Here is the problem. Once you accept something on faith, inquiry ends. For Christians, research stops there.
Yes once you accept something on faith in science, you fail but that's not a complete loss. Just look at the atomic model. Your admittance of failure means you know you still have a ways to go, and you may find that with a little more work, you wont need to work on faith anymore.
Wittgenstein's name is pronounced Vit-gen-stine, dummy! And what does God stand on?
Science is not based on faith. It is based on scientific method, which is really just a codification of common sense. State a hypothesis. Do an experiment to test it. Publish your work and let others reproduce the result. Does anyone have a better way of establishing truth?
@mpcohenYou Thing is, the guy spent like 3 minutes telling us that science doesn't involve faith, that Christianity is superior because it has faith, and then he turns around and says they're both faith based. It's typical double speak.
What a lot of claptrap. There's no bottom turtle because there's no turtle at all. Just like the earth rests upon nothing, science isn't tethered to an ultimate 'truth.' Some people find that frightening. Some people confusedly call the limits of our knowledge a barrier. It's not a barrier. It's a shoreline. Science is always building boats to set sail from the shore. But enough of my own bad poetic claptrap :)
I disagree. Science may tend to favor the idea that an objective reality exists, but this is simply because all of the evidence supports that particular model of the universe. If evidence presented itself that suggested the existence of subjective reality, or something beyond the naturalistic world, that would simply be another avenue of scientific pursuit. The fact that there is no evidence to support this assertion is not a failing of naturalism, it is a failing of supernaturalism.
What you said is partially true, but that is precisely where all mature believers will take exception. Nothing believed by a mature believer is believed for its own sake, but because of foregoing evidence and personal experience that seems to confirm the beliefs. In this way it's the same as science. The idea that leading Christians and true seekers arrived at beliefs point-blank or simply because they were "told to believe that way" is just wrong. All miracles are observed.
Physical reality is something we all assume. Taciltly assumed if you wake up, walk around and assume cereal is going to be in the kitchen, and you will be able to cross the street without worrying about gravity. This is practical knowledge, absolute knowledge is impossible. It is meaningless, no discourse is possible if you discount all forms of knowing. Science is different than christianity, since anyone in the world can use it. Scientists admit they have faith that reality exists.
Religionist: "I don't know A, but I am likely not meant to know A, so I should stop looking"
Note that, even if the latter is ultimately correct, he will never actually know it as a fact. And if the latter is wrong, having already stopped inquiry, he has confirmed his erroneous position to himself through his act, essentially believing a self-fulfilling prophecy.
@Cafeeine It is a logical fallacy to argue that people that believe in God do not want to know answers. Faith and Science go hand in hand it is required in Science to believe the conclusions of other scientists based on evidence. This is the definition of faith to believe the unseen based on evidence that are seen. (Heb 11:1) No person is without bias however and often the existing axiom is what decide if the scientist have a preconceived underlying faith, be it in God or in Atheism.
@Mekelsior Its a good thing I didn't argue that then. What I said was, when faced with the unknown, the religionist will assign their supernatural agent of choice an intent behind the mystery. The problem with this, other than the lack of justification, is that it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Faith, in the biblical sense, does not speak of 'evidence that is seen', but even if it did, it still doesn't apply to science. (cont.)
@Cafeeine (ct'd) In science, what matters is that discoveries sre testable and repeatable. Claims that fail to meet that criteria are treated as speculation or hypotheses awaiting testing. There is no testability to faith. If claim A is believed on faith, and there's evidence that contradicts A, it will be deemed wrong, or at best a mystery, but will never lessen the faithful's faith in A. For some, this intractability is even seen as a sign of righteousness, but is deeply anti-science.
@Cafeeine Science does apply faith for there are limits to what we can find out. Faith can be tested very well. I believe the Sun will rise in the morning, it is tested and my faith in it is increasing every day I see the Sun rise in the morning. I suggest going to a web page called DetectingDesignDOTCom and see why I believe in God and in Creation contra the theory of evolution. You may also see that your thoughts on how testing and falsification works in real life is a bit naive.
@Mekelsior That is a different definition of faith than religious faith. You believe the sun rises because of the evidence that it does. Your faith is that you trust that evidence, because of its reliability. Religious faith purports to be evidence in itself, even when there isn't any additional evidence and even in the face of contradicting evidence. Completely different animal.
@Cafeeine I don't agree with you, my faith is based on evidence that is supported by science, by history, by observation and by personal experience. It is also supported by history when comparing prophecy to historical events that have taken place. The book of Daniel comes to mind as it clearly reveals a Divine Presence as the Prophecies have come true and the world is forming exactly as the Bible predicts it.
@Mekelsior I don't know your particular beliefs, but other theists I've had make the same claim were proven to eventually use "faith" to massage the facts, justify confirmation biases and interpret, then overvalue their personal subjective experiences. Based on that experience. I'm extremely skeptical of your claims, especially when you base it on "prophecies", notoriously pliable to interpretation.
@Cafeeine My faith is the same as this gentleman that is speaking in this video. My faith is supported by strong evidence or I would not be here. I may not be able to communicate everything as well as some but I do not believe bad communication skills are good reason to abandon what I do believe and know to be true. There are some elements that have an element of uncertainty but that is true about every conclusion that humanity have made and will make in the future.
@Cafeeine Prophecies are only part of the base of why I believe what I believe. We can go to science and open up the discussion on evolution and why it is inadeqate to answer the question of variation and the organisms that we have today. We can touch on the theory of biogenesis and discuss the observed fact that only Life begets Life. I can direct you to Sean Pitman who have made an excellent webpage that explain all this evidence much better than what I can communicate in Youtube. :)
@Mekelsior Whether evolution is viable or not is a scientific question. But assuming evolution was completely false, that doesn't lend any validity to the claims of religionists. For example, you bring up the fact that we only observe life to come from life, yet its also an observed fact that life as we know it is an emergent property of matter. Do you think your god is material (doubtful, if you're Xian) or do you have any justification for thinking 'immaterial life' is an intelligible concept?
@Cafeeine It is not an assumption of mine that evolution is false but a conclusion based on the evidence I have processed. My faith is based on evidence that I have investigated and accepted, of course there are parts that I cannot prove but that is acceptable as well, science is like this also so there is no difference really.
Life is not matter, Life makes matter alive. We do not know what Life is yet, we can have all the molecules needed, ie a corpse but without life it will remain a corpse
@Mekelsior My point was the validity of evolution is inconsequential to the reality of christian beliefs without positive arguments in favor.
I never said life was matter, I said life was an emergent property of matter, the same way wetness is an emergent property of water, but water isn't wetness.
Note the assumptions inherent in your statements: that life is a causative agent on matter rather than a property of certain types of matter.
@Mekelsior A replicating conscious or unconscious thing that does not replicate perfectly all the time in every generation, provided its chance of replication is based on its structure, Will improve over a large number of generations. This can be proven mathematically and is used in artificial intelligence in computer science with fantastic results. Do you agree?
@bradkey98765 If what you say is correct it would still not be viable as evidence in real life for the simple reason that it has to be programmed by a designer, you cannot create a random generator and let it create random code and expect it to become a product of usable information. In realty there is no true random only perceived random, as such if there is no true random then the entire theory fails.
@Mekelsior To me it is proven that life fit these criteria as such evolution is true to me, DNA does not replicate perfectly all the time for better or for worse, positive effecting mutations include African women recently found to be immune to aids, observations of viruses/bacteria and many more, Chance of offspring can be based on structure(as in structures that can be passed on, not diet for example) is true, ie African women immune to aids have a higher probability for higher offspring.
@bradkey98765 The theory of evolution is simply an explaination of what we observe around us, it is not the only explaination however and as such does not have any more merit than any other explaination, this is on face value of course. If we look closely at the paradigms and the assumptions that must be accepted on blind faith then the theory of evolution is more similar to a faith system than a scientific theory. This is not my thoughts but supported by several philosophers, ie Karl Popper.
@bradkey98765 How can you be sure women immune to AIDS or HIV are a result of evolution? Do we know enough about this virus at all to be able to state this as conclusive? In fact if it could be evolution then it could as well be devolution, as in they have a genetic defect that makes it impossible for the HIV to infect the host. Another solution could be diet based that certain type of food inhibit the virus so that it has no effect. I do not believe we know enough to state this conclusive.
@Mekelsior Well we know that it is a mutation in the CCR - 5 receptor gene that makes it impossible for foreign bodies, such as viruses, to enter human lymphocytes. This was simply the first example of a positive effecting DNA mutation I could think of at the time. This isn't "down to evolution" it's just an example of a positive DNA mutation, since such mutations exist evolution simply says positive mutations over a large period of time will accumulate from a series of natural selection
@Mekelsior What do you disbelieve about evolution, is it that you do not believe positive mutations exist, or is it that you find it unreasonable to believe genetics play a part in whether a living to have offspring/replicate. Because if you believed in the two sentences above you'd find that evolution is a certainty.
@bradkey98765 Let's analyze what you are saying: are you saying that the continuous breeding of a certain species over time will ultimately create a new species? This has been disproven consistently by breeders. Think of the millions of generations of fruit flies that have been bred in laboratories. They've been zapped with all kinds of things to help them change. So far, no beneficial mutations have been noticed. And they are still fruit flies. Billions of years is just not enough
@MrJmartin05 I'm not sure how long people have been breeding fruit flies, but I am fairly confident that it is less than 1000 years, so if man had been breeding fruitflies for 1000 years this would be 0.0000026% of the time of life on earth, so in less than a third of a millionth of the time life has been around we have recorded many mutations in fruit flies, such as headshape, eyecolour, colour, number of limbs, etc. In 3 million times the sample size mutation numbers will have 3 Megadrupled
@MrJmartin05 One simple thing you need to realise is that a billion years is unimaginably large. But I'm glad since if the only problem you have with what I am saying is timescale then I must conclude you believe that evolution is happening right now, albeit slowly. As for "no beneficial mutations have been noticed." you should realise that "beneficial" is down to environment, and things like head shape, eye colour, body colour are beneficial given the right envirement environment.
@MrJmartin05 After doing some math I've made a simple analogy. If you had a timeline where each millimetre represented a year, the timeline of life on earth would stretch the entire circumference of the earth, the time we have been breeding fruit flies would be much much less than a footstep.And you are telling me from this footstep and not seeing a mountain or a desert or a glacier or an ocean, that none of these things exist, even though in this footstep you have seen some evidence for these.
@bradkey98765 I think you missed the point of my argument. Fruit flies have a very short reproductive cycle of a few days. Whereas humans have a reproductive cycle of 20 years. Fruit flies allow us to see the degree of beneficial mutations we should expect after breeding human beings or other large species after millions of years. What we have found is that even millions of generations have been insufficient to produce a new fly. Extrapolate that to creatures with longer cycles: problem.
@MrJmartin05 After doing some much needed research, Drosophila melanogaster (common fruit fly) was first experimentally bred in 1901, the first mutated fruit fly was discovered in 1910 by Thomas Hunt Morgan. However it should be noted that any mutation found in this time was going to be a clearly visible one; hence why the mutation found was eye colour.
@MrJmartin05 The fruit fly takes 2 days to fully develop and then breed; they reproduce approximately 3650 times faster than humans, however have around 18 times less DNA, As such the data collection rate for fruit flies is 200 times faster than human, the 1 visual mutation found in 9 years , of a population of fruit flies conveniently close to that of humans, Implies 1 visual mutation in humans every 1800 years, or 1000 visual mutations to go from homo habilis to homosapiens.
@MrJmartin05 However all of this does have to be applied extremely cautiously as too many assumptions are made, I for one believe that the rate of positive mutations overtime for a species in a non changing environment will decrease as when a positive mutation is added there are less positive mutations that can be added. As such "positive" mutation rate today cannot be applied over billions or even millions of years.
@MrJmartin05 And even if you do so it is far less unreasonable than you claim, fruit fly studies do not indicate problems with life of much greater life spans, I will continue to study this and if it showed otherwise I would have rethought everything I "know" about evolution, Since I’ve typed too much already for your point on haemoglobin may I redirect you to dhbailey dot com / papers / dhb-probability . pdf Which says almost everything I would have on the matter.
@bradkey98765 thank you, will be sure to check it out. Here's an interesting creationist one on the question. It's the best I've read detecting design dot com . Click on the essay with the same name.
@Mekelsior My example of computer code and mathematics was to simply say that given 3 pieces of criteria, the existence of a replicating entity, possibilities of replication to be not perfect and replication being somewhat derived by the entities structure, evolution is inevitable. In the real world replicating entities do exist, replication is not perfect and replication is based on structure, e.g. every living thing born with a negative defect DNA that causes a fast death will not reproduce
@Mekelsior If I believed in god I would tell you this, you are missing out on one of his greatest ideas and primary tools he used in the creation of all life in the universe. And I may have to make it my goal to show everyone in your position mathematically with very small criteria evolution is inevitable and that life meets these criteria. The hardest part will be cutting it down into chunks understandable to all but I think I'll manage.
@bradkey98765 I do not agree with you that the theory of evolution is beautiful, it is an extremely cruel system that pay no mind to anything worthy. It is a very crude concept that have little to no evidence to support it other than sophistry. Even mathmatics are against the theory, I can give you an example. The odds of Hemaglobin to form is 1 to 547! (if my mind serves me correct).
@Cafeeine You have a comment here where you state that the latter position was ultimatly true, that the religionist would not want to know all the answers but would stop as they would argue that they are not supposed to know. Now there may be things that we are unable to know and simply cannot know, for example I cannot know the thoughts of God as I'm a human, or what the thoughts are of the ant, if they have any. So there are clearly limits to what we can find out.
@Mekelsior It is very plausible, and indeed most probable that there are things we'll never know. However you present this as an article of faith, while I present it as an observation. Observations can in principle be overturned. You're dealing in ex cathedra assertions, I'm observing what people do.
@Cafeeine Observations can either increase your faith or it can shatter it. Why do you believe that all faith when it comes to religion is blind when it is very possible to have a religious faith based on observations and the conclusions that you draw based on what you observe?
@Mekelsior It is perfectly possible for a religious person to have a degree of certainty for something based on evidence. Religious faith is offered (by believers, I'm not making this up) as evidence itself. This is what I was referring to. If you have a problem with those "faithful", if you have actual evidence for your beliefs instead, take it up with them. However, I suspect that if your evidence was ever shut down, you'd also fall back to the same self-affirming "faith".
@Cafeeine To state that you believe in something cannot be used as evidence for whatever you believe in, as it is just a statement. The people that does use faith as evidence for faith would quallify as having a blind faith that is not based on real evidence. If you could demonstrate to me that my faith is wrong then I will adjust it or I would also be in the position of having a blind faith that is not based on evidence.
@Mekelsior That there are religionists who act in the way I described is not in question, so you're not disagreeing with me there. When I made my comment here (over two years ago) I did not have Mekelsior in mind, but the rough consensus of believers I've read or discussed with. If you do care to know my opinion on your specific beliefs and how blind or not they are (although I don't see why you would) feel free to pm them to me.
Eloquently spoken. I ironically have a problem with one of your own assumptions. Your claim is that science and religion are both faith based, and in a way that is true. However the vast difference is that science strives to have as few assumptions as possible, while religion thrives on assumptions supported by faith. Science does not place faith at the end of its knowledge, it places the next goal. Religions will stop at an arbitrary point &then imagine reaching the final goal. Quite different.
Here is the problem. Once you accept something on faith, inquiry ends. For Christians, research stops there.
Yes once you accept something on faith in science, you fail but that's not a complete loss. Just look at the atomic model. Your admittance of failure means you know you still have a ways to go, and you may find that with a little more work, you wont need to work on faith anymore.
MaestroAlvis 3 months ago
Wittgenstein's name is pronounced Vit-gen-stine, dummy! And what does God stand on?
Science is not based on faith. It is based on scientific method, which is really just a codification of common sense. State a hypothesis. Do an experiment to test it. Publish your work and let others reproduce the result. Does anyone have a better way of establishing truth?
mpcohenYou 8 months ago
@mpcohenYou Thing is, the guy spent like 3 minutes telling us that science doesn't involve faith, that Christianity is superior because it has faith, and then he turns around and says they're both faith based. It's typical double speak.
luccaskunk 2 months ago
This starts way too epic XD
rockdoesntdie 1 year ago
What a lot of claptrap. There's no bottom turtle because there's no turtle at all. Just like the earth rests upon nothing, science isn't tethered to an ultimate 'truth.' Some people find that frightening. Some people confusedly call the limits of our knowledge a barrier. It's not a barrier. It's a shoreline. Science is always building boats to set sail from the shore. But enough of my own bad poetic claptrap :)
DavidPirtle 1 year ago 2
@DavidPirtle For poetic claptrap, its not half bad ;)
Cafeeine 1 year ago
Pseudo-intellectual, anti-science nonsense.
heathdwatts 1 year ago
i think ur talking shite
legendryme 3 years ago
I disagree. Science may tend to favor the idea that an objective reality exists, but this is simply because all of the evidence supports that particular model of the universe. If evidence presented itself that suggested the existence of subjective reality, or something beyond the naturalistic world, that would simply be another avenue of scientific pursuit. The fact that there is no evidence to support this assertion is not a failing of naturalism, it is a failing of supernaturalism.
jben2north 3 years ago
What you said is partially true, but that is precisely where all mature believers will take exception. Nothing believed by a mature believer is believed for its own sake, but because of foregoing evidence and personal experience that seems to confirm the beliefs. In this way it's the same as science. The idea that leading Christians and true seekers arrived at beliefs point-blank or simply because they were "told to believe that way" is just wrong. All miracles are observed.
sodiumpowered 2 years ago
Great video!
hitterbrehm 3 years ago
Physical reality is something we all assume. Taciltly assumed if you wake up, walk around and assume cereal is going to be in the kitchen, and you will be able to cross the street without worrying about gravity. This is practical knowledge, absolute knowledge is impossible. It is meaningless, no discourse is possible if you discount all forms of knowing. Science is different than christianity, since anyone in the world can use it. Scientists admit they have faith that reality exists.
Chibling 3 years ago
A faster way to iterate your argument would be:
Scientist: "I don't know A so I will research it"
Religionist: "I don't know A, but I am likely not meant to know A, so I should stop looking"
Note that, even if the latter is ultimately correct, he will never actually know it as a fact. And if the latter is wrong, having already stopped inquiry, he has confirmed his erroneous position to himself through his act, essentially believing a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Cafeeine 3 years ago 2
@Cafeeine It is a logical fallacy to argue that people that believe in God do not want to know answers. Faith and Science go hand in hand it is required in Science to believe the conclusions of other scientists based on evidence. This is the definition of faith to believe the unseen based on evidence that are seen. (Heb 11:1) No person is without bias however and often the existing axiom is what decide if the scientist have a preconceived underlying faith, be it in God or in Atheism.
Mekelsior 1 year ago
@Mekelsior Its a good thing I didn't argue that then. What I said was, when faced with the unknown, the religionist will assign their supernatural agent of choice an intent behind the mystery. The problem with this, other than the lack of justification, is that it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Faith, in the biblical sense, does not speak of 'evidence that is seen', but even if it did, it still doesn't apply to science. (cont.)
Cafeeine 1 year ago
@Cafeeine (ct'd) In science, what matters is that discoveries sre testable and repeatable. Claims that fail to meet that criteria are treated as speculation or hypotheses awaiting testing. There is no testability to faith. If claim A is believed on faith, and there's evidence that contradicts A, it will be deemed wrong, or at best a mystery, but will never lessen the faithful's faith in A. For some, this intractability is even seen as a sign of righteousness, but is deeply anti-science.
Cafeeine 1 year ago
@Cafeeine Science does apply faith for there are limits to what we can find out. Faith can be tested very well. I believe the Sun will rise in the morning, it is tested and my faith in it is increasing every day I see the Sun rise in the morning. I suggest going to a web page called DetectingDesignDOTCom and see why I believe in God and in Creation contra the theory of evolution. You may also see that your thoughts on how testing and falsification works in real life is a bit naive.
Mekelsior 1 year ago
@Mekelsior That is a different definition of faith than religious faith. You believe the sun rises because of the evidence that it does. Your faith is that you trust that evidence, because of its reliability. Religious faith purports to be evidence in itself, even when there isn't any additional evidence and even in the face of contradicting evidence. Completely different animal.
Cafeeine 1 year ago
@Cafeeine I don't agree with you, my faith is based on evidence that is supported by science, by history, by observation and by personal experience. It is also supported by history when comparing prophecy to historical events that have taken place. The book of Daniel comes to mind as it clearly reveals a Divine Presence as the Prophecies have come true and the world is forming exactly as the Bible predicts it.
Mekelsior 1 year ago
@Mekelsior I don't know your particular beliefs, but other theists I've had make the same claim were proven to eventually use "faith" to massage the facts, justify confirmation biases and interpret, then overvalue their personal subjective experiences. Based on that experience. I'm extremely skeptical of your claims, especially when you base it on "prophecies", notoriously pliable to interpretation.
Cafeeine 1 year ago
@Cafeeine My faith is the same as this gentleman that is speaking in this video. My faith is supported by strong evidence or I would not be here. I may not be able to communicate everything as well as some but I do not believe bad communication skills are good reason to abandon what I do believe and know to be true. There are some elements that have an element of uncertainty but that is true about every conclusion that humanity have made and will make in the future.
Mekelsior 1 year ago
@Cafeeine Prophecies are only part of the base of why I believe what I believe. We can go to science and open up the discussion on evolution and why it is inadeqate to answer the question of variation and the organisms that we have today. We can touch on the theory of biogenesis and discuss the observed fact that only Life begets Life. I can direct you to Sean Pitman who have made an excellent webpage that explain all this evidence much better than what I can communicate in Youtube. :)
Mekelsior 1 year ago
@Mekelsior Whether evolution is viable or not is a scientific question. But assuming evolution was completely false, that doesn't lend any validity to the claims of religionists. For example, you bring up the fact that we only observe life to come from life, yet its also an observed fact that life as we know it is an emergent property of matter. Do you think your god is material (doubtful, if you're Xian) or do you have any justification for thinking 'immaterial life' is an intelligible concept?
Cafeeine 1 year ago
@Cafeeine It is not an assumption of mine that evolution is false but a conclusion based on the evidence I have processed. My faith is based on evidence that I have investigated and accepted, of course there are parts that I cannot prove but that is acceptable as well, science is like this also so there is no difference really.
Life is not matter, Life makes matter alive. We do not know what Life is yet, we can have all the molecules needed, ie a corpse but without life it will remain a corpse
Mekelsior 1 year ago
@Mekelsior My point was the validity of evolution is inconsequential to the reality of christian beliefs without positive arguments in favor.
I never said life was matter, I said life was an emergent property of matter, the same way wetness is an emergent property of water, but water isn't wetness.
Note the assumptions inherent in your statements: that life is a causative agent on matter rather than a property of certain types of matter.
Cafeeine 1 year ago
@Mekelsior A replicating conscious or unconscious thing that does not replicate perfectly all the time in every generation, provided its chance of replication is based on its structure, Will improve over a large number of generations. This can be proven mathematically and is used in artificial intelligence in computer science with fantastic results. Do you agree?
bradkey98765 11 months ago
@bradkey98765 If what you say is correct it would still not be viable as evidence in real life for the simple reason that it has to be programmed by a designer, you cannot create a random generator and let it create random code and expect it to become a product of usable information. In realty there is no true random only perceived random, as such if there is no true random then the entire theory fails.
Mekelsior 11 months ago
@Mekelsior To me it is proven that life fit these criteria as such evolution is true to me, DNA does not replicate perfectly all the time for better or for worse, positive effecting mutations include African women recently found to be immune to aids, observations of viruses/bacteria and many more, Chance of offspring can be based on structure(as in structures that can be passed on, not diet for example) is true, ie African women immune to aids have a higher probability for higher offspring.
bradkey98765 11 months ago
@bradkey98765 The theory of evolution is simply an explaination of what we observe around us, it is not the only explaination however and as such does not have any more merit than any other explaination, this is on face value of course. If we look closely at the paradigms and the assumptions that must be accepted on blind faith then the theory of evolution is more similar to a faith system than a scientific theory. This is not my thoughts but supported by several philosophers, ie Karl Popper.
Mekelsior 11 months ago
@bradkey98765 How can you be sure women immune to AIDS or HIV are a result of evolution? Do we know enough about this virus at all to be able to state this as conclusive? In fact if it could be evolution then it could as well be devolution, as in they have a genetic defect that makes it impossible for the HIV to infect the host. Another solution could be diet based that certain type of food inhibit the virus so that it has no effect. I do not believe we know enough to state this conclusive.
Mekelsior 11 months ago
@Mekelsior Well we know that it is a mutation in the CCR - 5 receptor gene that makes it impossible for foreign bodies, such as viruses, to enter human lymphocytes. This was simply the first example of a positive effecting DNA mutation I could think of at the time. This isn't "down to evolution" it's just an example of a positive DNA mutation, since such mutations exist evolution simply says positive mutations over a large period of time will accumulate from a series of natural selection
bradkey98765 11 months ago
@Mekelsior What do you disbelieve about evolution, is it that you do not believe positive mutations exist, or is it that you find it unreasonable to believe genetics play a part in whether a living to have offspring/replicate. Because if you believed in the two sentences above you'd find that evolution is a certainty.
bradkey98765 11 months ago
@bradkey98765 Let's analyze what you are saying: are you saying that the continuous breeding of a certain species over time will ultimately create a new species? This has been disproven consistently by breeders. Think of the millions of generations of fruit flies that have been bred in laboratories. They've been zapped with all kinds of things to help them change. So far, no beneficial mutations have been noticed. And they are still fruit flies. Billions of years is just not enough
MrJmartin05 11 months ago
@MrJmartin05 I'm not sure how long people have been breeding fruit flies, but I am fairly confident that it is less than 1000 years, so if man had been breeding fruitflies for 1000 years this would be 0.0000026% of the time of life on earth, so in less than a third of a millionth of the time life has been around we have recorded many mutations in fruit flies, such as headshape, eyecolour, colour, number of limbs, etc. In 3 million times the sample size mutation numbers will have 3 Megadrupled
bradkey98765 11 months ago
@MrJmartin05 One simple thing you need to realise is that a billion years is unimaginably large. But I'm glad since if the only problem you have with what I am saying is timescale then I must conclude you believe that evolution is happening right now, albeit slowly. As for "no beneficial mutations have been noticed." you should realise that "beneficial" is down to environment, and things like head shape, eye colour, body colour are beneficial given the right envirement environment.
bradkey98765 11 months ago
@bradkey98765 What we have consistently found is that in all creatures, there are genetic limitations to change.
MrJmartin05 11 months ago
@MrJmartin05 After doing some math I've made a simple analogy. If you had a timeline where each millimetre represented a year, the timeline of life on earth would stretch the entire circumference of the earth, the time we have been breeding fruit flies would be much much less than a footstep.And you are telling me from this footstep and not seeing a mountain or a desert or a glacier or an ocean, that none of these things exist, even though in this footstep you have seen some evidence for these.
bradkey98765 11 months ago
@bradkey98765 I think you missed the point of my argument. Fruit flies have a very short reproductive cycle of a few days. Whereas humans have a reproductive cycle of 20 years. Fruit flies allow us to see the degree of beneficial mutations we should expect after breeding human beings or other large species after millions of years. What we have found is that even millions of generations have been insufficient to produce a new fly. Extrapolate that to creatures with longer cycles: problem.
MrJmartin05 11 months ago
@MrJmartin05 After doing some much needed research, Drosophila melanogaster (common fruit fly) was first experimentally bred in 1901, the first mutated fruit fly was discovered in 1910 by Thomas Hunt Morgan. However it should be noted that any mutation found in this time was going to be a clearly visible one; hence why the mutation found was eye colour.
bradkey98765 11 months ago
@MrJmartin05 The fruit fly takes 2 days to fully develop and then breed; they reproduce approximately 3650 times faster than humans, however have around 18 times less DNA, As such the data collection rate for fruit flies is 200 times faster than human, the 1 visual mutation found in 9 years , of a population of fruit flies conveniently close to that of humans, Implies 1 visual mutation in humans every 1800 years, or 1000 visual mutations to go from homo habilis to homosapiens.
bradkey98765 11 months ago
@MrJmartin05 However all of this does have to be applied extremely cautiously as too many assumptions are made, I for one believe that the rate of positive mutations overtime for a species in a non changing environment will decrease as when a positive mutation is added there are less positive mutations that can be added. As such "positive" mutation rate today cannot be applied over billions or even millions of years.
bradkey98765 11 months ago
@MrJmartin05 And even if you do so it is far less unreasonable than you claim, fruit fly studies do not indicate problems with life of much greater life spans, I will continue to study this and if it showed otherwise I would have rethought everything I "know" about evolution, Since I’ve typed too much already for your point on haemoglobin may I redirect you to dhbailey dot com / papers / dhb-probability . pdf Which says almost everything I would have on the matter.
bradkey98765 11 months ago
@bradkey98765 thank you, will be sure to check it out. Here's an interesting creationist one on the question. It's the best I've read detecting design dot com . Click on the essay with the same name.
MrJmartin05 11 months ago
@Mekelsior My example of computer code and mathematics was to simply say that given 3 pieces of criteria, the existence of a replicating entity, possibilities of replication to be not perfect and replication being somewhat derived by the entities structure, evolution is inevitable. In the real world replicating entities do exist, replication is not perfect and replication is based on structure, e.g. every living thing born with a negative defect DNA that causes a fast death will not reproduce
bradkey98765 11 months ago
@Mekelsior If I believed in god I would tell you this, you are missing out on one of his greatest ideas and primary tools he used in the creation of all life in the universe. And I may have to make it my goal to show everyone in your position mathematically with very small criteria evolution is inevitable and that life meets these criteria. The hardest part will be cutting it down into chunks understandable to all but I think I'll manage.
bradkey98765 11 months ago
@bradkey98765 I do not agree with you that the theory of evolution is beautiful, it is an extremely cruel system that pay no mind to anything worthy. It is a very crude concept that have little to no evidence to support it other than sophistry. Even mathmatics are against the theory, I can give you an example. The odds of Hemaglobin to form is 1 to 547! (if my mind serves me correct).
Mekelsior 11 months ago
@Cafeeine You have a comment here where you state that the latter position was ultimatly true, that the religionist would not want to know all the answers but would stop as they would argue that they are not supposed to know. Now there may be things that we are unable to know and simply cannot know, for example I cannot know the thoughts of God as I'm a human, or what the thoughts are of the ant, if they have any. So there are clearly limits to what we can find out.
Mekelsior 1 year ago
@Mekelsior It is very plausible, and indeed most probable that there are things we'll never know. However you present this as an article of faith, while I present it as an observation. Observations can in principle be overturned. You're dealing in ex cathedra assertions, I'm observing what people do.
Cafeeine 1 year ago
@Cafeeine Observations can either increase your faith or it can shatter it. Why do you believe that all faith when it comes to religion is blind when it is very possible to have a religious faith based on observations and the conclusions that you draw based on what you observe?
Mekelsior 1 year ago
@Mekelsior It is perfectly possible for a religious person to have a degree of certainty for something based on evidence. Religious faith is offered (by believers, I'm not making this up) as evidence itself. This is what I was referring to. If you have a problem with those "faithful", if you have actual evidence for your beliefs instead, take it up with them. However, I suspect that if your evidence was ever shut down, you'd also fall back to the same self-affirming "faith".
Cafeeine 1 year ago
@Cafeeine To state that you believe in something cannot be used as evidence for whatever you believe in, as it is just a statement. The people that does use faith as evidence for faith would quallify as having a blind faith that is not based on real evidence. If you could demonstrate to me that my faith is wrong then I will adjust it or I would also be in the position of having a blind faith that is not based on evidence.
Mekelsior 1 year ago
@Mekelsior That there are religionists who act in the way I described is not in question, so you're not disagreeing with me there. When I made my comment here (over two years ago) I did not have Mekelsior in mind, but the rough consensus of believers I've read or discussed with. If you do care to know my opinion on your specific beliefs and how blind or not they are (although I don't see why you would) feel free to pm them to me.
Cafeeine 1 year ago
Eloquently spoken. I ironically have a problem with one of your own assumptions. Your claim is that science and religion are both faith based, and in a way that is true. However the vast difference is that science strives to have as few assumptions as possible, while religion thrives on assumptions supported by faith. Science does not place faith at the end of its knowledge, it places the next goal. Religions will stop at an arbitrary point &then imagine reaching the final goal. Quite different.
Cafeeine 3 years ago