Tradition betrayed

[canninator]

Currently, we don't have an example of self-replicating ribozyme (as far as I know), but research is ongoing.

An interesting paper for you I think.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19131595

[71 dB]

I don't understand people who think evolution theory is false.
I don't understand people who believe in God.

It's 2011. I had understood the plausibility of evolution theory and the naivety of religious faith before I was 10 years old. How on earth is this so difficult for many adults? 

[canninator]

  Multicellulare life-forms in all their variety and complexity did occur explosivelly, how and why I don't know - and neither do you.

Just on this point, no one can ever truly know of course but there are a couple of reasonable mechanisms proposed. Reducing expression of Hsp90 through stress conditions can give clear and diverse morphological phenotypes in Drosophila (Rutherford and Linquist, 1998). This demonstrated that even in a an organism with a stable developmental programme, environmental stress can promote new morphologies BUT the work did not demonstrate speciation. Presumably (!) this needs to occur over longer time frames.

In bacteria, stress responsive error prone DNA polymerases (DNA pol IV) can give rise to diverse biochemistries. This work actually came about in the aftermath of the reports of directed evolution in lacZ in E coli, subsequently proven incorrect. What is clear is that there are enzymes able to promote rapid variation under environmental stress. I'm not sure what has been done on this in eukaryotes.

[canninator]

To construct a more plausible theory f evolution there are two things (at least, two things that have come up my own mind) one would have to do

1/ break the theory down to phylas and even subphylas and classes (thereby postuling the multiple origins of life forms whose possibility Darwin himselfs appears to habe been open to) - as relationship between chordatas, vertebratas and mammalia (for exemple) is more plausible than relationships between trees and vertebrates, or virus and trees
2/ account for the fact that variations are too few in their range and work on too superficial traits to provide a convincing mechanism for said evolution

I don't think I would argue either of these points in essence. I agree that the semantics of taxonomy and its traditional dependence on form is a dead end. On your second point, I would question the truth behind the statement "and work on too superficial traits" as I think the superficiality or otherwise is unknown. Other than that, I have no problem with the essence of your second point and to solve that problem would make someone one of the greatest biologists of the 21st century.

[Expresso]

I don't understand people who think evolution theory is false.
I don't understand people who believe in God.

It's 2011. I had understood the plausibility of evolution theory and the naivety of religious faith before I was 10 years old. How on earth is this so difficult for many adults? 

I agree...I can't undestand why people still believe that Jesus was born from a virgin mother and that he could perform various miracles.
People consider these stories as facts and talk about them with a straight face 


I'm not saying that i agree 100% with Darwin's theory, but at least it's a theory, an interpretation.
Religion on the other hand offers nothing. No theory, no proof. Just a set of dogmatic rules, that will never evolve even in a million years from now.

[Thomas Crystalstick]

There will never be a fruitful discussion of the theory of evolution, religion, etc.

Religious people (who are supposed to not be materialistic) make their own religious doctrine materialistic, and the materialists direct their criticism at a materialistic interpretation of a non-materialistic doctrine.

Everybody loses.

[jowcol]

Toucan, you keep denying that you are a creationist, but just to be clear, what is your account of how humans appeared on the earth?

I thought it had been proved conclusively by the Pastafarians to be FSM.  Just look at the decline of pirates over that last few centuries. 

http://www.venganza.org/about/open-letter/
http://www.venganza.org/

[drogulus]

There will never be a fruitful discussion of the theory of evolution, religion, etc.

Religious people (who are supposed to not be materialistic) make their own religious doctrine materialistic, and the materialists direct their criticism at a materialistic interpretation of a non-materialistic doctrine.

Everybody loses.

     I disagree. Such discussions play a role in spreading knowledge, even if only by directing people to investigate further the ideas that are presented. Some people will be inspired to learn more about, for example, materialism, or evolution. The notion that debates cause people to lose something is only credible from the standpoint of beliefs rather than knowledge. Yes, if your belief can't withstand scrutiny, you might lose something. From the standpoint of knowledge this is not a loss.

[drogulus]

What the paleontologists you are alluding to do is take the evidence 9ie the fossils) out of context and line them up in light of the theory, without due regard to their dating or geographical location.

     No, they line them up according to their context, try out theories to find one that explains the dating and location. It's a process where theory and evidence are aligned by adjusting theory to accommodate what's found. Evidence changes theory, and evolution continues to evolve, as it should. The theory of Darwin is not the theory of Mendel, or of Watson and Crick, but it's the same theory to a remarkable extent. It's still a theory of natural selection, but now the question of how can be answered in much greater detail.

thereby postuling the multiple origins of life forms whose possibility Darwin himselfs appears to habe been open to

     Darwin theorized about a common origin for all life, but he didn't know about the genetic code, which confirmed a single origin. So yes, Darwin was open to the possibility of separate origins from parallel processes. We now know that didn't happen, and his hypothesis was correct. It still remains possible that very early life forms from the RNA world arose separately. In that case the winners ate the losers, and everything after that derives from a single origin. As a result, we have a single universal DNA code. Or, to put it another way, the single universal DNA code confirms the origin account which Darwin settled on.

[Thomas Crystalstick]

     I disagree. Such discussions play a role in spreading knowledge, even if only by directing people to investigate further the ideas that are presented.

I don't think you understood what I wrote.  Debate is useless if everybody has a different idea of what is being talked about.  These kinds of dialogues usually devolve into a mass of clichés.

[71 dB]

Debate is useless if everybody has a different idea of what is being talked about.

Why does everybody have a different idea of what is being talked about?

I have debated years online about these things and it has been a revelation to me how religious people still are, in 2011.  Finland is pretty secular country compared to many other places but even us Finns aren't as secular as we should be in 2011. By now, religions should have diminished to odd "cults" of small groups (<5 %) of population (there's always nut-cases and weirdos around). But cultural tradition and the institutional power of the church keep people religious and these crazy debates of evolution, creation and even ID continues...   

[Grazioso]

Why does everybody have a different idea of what is being talked about?

I have debated years online about these things and it has been a revelation to me how religious people still are, in 2011.  Finland is pretty secular country compared to many other places but even us Finns aren't as secular as we should be in 2011. By now, religions should have diminished to odd "cults" of small groups (<5 %) of population (there's always nut-cases and weirdos around). But cultural tradition and the institutional power of the church keep people religious and these crazy debates of evolution, creation and even ID continues... 

Why would you be surprised at the prevalence of religious beliefs today? That seems to imply that human nature has altered recently or a universally suitable and satisfactory substitute for religions has been made available.

Why should culture be secular? Why would you assume that people are merely "kept" religious by "tradition and the institutional power of the church"? Have you considered that people might consciously adopt or affirm religious views without external manipulation or pressure?

Certainly if you are adopting the scientific method as your principal means of gathering data and making predictions, you aren't being scientific here

That's part of the issue with these "crazy debates": you have groups with fundamentally incompatible worldviews, fundamentally different notions about how "truth" is found or constructed. It's only crazy in that some of them assume the others do or should hold the same principles. Recall that religions often see truth as divinely revealed/inspired or attained through personal mystical experience. Science by definition can't go there since it is founded on empiricism, measurement, reproducible experimentation, and objective peer review. Religions likewise deal in the promulgation of ethics and wisdom, which, strictly speaking, lies outside the realm of science; science is descriptive, not prescriptive.

Btw, you might find Thomas Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions a thought-provoking read.

[kishnevi]

Why does everybody have a different idea of what is being talked about?

I have debated years online about these things and it has been a revelation to me how religious people still are, in 2011.  Finland is pretty secular country compared to many other places but even us Finns aren't as secular as we should be in 2011. By now, religions should have diminished to odd "cults" of small groups (<5 %) of population (there's always nut-cases and weirdos around). But cultural tradition and the institutional power of the church keep people religious and these crazy debates of evolution, creation and even ID continues... 

You're not accounting for spiritual experience.  I don't "believe" in God.  I experience God, and it would be as sensible for me to say that the air I breath does not exist as it would be for me to say that God does not exist--that's how vivid and continual the experience of God is to me.

That does not require me to accept any particular religion or denomination as "true".  I am a Jew,  in part because that's what I was born into, and in part because I find the traditional view of the "Old Testament" as representing what happened to fit best with the historical/archeological evidence. (The contrary view, when examined, turns out to be based on circular reasoning, false assumptions, and rejecting the traditional view summarily, almost ideologically, without pausing to consider how accurate it might be.)  But even if you were able to prove the Old Testament was totally invalid, I'd still believe in God.  I might not continue to practice as a Jew (and my personal practice involves a lot of input from spiritual/religious traditions outside Judaism, as it is), but I could never be an atheist.

[71 dB]

Why would you be surprised at the prevalence of religious beliefs today?

Because of all the knowledge and understanding of the world we have today.

That seems to imply that human nature has altered recently or a universally suitable and satisfactory substitute for religions has been made available.

Human nature hardly has altered at all but we have knowledge far superior to religions.

Why should culture be secular?

Because secular culture can base itself to scientific proven facts and in case of non-proven things the most plausible theories available. Theories get corrected/defined in time. Religions tend to hold to erroneous conceptions delaying development of society (eg. the rights of sexual minorities).

Also, secular culture doesn't have arbitrary holy things driving mentally unbalanced individuals to violent fanatic actions for the sake of religion. Without religions these mental individuals have a lot less reason for any kind of fanatism meaning less terrorism.

Religious people are unable to think clearly because religion has infected their minds. I am sorry to say this but this is how it seems to be based on all the debates online I have had with religious people. So, secular culture seems to "protect" people's ability to think (freely).

The church as an institution is an obsolete one holding on it's status in society. Just look Vatican and Pope with all the scandals. It's lunacy!

Do you need more arguments for secular culture?

Why would you assume that people are merely "kept" religious by "tradition and the institutional power of the church"? Have you considered that people might consciously adopt or affirm religious views without external manipulation or pressure?

Because that's how it is. That's why children of parents of certain religion tend to assume the same religion. Even if people might consciously adopt or affirm religious views without external manipulation or pressure doesn't mean it's a good thing.

Certainly if you are adopting the scientific method as your principal means of gathering data and making predictions, you aren't being scientific here

I don't know what you mean by this but gathering data and making predictions based on that data IS science. Religions don't gather data nor do they make predictions. Why bother? All the answers are available in holy books! Who care if these answers are sometimes ridiculous, are often mutually inconsistent and in the end don't really tell us anything?

That's part of the issue with these "crazy debates": you have groups with fundamentally incompatible worldviews, fundamentally different notions about how "truth" is found or constructed. It's only crazy in that some of them assume the others do or should hold the same principles. Recall that religions often see truth as divinely revealed/inspired or attained through personal mystical experience. Science by definition can't go there since it is founded on empiricism, measurement, reproducible experimentation, and objective peer review. Religions likewise deal in the promulgation of ethics and wisdom, which, strictly speaking, lies outside the realm of science; science is descriptive, not prescriptive.

This a common fallacy religious people have about science. There is no realm beyond science. Everything can be examined scientifically, it's only a question of having scientific tools available. Sooner or later science will understand things that seem a monopoly of religion today. Religion will be killed by science and it is only a good thing. We are behind the schedule at the moment which is a bit frustrating.

Btw, you might find Thomas Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions a thought-provoking read.

It's frightening how much people allow few books influence their conceptions but if you want thought-provoking read, I can mention Richard Dawkins' The God Delusion. I prefer "gathering data" from all kind of sources and coming to my own conclusions after hard and long free-thinking. Reading The God Delusion was merely a verification process for me. In genetics Dawkins' knowledge is far superior to mine but otherwise our conclusions are similar.

(I read briefly about Kuhn's book in Wikipedia.)

[71 dB]

You're not accounting for spiritual experience.  I don't "believe" in God.  I experience God, and it would be as sensible for me to say that the air I breath does not exist as it would be for me to say that God does not exist--that's how vivid and continual the experience of God is to me.

Spiritual experiences are very complex electro-chemical reactions in our heads. I don't experience God because all the knowledge and understanding of the world I have has given me tools to analyze my experiences and name them more correctly. That is, I experience human experiences because I am alive. The air you breath can be observed by others and manifests itself in millions of ways all the time (eg. drag). No wonder everyone agrees about the existence of air. God does not enjoys such consensus.

That does not require me to accept any particular religion or denomination as "true".  I am a Jew,  in part because that's what I was born into, and in part because I find the traditional view of the "Old Testament" as representing what happened to fit best with the historical/archeological evidence. (The contrary view, when examined, turns out to be based on circular reasoning, false assumptions, and rejecting the traditional view summarily, almost ideologically, without pausing to consider how accurate it might be.)  But even if you were able to prove the Old Testament was totally invalid, I'd still believe in God.  I might not continue to practice as a Jew (and my personal practice involves a lot of input from spiritual/religious traditions outside Judaism, as it is), but I could never be an atheist.

I could never believe in (any) God, not in million years with the understanding I have of the world. Maybe 200 years ago I would have been religious but today religion seems ridiculous. You said it yourself. You are a Jew because you were born a Jew. That's also why you find the traditional view of the "Old Testament" as representing what happened to fit best with the historical/archeological evidence (what the heck that even means? What evidence?). You have been indoctrinated succesfully into Judaism. Sorry, but there is little hope for you to get rid of your beliefs and be able to think freely. 

[Josquin des Prez]

There's nothing 'metaphysical' to it. It's an argument based on taste, or if you'd like a longer word, aesthetics.

No, its a metaphysical statement (it is true that it is not an argument, you can't argue metaphysics, which deals with eternal principles which are fixed and immutable), its just that people like you don't know what the science of metaphysics actually entails (pure intellect as opposed to a simple branch of philosophy).

I'm reading Guénon as we speak, and it seems i may have finally found a metaphysical doctrine which actually runs in tandem with my own understanding of the world. It explains why i could never accept the Catholicism i grew up with and could never take on any other religion, including Buddhism, which is also a decadent religion (or a religion of decadence, as Christianity is today). Very few of the religions of the world actual deal with the principles which Guénon refer to as "traditional", but which are really intended to be nothing more then the underlying metaphysical truths which radiate from the absolute principle, which is the only true reality of the universe (call it God if you will), from which everything else comes forth, the material world being in the lowest echelon of this universal order. Those principles are no longer present in most of the major religions, particularly those of the west, and even in the east they are also difficult to find (there is an esoteric Islam which apparently still retains an understanding of those principles, which however remains hidden from the largest body of the religion). And then of course there is ancient India, which apparently developed an understanding of those principles better then any other civilization.

[Josquin des Prez]

There is no realm beyond science.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gkBD20edOco&feature=player_embedded

William Lane Craig demolishing that notion in less then a minute. No wonder Dawkins was afraid to argue with this guy.

[Josquin des Prez]

You're not accounting for spiritual experience.  I don't "believe" in God.  I experience God, and it would be as sensible for me to say that the air I breath does not exist as it would be for me to say that God does not exist--that's how vivid and continual the experience of God is to me.

See, this is a typical sentimental expression of religiosity which lacks a fundamental intellectual underpinning, and is thus not "traditional".

[Josquin des Prez]

but "race" isn't a scientific category anyway.

Actually, it is. Scientists today are just encouraged to see it either wise (or else). This is the real kicker here, because to deny the existence of race is to actually reject the theory of evolution, or to accept it only in so far as humans aren't included in the equation. Which really shows that liberalism, like all other forms of modern religions (including Christianity), isn't really interested in truth. Darwin, who had no such prejudices towards uncomfortable realities, saw no problems in including humans in the general narrative of evolution and selective adaptation.

[71 dB]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gkBD20edOco&feature=player_embedded

William Lane Craig demolishing that notion in less then a minute. No wonder Dawkins was afraid to argue with this guy.

Why is it that my atheistic claims are often responded with these short Youtube clips? Why am I supposed to believe my claims are demolished with these? Youtube is full of lunatics. Dawkins is not affaid, he just refuses to argue with these lunatics because they are not worth it.