Are you an atheist?

[Mike375]

Thanks.
But now I don't remember exactly what I had changed it to. I've changed it a few times. I know proof was in there someplace, and I do agree that evidence =/= proof.

Here is your original.......what comes in email after someone posts.

................................................................................................

Doc Man, not everything can be neatly sorted rolled into this category or that.
Especially when it comes to divine beings, the meaning of LIFE - that sort of stuff.
I re-state that the difficulty in proving/disproving the existence of God has more to do with the nature of God than the size of the domain. The domain could be reduced to the size of a thimble - as in - DOES GOD EXIST WITHIN THIS THIMBLE and you would still have a big job on your hands to answer that to anyone's satisfaction. Not all questions are factual YES or NO questions.
Furthermore (and by the way we really don't disagree - at least we're close to the same views it seems to me from your post) but it's not the lack of evidence that is at the root of the disagreement. To believers, the evidence is all around them. The non believers just don't accept it as evidence. And finally, evidence is not proof. It's only evidence.

 

[Mike375]

Why don't you tell us your version of the origins of snakes?

I wish I knew.

Transitioning over millions of years from lizards would make for a hopeless sort of animal for a long time. I can't see it being a mutation so its over and done quickly.

The legless lizard is interesting because that is exactly what it is, a lizard without legs. Not even close to a snake and I have owned both.

My basic view on macro evolution is I think there were a lot more starting points. For example I don't think it is fish, amphibian and then reptile. In other words the problem to get from spawn to the amniote egg might not have existed as the reptile might not be from the amphibian.

 

[Galaxiom]

Transitioning over millions of years from lizards would make for a hopeless sort of animal for a long time. I can't see it being a mutation so its over and done quickly.

Most mutations are disadvantageous. Only those which are not especially harmful persist unless they are tied to another mutation that affords such an advantage that the detrimental linked gene is less of a disadvantage than the beneficial one.

In many cases the first mutation on the road to change is nothing more than a duplication. This subsequently allows one version of the gene to continue with its normal job while the duplicate is free to change into another function

My basic view on macro evolution is I think there were a lot more starting points. For example I don't think it is fish, amphibian and then reptile. In other words the problem to get from spawn to the amniote egg might not have existed as the reptile might not be from the amphibian.

So despite the undeniable similarities in all life from microorganisms through to mammals, you are suggesting that life originated in multiple independent occasions to become separately, fish, amphibians, lizards and snakes?

 

[Rabbie]

Mike, A burrowing lizard could over many generations slowly loose its legs to become more and more snakelike. These changes would be advantageous so would lead the creature further down the evolutionary path. It is pretty clear that evolution is a series of very small steps and not a sudden macro leap forward.

In the case of snakes our knowledge of their exact evolutionary path is very limited due to the shortage of fossils and work is being done all the time in this field.

It does seem clear that there was a single source of life on this planet rather than your theory of multiple sources but I, like you, am an amateur in this field and must take my information from what experts have published and been peer reviewed.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

I don't deny evolution. However I think what is put forward is full of holes.

OK, that is your opinion, but let's please clarify. Do you find holes in the theory or in the supporting physical evidence? Let me see if I can put this in perspective. Here is an analogy that I will use to help show why your "hole" statement isn't quite valid.

Let us suppose for a brief moment that you are (were) a hard-working, honest police detective who worked in Nagasaki in early August of 1945 and were assigned a case regarding a murder in the city that had to be investigated. So there you are, a cop who is investigating a crime. But... you get called away for something in a nearby prefecture so you are out of town August 6th, 1945. (Lucky you...)

When the dust settles and the human tragedy of the A-bomb that leveled Nagasaki is finally resolved, you get back to your case - but now all of your evidence is either burned or eroded or buried. Your case is full of holes but does that mean the murder didn't occur? NO. It simply means that some of your proof has been eliminated and your theory of the crime has to now include multiple steps of logic to fill in some large gaps. Similarly, just because we have incomplete evidence with some gaps doesn't invalidate the events on the other side of those gaps. To say that macro evolution is invalidated because we don't have quite all of the fossil evidence is just being obtuse about alternative evidence.

In our case, we have DNA that gives us a guideline for the gaps because we can see the changes in genomes between two species and find how close they were. MANY times we have been able to find the change between two species to be just a few genes. We share 99% of our human genome with the genomes of the great apes.

The problem with the folks who can't make the mental leap from micro-evolution to macro-evolution is their inability to step outside of their limited viewpoints on time scales. They (apparently) believe that if it can't happen within the span of their own lifetimes, it must not be possible. And there is the fatal flaw in such thinking - the narrow viewpoint of time.

 

[Mike375]

Most mutations are disadvantageous. Only those which are not especially harmful persist unless they are tied to another mutation that affords such an advantage that the detrimental linked gene is less of a disadvantage than the beneficial one.

I agree with you that mutations are mostly bad news. However, many evolutions claim that mutations allow for evolution and it is the method which overcomes the transition period whereby an animal would be in a form that could not survive.

So despite the undeniable similarities in all life from microorganisms through to mammals, you are suggesting that life originated in multiple independent occasions to become separately, fish, amphibians, lizards and snakes?

Firstly, I think the branches of the tree started further down. In other words if we could travel back along the line from a reptile we would not see a frog and then a fish. If another person to also travel back and started with the frog then we would finally meet up with each other.

However, I don't think life started at a single point. I think it was starting all over the world. One would expect the different forms to have similarities simply because of the conditions.

 

[Mike375]

Mike, A burrowing lizard could over many generations slowly loose its legs to become more and more snakelike. These changes would be advantageous so would lead the creature further down the evolutionary path. It is pretty clear that evolution is a series of very small steps and not a sudden macro leap forward.

In the case of snakes our knowledge of their exact evolutionary path is very limited due to the shortage of fossils and work is being done all the time in this field.

It does seem clear that there was a single source of life on this planet rather than your theory of multiple sources but I, like you, am an amateur in this field and must take my information from what experts have published and been peer reviewed.

Rabbie,

Loss of legs is a very small difference between snakes and lizards. We have today legless lizards and then lizards with very small legs (in relation to body size) and lizards with very large legs, especially the back legs.

But the difference to the snake is much bigger. For one thing a snake a snake only has one functioning lung. A snake is nearly all body, that is, the tail is very small. A legless lizard has the long tail. The scale structure is completely different, For example a legless lizard (there are several species) moves forward in a manner totally different to a snake.

Then we have the skull and jaw structure. Then we have the snake with 100s of vertebrae.

Another difference is size and appearance of males and females, that is,
sexual dimorphism. This is especially interesting. The lizard along with crocodiles, caimans and alligators have males which are bigger and very often more colourful, in some cases to the extent of the peacock and peahen. As you mammals also have the male as the large one and often the most colourful or most decorated. African lion being a good example.

However, snakes go the other way that is common to "the lower forms of life". A great example being the Green Anaconda. The female is many many times heavier than the male.

As I posted earlier a legless lizard is a lizard in all ways except for the "no legs". If I handed you a legless lizard and a snake of the same length and you were blind folded and so could not see the ear openings on the legless lizard or the vent being a long way from the tip of the tail, you could still instantly tell which was which by just the feel of them as well as how they would be moving in your hands.

 

[Libre]

If I handed you a legless lizard and a snake of the same length and you were blind folded and so could not see the ear openings on the legless lizard or the vent being a long way from the tip of the tail, you could still instantly tell which was which by just the feel of them as well as how they would be moving in your hands.

If you blindfolded me and then handed me a legless lizard and a snake of the same length, I would not be able to tell which was which on account of the fact that I'd be unconscious due to the shock of being blindfolded and having you hand me these things.
This would be you:
Here put this blindfold on. Yeah. A little tighter. That's right. Now just hold your hands out - that's right - a little farther. Don't worry - I'm just going to put two little soft and fuzzy, cuddly little darlings in your hand. There you are. HA HA HA HA HA HAH (you laugh as I scream uncontrollably).
OH MY GOD WHAT ARE THESE THINGS??? ONE JUST BIT MY FINGER OFF - AAAGGGHHHHHHH!!!!

 

[Mike375]

OK, that is your opinion, but let's please clarify. Do you find holes in the theory or in the supporting physical evidence? Let me see if I can put this in perspective. Here is an analogy that I will use to help show why your "hole" statement isn't quite valid.

Let us suppose for a brief moment that you are (were) a hard-working, honest police detective who worked in Nagasaki in early August of 1945 and were assigned a case regarding a murder in the city that had to be investigated. So there you are, a cop who is investigating a crime. But... you get called away for something in a nearby prefecture so you are out of town August 6th, 1945. (Lucky you...)

When the dust settles and the human tragedy of the A-bomb that leveled Nagasaki is finally resolved, you get back to your case - but now all of your evidence is either burned or eroded or buried. Your case is full of holes but does that mean the murder didn't occur? NO. It simply means that some of your proof has been eliminated and your theory of the crime has to now include multiple steps of logic to fill in some large gaps. Similarly, just because we have incomplete evidence with some gaps doesn't invalidate the events on the other side of those gaps. To say that macro evolution is invalidated because we don't have quite all of the fossil evidence is just being obtuse about alternative evidence.

In our case, we have DNA that gives us a guideline for the gaps because we can see the changes in genomes between two species and find how close they were. MANY times we have been able to find the change between two species to be just a few genes. We share 99% of our human genome with the genomes of the great apes.

The problem with the folks who can't make the mental leap from micro-evolution to macro-evolution is their inability to step outside of their limited viewpoints on time scales. They (apparently) believe that if it can't happen within the span of their own lifetimes, it must not be possible. And there is the fatal flaw in such thinking - the narrow viewpoint of time.

Doc,

I don't deny macro evolution. However I can't see how it happens with a huge time in transition, at least not with a very large number of animals. On the other hand I don't believe God or gods looked at lizards and thought "I would like something different to look at and amuse me" and with a click of the fingers a snake arrived.

I have been a reptile keeper and also a keen follower of dinosaurs for most of my life. I could not manage to be a dinosaur keeper

Probably the stand out thing with dinosaurs is the constantly changing view points. For example, later thinking is no longer that birds descended from the smaller theropods but the theropods descended from flightless birds.

 

[Mike375]

This thread was started in 2008 and the thread stater's last posting was 03-01-2010

I wonder if anyone who has been on and off the thread over the last 7 years has had any change in their views?

 

[Frothingslosh]

Murderboy's inept attempts to explain how the Bible actually means the opposite of what it actually says have served to push me nearly entirely into atheism, actually, simply due to my seeing even more clearly how self-contradictory, impossible, and straight-up EVIL most of the teachings and fables in it are. (In fact, pretty much anything not attributed directly to Jesus - and a few of the things attributed to him - would get you into a LOT of legal trouble REALLY quickly.)

 

[Mike375]

Murderboy's inept attempts to explain how the Bible actually means the opposite of what it actually says have served to push me nearly entirely into atheism, actually, simply due to my seeing even more clearly how self-contradictory, impossible, and straight-up EVIL most of the teachings and fables in it are. (In fact, pretty much anything not attributed directly to Jesus - and a few of the things attributed to him - would get you into a LOT of legal trouble REALLY quickly.)

Regarding the Bible as a pile of lies or whatever does not make one an atheist.

 

[Frothingslosh]

You asked a question; I answered it.

Arguing with me saying I don't understand why I did something simply makes it less likely that others will answer you.

Your inability to accept data with which you disagree is not my problem.

Besides, where did I say the Bible made me atheist? Fact: I didn't, because I'm not. Yet.

 

[dichotomous]

Mike, there are so many things in your post that I disagree with that I don't even know where to begin.

Well, you are talking to a genuine atheist right now, and no, I don't believe that what goes around comes around.

You do not need one iota of any sort of faith to understand evolutionary theory. That is a tragic misunderstanding that can easily be remedied by studying the subject. There are many great books on the subject, several by Dawkins himself in fact. In these books you will not find anyone asking you to take anything on faith. You will only find the evidence that lead us to our current understanding of evolutionary theory. Contrast that with the Bible. Yes the Bible is a historical document, but that in and of itself does not make anything that is written within the Bible true. You need a ton of faith to believe even a single page in the Bible, because there IS no evidence to go on.

The basis of evolutionary theory IS natural selection. What are you trying to say?

Hi there.

Interesting thread.

Natural selection?

Homosexuality is the conundrum for the Natural Selection theory, and, the reason for my rejection of the same. Natural selection would have eradicated the anomaly as being useless to its purpose.

Yet, throughout recorded history, homosexuality is there, in your face.

Not that I have any issue with homosexuality per se, just making an observation.

Alastair.

 

[Libre]

Hi there.

Interesting thread.

Natural selection?

Homosexuality is the conundrum for the Natural Selection theory, and, the reason for my rejection of the same. Natural selection would have eradicated the anomaly as being useless to its purpose.

Yet, throughout recorded history, homosexuality is there, in your face.

Not that I have any issue with homosexuality per se, just making an observation.

Alastair.

If I can take a stab at answering this, I would say that in order for natural selection to occur, the trait in question has to have a genetic component - in other words be transmitted from generation to generation in the genes.

There is no such genetic component to homosexuality - at least none that I've heard of. If a trait is not genetically transmitted, it can't play any role in natural selection or evolution.

Right?

 

[dichotomous]

yes, you are correct. If not genetic, then the factor, or trait cannot play a role in natural selection. But the G&L community are trying hard to get it proven than their preference is in fact genetic rather than something they choose.

So, pre-supposing they are proven correct, then, we arrive back at my original point, the gene that predisposes them to their sexual preference would have been eradicated by NS.

Right?

 

[Mike375]

The key point with homosexuals is they are produced by heterosexuals.

The only way natural selection could be applied to homosexuals would be if there was some test etc. that would predict if a heterosexual relationship would (or perhaps "even could") produce a homosexual. Now that would be when natural selection would come into play.

 

[dichotomous]

Mike

I didn't make my comment to be anti-homosexual. And I don't want my addition to this thread to be taken as such.

Natural selection, as a phenomenon in its own right, by it's own volition, operating at a level outside of our control,,,,,,would have eradicated the gene.

Homosexuality as genetic - renders the natural selection theory useless. A dichotomy.

 

[Frothingslosh]

In the past few decades, there has been a lot of research into the idea that human sexuality is on a scale, rather than being a binary toggle. From what I've seen, I think that is the most likely. This is, of course, made very difficult to study thanks to cultural forces that, for the last couple thousand years, have utterly condemned anyone who wasn't part of the majority who are straight.

If that is the case (I'm hardly a behaviorist - my own studies tend toward philosophy and physics), then it's not likely to be bred out of humanity any time soon.

 

[Mike375]

Mike


Natural selection, as a phenomenon in its own right, by it's own volition, operating at a level outside of our control,,,,,,would have eradicated the gene.

Homosexuality as genetic - renders the natural selection theory useless. A dichotomy.

The gene that causes homosexuality is coming from heterosexuals and as such I can't see how natural selection and homosexuality have any connection UNLESS as I said above there was some test that would demonstrate a particular couple would produce an offspring that is homosexual.