directly influenced by outside stimuli. Its basically an all-encompassing system of cause and effect.

We act too often against our own nature, against our own biology. It's a biological instinct to breed, for example, an inbuilt desire inherent in all humans. And yet many people decide to overide that for a variety of reasons. The chemicle desire is there, but human will has refused it. Equally, we feel lust but the saner among us don't act on it automatically. There are layers of social concepts that are an equal influence on our actions, along with our biology and our own personality.

Random is not the keyword, youre really ignoring the context here. There is nothing random about wildlife adapting to either changing/changed environment or to competition. Mutation isnt random, and thats what evolution can be seen. If evolution was truly random, we wouldnt be more advanced than our ancestors. We would merely be different.

Well, I'd certainly disagree with this. Evoloution is entirely trial and error. For everyone success story that improves a species a vast number of failed mutations result in an animal with less survival chances. One leg instead of two. Albinoism. Blindness. It's rare that one will achieve a positive result and go on to breed more succesfully than the standard members of it's species.

The theory of "cosmic destiny" has nothing to do with religion, or the ignorant concepts of deitys and whatnot. Its just a theory about nothing being random, everything to be able to be backtracked to one single event. Pretty much how causality governs our lives. Its quite difficult to accept that by the end of the day, while our choices may feel ours, they are an inescapable result of events leading up to them.

Honestly? I don't mean to be insulting, but the whole theory smacks to me of, well, God without God. That everything is a tightly controlled series of events, pre-destined from the moment time began in an unknown way. I certainly disagree with the idea that biology is the only reason for our choices. With animals, maybe. With people? As I've pointed out, we act against our own body too often.

[Member_of_STARS]

Well, the idea that everything is predestined at the moment of the Big Bang is, I suppose, possible. But unlikely.

Its not unlikely, it makes perfect sense. Im not talking about a piece of literature being written, describing which events will take place during the next 20 billion years. Thats religion, thats ignorant people trying to make sense of a situation they are (yet, or at all) unable to comprehend. Im talking about a simple concept, where pretty much every event today, can be seen as a direct consequence to events predating it (leading to it) and this chain pretty much goes on and on to the Big Bang. The theory isnt about events on macro-level (people, events, days, nights, whatever), but shit going on on subatomic levels. Its just the scale and ammount of these events is so vast, that its just better to call it "random". Heres your own example-

Human beings are too chaotic for a simple chemical reaction to explain

Human beings are EXTREMELY predictable on simple behavioural level. Utilization of body language to push people in certain subconscious ways directly proves just how simple people are (on macro level). Theres nothing chaotic about those chemical reactions either (micro level), every reaction has been/was/is started because certain reactions or events predated it (lead to it). Those reactions are directly influenced by what you eat and what youre doing, aswell as hormones, which are directly influenced by outside stimuli. Its basically an all-encompassing system of cause and effect.

and evolution itself is based heavily on the idea that a random mutation

Random is not the keyword, youre really ignoring the context here. There is nothing random about wildlife adapting to either changing/changed environment or to competition. Mutation isnt random, and thats what evolution can be seen. If evolution was truly random, we wouldnt be more advanced than our ancestors. We would merely be different.

such as a longer beak, gives a certain advantage and therefore more of those birds survive to breed, exacerbating the trait.

Which exactly why its not random. The flaws, lacks leading up to adaptation on macro-level is happening on micro-level aswell.

The theory of "cosmic destiny" has nothing to do with religion, or the ignorant concepts of deitys and whatnot. Its just a theory about nothing being random, everything to be able to be backtracked to one single event. Pretty much how causality governs our lives. Its quite difficult to accept that by the end of the day, while our choices may feel ours, they are an inescapable result of events leading up to them.