Do you like how Dawkins, Hitchens et al. represent atheists?

[iceaura]

There is less difference between the DNA of a wolf and the average mongrel dog than there is between a human from Norway and a human from Borneo.

? I think think you are underestimating - not the similarity of dogs and wolves, but the similarity of humans.

tetrapods? Hey we have bandwidth restrictions on humor loops (The kinds of changes that tetraploidy produces in plants would kill most animals -and definitely restrict the breeding potential of any humans, even those aroused by empathy with snail-mating.)

So you investigate and discuss after ascertaining the presence of something that you haven't defined? Weird.

Yeah. Like Newton with light, Galileo with gravity (and moons), Tesla with "electricity", linguists with "language", chemists with "liquids", the old biologists with "species" - onward through the fog.

Definitions are typically the final, crowning acheivement of successful scientific investigation - or any other discussion involving reason and rationality as key players. Not that provisional, ad hoc categories and labels haven't proven themselves useful, along the way.

We seem to have thrown "theism" and "religion" into the same box here, for example - and somehow decided that Marxism and Stalinism and Maoism were none of them religions, even, let alone theistsic ones - I believe without properly defining religion, or "god", at all.

An isolated set of genes does not undergo changes or produce hierarchy.

The genes we are talking about are not isolated.

 

[S.A.M.]

Yeah. Like Newton with light, Galileo with gravity (and moons), Tesla with "electricity", linguists with "language", chemists with "liquids", the old biologists with "species" - onward through the fog.

Definitions are typically the final, crowning acheivement of successful scientific investigation - or any other discussion involving reason and rationality as key players. Not that provisional, ad hoc categories and labels haven't proven themselves useful, along the way.

We seem to have thrown "theism" and "religion" into the same box here, for example - and somehow decided that Marxism and Stalinism and Maoism were none of them religions, I believe without properly defining religion at all.

Hmm so when Newton et al were investigating whatever they were, they had no idea what to look for? On what did they base their hypotheses? What did they test?

The genes we are talking about are not isolated.

My point, exactly. But scientifically speaking, if we were to formulate a hypothesis on their characteristics, we would remove all variables that could affect them externally.

 

[iceaura]

My point, exactly. But scientifically speaking, if we were to formulate a hypothesis on their characteristics, we would remove all variables that could affect them externally.

And if we were to formulate a hypothesis about patterns in their direct and indirect interactions with each other (such as competition) we would bring those "variables" back in. So?

Hmm so when Newton et al were investigating whatever they were, they had no idea what to look for? On what did they base their hypotheses? What did they test?

Whatever Newton was investigating when he investigated "light", he did not cripple his investigations by defining "light " in advance. He recognised it (incompletely), could get his hands on some of it, had examples to work with, etc.

The definition of "light" came quite a bit later, with better understanding.

Or check out the early investigators of "heat". Again - definitions came after understanding, not before.

 

[(Q)]

Gee sam, it isn't very ethical of you to go back and delete your posts. Tsk,tsk.

Will you also be deleting your quotes out of my responses, too? Or, will you simply delete them all?

Tsk, tsk, tsk.

 

[S.A.M.]

And if we were to formulate a hypothesis about patterns in their direct and indirect interactions with each other (such as competition) we would bring those "variables" back in.

So then you can give me an example of genes actively competing with each other?

 

[iceaura]

So then you can give me an example of genes actively competing with each other?

"Actively competing" ?

How about "in competition". Our language, like our intuition, is poorly set up for these matters as it is, no sense in exacerbating the difficulties.

The alleles of one specimen of Ursus horribilus, and those of another.

The genes of a developing fetus, and those of its mother.

The genome of a lethal disease organism, and that of its host.

 

[S.A.M.]

"Actively competing" ?

How about "in competition". Our language, like our intuition, is poorly set up for these matters as it is, no sense in exacerbating the difficulties.

The alleles of one specimen of Ursus horribilus, and those of another.

The genes of a developing fetus, and those of its mother.

The genome of a lethal disease organism, and that of its host.

Yeah, but what determines the fitness or survival value of those genes?

 

[iceaura]

Yeah, but what determines the fitness or survival value of those genes?

The count and extent of their descendents, many years from now.

 

[S.A.M.]

The count and extent of their descendents, many years from now.

Hmm, could you explain that?

e.g. recessive genes, why do they exist?

 

[Xev]

GeoffP:
Oh goodness no, I'm an English major over at EMU, on and off. I have a more amatuer interest in the subject through my friend Joy, she does somewhat simular research to what we're discussing, although more on learning now.

Good food for thought, I leave this thread to its...well natural tendencies:


SAM:

Made it worse? Like I said, you have to show empirical evidence that atheists would make it better. Current capitalism has exacerbated the condition of those starving children you are always yawing about.

First we're Marxists and killed millions during the Soviet period, now we're capitalists and letting children starve to line our pockets.
I'm not sure whether I should be singing the Internationale or driving a Rolls.

I think a world full of individualistic, look out for number one atheists would lead to a dog eat dog society.

Possibly. So now truth is a function of social utility? Holy Foucault, Batman!

 

[(Q)]

Made it worse? Like I said, you have to show empirical evidence that atheists would make it better. Current capitalism has exacerbated the condition of those starving children you are always yawing about.

Perhaps a copy of the Quran would ease their blight?

Not to worry though, eh sam? I mean, their pitiful little souls ARE with Allah, are they not?

Ahhhh.... the blissful afterlife. Lucky stiffs.

 

[iceaura]

The count and extent of their descendents, many years from now. ”

Hmm, could you explain that?

How would you measure "fitness" or "survival value" apart from recording reproductive success and demonstrated survival of kind over the long term?

e.g. recessive genes, why do they exist?

If you keep asking questions in that kind of language, you will keep confusing Dawkins with someone arguing for direction in evolutionary processes.

There is no "why" to the existence, in itself, of such human labeled categories of pattern as "recessive genes". "Why" is a product of an approach to informative analysis, borrowed language that helps us think - or hinders our comprehension, depending.

 

[S.A.M.]

How would you measure "fitness" or "survival value" apart from recording reproductive success and demonstrated survival of kind over the long term?

If you keep asking questions in that kind of language, you will keep confusing Dawkins with someone arguing for direction in evolutionary processes.

There is no "why" to the existence, in itself, of such human labeled categories of pattern as "recessive genes". "Why" is a product of an approach to informative analysis, borrowed language that helps us think - or hinders our comprehension, depending.

Hmm so in your opinion fitness is measured by survival time, iow, the genes that survive longest are the fittest. Would you say these are also the genes that confer greatest survival advantages to its host ?

(PS, I am trying to unedrstand what you mean by competition between genes, if you feel my examples are inadequate, pls use your own.)

 

[Klippymitch]

Why do we try to find answers to unanswerable questions.

 

[(Q)]

Why do we try to find answers to unanswerable questions.

We're not, we're just trying to find answers to extraordinary claims to unanswerable questions.

 

[Xev]

We're not, we're just trying to find answers to extraordinary claims to unanswerable questions.

Actually, we're hanging out in our posh mansions, formenting a Marxist-Leninist revolution so that the dictatorship of the proletariat can be established because Communism is all about looking out for number one!

Oh, and we unilaterally deny the existence of God, because everyone knows that athiesm is all about claiming to have proved a negative! And you can't have a neutral absence of belief, because that's just.....well you can, but obviously athiests can't because they're illogical and they make claims that just appeal to authority, and all of this is true because I SAID SO.

Obviously the "a" prefix does not denote, as the Greek prefix-roote generally does, "without." In this case, the prefix means "I'm a bloody twat who doesn't know anything about logical argument and so I deny the existence of things that can't even be proved." Duh. This just is really advanced Greek.

Or we can stop being sarcastic and give a few lessons to the intellectually dishonest:

1: You can't logically discuss something that is defined as being beyond the bounds of logic.
2: Lack of belief does not translate to all-and-nothing disbelief, unless we're translating from English to the wacky Greek that some of you pinheads seem to rely on.
3: Arguing against the truth of something based on the negative consequences that would ensue from widespread belief or disbelief in that thing makes the baby Heideigger cry.

 

[iceaura]

Hmm so in your opinion fitness is measured by survival time, iow, the genes that survive longest are the fittest. Would you say these are also the genes that confer greatest survival advantages to its host ?

Fitness is measured after the fact, is the point. If you want to define it as geographic spread, or taxonomic spread, or prevalence, or something, no problem.

And not necessarily - host survival is just one means. It works, but so do others - as several viruses clearly demonstrate, and the reproductive routines of most beings less directly make clear. The original host of the homeobox genes is probably long dead, but that has not interfered at all with the survival, spread, and taxonomic radiation of the descendents of those most useful and adaptable strings of nucleic acids.

 

[S.A.M.]

Fitness is measured after the fact, is the point. If you want to define it as geographic spread, or taxonomic spread, or prevalence, or something, no problem.

And not necessarily - host survival is just one means. It works, but so do others - as several viruses clearly demonstrate. The original host of the homeobox genes is probably long dead, but that has not interfered at all with the survival, spread, and taxonomic radiation of the descendents of those most useful and adaptable strings of nucleic acids.

Hmm so survival of the gene per se, is what determines fitness and hence the competing ability?

 

[S.A.M.]

Actually, we're hanging out in our posh mansions, formenting a Marxist-Leninist revolution so that the dictatorship of the proletariat can be established because Communism is all about looking out for number one!

Oh, and we unilaterally deny the existence of God, because everyone knows that athiesm is all about claiming to have proved a negative! And you can't have a neutral absence of belief, because that's just.....well you can, but obviously athiests can't because they're illogical and they make claims that just appeal to authority, and all of this is true because I SAID SO.

Obviously the "a" prefix does not denote, as the Greek prefix-roote generally does, "without." In this case, the prefix means "I'm a bloody twat who doesn't know anything about logical argument and so I deny the existence of things that can't even be proved." Duh. This just is really advanced Greek.

Or we can stop being sarcastic and give a few lessons to the intellectually dishonest:

1: You can't logically discuss something that is defined as being beyond the bounds of logic.
2: Lack of belief does not translate to all-and-nothing disbelief, unless we're translating from English to the wacky Greek that some of you pinheads seem to rely on.
3: Arguing against the truth of something based on the negative consequences that would ensue from widespread belief or disbelief in that thing makes the baby Heideigger cry.

Dear Xev

You need to expand your horizons. Let Jesus and Mo guide you*

*reference for the well

http://www.jesusandmo.net/2007/07/03/well/

 

[iceaura]

Hmm so survival of the gene per se, is what determines fitness and hence the competing ability?

If coupled with the non-survival of another gene, it determines competitive success; and it measures fitness by most definitions of "fitness", YMMV.

Competing "ability" would be a philosophical extrapolation, shorthand way of thinking - dangerous one, IMHO, but rhetorically convenient.