Page 23 of 42 FirstFirst ... 13212223242533 ... LastLast
Results 221 to 230 of 411

Thread: Eating Paleo, But Don't Believe in Evolution? page 23

  1. #221
    RichMahogany's Avatar
    RichMahogany is online now Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    6,967
    Primal Fuel
    Quote Originally Posted by turquoisepassion View Post
    Hi, are you the author of "The Selfish Gene"?

    ;P

    I think the book/this selfish gene theory is weird. If one actually took the extremely reductionist scientific approach, we are just bags of hormones, ribonucleic acids and enzymes. Fine. I get it. We are not so special. We are just another permutation of atoms floating in the universe. Fine.

    What I don't get is the claim that genes are "alive." They are just as governed by the same "laws" of chemistry and physics as we are! They can replicate under the correct annealing temperature and in presence of dNTP mix because of hydrogen bonds. They aren't alive. I can manipulate DNA in the lab to make mutations, to copy and paste, etc. Maybe it is because I worked with manipulation of genes in the lab but I don't see genes as "one over" human beings.

    {Note I wrote "laws" because I am skeptical of all human knowledge. Human logic is subject to human understanding/perception limitations... So while I absolutely adore science (grew up immersed in it; both parents were botanists), I learn it with a grain of salt. Science isn't the end all for the universe. It is just the end all for the *human perception* of the universe.

    Hence why I don't think religion is "worse." It is just using human's spirituality and emotion to experience the universe rather than with human logic. Who is to say logic is better than emotion? They are both human in origin. Both subject to the same limitations and flaws. }



    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    I have nothing against religions, per se. I have issues with religions that teach that we're flawed beings in need of salvation of some type or flavor to escape the misery of life on this planet. Unfortunately, this describes all the major religions of Eastern and Western civilizations. I'm in love with the old religion(s) of tribal peoples (animism) whose gods live here and whose earthly (only) lives have meaning, rather than being preludes to some kind of afterlife.

  2. #222
    RichMahogany's Avatar
    RichMahogany is online now Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    6,967
    P.S. and I agree that The Selfish Gene is very materialist. And I love it.

  3. #223
    Gorbag's Avatar
    Gorbag is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Ecuador
    Posts
    3,586
    Quote Originally Posted by RichMahogany View Post
    Also, since I know Derpy loves Richard Dawkins:

    Climbing Mount Improbable: A Lecture by Richard Dawkins
    Richard Dawkins LOL! Shallow bibelbelt Americans needed an atheist boogeyman to scare them into firmer faith and a shallow atheist, biologist and philosopher wannabee stepped on the soapbox to help them! If Dawkins had just let the naive American christians alone, then we would not have noticed them much, at least not outside their own country...

  4. #224
    turquoisepassion's Avatar
    turquoisepassion is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    NYC (and ATX)
    Posts
    2,777

    Eating Paleo, But Don't Believe in Evolution?

    I think you are only focusing on one side of religion. How people interpret religion is largely reflective of their personality. A positive person would highlight the joy, love, and acceptance. A person who has more of a tendency to be miserable would highlight repentance, hell if there is one misstep, etc.

    I lived in the Bible Belt. When we first came to the States we were so dirt poor (commie china = few belongings, no savings) it was ridiculous. The only people who helped us were baptists. Because of this my whole family except me is all baptized even though we are a thoroughly scientific family. Hence I thought a ton about science and religion and decided they are both good enough to coexist together. Humanity needs both types of belief systems.

    Plus I find arrogant atheists to be just as annoying as arrogant self righteous religious nuts.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Last edited by turquoisepassion; 11-03-2013 at 07:17 PM.
    ------
    HCLF: lean red meat, eggs, low-fat dairy, bone broth/gelatin, fruits, seafood, liver, small amount of starch (oatmeal, white rice, potatoes, carrots), small amount of saturated fat (butter/ghee/coconut/dark chocolate/cheese).

    My Journal: gelatin experiments, vanity pictures, law school rants, recipe links


    Food blog: GELATIN and BONE BROTH recipes

    " The best things in life are free and the 2nd best are expensive!" - Coco Chanel

  5. #225
    Jorjor's Avatar
    Jorjor is offline Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    51
    Quote Originally Posted by magicmerl View Post
    Well yes, but they can still sexually interbreed.

    Kinda.

    In a similar way to insects along a mountain range can interbreed with insects in the next valley, who can interbreed with the insects in the next vcalley etc, until you go all the way around the range and find two adjacent species who cannot interbreed with each other (despite all of the 'intermediate' forms who can)

    Interbreeding succesfuy means that the offspring are fertile. Most mules aren't fertile

  6. #226
    Urban Forager's Avatar
    Urban Forager is online now Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Northern California
    Posts
    2,611
    Quote Originally Posted by RichMahogany View Post
    I have nothing against religions, per se. I have issues with religions that teach that we're flawed beings in need of salvation of some type or flavor to escape the misery of life on this planet. Unfortunately, this describes all the major religions of Eastern and Western civilizations. I'm in love with the old religion(s) of tribal peoples (animism) whose gods live here and whose earthly (only) lives have meaning, rather than being preludes to some kind of afterlife.
    I have the same issue with Eastern and Western religions, they are all so down on this life. It's no wonder the earth is being trashed, and then there are the sci-fi science worshipers who think that when we make the earth uninhabitable we can just immigrate another planet. I am more of an animist, this whole place is sacred and learning about science only reinforces to me how amazing and beautiful it all is.
    Life is death. We all take turns. It's sacred to eat during our turn and be eaten when our turn is over. RichMahogany.

  7. #227
    RichMahogany's Avatar
    RichMahogany is online now Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    6,967
    Quote Originally Posted by Gorbag View Post
    Richard Dawkins LOL! Shallow bibelbelt Americans needed an atheist boogeyman to scare them into firmer faith and a shallow atheist, biologist and philosopher wannabee stepped on the soapbox to help them! If Dawkins had just let the naive American christians alone, then we would not have noticed them much, at least not outside their own country...
    This is a lot like when someone repeats a joke, incorrectly, that he misunderstood to begin with. You really should actually read some Dawkins before you decide to dismiss him. At least look up his list of works instead of basing your entire opinion on The God Delusion, which is a book I liked, but is not in any way a microcosm of the whole of his work.

  8. #228
    RichMahogany's Avatar
    RichMahogany is online now Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    6,967
    Quote Originally Posted by Urban Forager View Post
    I have the same issue with Eastern and Western religions, they are all so down on this life. It's no wonder the earth is being trashed, and then there are the sci-fi science worshipers who think that when we make the earth uninhabitable we can just immigrate another planet. I am more of an animist, this whole place is sacred and learning about science only reinforces to me how amazing and beautiful it all is.
    Yeah x 100. That's not to say that I hate people who are religious. But I hate the fact that their only choices for experiencing spirituality are religions that teach that their earthly lives are devoid of meaning and wonder, and that the earth is not man's true home/a sacred place.

  9. #229
    Derpamix's Avatar
    Derpamix is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    California
    Posts
    5,390
    Quote Originally Posted by RichMahogany View Post
    Somehow, I think Derp is of the belief that Darwinian or neo-Darwinian natural selection mandates that a member of one species produces an offspring that's not a member of its own species. Humans growing wings is obviously a ridiculous example to ask. I think he fails to understand, perhaps, that a mutation occurs, in rare instances, that confers a survival advantage (a survival advantage to the genes, via the individual, whether this means it can resist being killed better, hunt prey better, attract mates better, whatever). But it's only with dozens or hundreds or more generations that a distinct gene pool becomes apparent. This is what's so beautifully illustrated by ring species. It's sort of like a cross-section of speciation that we can see concurrently. A gives rise to B, but B and A are hard to distinguish and can easily interbreed. B gives rise to C, C to D, D to E, which happens to be in a territory adjacent to A's. But while the neighbors can all mate and the "line" between species is blurred at every point around the ring, A and E are clearly distinct, and can't and don't mate at all. Or maybe he's just making up a lot of words to describe things he doesn't understand in a way that he thinks can confuse us. I'm not claiming to be a biologist. Laz and tp and a few of the other posters here seem more equipped to address this than I am, but despite all the words he's used, he's failed to make his objection clear. Like he thinks species and genes are some type of truly distinct and impenetrable units, which is, to my dilettante's understanding, not the case at all. Distinct species are only distinct with the conceit of hindsight.
    No, you're still not getting it. All you have is that micro evolution(not disputing, obviously), eventually leads to macro evolution. Not even evolutionists claim that this(ring species) is evidence of it, so you're literally refuting yourself with your admitted lack of knowledge. You can't seem to admit this has never taken place, so you're trying to straw man this in along with your buddy 0Angel0. What you are literally referring to, whether you know it or not, is a change in the frequency of alleles, but what you're not taking into account is the fact that this change in frequency necessarily reflects a reduction in some of the alleles, or a complete elimination of them, and the only increase is merely a matter of the difference in proportions present in the those populations, the expression of formerly suppressed alleles that were already present in the old population. I don't know how many times I have to say this. There is no increase in the alleles available, there is simply more of a certain kind, of which there used to be proportionally fewer in the former population, but there is always a decrease in alleles that defined the original population and in some cases a complete elimination of those formerly expressed alleles which results in a loss of genetic diversity.

    When you repeat around the ring, over long periods of time to establish a large and phenotype homogeneous population, one established population becomes the basis for the migration of a core few of its members to a new territory to form a new population, this group possess an even more limited amount of alleles from the former population, with the new frequency of alleles becoming the basis for a new phenotype that would emerge from the inbreeding. This is, what you know as isolation and inbreeding among members of the new population, which you would call the new "species" or subspecies. With this "speciation", as you would refer to it, there is an accompanied reduction in genetic possibilities(gene depletion again), from changes in gene frequency that occurs with the new population, as it requires(genetic law) that some of the alleles that formed the phenotype of its predecessor to be lost in new population.

    tl;dr "speciation" comes at a loss of variability, and you are still not providing what I've been asking this whole thread.
    Longing is the agony of the nearness of the distant

  10. #230
    RichMahogany's Avatar
    RichMahogany is online now Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    6,967
    Quote Originally Posted by Derpamix View Post
    No, you're still not getting it. All you have is that micro evolution(not disputing, obviously), eventually leads to macro evolution. Not even evolutionists claim that this(ring species) is evidence of it, so you're literally refuting yourself with your admitted lack of knowledge. You can't seem to admit this has never taken place, so you're trying to straw man this in along with your buddy 0Angel0. What you are literally referring to, whether you know it or not, is a change in the frequency of alleles, but what you're not taking into account is the fact that this change in frequency necessarily reflects a reduction in some of the alleles, or a complete elimination of them, and the only increase is merely a matter of the difference in proportions present in the those populations, the expression of formerly suppressed alleles that were already present in the old population. I don't know how many times I have to say this. There is no increase in the alleles available, there is simply more of a certain kind, of which there used to be proportionally fewer in the former population, but there is always a decrease in alleles that defined the original population and in some cases a complete elimination of those formerly expressed alleles which results in a loss of genetic diversity.

    When you repeat around the ring, over long periods of time to establish a large and phenotype homogeneous population, one established population becomes the basis for the migration of a core few of its members to a new territory to form a new population, this group possess an even more limited amount of alleles from the former population, with the new frequency of alleles becoming the basis for a new phenotype that would emerge from the inbreeding. This is, what you know as isolation and inbreeding among members of the new population, which you would call the new "species" or subspecies. With this "speciation", as you would refer to it, there is an accompanied reduction in genetic possibilities(gene depletion again), from changes in gene frequency that occurs with the new population, as it requires(genetic law) that some of the alleles that formed the phenotype of its predecessor to be lost in new population.

    tl;dr "speciation" comes at a loss of variability, and you are still not providing what I've been asking this whole thread.
    So you think it's impossible for genetic material to be duplicated? What about hox genes? Maybe this will clear up your confusion?

    Development is epigenetic Why Evolution Is True

Page 23 of 42 FirstFirst ... 13212223242533 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •