A stupidity of Darwinism: "There was never a time when there were only two humans!"

[Stuu]

Not at all. I'm more than willing to discuss the evidence you present. However, you have to provide something that isn't just an assertion of what you believe. You can't declare there to be a "universal" genetic code and use it as evidence for common descent. You could assert that all living things share DNA, which is your evidence for common descent.

That'd be fine, I reckon.

I acknowledge your continuing interest in discussing evidence.

It is not merely that DNA (and the mechanism that uses the related RNA) is the chemical used to store genetic information in all known living species, but that there has not yet been found any exception to the principle that the ribosomes and transfer RNA of any one species can read the DNA of any other species.

What the DNA codes for is protein amino acid sequence. A triple of three bases form a codon, and that codon is translated into which amino acid joins the protein chain next. The same 20 amino acids are found across all living species as well.

From the Holy Wikipedia, here is an explanation of the codons. This could be a length of messenger RNA copied from a gene on a chromosome in the nucleus:

Also from the HW, here's the actual code used (the Genetic Code, as it's called). You get your codon, say 'CGT' and start in the middle at C, move out to G then to T, and on the outside of that segment you find the amino acid molecule that will be added next to the protein chain:


All species use this system, and it doesn't matter what the source of DNA is.

Stuart

 

[Stuu]

Quit spamming and get real.

Did you have a point to make by listing five characteristic behaviours of human animals?

I don't think anyone has enough data to conclude that humans are the only species capable of contemplating their own existence. The mirror test gives some clues, in that elephants, chimpanzees, dolphins and magpies can identify that their mirror image is of themselves. But the mirror test is not necessarily the last word on this. The three mammals in that list share the same basic brain structure, so we should expect they would all have some ability at self-recognition.

Stuart

 

[Stuu]

The real issue is that Stuu continues to claim that a common coding system is, BY ITSELF, evidence that all life descended from a SINGLE common ancestor.

Sorry to interrupt your conversation with Stripe, but I just want to point out that I have, more than once in this thread, been very careful to say that this fact does not, by itself, exclude other possible explanations. Corroborating evidence would be needed to eliminate the other possibilities, and I have already presented a further two such examples of corroborating evidence.

The commonality of the DNA system is evidence for common descent. It's not the only evidence for common descent. By itself it is not enough evidence to exclude other possibilities.

Stuart

 

[Right Divider]

Did you have a point to make by listing five characteristic behaviours of human animals?

:duh:

Only a complete idiot would not get the point.

I don't think anyone has enough data to conclude that humans are the only species capable of contemplating their own existence. The mirror test gives some clues, in that elephants, chimpanzees, dolphins and magpies can identify that their mirror image is of themselves. But the mirror test is not necessarily the last word on this. The three mammals in that list share the same basic brain structure, so we should expect they would all have some ability at self-recognition.

Stuart

:juggle:

 

[Right Divider]

Sorry to interrupt your conversation with Stripe, but I just want to point out that I have, more than once in this thread, been very careful to say that this fact does not, by itself, exclude other possible explanations.

Well you sure have been inconsistent with that message... or I would not complain about it.

Corroborating evidence would be needed to eliminate the other possibilities, and I have already presented a further two such examples of corroborating evidence.

You certainly think that you have... but your "additional evidence" is no more supportive of your forgone collusion.

The commonality of the DNA system is evidence for common descent.

AGAIN.... NO IT IS NOT!

You are, AGAIN, begging the question. You are a fallacious and redundant dunce.

It's not the only evidence for common descent. By itself it is not enough evidence to exclude other possibilities.

Stuart

It is NOT evidence, in ANY way, that all life shares a SINGLE common ancestor.

 

[Lon]

Stuu: But are you saying that you have some specific responsibility regarding ‘meaning’, or philosophy?

Huh?

Meaning and purpose begets meaning and purpose. We cannot contrive 'meaning.' Often I see the education side of science try to 'quantify' meaning through artificial means. Meaning and purpose is more than the sum of our parts. One either grasps this, or it is elusive. There is 'no point to life' without a point to life. There is no 'purpose to living' without a purpose to living. There is no way an undirected life can have any significant meaning and I posit that your brain knows the difference else you'd not argue for things mattering, like our agreement that anything done to harm a child is evil. It IS the problem of evil and your humor factor is lost in the unwitting agreement on this point.

So you can’t be specific about what you mean?

About 70% of people who go to psychiatrists/psychologists, continue going to psychiatrists/psychologists and never 'get better.' If you had that kind of success rate in hospitals, I'd think they'd quickly close down. While I love psychology, it still has a lot of room for growth as a science.

You’ve completely lost me sorry. I have absolutely no idea what you are saying.

I appreciate that. The gist: "Why" questions are important whether any particular individual believes so or not. Certainly in the analogy, someone who smokes doesn't care about the health concerns of 'why' he should quit. Nevertheless, the why questions are incredibly important to us in life, even if one doesn't perceive the importance. This part of the conversation is an attempt to get you to care about 'why' questions as important to existence.

Just as well science runs on evidence and not the opinions of your relatives.

LOL. You are simply posturing us/them and not recognizing these are 'part' of 'you.'

No, it’s a whirlwind of language that means very little to me. Do you do just ordinary English?

Yes. Maybe read it again later, I'm pretty sure it made sense. I gave you a short scenario of God interacting in life in a way that is unmistakable.

Doctors used to bleed people with leeches. And they still do in some cases, for good medical reasons.

Now. Before, they tried getting rid of disease. It was an hypothesis tried without testing. Leeches are not often used today, but when they are, it is for something very different (circulation etc).

Lawsuits? Precedence? Huh?

Very simple: Big medicine (science) corporations are being sued. Big chemical corporations (science) are being sued. Asbestos corporations as well. Perhaps a good amount of these were attempts at good faith, like insulating against fire, but it simply illustrates that science isn't the end all as you seem to think. It is just and only a collective of thoughts from hopefully well-meaning people about as much as they know, collectively. Lawsuits are simply one indicator that they are 'wrong.' I'm trying to get you to have some reservation on your science posits. It certainly isn't 'us/them' as you believe between science and theologians, for instance. I just isn't. That's an over inflation of facts.

You haven’t actually asked one. All you write is ‘why’ as if it’s a question. It’s not.

Some of them are evident by the context of our conversation. For instance, 'why should we get rid of Genesis today?' was already your posit. My response is 'why?'
We are talking about common decent. I do know the 'why' but it is always a good thing to revisit these. The reason is because Darwin (and others) believed that things are a lot more alike than they are different and that somehow there is not just relation, but derivative. Specifically, you and others see that everything isn't just related by DNA, but derivative of each other simply because the building blocks is the same. There is then a theory that such "must mean they come from one another" rather than a subtle difference of a common source.

Just to remind you of your abusive language:

:doh: Saying what is 'right' is not abusive language! lain:

And do you have any links to studies that back you up, or is it just 100% prejudice?

Yes, read ANY nation's CDC reports. Is your head in the sand? There is no question. As an uncle, I take that VERY seriously. You have your head in a 'condoning' place and that is not love. It is political and not good science at all. You aren't even reading science data about this and its obvious. You NEED to read and watch your confirmation bias. There are many political websites 'for' homosexuality, but the .gov and .ca (canada) etc. give accurate information and it is what I've said above that you took exception to: these people are victims in their childhood ages.

Others need neither your condescension nor your tolerance. Gay people certainly don’t need the kind of help you would want to offer. When they come for the religious homophobes, who will you be relying on for solidarity?

Again, as an uncle I care considerably more than you appear. It is not a healthy lifestyle 'if' you read any .gov website. If you don't, you are lying to yourself and duped by media. I didn't say a Christian website, I said ANY .gov website. You think every nation has an agenda against homosexuals??? :noway: You certainly don't love them as much as I do, as an uncle.

What does that have to do with abuse claims regarding gay people?

"Permissiveness" in the guise of 'love.' It isn't loving to simply let people do what harms them or others. That is my contention, as an uncle. I simply don't think you care and simply think it shows by your feigned outrage. I simply don't think you care nor have bothered to educate yourself with .gov websites that report facts, not political fancy.

Perhaps I can ignore his patronising tone and love of platitudes, but CS Lewis’s biggest failing was not being honest with children.

while ignoring his intelligence altogether...

In Mein Kampf Hitler claimed he was doing God’s work and executing God’s will in destroying the Jewish people.

Which God? Jews were God's people.

But the damning reality is that christianity is a leading motivation for good people to do evil.

Its a lie. The majority of Christians, as you've already admitted, are "intelligent and good-natured." There are scientists that use body parts from aborted children too, do you want me to say 'science et.al is evil?' :think: Try to differentiate lest your bias is confirmed. You are posturing and accusative in this post more than prior posts. "Why?"

And you are saying this is a question worth asking? And can you quote anyone wishing to ‘ban’ Genesis?

:think:

We have made some progress you know. Ancient Jewish creation myths... would have replaced the whole creation mythology of Genesis with a textbook of modern science straight away. Wouldn’t you, in their position?
... No intelligent person should be wasting his time with Genesis these days. No one would write Genesis today.
Stuart

...

I’m sorry for you if the meaning of your life hinges on the contents of a book of mythology of ancient Palestine.

Stuart

About 70% in the U.S. Sorry for all of us?

 

[JudgeRightly]

It is not merely that DNA (and the mechanism that uses the related RNA) is the chemical used to store genetic information in all known living species, but that there has not yet been found any exception to the principle that the ribosomes and transfer RNA of any one species can read the DNA of any other species.

I think we're forgetting something important here, and I have yet to confirm this, but as far as I'm aware...

Just because one creature's genetic system can read the genetic material of another creature from a different species does not mean that doing so will produce results that benefit said creature in any meaningful way, if at all.

I'd even go so far as to say, and again, I'm no expert on this subject, that transplanting DNA from one species to another in a random manner would most likely be harmful, and neutral at best, to the transferee, EXCEPT in circumstances where there is an intelligence involved in the process (in that said intelligence is in control of the process and knows how and where to put the genetic material so as to not damage it or the creature.

In other words, just because the biology of the creature can read genetic code from an entirely different creature doesn't mean it should.

It's this very fact which, at the very least, calls into question the viability of the theory of "common descent from a single creature or species)."

 

[7djengo7]

Is whatever you would refer to by your phrase, "partly human", a human? Yes (it is a human) or No (it is not a human)?

<NO ANSWER>

Your disdain for logic, for the law of the excluded middle--and your futile war against it--is perverse.

 

[7djengo7]

What is it like to see the world in high contrast monochrome?

What (if anything) are you trying to mean by this? I don't get it. Are you trying to say that I do not see colors?

 

[6days]

A straight answer to this question would be appreciated. (2 dogs originally)

Of course not! If you understood evolution, you would understand why. But... there was, of course, just two humans in the beginning.

 

[Stuu]

What (if anything) are you trying to mean by this? I don't get it. Are you trying to say that I do not see colors?

Not even black and white. Black or white.

Stuart

 

[Stuu]

Meaning and purpose begets meaning and purpose. We cannot contrive 'meaning.' Often I see the education side of science try to 'quantify' meaning through artificial means. Meaning and purpose is more than the sum of our parts. One either grasps this, or it is elusive. There is 'no point to life' without a point to life. There is no 'purpose to living' without a purpose to living. There is no way an undirected life can have any significant meaning and I posit that your brain knows the difference else you'd not argue for things mattering, like our agreement that anything done to harm a child is evil. It IS the problem of evil and your humor factor is lost in the unwitting agreement on this point.

On a good day I like to think I do indeed direct my own life. Of course that brings into consideration the illusion of free will.

About 70% of people who go to psychiatrists/psychologists, continue going to psychiatrists/psychologists and never 'get better.' If you had that kind of success rate in hospitals, I'd think they'd quickly close down. While I love psychology, it still has a lot of room for growth as a science.

While there is always the possibility of closed ranks in a profession that hides ineffectiveness, had you considered the possibility that the ongong wellness of some people is related to their ongoing appointments with psychiatrists?

"Why" questions are important whether any particular individual believes so or not. Certainly in the analogy, someone who smokes doesn't care about the health concerns of 'why' he should quit. Nevertheless, the why questions are incredibly important to us in life, even if one doesn't perceive the importance. This part of the conversation is an attempt to get you to care about 'why' questions as important to existence.

Maybe the use of ‘why’ is the problem. Try a ‘what’ question like, what priorities do I set for my life? Or, what would it take for me to quit? How about a which question, which do I find more rewarding, good health of the calming/whatever effects of nicotine? Or a ‘how’ question, how would I go about quitting if I was motivated to do so? What again, what would it take to motivate me.
‘Why should I quit’ is not really a useful question. It’s certainly not specific enough if the goal is to help someone with nicotine addiction.

Stuu: Just as well science runs on evidence and not the opinions of your relatives.

LOL. You are simply posturing us/them and not recognizing these are 'part' of 'you.'

Huh?

Maybe read it again later, I'm pretty sure it made sense. I gave you a short scenario of God interacting in life in a way that is unmistakable.

Was that your god being unmistakable?!

Very simple: Big medicine (science) corporations are being sued. Big chemical corporations (science) are being sued. Asbestos corporations as well. Perhaps a good amount of these were attempts at good faith, like insulating against fire, but it simply illustrates that science isn't the end all as you seem to think. It is just and only a collective of thoughts from hopefully well-meaning people about as much as they know, collectively. Lawsuits are simply one indicator that they are 'wrong.'

I expect in your country there is an expectation of innocence until proved guilty, so once again I think you would need to be specific about the exact lawsuits you are talking about. Can you justify equating big medicine to science? As you could read in the writing of Ben Goldacre, the criticism scientists have of big pharma is that they don’t publish all their trial data, they bias their publishing in favour of positive results. How about equating big chemical companies to science? A company isn’t the same thing as science; there are likely many scientists working for a chemical company but I can’t think of a case before a court that sought to stop a chemical study. I know there exist many evangelical religious fanatics who have tried to stop research in biology, for example stem cells from embryos, whose actions make as much sense to me as the vigilantes who, 20 years ago in Wales, painted abusive slogans on the house of a paediatrician having confused her job title with ‘paedophile’. These companies should be worried about being sued by well-informed people. I don’t think much does worry them.

I'm trying to get you to have some reservation on your science posits. It certainly isn't 'us/them' as you believe between science and theologians, for instance. I just isn't. That's an over inflation of facts.

I don’t think theologians are at all relevant are they? To anything at all? Perhaps a minority of hobbyists and enthusiasts. Sort of like experts in the Star Wars movies. Of intense interest to some, but ultimately not really significant in any important way more widely.

But by all means, tell us how a theologian is more useful than a psychiatrist is. You’d shut down hospitals that were as ineffective as theology, wouldn’t you?

My response is 'why?'

So ‘why’ isn’t a question, it’s a response.

We are talking about common decent. I do know the 'why' but it is always a good thing to revisit these. The reason is because Darwin (and others) believed that things are a lot more alike than they are different and that somehow there is not just relation, but derivative. Specifically, you and others see that everything isn't just related by DNA, but derivative of each other simply because the building blocks is the same. There is then a theory that such "must mean they come from one another" rather than a subtle difference of a common source.

<I’ve deleted your ignorant homophobic claims in an attempt to discourage you: instead I would hope to encourage you to read and educate yourself>

while ignoring his intelligence altogether...

That’s the problem, he clearly wasn’t intelligent enough to realise how acute children’s BS detectors are. I hope I am paraphrasing accurately here; Lewis did get right the bit about christianity being absurd without the resurrection of Jesus.

Stuu: In Mein Kampf Hitler claimed he was doing God’s work and executing God’s will in destroying the Jewish people.

Which God? Jews were God's people.

Your mistake here might be in imagining that Hitler was rational.

Its a lie. The majority of Christians, as you've already admitted, are "intelligent and good-natured.

You have not addressed the claim: christianity is a leading motivation for good people to do evil.

There are scientists that use body parts from aborted children too, do you want me to say 'science et.al is evil?'

When you say body parts, what exactly do you mean? When you imply that using tissue from aborted embryos or foetuses is evil, what do you mean? Were you aware that one of the treatments your president received during his recent illness, REGN-COV2. was an experimental antibody derived from foetal tissue? That was one of the treatments he called ‘miracles coming down from God’. Well, perhaps you are not a fan of the incumbent.

You quoted me, I think in regards to your claim that I wanted to ‘ban Genesis’.

We have made some progress you know. Ancient Jewish creation myths... would have replaced the whole creation mythology of Genesis with a textbook of modern science straight away. Wouldn’t you, in their position?
... No intelligent person should be wasting his time with Genesis these days. No one would write Genesis today.

I didn’t write ban anywhere. Like any similar book, Genesis should be in the historical fiction section. Indeed there are some overmotivated atheists who, whenever in a library, move the bible from the reference section to the fiction shelves.

About 70% in the U.S. Sorry for all of us?

At the moment I am very happy not to be living in your country. That 70% statistic would constitute one of many reasons, although I would have thought literal belief in Genesis wouldn’t be nearly as high as 70%. When you set up a country on the very premise that it should be a haven of mutual respect for the religiously persecuted, you’re going to be importing a lot of god genes. That’s exactly what has happened, isn’t it.



Stuart

 

[Stuu]

Just because one creature's genetic system can read the genetic material of another creature from a different species does not mean that doing so will produce results that benefit said creature in any meaningful way, if at all.

People the world over with diabetes use insulin made by a bacterium reading the gene for insulin taken from a human cell. The bacterium doesn't benefit exactly, but diabetics do.

I'd even go so far as to say, and again, I'm no expert on this subject, that transplanting DNA from one species to another in a random manner would most likely be harmful, and neutral at best, to the transferee, EXCEPT in circumstances where there is an intelligence involved in the process (in that said intelligence is in control of the process and knows how and where to put the genetic material so as to not damage it or the creature.

Well yes, retroviruses do this. They bring into a cell an enzyme called reverse transcriptase which copies their RNA code to DNA which gets inserted into the host genome, and from there it is used to make viral proteins as the viruses reproduce. And indeed it is very harmful to a cell if it becomes a viral production factory. It dies in the process.

However, as I hope to be outlining in more detail soon, reverse transcriptase makes errors, including disabling the viral DNA as it is inserted. That happens randomly throughout the genome. If it happens in a sperm or egg cell then the offspring produced from those cells with have a new so-called endogenous retrovirus insertion. About 10% of the human genome consists of inherited viral insertions. I expect you would believe that all that randomly inserted DNA that came from other species isn’t doing you too much harm.

None of this is important to the argument though because the claim is limited to commonality of the system and mutual readability across all species as evidence for common descent, which it is.

In other words, just because the biology of the creature can read genetic code from an entirely different creature doesn't mean it should.

Is that an ethical statement? We should tell all the bacteria that are constantly swapping little bits of DNA between themselves. There are over 90 important drugs made by bacteria that read human genes.

It's this very fact which, at the very least, calls into question the viability of the theory of "common descent from a single creature or species)."

Could you please clarify which fact you believe ‘calls into question’ common descent.

Stuart

 

[Stripe]

The real issue is that Stuu continues to claim that a common coding system is, BY ITSELF, evidence that all life descended from a SINGLE common ancestor.

As I say, it might be. To acknowledge what the other side would present as evidence is necessary to begin assessing their claims.

 

[Stripe]

All species use this system.

When you're able to name the system, let us know.

 

[Stripe]

 

[Stuu]

When you're able to name the system, let us know.

Ok. I'll let you know.

Stuart

 

[ok doser]

When you're able to name the system, let us know.

Let's name it Bob

 

[Right Divider]

As I say, it might be. To acknowledge what the other side would present as evidence is necessary to begin assessing their claims.

We ALL have the SAME evidence.

 

[Lon]

Maybe the use of ‘why’ is the problem. Try a ‘what’ question like, what priorities do I set for my life? Or, what would it take for me to quit? How about a which question, which do I find more rewarding, good health of the calming/whatever effects of nicotine? Or a ‘how’ question, how would I go about quitting if I was motivated to do so? What again, what would it take to motivate me.
‘Why should I quit’ is not really a useful question. It’s certainly not specific enough if the goal is to help someone with nicotine addiction.

"Why?" It is the compulsion question, otherwise going through the motions.

Was that your god being unmistakable?!

Absolutely. Is that you being incredulous? "Why?" It isn't for academic reasons.

I expect in your country there is an expectation of innocence until proved guilty, so once again I think you would need to be specific about the exact lawsuits you are talking about. Can you justify equating big medicine to science? As you could read in the writing of Ben Goldacre, the criticism scientists have of big pharma is that they don’t publish all their trial data, they bias their publishing in favour of positive results. How about equating big chemical companies to science? A company isn’t the same thing as science; there are likely many scientists working for a chemical company but I can’t think of a case before a court that sought to stop a chemical study. I know there exist many evangelical religious fanatics who have tried to stop research in biology, for example stem cells from embryos, whose actions make as much sense to me as the vigilantes who, 20 years ago in Wales, painted abusive slogans on the house of a paediatrician having confused her job title with ‘paedophile’. These companies should be worried about being sued by well-informed people. I don’t think much does worry them.

Let's ignore that stand of trees and stand back to the forest perspective: It is simply that science is good, but not THAT good. Some of us are more careful about presenting the ideas,thoughts,finding of men, dictate all in life. You'd call that sad perhaps. I call it discernment.

I don’t think theologians are at all relevant are they? To anything at all? Perhaps a minority of hobbyists and enthusiasts. Sort of like experts in the Star Wars movies. Of intense interest to some, but ultimately not really significant in any important way more widely.

Must be that way in your country. It is sad.

But by all means, tell us how a theologian is more useful than a psychiatrist is. You’d shut down hospitals that were as ineffective as theology, wouldn’t you?

:nono: Your values and armchair are showing.

So ‘why’ isn’t a question, it’s a response.

No, it is the foundation question, no matter when it is asked in a conversation. A rejoinder doesn't make it merely a response, but a return to foundations. It is why kids ask it most.

<I’ve deleted your ignorant homophobic claims in an attempt to discourage you: instead I would hope to encourage you to read and educate yourself>

You obviously have never visited CDC websites of every country that has one. OBVIOUSLY. It is you, purposefully, for whatever 'why' reason, putting your head in the sand. The agenda has been to legitimize. I was listening to Ellen talking with Oprah about her stepfather molesting her. Oprah asked if it had anything to do with her as an adult, and she said 'no.' Just because homosexuals lobbied for normalcy, it does NOT address these very important issues of their childhood. It ignores them! YOU, Stuart, ignore them!

That’s the problem, he clearly wasn’t intelligent enough to realise how acute children’s BS detectors are. I hope I am paraphrasing accurately here; Lewis did get right the bit about christianity being absurd without the resurrection of Jesus.

Link? Such needs substantiation or it is what it claims the other is, just a empty sandwich of sentiment.

Stuu: In Mein Kampf Hitler claimed he was doing God’s work and executing God’s will in destroying the Jewish people.

Your mistake here might be in imagining that Hitler was rational.

:doh: Then why would you use him for any kind of comparison to anything??? Are all Christians, by association, wicked and evil? Are all Christians irrational to you?

You have not addressed the claim: christianity is a leading motivation for good people to do evil.

Yeah, we are rioting, taking over countries, and burning people at the stake. lain: It is a tired canard that need a decent burial. Christians out give their nonChristian counterparts about 80 to one. Over half of our hospitals are started by Christians. You are going to say the RC put people to death. True enough, but it is an instance GREATLY overshadowed, thus it is the one and only evil you can think of, and worse, didn't, somebody told you and you are following the crowd uncritically. Stop it and think for yourself, either that or continue to make up excuses for your dissonance.

When you say body parts, what exactly do you mean? When you imply that using tissue from aborted embryos or foetuses is evil, what do you mean? Were you aware that one of the treatments your president received during his recent illness, REGN-COV2. was an experimental antibody derived from foetal tissue? That was one of the treatments he called ‘miracles coming down from God’. Well, perhaps you are not a fan of the incumbent.

Yes, I'm against using babies for this. Better we died than to cannibalize.

I didn’t write ban anywhere. Like any similar book, Genesis should be in the historical fiction section. Indeed there are some overmotivated atheists who, whenever in a library, move the bible from the reference section to the fiction shelves.

Stop kidding yourself. "Ban' is absolutely the tone you used. Not ban as in 'burn' but absolutely ban from any effect on anybody's life. You are playing a LOT of mental gymnastics in this post Stuart. It looks and respresents as all kinds of desperation for anything random as an excuse. When is the last time you saw a Christian do evil, Stuart?

At the moment I am very happy not to be living in your country. That 70% statistic would constitute one of many reasons, although I would have thought literal belief in Genesis wouldn’t be nearly as high as 70%. When you set up a country on the very premise that it should be a haven of mutual respect for the religiously persecuted, you’re going to be importing a lot of god genes. That’s exactly what has happened, isn’t it.


Stuart

You are equating 'wealth' and lack thereof with some kind of superiority. lain: Come on Stuart! THINK!