And another thing!

Journal Fordiman's Journal: And another thing! 1

Journal by Fordiman on Monday March 19, 2007 @11:35AM

This is fun. Plasmoidia decided to post a reply to something I said weeks ago, just under the wire for replies. Since I can't reply there, I'm going to post my response here.

The jump from micro to macro seems a difficult problem that is rarely addressed or even differentiated. When you cannot observe something, it moves outside the realm of science. When have we observed macro-evolution?"

Hah! Attempting to differentiate between micro- and macro-evolution. There is no difference; small change*lots of time = large change.

Umm, no. First off, micro-evolution requires no real changes in DNA. It is just genetics. The strong survive to breed and pass on those traits to their offspring. Nothing more. Macro-evolution requires that new DNA be "created" somehow, so that what was animal X is now animal Y. Also, especially in biology, the whole is often more than the sum of its parts. Take the eye for instance. It would be pretty useless unless it was fully developed as it is now. Why, following the guides for evolution, would the small change that started the evolution of the eye continue, since it would be a pretty useless trait?

No real changes in DNA, huh? Wow, oh ye of little understanding of biology. As for the eye, there are plenty examples in the realm of the worls fauna of eyes that aren't quite as developed as human eyes. They're usually termed 'light-sensing organs', and they're very useful to the creatures that have them, helping them sense danger in an overly paranoid way.

If you MUST ask the question, though, ask it right: Have we observed a species diverge into two separate breeding pools that cannot breed with one another? The answer's "yes".

Oh really? Care to provide an example? But let's be careful with definitions here. Take domesticated dogs for instance. There are breeds of dogs that cannot breed with each other. Yet that does not make them not all dogs. What I'm looking for would be more like from a dog you eventually get a split such that you get dogs from one line and cats from another. Got any examples like that?

No, I don't have any examples of a dog turning into a cat, because that is absolutely not what happens, and because that shows a fundamental(ist) misunderstanding of how natural selection works.

Two breeds that can no longer breed with one another are a prime example of what I'm talking about. Sure they are all still dogs, but they're not the same species any more than a beagle is the same species as a wolf. That you classify them both as 'Dogs' is no more relevant to what their actual species is than if I were to refer to you as the species 'ignoramus fucktardius'. Doesn't make you any less human.

Over a very long period of time, one would guess this leads to a heirarchy of flora and fauna, and soo-prize, soo-prize, that's what we have.

I'm not sure what your point is here, but if you are arguing that the different forms of life that we see is evidence of evolution, that's ridiculous. I can easily explain the different forms of life by saying that God created it. It has no real significance for either argument. Why is evolution a more likely (or even likely, for that matter) explanation for the existence of life?

Simple: Please show me your god. I can give examples of natural selection and evolution, why can't you show me even an example of divine synthesis?

"I might argue that some of the greatest scientists that ever lived believed strongly in God (take Newton or Einstein for example)"

Um. Einstein was a deist at best. He had the Church all over him for telling them he was misquoted. He believed in the wonderful complexity of the universe, and referred to that as 'God', in the philosophical sense.

I didn't say Einstein was a Christian, just that he believed in God. I am certainly not old enough to have even possibly known him personally, so I cannot say for certain what he did or did not believe. From the quotes that I found, it seemed he had some belief in some sort of God. That was my point.

Ah, but you can check his writings, one of which clearly states that he "doesn't believe in a personal God". His 'God' related to a wonder for all of creation and how it worked. As I said, he was a deist at best, but he was far more evidently a full-on atheist, with a mind intelligent enough to grasp the political implications inherent with just coming out and saying it.

As for Newton; one can hardly blame a guy in the 16- and 1700's for being religious. There was little choice. Philosophically, you might say that's why atheism is becoming a 'problem' in modern times; lack of church control.

Oh, so there were no atheists back in the 16- and 1700s, huh? There is always a choice of what you believe. You might not get to believe it for long in your current state (alive), depending on where and when you lived, but you always have a choice.

Oh, I'm sure there were. But you don't hear about it, because the Church had such a stranglehold. No one would question the Faith so long as the Zealots had a good police force backing them up.

Still, especially in the field of biology, established religion and science are usually at odds. When this conflict occurs, I'm sorry but Science must win out if there is to be any progress.

Who is to say that "science" is right and "religion" is wrong? And why are they usually at odds? Most of the time they are at odds because the "scientists" don't like God so they try and look for ways around having God. That involves a lot of explaining and hand-waving (a lot of cumulative random chance) to get where we are. On the other hand, God explains things quite elegantly.

Specifically in biology, science and religion are at odds because biology has a good deal of literature which implies the non-existence, or at least, the ineffectuality of God.

As to why science wins in a disagreement, it's all about the preponderance of evidence. Science has evidence to show, while religion does not. Evidence FTW!

Besides, I could argue that origins (how did life begin) is not a topic for science.

The study of the process of evolution doesn't seek to answer the question of origin. It just implies an answer, and not really on purpose.

Is it observable? Testable? Repeatable?

Yes. Yes. Yes.

Any of those things that you learn science is in any science related class?

No idea what you're asking.

No. It is past. It has happened. It cannot be done again. All we can do is conjecture and extrapolate.

And do lab experiments. You'd be surprised how much you can change a fly, for example, by performing a little 'unnatural' selection (ie: selecting progeny).

Meanwhile, if we're to extrapolate, we must do so knowing the natural laws that governed the initial process. Science FTW again.

If you came across a partially burnt candle, how accurately do you think you could estimate the time over which it had burnt, without knowing anything beyond what you could observe about it?

Well, I could observe what wax it's made from and the composition of the wick, reproduce a similar candle, estimating the original mass by measuring how much wax is melted around its base, and burn my replica until it was in a similar position. Easy peasy. Gimme a hard one.

That's not to say that Einstein's particular breed of spirituality can't come along for the ride - that's not an established religion - but the direly ignorant rules and regulations of the God of Abraham (Judaism, Islam and Christianity) should generally be ignored in favor of a simple set of ethical rules (no making clones and killing them, stuff like that).
Umm, what? Let's get a few things straight. First, the God of Abraham is *not* the god of Islam. Read the Bible (particularly the New Testament) and compare that to the Koran. Big difference.

I've read them both, as well as Kaballah, the Vishnu, the Dao de Ching and probably any other text you could name. And I stand by my point. Islam and Christianity are branches from Judaism, and share the same old testament. They both hold the same God of Abraham, strictly speaking.

Second, what rules and regulations are you calling ignorant? Would the God that created you (and everything) not know what is best? Are you seriously calling God ignorant?

Ooh. The accusations. No, I'm not calling God ignorant. That would assume that his existence is likely. I'm calling the cloistered monks who did the editing and the eccentrics who did the gospel writing, as well as the jewish sages and kings who wrote the old testament ignorant. Intelligent and well-informed for their time, but ignorant by today's standards.

Third, if you think Christianity is just about rules and regulations you are sadly mistaken. I could see how you could get the perception, though. Sadly many "Christians" don't know what they believe or why.

Oh, it's about spirituality and prayer, and a whole bunch of other shit I have no need for. I'm quite comfortable in reality, and I really don't need some big guy looking over my shoulder that I can imagine is taking all the hard emotional hits for me. I take emotional hits pretty well all by myself.

Lastly, if there is no God and we are just the product of random chance, on what do you base any sort of "ethical rules"?

I swear I've said this before, but the only random chance would have needed to be the first self-replicating amino. After that, perhaps our path was random, but a sentient was bound to spring up eventually. That's just how natural selection works; energy input + self replication = evolution. Evolving critter + enough time = sentient critter (since sentience is, so far, the strongest form of adaptation).

As for 'ethical rules', I don't call 'em that. I call 'em morals. Morals should be based on what promotes the best social benefit, and should be generally created as rules of thumb that are easily digestible by a child (so that children can learn to act morally). Religion originally did a good job of this, but the hellfire and brimstone shit just serves to jade the perception of eternal punishment.

Especially no making clones or killing them as you suggest?

Easy. Any human clone you make has an intellect. It's against the moral 'rules of thumb' to kill anything with an intellect (since most of the members of society have them). Since the process of cloning is inherently dangerous to the clone (via mutations and such), experiments in human cloning should not proceed until, if ever, we are absolutely positive we can create a human clone without error, and we must have a path in place for integrating the clone into society, likely via adoption.

If we are just the product of evolution, would it not make sense to try to further evolution in any way to improve ourselves?

The human race has evolved by being a social animal. "Survival of the fittest", in our case, relates to our whole species, not just individuals. As a result, most of our moral rules stem from what makes the "pack", or in this digital age, "the whole of humanity", uncomfortable.

Killing people makes mankind uncomfortable - mostly because we don't like the idea that we're mortal. Cloning people makes us uncomfortable, because we value our individuality and don't like the idea that we're copyable.

You get the idea. And if you don't, I feel sorry for you; you're obviously only nice to others because you're scared of the big bearded boogeyman in the sky.

Without God, there is no *real* basis for ethics or morality.

Mmmm... that's a big jump. Are you saying that because you don't understand sociology, or because you've never looked for morality in a place other than religion?

[skipping a bit] (why do we have a conscience if it was not put there by God?)

Think about it. What happens to ancient man, travelling in small packs, if he doesn't feel remorse for hurting members of his pack? If he doesn't protect his kin?

He dies. He fails to reproduce. We, again, evolved as social animals, and there are fossil records to prove it. Is it a coincidence that our religions are all based on protecting, respecting, and encouraging the formation of family?

but who is to say that you are right and I am wrong? If there is only random chance, how is there a right and wrong in the first place?

Sorry, but you sound confused. There is a morally right and a morally wrong. Its just that, while you enjoy nice, simplistically distilled versions of them, some of us have ferreted out the reasoning behind many of the rules. I even know the origins of some of the old dietary rules, and why they no longer apply.

Out of curiosity, what would it take to convince you that God does exist (or at least to some degree)?

Ok, I'll bite. Here are my reasons for believing that the God prospect is improbable. Some of them are subjective some objective. They aren't here as things I think you should believe, but are instead things you'll need to change my mind on before I'll even reconsider the existence of God:

Infinite recursion: Any God complex enough to create the Universe must, logically have had to have been created by something else, more complex. You're going to have a hard time on this one, as I've heard the stupid, 'but he's eternal' garbage. Sorry, but that's just an easy way out. Until you can tell me the origin of God in a way that doesn't invoke a predecessing deity, this one stays.
Science contradictory to biblical 'fact': The earth was created in seven days and is 6000 years old? Noah fit every animal that presently exists, times two, on a 450-foot Ark? A thirty-something year old man replays various stories of Dionysus, Asclepius, Osiris, Horus, and Krishna, in ancient Israel, thus kicking off Christianity? Someone needed to fact-check this book a couple thousand years ago. You would need to reconcile those and a number of other biblical inconsistencies, or show me a holy book that doesn't contain them. I'd like a religion that's not vague, if you don't mind.
Pascal's Wager: Pascal's wager was, more or less, that you get the short end of the stick for being an atheist. The wording of the wager, however, gives the impression that Pascal's God valued belief more than morality. By his logic, believers are self-deceiving cowards and atheists are probablistically damned. I didn't put stock in non-benevolent Gods even when I WAS a believer once-upon a time. Give me evidence that your god values good deeds over belief, and I may care whether a God exists or not.
Natural Selection: Natural selection provides a framework by which simple life forms may beget more complex ones. This is the only process by which this is possible. It provides, by extension and very much by accident, a more explainable and concrete explanation of life's origins than a creator god. If you know of a more appropriate mechanism by which a complex being can come from a less complex being, do tell.
Prayer and God's Plan: God's supposed to drop his big Plan to carry out your prayer? Naw. If God exists he's going to do what HE wants to do, and if your prayer gets answered, fine. If not, well, sorry man, I'm carrying out my plan. Show me evidence of prayer being answered at a better than 50% rate for events with a probability of 50%, and you'll have gotten this one.
The attitude of His followers: Christians, in general, are the most self-righteous, intolerant, ignorant (in the sense of the root word, 'ignore'), closed-minded folks I've ever met. They are used to getting what they want, when they want it, as far as government is concerned, with no thought of extratheological consideration. This does not sound like the followers of a benign creator and his self-sacrificing son. This sounds like someone's spoiled-brat spawn. Mind you, as long as you're not disagreeing with them, they're fun. Try to introduce a healthy argument, though, and they get rabid. I think Christians would have to voluntarily remove 'In God We Trust' from US currency, restoring it to its pre-1950's secular state, in order for this one to be quashed.
Circular evidence. God created the earth. How do you know? It says so in the bible. Well who wrote the bible? God. How do you know? The Bible says so.... etc. This applies to ALL religions. Give me a better reason than 'It says so in the bible' for at least one biblical miracle, and you've got number seven.
I've already been through them all. Not practiced, as such, but I've read every holy book I could get my hands on. Back in my 'coming down off the religious high' period, I was compelled to find some, any religion that was 'right', that didn't have the logical fallacies Christianity thrived on. There are none. They all suffer from many of the same problems, and as a result, I can't bring myself to have faith in them. After all, if you read enough of the bible, you start to ask, "How can I have faith in such a blatant pack of lies?". You're not getting around this one, but I'm apparently capable of wagering my soul on weighted probability.
From these eight, I roughly guestimate the probability of a God at about 95% against. That's close enough for me to behave as if he doesn't exist, as it's damned likely that he doesn't.
Anything? Not that I think that I could say anything that would persuade you to change your beliefs about God. But maybe I can at least get you to think about it. Is that not what science is all about? Questioning what we think about the universe? Looking for evidence for or against a hypothesis? Weighing all the options to find the best one?
Maybe you're not getting it: Most atheists, myself definitely included, HAVE ALREADY DONE THIS. You don't break faith just by waking up and saying, 'Hey, I don't feel like believing in God today.' If it were that easy, no one would have a religion. We've asked the questions, and religion just didn't have answers we could be satisfied with. That's where atheists come from: the more curious, the more intelligent, and the more questioning ranks of the faithful.

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.