Hey RRS biology science minds, please rip this creationism stuff up ...

I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
Hey RRS biology science minds, please rip this creationism stuff up ...

An idol worshiper omni god creationist friend sent atheist me god this, "myth of evolution" site biog regarding "why male female"....

http://www.trueorigin.org/sex01.asp

  I basically replied science is the study of the admitted unknowns, and religion just makes wishful dogma hocus pocus gawed stuff up as it goes.

  What has evolution science learned regarding why male female? I did google this question, but to my un-satisfaction of an answer .... damn it ....

  Thanks for any help , mark (me god as you)

 

 


Eloise
Theist
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1804
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
You can direct him here for

You can direct him here for some comprehensive insight while you wait for DG to load the bazooka.


phooney
phooney's picture
Posts: 385
Joined: 2007-02-07
User is offlineOffline
I seem to recall DG saying

I seem to recall DG saying something about yeast in regards to this several months ago...


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
Just the stuff I needed

Just the stuff I needed Eloise, thanks again RRS fans.

SEX! Its evolutionary origin.

http://www.asa3.org/archive/asa/199810/0065.html

 


Conor Wilson
Posts: 451
Joined: 2008-01-07
User is offlineOffline
While DG and/or Hamby are still loading the bazooka....

...isn't the long and short of it the fact that sexual reproduction allows for greater genetic diversity, thus enhancing the survival of the species?

 

Just asking.

 

Conor


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
Conor    , while we wait,

Conor    , while we wait, what is the force of seemingly instinctive survival? Where does the wish to survive come from on a cellular level?  Just is, but how?  Wow , so here we are, horney! Are we wishing to evolve?  Umm, yeah I want wings, and aqua lungs. Do cells wish? .... When does wishing start?!!!  Asexual orgasim!     


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5861
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Conor Wilson wrote:...isn't

Conor Wilson wrote:

...isn't the long and short of it the fact that sexual reproduction allows for greater genetic diversity, thus enhancing the survival of the species?

 

Just asking.

 

Conor

Yes this is pretty close. It increases the variety of genetic inheritance for natural selection to work on, so allowing faster adaptation to new environmental conditions without having to wait for benficial mutations. It also helps to spread resistance to microbial diseases thru the population.

Bacteria also transfer genetic material for much the same reason, although not as part of reproduction - see en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bacterial_conjugation.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
Yo Bob, the nature of

Yo Bob, the nature of orgasmic desire, as in me? Cells are horney? How so? Geezz, is an electron conscious to some degree? How do we divide all that is up, regarding consciousness in degrees? 

No, I don't think the cosmos is collectively a deity brain thinking super natural , immaterial separate designer thingy of what is, but then again, what is thinking ....  and this eternal horny attraction of particles, doing dances of transitions? 

  Maybe just call it gravity magnetism, bang bang, fuck fuck ?    My words ain't working to well now .... too much rum .... I write a bit different on coffee .... Me god, of no beginning , no end,  has no guilt .... GO SCIENCE 


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3718
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Quote:Evolutionists have

Quote:
Evolutionists have practically been forced to concede that there must be “some advantage” to a system as physiologically and energetically complex as sex-as Mark Ridley admitted when he wrote: “...[I]t is highly likely that sex has some advantage, and that the advantage is big. Sex would not have evolved, and been retained, unless it had some advantage”[8] (emp. added). Yet finding and explaining that advantage seems to have eluded our evolutionary colleagues.

This doesn't look very hard to debunk. 

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


MichaelMcF
Science Freak
MichaelMcF's picture
Posts: 525
Joined: 2008-01-22
User is offlineOffline
I always recommend cdk007's

I always recommend cdk007's videos on this sort of thing.  I can't wait for the rest of the series.  You should also check out the excellent video on abiogenesis

 

 

Forget Jesus, the stars died so that you could be here
- Lawrence Krauss


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
First, I admit that I have

First, I admit that I have not read the article.  I've read articles like it.  I've heard the arguments for why sex proves creation.

Second, that quote from Matt Ridley was taken severely out of context.  I've read that book.  He did say:  [I]t is highly likely that sex has some advantage, and that the advantage is big. Sex would not have evolved, and been retained, unless it had some advantage. " The thing is, after he says that, he spends a whole chapter on the various theories of how sex might have evolved.  At the end of the chapter, he concedes that none of these theories seems complete, and the exact mechanism by which sex evolved is still elusive, but he follows that concession with an obvious point.  Knowing the exact mechanism by which sex evolved is not strictly necessary because the advantages are obvious, and all you need is one mutation out of the billions and billions that had occurred to get the process started.

The argument that sex cannot have evolved fails for the same reason that the argument from irreducible complexity fails.  It misunderstands how evolution works -- by cumulative mutation.  Sex didn't have to occur in a single mutation.  It could have evolved convergently more than once.  Richard Dawkins does a very good job in The Selfish Gene of explaining how sometimes, evolution uses metaphorical scaffolding to accomplish a seemingly impossible task.

Suppose you want to build an arch out of stones.  You have to start from the ground, so you start stacking.  This works for a little while, but long before your arch is complete, each side will fall over due to gravity.  You'll never get a chance to put the center block in.

On the other hand, suppose you build a hill in the shape of an arch.  Then, you lay your stones down on the ground from the bottom of the hill to the top.  Once you've place the center blocks, you can go back with shovels and dig out the dirt, leaving only an arch.

Most of the theories of abiogenesis rely on some kind of currently unknown evolutionary scaffolding.  It's astronomically improbable that RNA simply sprung spontaneously into existence.  However, if we allow for now-extinct replicators which formed a chemical foundation upon which RNA could evolve, it becomes a lot easier to imagine it happening.  The first replicator didn't need to be particularly complex at all.  In fact, we would expect that it would be incredibly simple compared to RNA.  We are only limited in the number of pre-RNA replicators by the time in which such replicators could have evolved.

Similarly, we need not assume that sex sprung into being fully evolved.  All we need to do is imagine a situation in which primitive organisms trade genetic material.  Bacteria do this all the time, so we have a ready example right in front of us.  We don't have to speculate about whether it's possible or not.  Now, all we have to do is imagine the tiniest of evolutionary steps that would give an advantage to its possessor and lead in the direction of sexual reproduction.  Think of the tiniest improvement you can that leads towards differentiation.  It's not hard to imagine, for instance, that some organisms within a population might "find" evolutionary advantage in producing small numbers of large offspring containing as many resources as possible while others found evolutionary advantage in producing large numbers of small offspring containing enough resources to make it in an ideal situation.  Both strategies can work simultaneously.  The large offspring would have the advantage of surviving harsh conditions better while the small offspring would be better at finding resources.  That is, out of a hundred small offspring, there's a better chance of finding scarce resources than with ten large ones.  More searchers, more chance of finding resources.

So, can we imagine a situation in which a tiny change in offspring size could happen in a population, and that two successful strategies could evolve?  Of course we can.  But what if, instead of leading to two species, two evolutionarily successful strategies "learned" to combine their forces?  It's honestly not that big a leap.  Remember, they don't have to sexually reproduce on the first try.  Also, remember that bacteria often trade genetic information.  All we have to do is imagine two slightly different varianats of an organism that, instead of continuing on a path to speciation, take a different path and evolve into two sexes instead of two species.

 

 

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


Conor Wilson
Posts: 451
Joined: 2008-01-07
User is offlineOffline
Thanks for the reply,

Thanks for the reply, BobSpence1!

 

I might actually be learning something from those biology texts that I got from the used-book store.

 

Back to the reading...

 

Conor


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
The "will to life" force, is

Thanks RRS friends ....

The "will to life" force, is a puzzle. This is at the roots of the reason for the on going "conscious creator" arguments. It's a shame all mysteries are turned into dogma by the traditional "god of abe" type idol worshipers. The transition of what we call "dead matter into live matter" is perplexing and leads to the question of what is consciousness, even on a QM level.

I am only bothered by this because religion "separatism" still exists. "I am god as You" is a no brainer to me.   

So the unanswered "force cause" and reason to survive and evolve, does persist, which unfortunately turns into wishful religion dogma. Science is a huge part of the cure to eradicating religious wishful "faith" based delusion.

Fuck war, eat the rich.  Fund science, education, communication, ethics of cooperation, world wide. Religion answers nothing much. Me GOD cells "want", but how come, is a big unanswered question?

Thinking about the not yet perverted young innocent kids of the world, of all colors playing together, is a huge inspiration for me. Learning prejudice, fear, and religious "self god separatism" is the ugly enemy we must fight to over come. I have a dream! Imagine no religion, no presidents, no countries, living as one .... yeah I am a dreamer .... We are 100% god, is not a dream  ....  WE are what we are, as "I am what I am". One and unique, as is the evolution of male female.

  Cool old tune, to play loud,
Savoy Brown - I'm Tired
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MYCH3Ias__g


Switch89
Posts: 67
Joined: 2007-09-13
User is offlineOffline
I ripped this exact TO

I ripped this exact TO article on my blog a while back:

http://aigbusted.blogspot.com/2008/04/example-of-power-of-evolution.html

 

Enjoy!

 


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
Thanks a lot Switch89, and

Thanks a lot Switch89, and so male female. But how would cells, DNA care? Why the "will to servive" on an atomic cellular level? I am a bit perplexed, but on on the other hand, all is just an energy reaction, and so we more "conscious" things simply look backwards as to what we are, and how so .... "And that's the way it was", said Walter Cronkite. And I add, "the way it is" , wondering how so in detail .... I am amazed 24/7 .... me god, what the fuck is going one .... consciousness ? BANG BANG.   


MichaelMcF
Science Freak
MichaelMcF's picture
Posts: 525
Joined: 2008-01-22
User is offlineOffline
 cdk007's new video on the

 

cdk007's new video on the evolution of sex


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
Yeah Michael, that cdk007

Yeah Michael, that cdk007 has some cool vids.

http://www.youtube.com/user/cdk007

Thanks all you RRS fans. I AM, Mark, G-O-D stuff, just as YOU, awesome, fancy! ....


Switch89
Posts: 67
Joined: 2007-09-13
User is offlineOffline
Hey,Natural Selection is, of

Hey,

Natural Selection is, of course, a blind and unconscious process. I might say that my car door doesn't "want" to open, but in fact we both know that a car door doesn't have free will and cannot "want" anything. The same thing is applicable if I personify the process of evolution.

 

The fact is, sexually reproducing organisms have a greater survival advantage and will become more common, especially in a situation where one has to deal with parasites frequently.

Looking up "Natural Selection", reading about it, and really understanding the process will help.


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
 "Natural Selection is, of

 "Natural Selection is, of course, a blind and unconscious process. I might say that my car door doesn't "want" to open, but in fact we both know that a car door doesn't have free will and cannot "want" anything." ~ Switch89

I agree per current definitions, as the car collection of matter is assembled by us, and not aware it's a car. But could we say the force that binds the atom parts, that bind to be molecules, inorganic and organic chemical elements, and the entire material cosmos is a gravitational force, and technically a "form" of consciousness???

I am purposely challenging the general definition(s) of conscious, as it doesn't yet satisfactorily answer my confusion. On a number line of matter and it's connectedness, at what point would we say that is now conscious?

Will science ever come to say that gravity (or) is in some explainable physics sense conscious, as all energy/matter is an eternally connected closed interacting "aware" system?

I lack the knowledge to better form my question. At what degree do we claim something to be conscious mathematically?  

Ahaa, my awe overwhelms my pea brain. Sorry for giving anyone a headache!. Hey, I am most always giggling as I type .... I need a bigger brain, god damn it. Shit!   

 


Switch89
Posts: 67
Joined: 2007-09-13
User is offlineOffline
I don't buy into the idea

I don't buy into the idea that matter, energy, forces, etc. are inherently conscious.

Here is a page which summarizes my ideas about consciousness:

http://evanlouissheehan.home.comcast.net/~evanlouissheehan/Simplifying_Consciousness.htm

 


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
Switch89, thanks very much.

Switch89, thanks very much. I really enjoyed reading that ... I quote below some of the essay, and add a few unorganized thoughts ... I will certainly be referencing this again.  I copied into my "consciousness" folder. There is nothing in the essay I disagree with. But still the unanswered remains of how or what is this "natural will to survive" of the deterministic cosmos of matter transitions leading to "life" and what we call consciousness? I think the answer will come within this century and will be surprisingly simple, as will our definition of consciousness.

"Our human feelings are those links between our goals as individuals and the goals of our genes," ... as to  "benefit our genes"  

    ~ Much like I was musing, is the "thermostat analogy" mentioned in the essay.

"Before earthly life gained the ability to construct plans that involve investment of effort for future gain, all individual instances of life lived only ‘in-the-moment’.  Brain circuitry responded immediately to the detection of important situations in the environment.  There would have been no evolutionary reason for the development of conscious feelings.  Immediate responders don’t need associated feelings to be effective.  But the ability to create and assess plans based on expectations of the future does require certain beliefs in conscious feelings. "

"I suspect that all lower species of life – those incapable of predictive planning – don’t have feelings, even though they may seem as though they do."
    ~  Yeah, even inorganic matter in it's connected way can appear that way... as I called "gravity", and some times "glue".

" In other words, rational thought is impossible without a deterministic mind."

~ Agreed, now to actually mathematically model this deterministic energy force in constant perpetual transitions, that results in the reality that includes organic life's "innate beliefs"  that  "benefit it's genes" as a "perpetuation interests of our genes" .       
   Carl Sagan mused that,  we are the cosmos experiencing it self !!!

"Metaphorically, our genes might laugh at how we humans value things that serve their interests."      ~  yeah !!!

"We are now in a position to answer a question that has perplexed many:  Will computers ever have feelings?  Computers will most definitely have feelings when we program their belief systems to include beliefs in their own feelings.  A skeptic might retort:  They won’t actually feel anything – they will merely believe they feel things.  But is there really a defensible distinction?  Could we not make the same claim about humans?"  

"Once we admit that this uncomfortable idea completely fits all the scientific data – with the sole exception being that it just doesn’t ‘feel’ right – then we are free to accept that human brains are deterministic, which also fits our scientific understanding of physical brain processes.  We find ourselves with a very simple explanation of free will:  There is no such thing.  We merely believe we freely choose the courses of our lives.  But unlike feelings, which actually become ‘real’ to us as individuals when we believe in them, free will remains a powerful illusion even when we devoutly believe in it."

 " In other words, rational thought is impossible without a deterministic mind."
      ~ as is the natural material cosmos, deterministically, of which we are the eyes of the cosmos ... as I like to say , "we are g-o-d, as all is ONE"

      Geezz, I luv you RRS fans.

 


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
I wrote here,  OP - "Free

I wrote here,  OP - "Free Will or God's Pawns?"

http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/14697#comment-206465

29 - All existence is connected as one, and so in a physics sense all is pre-determined, and so there is no free will of g-o-d, as meaning all existence and ourselves ... yet the seemingly random behavior we feel as "free will" consciousness, is nothing more than the included nature of yet undefined random chaos, as is the mystery of consciousness ... BUT within the "closed eternal system" of thermodynamics, as now QM science is revealing.  (aha, that needs re-writing as usual)   

Science is the only honest study of g-o-d, then philosophy summarizes linguistically, then religion always spins into hocus pocus idol worship separatist dogma poison.

We are the eyes of g-o-d looking at it self.    

See BobSpence1's  following post, # 30

   I am certain we humans will basically figure this consciousness, freewill thing out, if we survive another century or so.