Is Christianity True?

[scenic lance]

i dont agree with that reasoning and most people i speak to dont share that train of thought either

i believe that religion will never be proven

uhh wait

have u ever seen that movie

where they find evidence of a soul and it triggers a wave of suicides

i feel that proving religion would make the faith unimportant

and i believe that the entire point of religion is faith

[deft fossil]

I think most people agree that extrapolating data from a small sample size is not representative

[scenic lance]

im not saying that ALL christians think this way

just the ones ive spoken to

[deft fossil]

if I ask you and your neighbor what you think of Biden and then extrapolate to the whole of the US, I get a vastly different answer than when I would actually ask a sizable subset of the population

And the same logic applies to the bible or any other religious text

[scenic lance]

im not arguing that

[deft fossil]

the fact that some people find it hard to accept is something different

you literally said ''i dont agree with that reasoning''

[gilded pollen]

In any other context, a sentence like that would be a clear sign of insanity. It's a sign of how much brainwashing has gone on, that anyone accepts that it's fine to believe something without a shred of evidence, and then claim that making decisions without evidence is a sign of personal agency. That's just a nonsense argument when anyone makes it, whether they are religious or not.

[deft fossil]

but the fact is, that even if you could prove that jesus existed, it does not say ANYTHING about any other thing that is written in the bible

[scenic lance]

there is evidence

[gilded pollen]

Where? We've been asking for months in this thread and not a single piece has ever been provided.

[scenic lance]

for example love, beauty and all these abstract concepts

it doesnt need to be something physically proven

[gilded pollen]

None of those are evidence of any religion or any god.

[scenic lance]

i agree

[gilded pollen]

Not proven, but we do need evidence.

[scenic lance]

but theres an idea that were more than biological machines

[gilded pollen]

Is there any evidence of that? No.

[deft fossil]

depends on your definition of a ''biological machine''

[scenic lance]

is there any evidence weve been on the moon?

theres a video yeah

but how can you be sure that video hasnt been fabricated

[gilded pollen]

Yes, we can see the remains, in fact.

[scenic lance]

we just take it as a fact

[scenic lance]

have you ever stepped foot on the moon and seen the remains for yourself?

[deft fossil]

But evidence being present and personally getting that evidence are two different things

just because i have not been on the moon dos not mean that there is no evidence that other people went there

As a matter of fact, i never been to the usa, but that does not mean that it does not exist

as there is plenty of evidence that the USA does exist

[gilded pollen]

I don't have to step foot on the moon, I can bounce a laser off the remaining pieces of the spacecraft from here.

Unless there's evidence some other species left a bunch of human spacecraft parts on the moon, I'm fairly confident that means humans were there.

[proper nebula]

Agree

[gilded pollen]

Unobserved? Well yes, it happened 3.7 billion years ago, so it's a little hard for those of us alive today to just go along and watch it. We can't just restore the Earth to the state it was in back then to test out the theory. But we understand the processes very well, because there's good evidence for all of it. It's just the same principle with any event that happened in the past. We don't have to recreate every event in history exactly to understand how it happened. I mean, do we have to create the Big Bang as well? What about your own birth, do we need to recreate that exactly too?
Plus, we're still in the process of investigating it. It's not like we've investigated it and found no evidence, like people have been doing with religions for the entirety of human history. We've still taking steps forwards, and there's no particular reason to believe we won't be able to recreate it fairly soon.

If you are unaware of Christian chanting, here's a link for you: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregorian_chant

Have you ever heard the phrase "saying something so many times you come to believe it"? Being forced to repeat a statement time after time makes you more likely to start believing it, even if you didn't already believe it was true. It's just simple mental conditioning.

Yes, literally everything I have faith in has evidence to support that faith. There is, I agree, a smaller amount of evidence in the creation of life via abiogenesis than there is for some other things. But since there isn't a viable alternative, and since I wouldn't expect there to be any more evidence of it at this time, I'm still happy to believe that it's the best solution.

There are no credible eyewitness accounts from any point in history, of any resurrection. Even when eyewitness testimony is claimed to exist, we need to bear in mind that eye witness testimony is not always reliable, when there are psychological factors in play that indicate a likelihood for cognitive mistakes to occur.

What claim have I made that is unsupported? Tell me, and I'll show you the supporting evidence for it. There's nothing I believe without evidence.

I make decisions based on both reason and emotion. And yes, everyone decides on the level of credibility they require before believing in something. It sounds like you're either prepared to believe things with lower credibility than I am, or don't fully understand why the religious claims have such low credibility in my mind.

Let's assume for a moment that those things you listed are accurate representations of the prophecies. What evidence is there that those prophecies came true? There is some evidence that Christus was probably crucified. But that's it. For the rest, there is no evidence, and a lot are incredibly vague anyway.

[terse belfry]

This is such a mind boggling position to take. He doesn't want us to know because it would take away our free will? How? Even if I knew God existed for a fact and the Bible was 100% true I would not worship him because he is a monster.

There is no other situation in life where people would consider faith to be preferable to evidence.

[gilded pollen]

Almost. Both of our experiences are as true as each other, but you are interpreting your experiences less rationally than I am. I am saying that there isn't a rational explanation for what you believe, and that there is one for what I believe.

[terse belfry]

This is such a mind boggling position to take. He doesn't want us to know because it would take away our free will? How? Even if I knew God existed for a fact and the Bible was 100% true I would not worship him because he is a monster.

There is no other situation in life where people would consider faith to be preferable to evidence.

Didn't link the reply for some reason.

[gilded pollen]

Yes, on a fundamental level.

Saying that you think someone is ill is neither tolerant nor intolerant. The issue of tolerance doesn't come up in that statement, it's not a judgement of value.
If a doctor tells you that you are ill, is that them being intolerant towards you?

That doesn't follow at all from what I said. I'm not saying that the actions of the people who created Christianity are entirely responsible for the actions of every Christian who came after. We're not talking about responsibility here in this conversation. We're talking about whether Christianity is true, and I maintain that it is not.

I don't think anything you said there disagrees with anything I said.

[upper pine]

Our free will and experiences in life. I choose my own actions, they're not pre-determined.

[upper pine]

But still, you're showing the fact that it is not scientifically proven. And I know we can't restore Earth to the state before life, but the scientific method requires reproduceable, the only way to show that life can come from no life is to actually have an experiment that causes said phenomenon, and can be retested by other scientist. You don't have to recreate an event 1:1 in order to run an experiment to determine said principle.

As for the Christian chanting, that is Catholic, not Christian, and either way how is that nonsensical? Are traditions in general nonsensical, or only if it involves a religion?

Well you can believe something is the best solution without presenting it as fact. That's why I never claim God to be fact as despite all the evidence, I know some people will deny said evidence out of arrogance, pride, and/or stubbornness. Just like all the evidence towards Christianity makes be "happy to believe that it's the best solution".

I agree that limited numbers of eye witness testimony can be unreliable, but hundreds of eye witness testimonies is almost not. Also, you still think you understand history better than the vast majority of historians? Almost every secular historian I've talked with have told me straight up that there were hundreds of people who claimed to have seen Jesus risen, so it's historical fact that people did claim to see him risen, the debate lies at whether he actually was risen, if everyone who saw him was having group hallucinations, or everyone who claimed to have saw him was lying (and many willing to die for that lie).

[upper pine]

I already explained which statement was unsupported, because by your standard you apply towards religions, I'll apply towards you.

[upper pine]

The second statement is correct, I do not understand why religious claims for Christianity have such low credibility other than people just emotionally believing that because it involves a God, it can't be true.

As for the prophecies, there is a very specific one that states the messiah would come between the time of the destruction of the 1st temple and the rebuilding of the 2nd temple, which historically we know Jesus of Nazareth lived between. And then from various sources which you'd probably not find credible or reliable, we see accounts of Jesus fulfilling every prophecy that the messiah was required to fulfil. I do agree, some prophecies are vauge, that doesn't make them irrelevant. Not every prophecy has to only be possible for one person, but all the prophecies together are impossible for anyone other than Christ.

[proper nebula]

I've missed most of your conversation. Which statement is this about?

[royal monolith]

ive missed most of the conversations in here, ive given up trying to understand ^^'

[proper nebula]

Haha that's also a strategy 😇

[upper pine]

I'll quote the ESV here, but I recommend using multiple versions when reading verses.

God does want us to know though, 1 Corinthians 2 tells us this. God reveals things to us through the Spirit (1 Corinthians 2:10), and when we receive the Spirit into us, we are able to understand "the things freely given us by God" (1 Corinthians 2:12). Romans 1:19 states "For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them." The "them" in that verse refers to the people mentioned in Romans 1:18: "For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth".

God does make himself know to us, it is whether we are willing to see that or not. Once we convince ourselves not to acknowledge God, he gives us up to a reprobate/debased mind to let us follow our own desires, instead of him trying to lead us towards him, once he sees that you don't want him nor care, he is willing to let you live that life (Romans 1:28).

[upper pine]

He was claiming abiogenesis was fact in regards to the origin of life, which I admit is a possible theory, but not fact. He just completely disregards any evidence for positions he doesn't agree with though.

[royal monolith]

hmmmmm...i have 3 questions lol

1. god knows everything that's going to happen, no?

[upper pine]

Yes, God does.

[royal monolith]

2. everything that happens is according to his plan, no? so its to say, he's planned out how everything will go

[upper pine]

I think I see where this is going. Everything that happens he knows in advance, he doesn't force us into actions. His plan is not every single action everyone can take, his plan is the marriage of the Church.

[royal monolith]

3. how does free will exist if god already knows everything that will happen, since he planned for it to happen that way? lol

id argue it probably can't? God both knows the consequences of all of his decisions and allows it to happen. I feel like anything that happens as a result can't be free will

Like, if I showed you screenshots of the future and said,"hey, if you push this button, it will 100% trigger a war". And then you push the button, knowing it'll trigger that war, I don't feel like all of the people can knowingly say its their free will lol

[royal monolith]

but he knows every single action one can take, is the point though?

[upper pine]

So you think knowing the future makes you responsible for other peoples actions?

[royal monolith]

yes lol

if you are also responsible for making them in a way where you know what it'll lead to

[upper pine]

I find that really illogical, just because I know what you are going to do, doesn't mean I am doing that action.

[royal monolith]

I mean, you are responsible for not having changed it, so the outcome is partially due to you. If I know a car is going to crash into me, and I don't move out of the way - yes, they caused the action. But I allowed it to happen

And also, he created everyone, no? meaning, he when he created a person, he knew that given the very specific way he created them, it would lead to x,y,z outcomes. And he allowed it to happen, you can even say he willed it

[upper pine]

Ok, so do you think warning that person of what their actions would do is reasonable, and if they still decide to do the action you warned them against that is their fault?

[proper nebula]

In this scenario, you already know beforehand that the warning won't work

[upper pine]

I agree, that doesn't change the fact that you still warned them.

[royal monolith]

i think that missed the bigger picture :0

he designed them entirely. he could've designed them in a way where they would decide not to do the action. or, being all knowing, he could find the perfect string of words that would convince them not to do the action

[upper pine]

Ok so your problem is with free will then?

[royal monolith]

yeh

[upper pine]

The better question is, why not create slaves?

[royal monolith]

id argue that if we are the way the bible claims, we already are

[proper nebula]

I think Dan is saying that he couldn't have designed them in such a way?

[upper pine]

The simple answer is because God loves humans, he wants to give us choice, it is not loving to force anyone into anything.

[royal monolith]

if he couldn't have designed them in such a way, is he really all powerful?

but he created us knowing that the way he created us would lead to the choices. and he already knew our answers.

id argue nothing is rlly our choice

[upper pine]

Ok, so you think because we are going to make a choice that we don't have a choice?

[royal monolith]

yes lol. especially if he created us in a very specific way, knowing that we'd make that choice

like

if i program a robot and i know that when it gets to a crosswalk, it'll stop moving, bc i programmed it to do that

[upper pine]

He didn't create very single action we will do.

[royal monolith]

then when it gets to a crosswalk and freezes, its not its choice

[royal monolith]

he knew that the way he created us would lead to a very specific outcome, so he inherently did

[upper pine]

The better analogy would be creating a robot that when it gets to the crosswalk decides if it wants to cross or not, but you see the output of it's decision before it makes it

[proper nebula]

Little side question regarding this: Did god create the laws of physics or not? I don't know what your view is on this 😇

[upper pine]

I believe so, yes.

[proper nebula]

Alright, thanks!

Then I would say he did create every single action we will do

With that context

[royal monolith]

i dont see how? god is all knowing

that means, before he even created u, he knew that as a result of the way he was going to make u, it would result in everything u do. if he didn't want u to do something, he could've made u a different way, but he chose to make u that way anyways

i think that inherently means free will doesnt exist

[deft fossil]

So every living organsim has free will or only humans?

[upper pine]

I see your point there, because he made us, he is responsible for any actions we do? I think that is fair, but I think that ultimately the fact that he still gives us the option to make choices and gives us warning and guidance on what we should do, whether we decide to follow it or not, ultimately goes down to us. The decision is on an individual level, but I think it is fair to argue that God did cause it.

[royal monolith]

he gives us a choice but its a false choice, he already knows wut we'll pick bc he specifically made us to pick that option

he's rlly giving u situations that look like u have a choice :/

[upper pine]

Ok I think I understand your position now

Let me write up an analogy here and tell me if that is correct, using the robots

I write a program where every time a robot encounters an object in a pre-determined limited course it has a few choices of how it interacts, some better than the other, but since the course is already there, it outputs to the computer what action it will take, even though the action is selected from a pool of choices.

[royal monolith]

hmmmm, that depends. do u know what the robot will pick before it gets there?

[upper pine]

Yes, all the choices are displayed when the program is compiled in advance, so each time the robot is ran from the start, it'd have different choices outputed.

[proper nebula]

How would the robot choose from the pool of choices?

Sorry, not super relevant

[royal monolith]

well like. lets say when it reaches a very specific spot, it outputs what it'll do before doing it.

in this analogy, you'd have to know what the robot was going to do before it ever reached that spot. if you only know what its going to do after it outputs it on the monitor, then ur not rlly all knowing ^^'

[upper pine]

Well in programming you can create various options for how the robot should respond, the program chooses from a preset selection of actions, so one action could be back up 2 feet, turn left, then go how far to get around the obstruction, one of the options could be to do the same thing, but to the right, the other could be run head first into the obstruction.

[proper nebula]

Does that mean that god didn't know which output would be chosen by our free will in this universe?

[proper nebula]

Irrelevant, but there's a great boardgame made around this, Robo Rally

[upper pine]

Yes that's what I was saying, it outputs every action from the moment the program is run. I do think it is hard to understand how something could be all-knowing, because we are not. Ultimately what I'm trying to show though is that the program is making the choice, not the programmer. Even if the programmer knows all the choices it can choose and the choice it did choose, the programmer ultimately didn't choose for it.

[upper pine]

I think ultimately any analogy (that I can think of) is lacking as it is kind of hard to conceive how something could know it advance what will happen. I believe he does know, even before humans were created what actions we would all take, but those actions are still our to make.

[royal monolith]

in that specific instance, the programmer was not the robot. but, the robot was a puppet to the programmer.

if im controlling a puppet, and i make the puppet pretend to drink from a cup, no one is going to say that the puppet chose to do it. the puppet was responding to the instructions i gave it ^^'

the same thing for a robot

[upper pine]

That sounds cool, I'll check that out

[deft fossil]

What i struggle with is how you can be so convinced that you have free will

Like, if you are correct and you are made by an omnipotent god, than what would stop him from giving you the illusion of free will

Or in the puppet analogy

[upper pine]

The thing is though, that'd be correct, if the robot was only programmed to have that one choice. If a program ran giving a robot 1 action, but say multiple choices including: drink from a cup, throw a cup, lay down, jump, or walk in a circle and it decides to drink from a cup, then it did make that choice. I guess where the analogy is lacking is that the robot doesn't have any influence or thought patterns going into making it's choices.

[deft fossil]

If the compiler already knows all future actions, then is the choice the robot makes really a choice, or is it merely a an illusion of choice from the perpective of the robot?

like for the robot it is impossible to distinguish the two

And if the choices are pre-determined, than I would personally not call that a free-choice for the robot

If that makes sense

[upper pine]

I'd have to disagree, the choice was still made, just because it was made in advance doesn't negate the fact the choice was made.

[royal monolith]

but this ignores that the creator is all knowing

if i know for a fact, no matter what that:

1. when it gets to a specific situation Y, it always does option X
2. I know for a fact, that its going to encounter situation Y, bc i'm planning for it to be there

Then there's no way that its the robots choice

[deft fossil]

No i agree that the choice was made, where i disagree is who/what made that choice. You believe the robot made it, i believe the compiler made it and gave the robot the illusion it makes its own choice

And from the perspective of the robot, having actual free-choice or having the illusion of free-choice is indistinguishable

[upper pine]

Well I believe the compiler is the robot's brain basically. The compiler in the analogy isn't the god, the programmer would be

[deft fossil]

Under the assumption that the robot will not be able to factually validate the status of its own free-choice *****

[proper nebula]

I'll try to simplify the choices, to build up from there.

Let's say god created the robot and gave it 2 doors.

God created am algorithm with which the robot decides, and in this case the algorithm always results in the robot choosing door number 1.

Is god responsible for this robot ultimately ending up in the room that the sequence (left, left, left) leads to?

[upper pine]

The thing is though just because you know how something will respond doesn't make it not it's choice.

[deft fossil]

But then the analogy does not hold, because if you have free will, that sort of by default means that the course of your life is not set in stone from the moment you are conveived

so then i am not sure what you are getting at unfortunately

[royal monolith]

well if i made it to do that thing, then i think so ^^'

if i make a puppet, and i know that when i do x,y,z with the puppet, it will do x,y,z things

its not the puppet's choice

[upper pine]

The analogy was an attempt at trying to understand meow meow meow's position.

[royal monolith]

You're not just knowing what something will do, you're both making it - and making it, knowing that beforehand, the very specific way you make it, will result in a specific outcome

[deft fossil]

Fair enough. I was trying to understand the analogy since it did not (does not) make sense to me, but my bad ill keep myself out of the discussion

[upper pine]

Well I do believe that by default God, or the programmer, is responsible for all the actions of the creations in the sense that without creation the actions would never be made.

But to go with your question, if the alorithm ONLY allows for the robot to choose door number 1, then yes the programmer/God would be the one hardcoding that in, now if it robot is just more likely to choose door number 1, but still has the ability to choose door number 2, then that'd be more akin to the program's choice.

[proper nebula]

I want to build up from scenario 1, so we'll get to the other scenarios later if you agree ^^

[upper pine]

I think what you're missing here is who made the choice. The compiler/program chose what option to take, the programmer just decided what options it had. (Which in real life is a gigantic list)

[proper nebula]

So okay, that door number 1 scensrio would be God.

[upper pine]

No, you can stay in the discussion, I wasn't trying to kick you out of it at all.

[proper nebula]

Now, what if god programs the algorithm in such a way that the room temperature decides what door the robot chooses? Let's say, 1/3 of the time it's above the threshold and the robot chooses door 2.

For context, god is also responsible for the temperature in the rooms.

How about now?

[royal monolith]

did the programmer not know what outcome was going to happen?

[upper pine]

I think that still is the programmer's control. It's hard programmed to choose an option based on the input the programmer decides to give it.

[proper nebula]

Okay, I would agree here as well

[upper pine]

Yes, the programmer did know what outcome was going to happen

[royal monolith]

and it both allowed it to happen, knowing it would happen?

[upper pine]

Yes, because not allowing it would be restricting it's choice and ultimately not be free will.

[royal monolith]

if it 100% knew wut it was going to do, bc it built it that way and set it up that specific way, the robot never had free will lol

[proper nebula]

Now what if the algorithm is more complex, like 10% of the complexity of a brain?

It's still an algorithm, that responds to several inputs, like it has a memory of precious choices, it responds to temperature and let's put in some reward system.

The first choice is affected mostly by temperature, and the farther you get the more muddy the exact influences.

But, it is still physical phenomena designed by god that end up being the ultimate factor.

Does it still count as gods responsibility here?

[royal monolith]

okay, right... lets say this

lets say im building a robot. when it gets to a specific spot, it has a 50/50 chance of falling over or standing up in place. but, i know that if its on carpet, it'll always stand up in place. so, i send it walking in my living room that only has carpet. it gets to a specific spot, and then doesn't fall over.

is that the robot's choice?

no, the robot was just responding to the environment the way it had been built ^^'

[deft fossil]

Okay thank you, I did not want to be rude

[upper pine]

Well now that's where it gets complicated, if it is jsut that creature/robot, then yes. But, if there are other robots as well making their own choices based on inputs that can be affected by other robots, then I think it is still ultimately caused by God, as the creator, but the actions are less influenced by God.

[proper nebula]

Interesting! Because it's the same mechanics, but just more and on a bigger scale

The answer should be the same if you follow the same logic

[deft fossil]

But god built them, so he also built the way they would respond to other robots, so therefore I do not see how this changes the agency

[proper nebula]

So I'm not sure why it's a gray area for you

[proper nebula]

I say this out of interest btw

[upper pine]

Well if you program it to where in one situation it will always take 1 action, then in that situation it doesn't have free choice.

[royal monolith]

but that's the thing. if god always know 100% of the time what we'll do, then he always knows that in 1 specific situation, we'll always do 1 thing

[upper pine]

The difference is though who is giving the inputs. Before it was just the creators input, but in this example it included the inputs of other creations that can make their own choices.

[royal monolith]

if there's a chance we do something else, and god doesn't know it, then he's not all knowing

[upper pine]

Well the inputs are the same though, the other robots decisions would affect the decisions of the other robot. This comes down to the free will of the creation affecting the free will of the other creation.

[deft fossil]

BUt this is where i get confused, because earlier we agreed that none of the indiviual robots had their own choices but were directed by the creator. Putting them together should not change that on the individual level no?

[proper nebula]

We still agree that 1 robot's input, (an environment and algorithm given by god) is god's responsibility, yes?

[upper pine]

Just because he knows we will choose 1 choice, doesn't negate the fact that we have other choices.

[proper nebula]

Because then the first effect of that action on a second robot would count as input directly from god.

[royal monolith]

other choices that don't rlly exist, bc god designed us lol. even if we hypothetically have other choices, he made us knowing that no matter what, we'd always pick the same thing in that situation

[deft fossil]

The way I see it is if the creator of the robots built them, and how they would respond in any situation, than he would have done it for how robots would react to eachother. So whether they interact with other robots or someting inanimate would not neccesarily change the agency from the robots perspective

[upper pine]

Yes, God is responsible for creating it, and therefore responsible for it's actions. But when God is not choosing one of the inputs, that input is not God's will, it is the will of the other creature that made that choice. It is only 100% God's choice if God is the only one controlling all the inputs.

Maybe if the other robots didn't have choices, or if all the robots choices were made irrelevant of the choices of other robots, then I'd agree.

[upper pine]

He knows at that specific moment what you'd choose, but that doesn't mean the choice you made then would be the same one you make in that same situation later, as the inputs you've received between those two situations would affect how you choose in that same situation.

[royal monolith]

but that doesn't change anything bc he knew that outcome too

and built u to do that

[upper pine]

That doesn't change the fact that he isn't the one making the choice as the input is given based on inputs he did not choose, but other creation has chosen. There are some preset influences from God, but those are not the entierty of what makes up our choices.

[royal monolith]

so are u saying then that we don't act 100% to god's plan?? which also doesn't rlly make sense bc he both 1) knows everything that will happen & 2) is responsible for it happening that way

[upper pine]

I think we have a difference in opinion in what God's plan is, what do you consider God's plan to be (for Christianity since that is the one I believe in)

[royal monolith]

the moment u give a being both the ability to do anything and the awareness of all the future consequences for any of its actions, all of a sudden, nothing is a coincidence anymore. everything must be bc it chose for it to happen that way ^^'

if it knows beforehand, everything that will happen if it does something, it no longer has to let that thing happen

[upper pine]

The problem comes from input that the creator doesn't control. When you have input coming from multiple other creatures all choosing choices based on other creatures choices, there is less influence directly from God on the choices.

[deft fossil]

Okay wait let me get this straight first. We agreed that the outputs of each individual robot without interaction with other robots was directed by their creator right?

[upper pine]

But what you're arguing for is saying that God has a moral responsibility to force us not to have free will, your argument there isn't saying that free will is impossible. It seems more like your argument is that free will is bad.

[royal monolith]

hmmm, no not rlly. im saying that everything is a result of god's choice

if everything that happens is pre determined, free will is inherently impossible

[proper nebula]

How about we combine several lvl 2 robots?

• 1 robot at 2 buttons, one increases room temperature, on decreases it.

• Another robot at 2 more buttons, same effects

1 robot always chooses the left button if it's hot, decreasing temperature of the other robot.
If it's cold, he chooses the right button, which increases bot 2's temperature.

The other robot chooses the exact opposite. It decreases bot 1's temperature if it's cold, and increases that temperature when it's hot.

Just run this simulation on paper. You see that the choices are programmed in, but they still affect the other robot's choices.

[proper nebula]

Would that be directly god's responsibility?

[upper pine]

Yes, inputs received by the robot directly controlled by God, are directed by God. Inputs from other creations that can make various choices based on choices of other creatures are not directed by God.

[upper pine]

The choices aren't pre-determined though, they are just pre-known. I guess the better analogy than receiving the outputs before the action is taken would be just simply looking at the code and knowing based on the current inputs the choice it will make. I think choices being pre-determined does go against free-will now that I think about it.

[royal monolith]

but if u know with 100% certainty that the way u planned it will happen, then it's pre determined lol

[deft fossil]

But this is my argument. I am curious where you see it differently

1. The output of an individual robot is directed by its creator
2. When two robots interact the input of one individual robot is the output of another individual robot
3. The output of the other individual robot is determined by its creator
4. Therefore the input of the robot is determined by the creator

[proper nebula]

Yeah that is my question too

[upper pine]

I agree that in this specific scenario that it'd be God's pre-planning of what would happen as it'd always result in the same outcome when in the same situation. What if the robots have one of the reward systems where if they make the other robot's temperature higher than it's own temperature, the robot with the lower temperature get's the rewards from the robot with the higher temperature.

Also, not sure if this is relevant, but running the simulation it seems like it requires them starting with different temperatures, if they are based on the same temperature then it means the robots are only making 1 choice no matter what. That would not be free will, unless there was a way for the robot to choose to hit a different button instead of keep hitting the same one.

I might try and make an actual computer model of this, maybe that'd make it easier to visualize.

[deft fossil]

I was already trying to make a model to simulate this lmao

[upper pine]

For you it'd seem pre-determined, because the choice will happen, but that's because you know how they will react, not because it's the only choice available.

[upper pine]

I just did it quickly in a spreadsheet and noticed real quick that unless they either have differences in settings for what hot/cold is, or they each have separate temperature they react too it will be different, ima try just a quick test for those 2 options as well.

The choice there is made depending on the temp in the same row, and the new temperature based on that choice is in the next column

[deft fossil]

Yeah i am simulating something similar in python, but i do 10000 presses; the temp increases and/or decreases are random and the preferred temperature per robot changes within a given range

[proper nebula]

You can just do it on paper, it only has 2 booleans 😋

Cold = 0, hot = 1

[deft fossil]

Nah i mean in my simulation it results in a distribution of temperatures around one mean temperature irrespective of starting conditions

[proper nebula]

Let's say A and B both start off cold, so (A,B) = (0,0)

If A=0 and B=0, then B=>1 etc

So you get this cycle:

(0,0) => (0,1) => (1,1) => (1,0) => (0,0)

[deft fossil]

exactly

[proper nebula]

So again, robot A's input is fully predetermined by god, so its output is too.

Robot B's input is partly the predtermined algorithm, and partly Robot A's output. (Which we concluded was predetermined by god)

Now if you complicate this, it's gonna stay the same pattern, where (with knowledge) you can always reduce an input to a set of deterministic outputs from somewhere else

[upper pine]

Question though out of curiosity, how then would we behave without free-will? Because I feel like if we are without a God giving us an innate choice in our action, rather than just animalistic instincts, where we can choose options that go against our desires, then I believe like as just a natural creature formed without a God, we'd all be basically just robots, or puppets of the universe.

This I think would be harmful as many people could use this notion in negative ways, such as many racist people who claim that black people are just genetically designed to be more violent and commit crimes. It seems like only with a God could free will actually be possible, and so without free-will, then those racist would have a point.

[proper nebula]

Well, this isn't hard to answer for me. There is a difference between "making choices" and "making choices defying the laws of physics"

Making choices would still be deterministic

And the other one wouldn't be

That would be the kind of free will philosophers like to talk about

And it's true that racists will be racist when claiming false racist facts.

I would even say it's important to realize that they have a reason to believe those facts, sometimes you grow up in a racist culture and it's not just your own fault.

And I would hope to see more of that thinking from the christian side as well. I'm so tired of hearing the "y'all just wanna sin" arguments. That statement is highly motivated by the illusion of free will.

[upper pine]

As a Christian I do disagree with the idea of "y'all just wanna sin" not because it's neccessarily wong, but because it paints the wrong picture. The better statement in my opinion is "y'all are deceived into accepting certain sins". Now that too may sound like being judgmental, but we cannot control if we are deceived or not, and that deception may seem like a realistic alternative. I don't believe anyone wants to do bad things purposefully, but when we are lead to believe bad things aren't bad, then there is nothing wrong with those things in our minds.

[upper pine]

One quick thing about the law of physics argument though, we are not bound by our creations. If I set parameters that my code has to follow to function, that doesn't mean I do too. All of our choices are made by ourselves, not necessarily random, but caused by other people and our own brain. Our choices are made the same regardless of a God or not.

[fringe bolt]

FWIW, I don't think the concept of "free will" even makes sense outside of a theistic perspective? Like at least the only actual interesting discussions I've read about it are with the whole predestination vs free will, and not the concept of like free will within the constraints of the laws of the universe and not god

[upper pine]

Yea predestination vs free will is an interesting discussion

[fringe bolt]

Like if a smoker tries to quit smoking - is that an example of them exercising free will? Or are there simply other external factors that could determine their actions? (health risk, family pressure, etc)

[upper pine]

(Ill brb gotta eat)

[upper pine]

Just to make sure, we are talking about this from a theistic perspective? And if so, I think the answer depends on which specific religion we're talking about as religions are veried in their beliefs of like, will, etc.

[fringe bolt]

From a theist perspective you can probably frame it as a test of faith or something. But without god the whole concept of free will changes into something that doesn't really make sense.

[upper pine]

Well, from Christianity at least I believe that all people live from free will because of a few specific verses, notable Romans 1:17-20 (where it shows that the righteousness of God is revealed from faith for faith, but the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against the unrighteousness of men, where it says the men by their unrighteousness suppress truth (which seems like a willful action) and that everyone that can be known about God is made plain to them, so they are without excuse to not believe, which again implies we can make decisions.

Also Romans 1:28 says that the people "did not see fit to acknowledge God" which also implies decisions made by people, instead of a pre-determination.

I guess most of Romans 1 kinda shows the free will humans have as well as consequences for those actions.

I imagine the abrahamic religions are all similar in the respect of free-will, not too sure on Judaism though.

[fringe bolt]

I mean I don't think this really points to free will at all no? Like we can repurpose the smoker example for this. Like if a non-Christian gets the evidence for god laid out in front of them, but refuses to acknowledge it, is that them exercising free will? Or is their refusal simply a product of their previous experiences or interpreation of the evidence?

[terse belfry]

God knows, presumably, exactly what would convince me of his existence. Yet, for some reason he has made the decision not to provide that evidence. If he truly knows every action I'll ever take, and knows that without specific intervention I will never believe in him, whose free will is it really? I can't change what convinces me, but God can choose whether to provide it.

Moses got the part a sea harnessing God magic. Jesus' disciples presumably got to witness what seemed to be supernatural phenomena on a daily basis as proof of his divinity.

I get a two-five thousand year old book with unverifiable, unrepeatable claims that contradicts every few pages and orders unspeakably horrifying acts to be committed.

Honestly, if there is a being who created the universe, he's got to be super annoyed at anyone who believes the depiction of him in the Bible, Quran, etc.

[tacit pivot]

Well considering that you are accepting the premise that God exists for your argument, there are a few points to be made working with that:

1. The Bible defines faith as being "sure of what you hope for, and certain of things you can't see" (Hebrews 11:1 and also somewhat in Romans 8:23-25). So saving faith likely won't come from physical evidence that leaves no alternative in your brain. What makes you think God wants children who aren't willing to have any true faith in Him? If you're a skeptic who is only convinced when God forces you to, what exactly is the point of free will if God is going to make you choose Him?

2. I've seen people on this thread claim they don't want to be associated with God at all, even if the Bible was true. Imagine the outrage if God was dragging people like you to Himself? Can you imagine the outrage from certain people (like some on this thread) if every once in a while God forced a bunch of people to turn towards Him and serve Him? Your very ability to criticize God as you do is the same thing you now think God should be obligated to rip away from you?

3. This third point is often overused in Christian circles, but I'll say it anyways, because it is true. God is God, and you are not. So like I said earlier, considering that for the sake of argument, you have accepted the premise that God exists, do you truly believe the Creator of the universe, and the reason for your existence should be made to cater to your specific demands? he has to give exactly what YOU want to believe? You think you can demand anything from God?

As I said, this is all predicated on the fact that you concede the point that God does exist, so you probably won't find any of it relevant, but those are a few reasons why God hasn't forced you to follow Him.

---

Oh and fourth point:
There actually are plenty of great and convincing arguments that God exists, even more-so than there are for Christianity specifically.

[terse belfry]

1. I actually would assume that a being capable of creating the entire universe and intelligent life would expect that life to act intelligently and not believe unprovable claims attributed to him. Even if he actually was behind them, he should know that the unverifiable supernatural claims of the past would not be sufficient for future generations.

2. You are confusing God providing the evidence that he knows would convince people with forcing people to worship him. Those are very different things. If the biblical God were proven to me, I still would not worship him based on his actions in the Bible. If he compelled worship that would be just another check in his evil deity column. Might does not necessarily make right.

3. If God wants us to acknowledge and worship him, it is his responsibility to prove to us that he exists. Moreover, assuming he is all powerful, it's not asking very much.

I agree that it seems kind of ridiculous that the creator of the universe expects worship and gratitude from its creations that take up the most miniscule spec of dust in an almost infinite expanse of lifeless debris. Kind of narcissistic and non-benevolent if you ask me.

4. There are zero arguments that have convinced me thus far. That doesn't mean I can't be convinced, but it's all the same recycled nonsense over and over because apparently God decided to stop communicating with us directly for some reason.

[fringe bolt]

Point 4 only works if you redefine "God" from the Christian God to "the cause of the universe"
But then you have to do a bunch of extra work to prove that this cause of the universe also did all the stuff in the bible and whatnot

[proper nebula]

Still doesn't convince me

[deft fossil]

Interesting, i believe the opposite

I think the idea of a god like the one in the bible is mutually exclusive with the concept of free will

whereas without a god it would be a possibility

although i personally believe that there is no such thing as free will

it makes no sense to me

[proper nebula]

I think with god the existence of free will would be necessary, but only god would possess it. For humans, I would agree yeah.

[deft fossil]

Yeah I meant from the perspective of humans.

[tacit pivot]

How do you figure?

[tacit pivot]

1. Well, they have been sufficient for billions of people so far, and will continue to be sufficient for many more to come. So the idea that what we have is insufficient to make you a Christian is simply untrue. You are demanding something for 100% certainty, but again, why are you so special to God? People have died for their faith that is based off the same evidence you reject, and yet you think it is reasonable that you get extra to satisfy your doubts? I'm not trying to sound harsh, but consider it from that perspective.

2. So why do you demand evidence if you wouldn't follow Him anyways? Lets consider what you've said for a moment. Why would God cater to what you demand, if nothing is even achieved by it? You would be the same non-Christian before and after... So of course God would be uninterested in that development.

3. He has successfully proven this to billions, if not more, people all throughout history and is continuing to do so. And again, that the Creator of the universe doesn't owe you any kind of responsibility. In fact, the responsibility is owed to Him, by you. But He really isn't asking much.

4. Reason — The fall of man. I'd be happy to go through some of the arguments if you like, as that would probably be more productive than our current back-and-forth.

[tacit pivot]

How do you mean this?

[terse belfry]

1. How many people believe it and how fervently is not a measure of that beliefs validity. If it were, you'd have to concede that every religion is true, and since they all tend to invalidate one another that isn't possible. But to me specifically, there is certainly insufficient evidence to make me a Christian. I was born into Christianity and still escaped its nonsensical teachings despite their best efforts to trap me at an early age.

2. I would be a Christisn in the sense that I believe God exists if there were sufficient evidence. But that is different from worshipping God or agreeing with him. I can accept that the president is the president and not agree with their policies. And God should care. If we were really made in his image and we take issue with things that he does it just means that curiosity and desire is something that he gave us and so he should be willing to satisfy.

3. That's like the people who think children owe their parents something even if the parents abuse them and lie to them their entire lives. That's why I generally assume if there were some sort of deity they either are unable or disaffected and do not interfere with reality. Because any deity that allows the kind of shit that happens in this world while being fully able to stop it is truly beyond the worst villains we have ever conjured.

4. Like I said, you have nothing I haven't heard before because that's how religions operate. I don't believe Adam and Eve existed so using them as proof of anything else would be futile.

[upper pine]

Isn't interpretation free will?

[upper pine]

Question, how do you know you haven't seen enough evidence to convince you, but you just don't believe in it? If only signs and wonders can convince you, those can easily be interpreted as just a rare scientific occurrence. Regarding my belief at least and the Bible, in the verses I have presented (mostly Romans 1:18-19) says that what can be known about God has already been plainly revealed to us, but it is our sinful nature that suppresses the truth, the deceit of Satan trying to lead people astray from God. (That is why I don't like when Christians start condemning other people for their actions, yes we should point out that it is wrong, but that doesn't make the person un-savable or worse of a person than any Christian as even Christians still sin.)

Question, where are there contradictions, especially "every few pages" and what "unspeakably horrifying acts" are ordered by God?

[terse belfry]

Being convinced is not something you can control. Either you are convinced by something or you are not. I am not. Whether or not someone is convinced is irrespective of the truth value of the claims though.

A claim can be:

True but not convincing

True and convincing

False and not convincing

False and convincing

Some people have a higher bar for being convinced that others. I am of the opinion when someone wants you to devote your life to a God and his supposed principles the bar for being convinced needs to be extremely high.

You can take your pick of the atrocities ordered by God. The Old Testament is basically God telling people to slaughter their enemies over and over again. Along with killing your children if they disobey you, kill anyone who doesn't worship him, women who go to church on their period. In Samuel, God says that not even the Amalek children are to be spared and must be put to the sword. It's pretty much constant.

But also don't kill anyone.

You can say Jesus changed all that, but it's still the same God. And if God can have a change of heart that means he is fallible and there is no reason to assume that anything he has proclaimed is correct, again just for the hypothetical assuming he exists.

[deft fossil]

Well like we debated earlier:

• if god exists
• and god is all knowing, omnipotent and whatever properties you ascribe to him
• then given that he is the creator of all, he therefore by definition influences your personal decisions
• which is contrary to free will

[deft fossil]

For me the more I learned about the development of religions from the start of history (approx 10KYA), the more it convinced me that it would be impossible for any current or past religion to be ''true'' relative to any other religion.

There is in my opinion for example no way of determining whether an archaic religion, say proto-judaism would be more or less ''correct'' relative to its modern counterpart.

And if you make a claim that religion X is correct, then you instantly dismiss hundreds if not thousands of other religions and their derivatives, which i personally believe to be somewhat naive

I will never be at a point in my life that I could confidently say that one thing is true over any other thing if there is no evidence beyond reasonable doubt for it to be true over anything else.

I just claim that I don't know and that's that

[deft fossil]

To add to this, the very simple claim i guess i am making is that free-will is mutually exclusive with an omnicient god. If god knows all, then all decisions we are going to make are known before hand, therfore they cannot possibly be our own decisions, hence free will and god are contradictory. God can however grant us the illusion of free will, and we would never be able to see the difference between true free will and the illusion of it.

Although i personally do not believe in free will. I think all actions we make are some way or another influenced by outside stimuli that ultimately lead us to make specific decisions.

[tacit pivot]

You went from influenced decisions to no free will… all decisions are influenced by something, that’s how decisions come to be. The existence of God affects decisions, sure, but I don’t see how it eliminates them…

[upper pine]

Oh ok I get what you're saying. You think God ordering the destruction of his own creation that isn't following the rules they were set to follow is immoral because he told his creation that they cannot destroy his creation? If I create a computer program and it doesn't work, am I supposed to keep it broken?

[deft fossil]

Exactly, since all decisions are influenced by outside factors, free will is therefore incompatible

That is my argument

Like, whenever a decision is influenced by an outside factor, i would therefore claim that by definiton free will cannot exist, as free will is the power or capacity of humans to make decisions or perform actions independently of any prior event or state. However, since i believe ALL actions are influenced by prior events or states, by definition it is incompatible with free will

[deft fossil]

So you basically agreed to free will not being able to exist, as all decisions are influenced by some form of outside factor.

[upper pine]

I think that is very fair and honestly the most rational choice someone can make without seeing God work in their life. For me though, and many other Christians, I have had things happen to me that I can't explain naturally, where the only reason that makes any sort of sense would have to be one a divine nature. Now I know that isn't going to convince anyone else, and it shouldn't. Personal experience will only ever convince the person who had the experience.

[terse belfry]

Humans are not a computer program...probably. But go on, explain how a group of adults disobeying God warrants the slaughter of their children in the name of correcting the program.

[deft fossil]

No and I have had some of those experiences as well, but then it would still be impossible for me to ascribe that to ONE SPECIFIC deity, religion or spiritual event. Therefore I say I am agnostic and don't know. For me, something ''unnatural'' or however you want to name it happening is for me not a REASON to believe in something that can seemingly be unrelated.

As long as it is not proven to me that that specific unnatural event was the result of one specific god/deity whatever, than for me there is no reason to believe in that.

[upper pine]

Question, do you base your entire life on 100% proof?

[deft fossil]

And for you, assuming you believe in christianity, that was the logical choice because people around you are probably christian as well. However I may assume that if you grew up somewhere else, say in North Africa, you would probably be muslim instead of christian as it is the dominant religion there. So then what i am wondering is how can you be so sure about your own beliefs if it is sort of by default very much influenced by the people and culture around you

If that assumptions was completely incorrect, don't hesitate to call me out tho

Im not here to put words in your mouth or anything

[deft fossil]

Mostly yes, and if not it would be the most educated guess i could make given the information that is available. BUt yes, i am a rather rational person

[upper pine]

Humans are a creation. You can't view a biblical story from a lens that doesn't involve biblical canon. If I say God couldn't have cause a world-wide flood because there isn't enough water in the oceans, that is conflating the situation by saying the all-powerful God in the bible can't be all-powerful.

[deft fossil]

The perk of this being that I am not afraid to change my stance or worldview whenever someone can bring up some good evidence that is contrary to something i believe in, which i personally think is a property many people unfrotunately lack

[upper pine]

Well yea, if I grew up in North Africa I probably would have a higher likelihood of being Muslim, but a lot of Africans are Christians, I believe the first church was in Africa. For me, I never grew up in a religious household, i cam to religion through school mostly, learning science and getting heavy into that, eventually I cam to the conclusion that there had to have been some sort of creator, and granted my religion if there is one, could very well be wrong. For me, it made the most sense to with an Abrahamic religion, which the only rational one to me was Christianity as Judaism is exclusive and Islam says that Christianity is true, but Christianity says Islam is false.

I don't deny cultural bias may have brought me to my current religious faith, but personal experience is mostly what has kept me, and the fact that I don't see anything to disproove my beliefs.

[deft fossil]

Yeah i am not trying to deny your faith or anything, I am just tyring to point out why for me personally, I cannot believe in any one religion while dismissing other ones, and I thought describing it that way would kind of make sense to someone that is religious

[upper pine]

Ok, I believe I do the same. From my experiences, anything I cannot 100% prove I make the best educated guess I can. We have to have some faith in everyday life, such as when I go to a fast food place every now and then, I have faith they didn't poison my food.

[upper pine]

Oh no I know, I'm just kinda explaining why I do dismiss the other ones, even though I admit that they COULD be correct. Also, as I said, I do believe agnosticism is fair and the most rational belief for many people.

[deft fossil]

Sure, but I think 'faith' in a religious context is not homogonous to 'faith' in the context you are describing.

[upper pine]

Could you explain? Faith is trusting what we can't see correct? We can't see that our food isn't poisoned, the only difference is that we can choose to est if our food is poisoned, which the vast majority of people don't, but we can't choose to 100% proove the existence of any diety.

[deft fossil]

The ''funny'' thing is, I actually did grow up in a religious household, but due to learning about science and history, I lost my faith.

[upper pine]

Yea, to me it seems religious beliefs all come down to how we decide to interpret what we see on a fundemental level.

[deft fossil]

Well, in my native language, there are two different words for these concepts. In a religious context, faith refers to believing in a doctrine that is not based in any proof. Faith in the ''everyday'' sense is moreso trusting that there are certain rules/habits that are followed.

But i agree it is hard for me to explain the difference, especially in english

one word moreso translates to ''trust'' whereas the other moreso translates to ''belief''

but i dont know if that makes any sense

[upper pine]

Oh ok yea, that makes sense. I guess it's just linguistically in English, at least where I live, we use faith to mean the same thing for both. And as for the "trust" and "belief" we sorta view those as the same too

Synonyms basically.

I guess I can kinda see the difference though

[deft fossil]

I guess the nuance being that for belief, you have faith in something that you cannot be proven, whereas for trust you just believe something that could be proven, but you don't neccesarly want to always do that

[upper pine]

That is a fair distinction I think.

[deft fossil]

but yeah i think its a mostly ligual distinction there. They referr to the same idea, but in a different context

[upper pine]

As for the poisoned food example, we trust it isn't poisoned, because if we really wanted to we could test it

[deft fossil]

exactly

Since it is normalised in society that your food from a fastfood chain is not poisoned, you trust that it is not the case the next time you get fastfood

Or if I make a contract with my boss where he promises me to pay for work, I trust him that he is gonna pay me and he trusts me i am going to carry out the work

but in both cases i would not call that faith

and especially not in a religious sense

[upper pine]

I guess the nuance really does come from how each language interprets different words, because for English, belief just means "the mental act... of placing trust or confidence in another" or "Mental acceptance of and conviction in the trust, actuality, or validity of something".

I do agree though now that there should be a difference in religious faith and everyday faith, if everyday faith is similar to trust or belief.

[deft fossil]

If the work example would be faith, then i sort of just hope i get paid someday based on insufficient evidence

If the work example would be trust, I belief that based on the way we set up our society, I can confidently assume that i get my salary

so i guess the nuance is also in the context of the confidence level

but yeah its hard to explain in a different language

[upper pine]

Yea, honestly thinking about it, it's just hard to explain it in English in general lol

[deft fossil]

yeah exactly

But on the other hand, english does also make distinctions in words that do not appear in my native language so it works both ways lmao

for example, we don't really do past tenses

its just 1 or 2 commonly used ones

but in english, by using the right tense, i can very specifically convey to you the information on when something happened

[upper pine]

That's true, every language has their own unique distinctions.

[deft fossil]

but in my native language, i have to add addiotional words to convey that information

[upper pine]

Like Spanish it includes masculine and feminine distinction in their words.

[deft fossil]

liek: i already ate; i have already eaten are two different sentences in your langauge

they are the same in mine

[upper pine]

Oh ok

Do you mind if I ask what your native language is?

Or first* howver you'd like it called.

[deft fossil]

Although, it does grammatically exist, but it is not widely used other than written text

dutch

[upper pine]

Oh ok. That's close to one I've tried learning (I think) I tried learning Danish a while ago when I was a kid because there was a Danish youtuber I watched that I liked.

[deft fossil]

Yeah, i always make the comparison that we have one central language being terman, and on one end of the spectrum you go to dutch, on the other end of the spectrum you go to danish

like german and dutch as well as danish and german are very similar, but dutch and danish are not really

[terse belfry]

That's just rubbish. That basically means no one can ever criticize any holy text ever and must always assume its validity. You can only look at a story in the Quran with a lens that assumes Quran canon? Surely you understand how ridiculous that sounds.

Yes, an all powerful being could theoretically create the extra water and then get rid of it, but there is no evidence that it happened which makes it more likely that it is a story as opposed to special God magic that has no explanation. There has never been any confirmed suspension of the natural order of the universe (ie laws of physics, thermodynamics, etc.)

So there is no reason to assume that God can even suspend those rules without evidence that they have ever been suspended. Possibly he could, if he exists, but doing so could cause a reaction that destroys reality and makes him start all over. You are assuming God is all powerful as well. Being able to create a universe is impressive but it doesn't necessarily mean that being can do literally anything. Again that would need to be demonstrated.

[tacit pivot]

No, influenced is not the same as fully determined…

[tacit pivot]

Lets take an example:
If I am considering a job and these are my options/offers (lets also say all other factors other than pay are the same to make this easy):

1. McDonalds employee (10$ an hour, for example)
2. Chick-fil-a employee (20$ an hour, for example)

I have 2 options in front of me. Let's define free will:

The ability to choose other than you act (or the ability to do other than you do.)

Lets just say I take the job at Chick-fil-a.
Why? — Because its double the pay.
So was my decision influenced by pay? — Yes, absolutely.
Does that mean I couldn't accept the job at McDonalds, even though it would have been the worse choice? — No, I still had that option.

All decisions have all sorts of factors that weigh into them. We as humans tend to analyze those factors and choose what we perceive to be the best choice, but that doesn't mean we couldn't choose what we don't.

[deft fossil]

But i don't believe that whether an alternative decision is possibly equates to having free will. It could very well be an illusion of other choices, but i believe that ultimately the decision that you made was influenced by things outside of your own ''choice'' and therefore the choice was not really a choice, but rather the neccesary outcome.

So whether or not you have a percieved alternative, you will always choose one decision over another, ultimately ending op with the decision you were always going to take in that specific circumstance.

Could be a million other reasons why you would take the chick-fil-a option, but that still does not imply that the decision you made was one of free will

From our perspective, having actual free will or the mere perception of free will is indistinguishable, and personally i think it is more likely that we have the perception of it, as our decisions are ultimately influenced by other factors and not our own will.

If it makes more sense, if you would be able to sort of ''freeze'' the current state of the universe and go back to it, i ultimately believe that everything after that will always be the same, as that is the starting point of all decisions made after

But yeah, the whole idea of free will is that we can make decisions that are independant of outside factors, which i believe to be impossible

If you define free will as something else, then we are just talking past eachother

[tacit pivot]

wdym by this?

[deft fossil]

because the example you gave me, is not free will in the way i define free will

Free will in my opion is; the supposed power or capacity of humans to make decisions or perform actions independently of any prior event or state of the universe.

So if a decision is ALWAYS influenced by SOME outer factor, than free will can neccesarily not exist

[tacit pivot]

Then we probably agree

[deft fossil]

And since our brains are world champs in getting influenced, i believe free-will to be a silly concept

[tacit pivot]

I'm not claiming decisions have no influence...

[deft fossil]

so you dont believe in my understanding of free-will either

but then i am wondering, if that is not how you define free will, then what do you mean when talking about free will

and then more importantly, where is the boundary between free will and non free will

[tacit pivot]

The ability to choose other than you act (or the ability to do other than you do.)

[deft fossil]

But how would you know that you have the ability to choose an alternative?

From our human perspective, having the percieved ability to have options vs actually having options is indistinguishable

As long as your brain ''tells'' you that you made the decision, how would you know whether that is actually true or not

[tacit pivot]

I mean, how do you distinguish between the brain and "you"?

[deft fossil]

You don't, thats why I put it in quotation marks

[tacit pivot]

So if your brain tells you, wouldn't that mean "you" are telling "you"?

[deft fossil]

No thats not what i meant

I am not trying to antropomorphise an organ

What im trying to say is that if you have the percieved notion of choice, there is no way to validate whether that was ACTUALLY a choice or an inevitable outcome

so the state of having free will vs percieved free will is indistinguishable from us

[tacit pivot]

Well seems that accusation goes both ways, you can't validate your claim by the same logic you use to say that I can't validate mine.

[deft fossil]

The difference being is that you claim something to be there: ''free will exists'' whereas i am not making any value claim on the position, i am merely saying that it is not possible to ever percieve the difference, could still be either

so in fact it is not the same

once you claim that something exists, you are kinda required to come up with an argument of why that is the case

And me disagreeing with that argument is not the same as me arguing the opposite

Like, if I say ''i like pancakes'' than it does not mean that i dislike anything else

[tacit pivot]

You claim here that it doesn't exist...

[upper pine]

If we don't have free will, does that mean our actions are predetermined, and if we can't control our actions then does that mean no action is wrong?

[deft fossil]

depends on what you mean with predetermined

to some degree yes

[tacit pivot]

Yeah I mean there are plenty of ethical problems with this

[deft fossil]

Yes but that was with my definition of free will, not yours

[tacit pivot]

"I murdered my child because I had no choice. I had no free will to choose otherwise."

[deft fossil]

we hold a different position on what free will is

[tacit pivot]

So you don't have a definite stance on if free will exists or not the way I defined it?

[deft fossil]

and we already agreed that we both believe that my definition of free will cannot exist

[deft fossil]

yes

[upper pine]

Question, if all of our brains perceive something as such, doesn't that just make it such?

[tacit pivot]

I see.

[deft fossil]

I think that from our perspecitive, it is not possible to know whether we can make a free choice or not

[deft fossil]

Your stance on this position kind of gives you the answer to whether you believe in free will or no

I believe that our perception is merely a model of the world around us, which neccesarily limits the inputs of what we can think etc.

for example

i cannot see what is happining in your room, cus the photons in your room cannot reach my eye

so it would be impossible for me to equate that in my worldview

therefore my worldview will always be limited

Hence, the percieved choice we make will always be determined based on a finite subset of all possible inputs

And my personal believe is that all present inputs ultimately make a decision for you and the whole ''i made the choice myself'' is just a coping mechanism of the brain

but that's my personal stance

[deft fossil]

I don't think that not having free will neccesarily contradicts ethics. Even if some events are inevitable, it does not mean that therefore there is no responsibility or ethical value to certain events or actions

[tacit pivot]

I mean the whole thing is unfalsifiable, both ways: your stance and mine.

[deft fossil]

And i think that equating free will to having ethics is kinda a ''dirty'' tactic

[deft fossil]

Again, the difference is in the confidence of your claim

[tacit pivot]

I mean its been made before, and its a fair objection. If there is no personal option to not murder a child, it raises the question of why we punish anything at all.

[deft fossil]

but yeah both are unfalsifiable

[tacit pivot]

wdym by this

[deft fossil]

because most of us would not want to live in a world where it is normal to murder a child cus it makes us feel bad

[deft fossil]

For my personal claim i am mererely stating that that is what i believe and why. I am not saying it is TRUE

you on the other hand made the claim that free will exists

which requires a higher level of evidence to determine

Therefore they are not the same

[tacit pivot]

Exactly, but especially if you acknowledge objective morals, it would seem objectively immoral to punish someone as if they had made a choice that they never did.

[deft fossil]

I don't acknowledge objective morals so thats gonna be an issue

If morals can differ between culture, i think that there is no one set of morals that is objectively correct

[tacit pivot]

Ok fine. Punishing someone for a choice they never made seems immoral, right?

[deft fossil]

it all depends on the surroundings where you live, where you grew up etc

[deft fossil]

Not neccesarily

If that action still hurts someone else then i believe it to still be justifyable to punish them

But i really dislike this idea some people have that if free will wouldnt exist, all of society would turn into some archaic anarchy

[tacit pivot]

But surely you at least understand the objection here. It's immoral to hold someone accountable for making a choice they didn't make.

[deft fossil]

Like suppose that free will does not exist right now, then we can still have a (for the most part) properly functioing society without the NEED of free will to justify anything

like if this works for us, why does it matter whether it is based on free will or not

[deft fossil]

But that is not my moral stance on the matter

I mean you can keep repeating yourself, but i just disagree with that notion

[tacit pivot]

Well if free will didn't exist we wouldn't have the choice of destroying functional society by my calculation.

[deft fossil]

it is not some factual statement that in every possible scenario it is by definition morally wrong to punish someone for a decision they did not make

I dont subscribe to that notion

[deft fossil]

SO then what does it matter?

[tacit pivot]

Well you're leaving out something important. Its holding them accountable for making a decision that they didn't.

[deft fossil]

That was sort of implied by punishing them

[tacit pivot]

Not punishing someone even if they didn't make a decision to do something wrong, but holding them accountable and saying they did make the decision when they didn't.

[tacit pivot]

What, free will? Or if society would collapse?

[deft fossil]

Like you believe in libertarian free will, i believe in compatibilism

its just 2 different branches of ethics philosophy

[deft fossil]

Whether free will exists or not is irrelevent to whatever is happening in this universe

[tacit pivot]

Perhaps, but if everyone was consciously aware that they had no free will I think that would have an impact on the way people acted as a whole.

[deft fossil]

Yes but i dont believe that anyone is actively aware of no free will and i don't think you believe that either

I think we either have free will or the illusion of free will

either way we still believe ourselfes that we can make a choice

[tacit pivot]

But I'm saying that if everyone saw past the illusion it would make a difference.

[deft fossil]

I dont see how

[tacit pivot]

I mean I feel like we're getting off the beaten path here, but if an individual considered that every decision he made massively impacts the rest of his life, his life will look different than someone thinking they are just living out the biologically automated path.

[deft fossil]

But thats not really the point im making here. The point is that there IS either free will or the illusion thereof, so suppose you KNOW it is merely an illusion, that would not change the way you would behave,

as most things we do are subconcious in nature

Its not like every thing you do is a concious decision

It is not like i am taking no responsibility for anything in my day to day life because i believe in soft determinism

[tacit pivot]

How is this not pertaining to the point you are making?

[deft fossil]

yeah i dont see how that would change anything

I dont see what you are trying to argue

that people will make different ''choices'' if they believe that free will does not exist compared to if it would exist?

because my whole point is that the ''choices'' made are not choices to begin with, so whether you would be aware of this or not would not change the outcome of the choices

[tacit pivot]

You made this claim

[tacit pivot]

I said that there would be a difference if everyone was aware

[tacit pivot]

You said you didn't think if everyone saw it would make a difference,

So I've just been explaining that I think it would make a difference

[deft fossil]

Okay so if there is free will, you make a certain action A based on choice X, that results in outcome B

If there is no free will, you make a certian action A based on percieved choice X that results in outcome B

both outcomes are the same

and due to the nature of determinism, KNOWING that you are going to have to make choice X does not influence the outcome of the choice

So whether you would be aware of having no free will or not is irrelevent to the outcome of the event

Hence, it wouldn't matter cus nothing would change

[tacit pivot]

I think we probably just disagree on this point

and we can't really prove one way or another

[deft fossil]

But that is the whole point of determinism, the outcome is already determined, whether you are aware of the action or not

The point is that it is a logical contradiction

i dont care whether you actually believe in that or not, i assume you don't

but claiming that knowing that no free-will exsists will influence the outcome of an action is logically impossible if determinism exists

because then you would kind of by definition influence your decisions

by knowing something

which would be impossible

because the decision was already made

Idk i hope it makes sense

[tacit pivot]

I think so. By that logic, nothing really influences decisions that we think.

[deft fossil]

Well thats not what i personally believe

[tacit pivot]

In my original example, the pay wouldn't be the influence on the decision?

[deft fossil]

i was just trying to point out that you made a logical contradiction

It would, but the fact that the outcome would be chick-fil-a was inevitable

and pay was one of the factors that went into that outcome

[tacit pivot]

I don't affirm any of that so I'm not sure how I made that claim.

[deft fossil]

You claimed that knowing that free will does not exist influences the actions that are made

i claim that due to the nature of not having free will, that would be impossible

as if there is no free will, there neccesarily is not a possible option of influencing the outcome

[tacit pivot]

Well you assume determinism must be true for this.

[deft fossil]

therefore

Well yes the whole argument was from the perspective of determinsim existing

As you said, ''if people would be aware of free-will not existing''

[tacit pivot]

I'm saying if every member of society was consciously aware that they really didn't make any decisions, society would probably look different.

[deft fossil]

which neccesarily implies determinism

[deft fossil]

And i am saying that that statement is a logical contradiction

[tacit pivot]

What if I amend it to this:
I'm saying if every member of society was consciously aware that they really didn't make any decisions, society would probably look different than it would if nobody was aware.

[deft fossil]

Because in that case, no one would be able to influence their decisions anyway, even if they were aware

so the outcome of an action would not chagne

[deft fossil]

No that is still the same

[tacit pivot]

That doesn't mean society wouldn't look different

[deft fossil]

How would it look different?

[tacit pivot]

just because nobody influences there decisions.

Cause and effect still exist...

[deft fossil]

How would it look different if there is nothing that has agency to make it different?

[tacit pivot]

Lets just say that the difference is people would take life less seriously because they realize everything they do is forced upon them.

The brain makes that choice for them

[deft fossil]

They would not since that would require having the agency to think that, which in the hypothetical does not exist

[tacit pivot]

Why is agency suddenly required for thought?

[deft fossil]

Cus we are still arguing from the perspective that determinism is true and we would be conscious of that

Agree

?

[tacit pivot]

Sure...

Cause and effect is still a thing, right?

[deft fossil]

So then you would not be able to think freely since what you think is already determined

So there is no agency to actually make a choice

As ther is no choice

Nor agency

[tacit pivot]

This hypothetical assumes that people think this.

[deft fossil]

Nor decision making

[deft fossil]

Exactly

[tacit pivot]

And the input of them thinking this is factored into how their brain forces them to "make decisions".

does that make sense?

[deft fossil]

Ah i see

Yeah sure I agree on that

[tacit pivot]

This whole thing is kind've a moot point anyways but I'm glad we came to agreement.

[deft fossil]

Haha exactly

However I'm hopping to bed

Sick at home with a fever

Thanks for the discussion

[tacit pivot]

Oof, get well soon. Same to you.

[upper pine]

Well why would someone be held responsible for actions they didn't have a choice in? When someone is being held at gunpoint and forced to commit a crime, they don't get charged with the crime because they had no other choice, other than die. But take away the option entirely, so they don't even get to choose die, then why should they bear responsibility for the action? (Also sorry if you answered this, I replied to this comment before reading through the rest.)

[upper pine]

Hope you get better soon, I was sick just a few days ago.

[gilded pollen]

If there is a god telling you that you need to act a certain way otherwise you'll suffer eternal punishment, then the one thing that the god is certainly not doing is giving you a free choice. That is them trying their absolute hardest to control your choice, by threatening to inflict the worst punishment imaginable on you if you make the choice they don't agree with. That's the exact opposite of being given a free choice.

[young canyon]

same here

its been going around

[upper pine]

You still have a choice, you're choice is eternity with God, or eternity without God. Eternity without God is what Hell is. Free choice doesn't mean choices can't have consequences.

Actually, there might not be an eternity without God, idk truly what the Bible says about that. All I know is you gain eternal life through Christ, now that might mean those who do not receive Christ just cease to exist after, or they have Eternal death.

[deft fossil]

@upper pine here we start about morals of determinism; the summary being that an action can still be morally good or bad regardless of whether you made the choice to make that action, therefore i dont think there is an issue with morals and determinism

But i would suggest you reading from there first and then react if you have any questions

[deft fossil]

Thank you, today im still feeling like crap however... 😦. I am above 102F (39C) right now...

[gilded pollen]

A choice between eternal torture or everlasting life in a perfect place is not a choice. Everybody knows nobody would ever choose the other option, and it's dishonest to pretend that offering an option that nobody could ever choose somehow means people have a choice. It's psychological manipulation, creating the illusion of a choice where there is none.

Just the same as in a democracy where you believe you get to elect the best people because you are given a choice of one bad person and one really bad person.

[fringe bolt]

Well why would someone be held responsible for actions they didn't have a choice in?
Isn't the answer to this question like a cruicial part of Christianity? Original sin and all that

[tacit pivot]

Well, not all Christians (myself included) affirm original guilt (the idea that each person is guilty for the sin in the garden of Eden.) I can't really speak for @upper pine, but even if you do affirm original guilt, Romans 3:23 says all have sinned and therefore are guilty anyways, so it wouldn't exactly matter.

Not to say original sin isn't true as a concept; the fall still affects everyone, but not in the sense that everyone is held guilty for Adam's sin.
But yeah in many sects of Christianity original sin is looked at as guilt passed down because of Adam's sin, that's not the way eveyrone sees it though.

[upper pine]

I do have some questions, but I wanna start just trying to understand your view first: what exactly is compatibilism, because reading about it, it just seems inherently flawed, and maybe that's just because I can't see the nuance in it or some, but basically what I'm hearing is that everything is always going to happen, but we also have the agency to act in our own manner. But that kinda seems contradictory to each other, so is that just a wrong opinion on what compatibilism is, or is there something I'm missing?

[upper pine]

Dang, well hope that goes away quick.

[upper pine]

My personal belief and current understanding on the bible (If there are verses about this subject that aren't coming to mind feel free to share them to me) is that Original sin just means that sinful nature is in every creature born from sin. We are not sinners until we sin. That's why many people believe all babies go to Heaven, because they have not sinned and thus do not need to receive salvation.

[upper pine]

The choice is either pay for your crimes, or accept the payment that was already offered to you for your crimes. Justice doesn't get thrown out the window.

[upper pine]

Yea I agree with what you said, original sin means Eve willfully disobeyed God by giving into the devils temptation and Adam unknowingly joined in, hence why God did not nearly as much punish Adam. That sinful nature was now in mankind as a result of Satan's jealousy and it gets passed on from childbirth, we are not guilty of any sins until we sin, which let's be honest, most of us do pretty early in life.

It's a good thing we know God is just, so he will not punish people for what they do not know, but at the same time, he will look at how you lived your life, if you've never heard of God, but pursued a God, it shows you were searching for him, and he likely would reveal himself to you.

[gilded pollen]

You can create some beautiful explanations about why your god is forcing you to act a certain way, but they are still forcing you.

You say your god is kind, I say they are the main villain in a bad piece of fiction.

I see no evidence of any kindness.

[terse belfry]

You're contradicting yourself here. You say God doesn't punish people for things they don't know, yet God punished Adam for something he didn't know was wrong? Just not as harshly as Eve and all women for eternity because you think child birth is a curse...that about right?

I mean that entire story is nonsense from start to finish. We know that's not the order of creation, we didn't come from two original humans, etc.

But beyond that, the idea that God would punish either of them for eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil is sort of hilarious on its face. How could they have known it was wrong to disobey God unless they ate the fruit? So God set up a scenario where they would inevitably eat the fruit and then punished them for something they had no way of knowing was wrong.

[deft fossil]

Well to start, I do not belief in hard compatibilism, as they belief that determinism and free will are non-mutually exclusive (so they are compatible) which I do not belief. However, compatibalism is closest to what I believe. The main difference between compatibalism and what I belief is that I belief that free will or the illusion of free will are indistinguishable from our perspective, therefore determinism can exist even though we have ''free-will'' experiences, as those experiences are not true free-will.

[deft fossil]

But to anwer your question; yes compatibilists argue that free will and determinism are inclusive, meaning they can both exist at the same time.

Where my best guess for why they believe this is moral responsibilty, exactly the point that a lot of religious people argue when they speak up against determinism

Since the people that started this were all of course very much religious

[deft fossil]

Yes, i feel a lot better today, thank you for the support! ❤️

[west garden]

Funny how I can’t find falcon here

[gilded pollen]

Yeah, I think this is a really important point about free will. It can look like we have free will without us actually having free will. Thanks to our subconscious / conscious divide, we aren't necessarily consciously aware of the things that are influencing our decisions. So the evidence for free will existing is all also compatible with determinism.

[scenic lance]

https://tenor.com/view/wall-of-text-sebi-gif-3902865978262177436

[upper pine]

Oh my bad, this comes from me misremembering the story. Adam was there with her, so he knew full well what he was doing when he ate the fruit. Also, it seems the punishment would mostly be subjective in terms of what is worse. Adam (men) were forced to work the ground for their food and thorns and thistles were made, Eve's punishment wasn't childbirth... her punishment was the pains that comes with childbirth.

We didn't come from two original humans? How many apes evolved into humans? It seems kind of hard to believe, but not impossible, that members of a species evolved in the same time to a different species that they were then able to live to an age of reproduction and make offspring of that species. Did an entire species evolve into humans at once, if so that doesn't seem like random mutations?

How could they have known it was wrong, because he told them it was wrong. He is the creator of everything, creator defines creation. They were not going to eat the fruit until Satan deceived them. God ultimately punished Satan too for deceiving both Adam and Eve into sinning.

[upper pine]

Oh ok, I think I understand, I'd say I agree with that. I mean, we have no way of knowing for sure, we can only make the assumption, which I guess is where morality comes from, the assumption that we can decide to do wrong or right.

[terse belfry]

See this is the problem when talking about evolution when someone really hasn't even done the slightest amount of research into how it actually works.

Adaptations and mutations can happen at the individual level, which can then spread to other members of that species through mating. Evolution of species happens at the population level. I know in your mind evolution is an ape giving birth to a human, but that's not how it works.

You're missing the point. God told them one thing. Satan told them another. Without the knowledge of the tree they had no actual way of understanding that what they were doing was good or evil.

I'll have to go brush up on my genesis later but doesn't it even say that after eating it they realized they sinned and were afraid and hid from God. So before that despite what God said they really didn't understand.

[upper pine]

I could say the same thing about you and your views of the bible, such as the story in Genesis. Also I've had to take quite a bit of courses on this subject through college.

Mutations happen during development, if they survive they have a chance to pass those genes on. We have no evidence other than fossils that suggest that a creature changing the entire way it lives is even likely to live once born or be able to reproduce. It also just so happens to not occur anymore, strange?

The point isn't they had 2 equally valid statements to go off of. One was God, their creator, which they knew and granted authority over them, the other was Satan, who they decided to give authority to. The tree allowed them to realize what they did was wrong, but they still knew not to do it beforehand.

[deft fossil]

We didn't come from two original humans? How many apes evolved into humans? It seems kind of hard to believe, but not impossible, that members of a species evolved in the same time to a different species that they were then able to live to an age of reproduction and make offspring of that species. Did an entire species evolve into humans at once, if so that doesn't seem like random mutations?

Well on an individual level you are correct, humans are born from two human parents. But there are also some things that are not quite right in your representation here. For one, humans did not come from apes, we ARE apes. Within the branch of taxonomy that describes primates, we are in a superfamily called Hominoidae, the apes. Within this superfamily we are in the family of Hominidae, the great apes. So in fact, humans are apes. (So strictly speaking yes we came from apes because all parents of every person that ever lived was, in fact, an ape).

But speciation, the event where one species of animal evolves into different specie(s) is not intragenerational but intergenerational, meaning it is a process that only happens over multiple generations.

One more relevant thing i'd like to point out is that in biology, when we speak about humans, generally we are talking about the genus homo, that is estimated to have originated about 3 million years ago based on fossil evidence, but possibly even earlier. In this group we have for example Homo erectus, Homo neanderthalensis and us Homo sapiens. All of the (extinct) species in this genus are considered human in biology.

[gilded pollen]

Ok yeah, it looks like you've not really got the hang of how evolution works.

Every living organism is in a constant state of competition with all other living things, to get the things it needs to reproduce. When genetic mutations occur, sometimes they will have no observable effect, and sometimes they will have a very small effect. For example, maybe the mutation means that you can run just a little bit faster.

In a tight competition, having even a slight edge on your fellow competitors means you will win most of the time. Look at F1 racing, the differences between the teams is a fraction of a second per lap, but that still means that the people in the best cars win almost every race. And as an organism, if you win the race for the resources you need to produce, then you reproduce and your competitors do not (at least on your local area). Your offspring contain the same genetic differences that you did, and so all your offspring have that same advantages over their competitors that you did. So all of them win the battle in their local area to reproduce and produce more offspring themselves. That one mutation spreads exponentially, so if you have 3 kids surviving to reproduce in each generation, and 20 years per generation, then within 400 years you already have over a billion descendants with that genetic advantage, just from one initial mutation. Advantages spread very quickly in a tightly competitive environment like the Earth has been for most of its history. And 400 years is nothing compared to the millions of years life has been evolving on Earth.

The reason that evolution is less apparent on a daily basis now, is that humans are no longer in such a tightly competitive situation. Now we don't need to be our absolute best to survive, we already dominate our area completely. So more or less everyone survives to reproduce, not just the genetically strongest. So instead of narrowing the genetic diversity down to just the best, we are instead diversifying.

Instead of human reproduction being like an F1 race, we're now more like the NFL where anyone can win the Super Bowl.

While the population continues to freely expand to the extent it is currently, we will continue to diversify. When it again becomes more challenging to reproduce, we will see evolution start to push changes out to the whole population again.

It will still take a really long time to see those differences, because individual mutations generally have quite a small effect, and hundreds of years is still way beyond what any individual can notice. But the evolution of our species will most likely speed up again.

If you want to see the effects of evolution on a scale we can appreciate, then what you need to look at are organisms that reproduce at a much higher rate. The best recent example is, of course, Covid. A simple virus had one little mutation, and it spread to the entire world within months.

...and evolved into several different 'species' of itself over the space of a couple of years.
So the fact is, we have seen evolution take place.

[deft fossil]

To add to this, there are actually some mutations that used to be benificial, but now with our increased quality of life can be harmful. For example, sickle-cell anemia is caused by a genetic mutation. However, if you have one gene that codes for sickle-cells and one that codes for normal cells, this generally does not result in a problem for your health. On the contrary, it grants partial immunity for Malaria. However, whenever you get homozygote recesive version of the genes, you will get very sick and without treatment you will probably die a young age. Now genetically speaking thats a big advantage as for most people, this will grant immunity against malaria.

Now since modern medicine, the people with the double rececive variant can survive with treatment, however they are very ill. So nowadays we mostly see sickle-cell anemia patients and view this mutation as something bad.

But this is also the proposed process for many allergies for example

So actually with most mutations, this just being a single example, they are not ONLY beneficial or ONLY detrimental. Most of the time they actually do nothing and when they do, it heavily depends on the environment whether they are beneficial or detrimental and to what extent.

But if those mutations grow inside a species, over many generations some combinations of different mutations can suddenly make way for big changes in an organism

[gilded pollen]

Yeah, there are lots of examples of evolved behaviours in particular that is no longer useful. Diet and exercise are really obvious examples. We have evolved to overeat, and only exercise when we absolutely have to, because for most of the history of our species food was scarce and we were more in danger from over exercising and collapsing than under exercising and getting fat. But of course now food is very easy to get, and we barely get any exercise naturally, so our evolved behaviour actually holds us back.

All the people in our society that are now overweight are actually operating in the way that provided the most advantage in our evolutionary history. It just doesn't work now the situation has changed completely.

[upper pine]

(Ping since I forgot to quote: @gilded pollen @deft fossil )
I get the theory of how evolution works, I just don't see how it makes any practical sense though, nor do I believe there is enough evidence for it to be considered scientific fact. I'd like to raise a few point that y'all might have answers to that are just some of the reasons I don't believe evolution is fact, and some of the things that I feel don't make sense with evolution. I whole-heartedly believe in adaptation, or basically micro-evolution.

1. If they are evolving to adapt to a competitive world, they aren't evolving entire new body parts and functions, as you mentioned it has to happen over many many generations, but at that point the idea that they are evolving because of the competitiveness of the world is just wrong, they are adapting to current situations. They aren't changing entire functions of their body, we've never seen that, it's just an assumption that we would be required to make if we did all come from one common ancestor life form. We do see however, slight changes in animals to better adapt to survival such as the Darwin Finches, but none of them had grew entirely unique of each other.

2. If evolution is true, why do we not see it in creatures today. I know you mentioned humans to my previous response about this, but I mean any animals. I'd think now we'd see it more than ever considering all the de-forestation and habitat loss of enormous amounts of species of animals. We just don't see it though, at least that I'm aware of. Now I get you may say there's not enough time to see it, but if we can't see that it actually happens, then it's just an assumption. We have no way of proving it other than making the assumption that because DNA can slightly change, that it will completely re-structure itself to allow for a new form of life.

(I'm pretty tired, was gonna type more, but accidently pressed enter lol, I'll make more tomorrow/after discussion on these two points)

[deft fossil]

To start off, please don't sleep deprive yourself for a discord discussion..!

[deft fossil]

I think to preface all of this, there are some ideas that you may have about evolution, or at least thats what im reading through the lines, that I would like to tag on first. You seem to have, and correct me if im wrong, this view of a species as a specific single organism with hard boundaries around it. Within the boundaries you can confidently say its Species X and outside the boundaries you can confidently say its not Species X. In reality though, this is more like a spectrum, a gray area.

For example, it is impossible for two parents of a certain species to give birth to a child from a different species. However the child can be different from its parents. That does not neccesarily mean it is a different species however. Therefore speciation is not some process with clear defined boundaries where you can say, "oh at this specific point in time" a change of species happened. It just does not work that way.

[obtuse kettle]

1. The reason we've never *seen * any creature changing the entire function of their body is because it takes a very long time for it to happen, and as you know, we only began researching evolution a couple hundred or so years ago. We can expect that, in the case of Darwin Finches, if they were isolated and were subject to different living conditions, all their small mutations would add up over time until they were distinguishable enough from each other to be considered different species.

but if we can't see that it actually happens, then it's just an assumption. We have no way of proving it other than making the assumption that because DNA can slightly change, that it will completely re-structure itself to allow for a new form of life.

There is no such thing as "scientific fact", all our understanding of science is based off what is seen in evidence and experiment, science says what is deemed "most likely" based off this. For evidence, we can look at fossils from ancient creatures and see slight differences in bone structures, etc over a long time, and seeing how this results in significant changes (they all add up), that's one piece of evidence. But frankly, if you believe that some genes are inherited and that children are slightly different to their parents, or can be, then you've proved evolution.

Take this example:
You've got a group of people, there are redheads and there are blondes. One day, the group are forced to migrate north for whatever reason, where it's colder and there's cave lions. Sometimes, cave lions come to hunt them and kill them, the redheads, having bright red hair, are more likely to die than the blondes (it's very snowy where they are). For simplicity, assume there's one redhead and one blonde. One day, a cave lion goes hunting for a nice juicy human. Since redheads are more likely to get killed, the redhead dies and has no children. The blonde, blending in with the snow, keeps on living and has children who are also blonde. If we extrapolate this for the entire civilization, it's easy to see that there will be more blondes than redheads and perhaps in a few million years assuming not much changes, perhaps all of the population will be blonde.

[deft fossil]

1. Just above this reaction, we went over how evolution does not neccesarily adapt to become the strongest, or adapt to the most competition etc. The method of mutations is essentially random, and sometimes there are events that heavily favor one mutation over another. As with the human example we gave earlier, most mutations are neither ''good'' nor ''bad'', or it depends on the situation what they are. So the idea that evolution ''evolves to adapt to a competitive world'' is a pretty outdated idea about evolution.

As far as creating new body parts and functions, there are many well-documented ways of this process named exaptation. For example, have you ever seen a bird with limbs instead of wings, or a whale with arms instead of fins? No, because their existing body plan adapted to suit a different environment compared to where they originally came from. Their regular limbs changed function.

For example in the evolution of whales, we have Pakicetus about 50MYA, that was basically a normal mammal with some slight adaptations in its earbones, allowing it to hear better underwater. About a million years later, its cousins started to develop webbed fingers (something all mammals still have while in the womb) and thicker tails. Forward another 2 to 3 million years and we see fossils with increased tail thickness, reduced hind-limbs and more changes in the earbones. Another few million years later we finally find the first fossils that are completely aquatic, only having redundant hind-limbs that are non-functional, a hydrodynamic body, and nostrills moving through the head. This was the first ''fully aquatic'' mammal. Thin in the past 40 million years, they have continued to evolve. Now the nostrills are on the top of the head (blowholes), their front-limbs are completely changed into fins etc.

[obtuse kettle]

The 'purpose' of evolution is to pass on genes, right?

[deft fossil]

2. What do you mean we do not see evolution in animals today. As mentioned before, have you ever seen a bird? Or do you mean why do we not observe one animal turning into another through evolution. Because that is just a misrepresentation of what evolution is and how it works.

Although, there is a long-running experiment (>40 years) using bacteria that have certainly created various species now, showing the process of evolution in realtime.

As mentioned before, the process of evolution takes time and does not happen within one or two generations. Therefore, the damage that we do to natural habitats as humans often is MUCH too fast for any reliable adaptation to actually occur for most animals. Some animals are lucky and already had some genes that helped, but most of them are just royally fucked.

So then what is the difference between an assumption and something being proven in your eyes. I mean, if you think evolution is an assumption, than with the same logic, gravity is also an assumption. That our sun is a star and consists of hydrogen and helium is an assumption. I mean, you can use words to make it seem less, but in the scientific world, evoltion is probably the most widely proven theory there is.

[deft fossil]

NO there is not a purpose of evolution

Evolution is literally just a logical consequence of the second law of thermodynamics

Which basically states that the entropy in a closed system will always increase

IN the case of DNA for example, they are very ordered, so the only natural way forward is to de-order the DNA, or in other words for mutations to occur

it is literally just a law of physics thats it

there is no reason for evolution to occur other than it is a process happening in our universe

EVERYTHING in our universe follows the same pattern as evolution does

since it is a direct consequence of the thermodynamic laws that govern the universe to begin with

For the same reason that stars emit light instead of absorbing it

For the same reasons planets are spheres instead of cubes

There is no reason other than it just increases the overall entropy of the universe

Have you ever seen water freeze into ice? Congratulations, you have seen the governing force of evolution with your own eyes.

INCREASE IN ENTROPY

[obtuse kettle]

wha

[obtuse kettle]

Well okay I had that coming as purpose isn't very well defined

[deft fossil]

Well sure, but purpose is a word used by humans to give meaning to something, its a bad word to use for anything natural

because nothing naturally happens ''for a purpose''

it happens because it follows the laws of physics

[obtuse kettle]

yeah

[west garden]

Im a muslim but prove to me theres a god, just a fun question to ask I think, I want to see how others answer this

[terse belfry]

I understand the Bible very well. It's not a very complicated book, unless you need to bend over backwards to explain away the things that make your religion look bad.

Sometimes you need to take it literally.

Sometimes it needs to be taken figuratively.

Sometimes you need to know that actually what God means is the exact opposite of the rules he sets forth in the book (slavery).

Or you can just take it for what it is. An attempt by ancient, ignorant people to explain the world around them and set up a society that would favor them and their tribe.

[gilded pollen]

Ok I think I see your misunderstanding.

Evolution isn't about suddenly having a whole new body part or bodily function. It's a very gradual process, it's about very small changes that add up over time. You don't just suddenly have a creature that is born with an extra arm or the ability of sight. New functions don't arrive all in one go, it's not all or nothing. It's a little bit, then a little bit more, then a bit more, repeated millions of times over billions of years, that adds up to big differences.

So for human arms and legs for example, we need to go back to when all life was in the sea. Our limbs started out as slight protrusions that enabled those sea creatures to move through the water more effectively (just look at aerodynamics on racing cars to see how much difference small changes can make). Over millions of years those developed into fins similar to modern fish. Alongside that, those creatures that could control the fins a little also proved a lot more effective. Stronger movements were better too. So then after those millions of years we ended up with sea creatures with strongly movable fins.

When the fins became strong enough, they could also be used for movement on land. And creatures that can move on land can find tons of resources that sea-only creatures cannot. So that's another huge advantage. After yet more millions of years and hundreds of thousands of generations the fins gradually became even stronger, and longer, because each small change provided an advantage in speed and endurance. They became more dextrous, developing joints, allowing even faster and more efficient movement. With each generation the differences were very small, but those small differences were still enough to give a substantial advantage over other creatures.

The key thing is that small differences in ability give a significant enough of an advantage that they can quickly come to dominate. So those small changes then become the norm.

...and then it happens again, and again, with small changes each time but gradually ending up with bigger and bigger effects.

[gilded pollen]

So if you're looking for animals suddenly being born with an extra arms, or an extra eye, don't bother. That's not how it works at all. Instead, the things to look for are tiny genetic changes that get passed on to the next generation.

...and yes, we see that in the present day, even with humans. An obvious one is height. Human populations in certain areas have been getting a lot taller, even within a few hundred years. So that's one example of genetic changes that can happen relatively quickly, given the right conditions.

But it's still just a series of very small changes the add up over long time periods.

[upper pine]

1. That's the thing though, we don't have proof of it, so as of now it is just assumptions.

2. Well, there are plenty of things that are scientific fact, such as gene mutations, we can observe those. If we have enough evidence, we can claim something as fact, but the evidence has to undeniably show it to be such. The fossils of ancient creatures being slightly different doesn't mean they evolved into different creatures though, also many of these creatures don't have connecting "transition fossils" to show a connection between them and newer species. It's just an assumption that because they looked similar to this other fossil, they must be related. I don't think believing in small gene changes is the same as evolution though, I don't believe creatures can change enough in order to become something new (and I guess that is a subjective term though on whether it is considered the same creature) but I do believe they can change to have slight differences.

As for the example, I completely agree that is how it would work, but I don't see that as an example of evolution, I see that as one group of people dying out because of they're looks. The redhead people aren't changing, they're just dying so the blondehead people are the only ones left after a while.

[upper pine]

1. I do agree that since mutations are random, the mutations aren't self-aware either and cognitive to think for themselves, well hey I should make these cells do this instead then, it'd be much better, and with that it doesn't matter on the competitive nature of the world. I believe Arklar was the one that brought up the world being competitive driving evolution, which I do agree though, it causes natural selection by animals dying if they aren't good enough to survive.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought exaptation was just the process of one body part/feature being used in a different manner, not necessarily changing the body to serve a different use. That's the thing I don't believe in, I don't believe a fish could evolve to live on land or that a bird could evolve to have hands, etc.

As for the example, how do we know that the shift from one animal to the next was evolution rather than it just being a different animal? Is it just because they had a similar structure?

[upper pine]

I say that evolution is an assumption because it is taking various things, such as different animals, and making the assumption that because we have different animals, and the fact that we know genes can mutate slightly, that they must have all been mutated from one common animal billions/millions of years ago (not too sure the scientifically accepted timeframe for the beginning of life). Something being proven means the evidence directly links it, such as with gravity, when something is not supported off the ground, it falls. That is what we call gravity, that force. Bigger planets have a stronger noticeable force, such as on Earth we cannot jump nearly as high as on the moon. Things fall slower on the moon than on Earth. I don't deny that there is great evidence for evolution, but I do not believe that evidence proves evolution, as we cannot witness this process. Hey, I'd love to see the experiments with bacteria prove evolution. I don't think finding more fossils that look similar to each other is the same as finding more proof, as you still don't have the connection. I think if we can find a way to witness a creature developing an entirely new body part, or removing an entire body part, or changing a body part (such as their stomach to allow for a herbivore to become an omnivore, or a carnivore to become an omnivore, then that would probably be sufficient at that point to say that evolution is fact.

[upper pine]

It's not a complicated book, but you still seem to have it all wrong. God never set forth the rule of slavery, if anything he brought about the end of slavery. I mean one greatexplanation on this is in the Qur'an, where it says that God can change the rules he set for us because it is easier to give people rules they are willing to accept and slowly draw them closer to a righteous lifestyle than give them a harsh transition. I believe on example is that if the Qur'an told the Arabs to completely quit consuming Alcohol that there wouldn't have been any Arabs who followed Muhammed, but since it started with consuming in moderation, it was more paletable for them. It doesn't mean God supports alcohol in moderation, it means he understand how humans work. He didn't straight up say no slavery, because he knew Humans would not listen to it, instead he told them how to treat slaves, kind and fairly.

[upper pine]

That is how it would have to happen if evolution was true, yes. But, I believe I explained my concerns with this in my comments to Cury. I don't have a problem with the idea of evolution, I just don't believe there is enough to say that evolution is the right one to believe, or the only scientific one to believe. I don't expect sudden changes, as sudden cahnges would produce un-sustainable offspring.
#1196286273506250753 message
#1196286273506250753 message

[fringe bolt]

So you agree with both of these?

1. DNA is responsible for heritable variations in a population.
2. Different individuals in a population have some variability that could affect their reproductive success, and therefore affect the frequency of these variations.

These are the main components of modern evolutionary theory. The last one that ties it together is
3. Reproductive isolation leads to accumulations in genetic variability, which eventually leads to two populations of the same species drifting apart genetically

1. is pretty obvious to see, we have DNA tests, paternity tests that rely on DNA. Not to mention that babies looking a little bit like both parents should make 1 pretty clear.
2. Also pretty self evident? If DNA affects an individual's physical characteristics it should have some impact on reproductive success.
3. Two populations unable to interbreed eventually accumulate differences. Not sure how you could deny this one too. It doesn't talk about growing new limbs or heart chambers, this is simply saying that reproductive isolation is an important part of evolutionary theory

[obtuse kettle]

2. That's not how science works, no such thing as fact aside from controlled, specific systems. If you apply small gene changes over and over again for a very long time, it all adds up and you end up with a creature that looks and behaves very different from one previously. This is just logic, just like adding 1 to 2 many times will eventually make 1000. If a creature changes slightly a thousand times... it will have changed a lot in total.

But seriously, you find a skeleton of a creature that resembles a monkey, then you find a skeleton of a creature that resembles a monkey but slightly upright, then you see a skeleton of a creature that resembles that previous monkey but is even more upright, perhaps it's got a smaller tail and a slightly different facial structure. Then you find another 1000 skeletons, that you can semi accurately date, and all from a similar area all showing this, are you seriously going to say there isn't evidence showing this evolution? Especially when our modern understanding of gene mutations entirely supports this?

Actually you have a point, change the example so instead everyone is redhead and one day a blonde is born, then go from there. Though the original was still an example of evolution.

You say you can understand why creatures can change slightly over a few generations, and you say that can't happen multiple times, why do you think this?

[terse belfry]

That's some strong cope. The God of the Bible does not care whether people are willing to accept his commands, no matter how dumb many of them might be. They follow them or they die is pretty much the theme of the Old Testament.

But because this one is so obviously unacceptable you have to come up with some justification as to why God would not only not command "You shall not own other humans as property", but also that he would expressly say it was okay Leviticus 25:44-46 "Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves."

That's permission. You don't get to pretend it isn't just because he also says you aren't allowed to beat them to death. Sounds like a rule you would expect in a slave owning society to be honest. If the slaves think they could be killed at any moment they are more likely to rebel.

I don't recall the passage where he says "I'd really prefer you didn't own other people as property, as it's a big sin, very immoral, but you can do it for now. In a few thousand years when societies will catches up to my will then you'll have to stop."

[upper pine]

Yea I agree with all of those.

[upper pine]

I think the extent of evolution doesn't make sense, not that genes can change. Sure, you can have a ton of DNA change, but the DNA that does change that we see, doesn't affect most of the way that it lives, they still work the same way. Once you start changing a lot on an animal, it can no longer survive.

You can change the physical appearance of a creature without changing the creature. If researches years in the future after a chatostrophic event wiped out all the records and knowledge we had, they found the fossilised skeletons of 2 humans, 1 a midget, 1 a normal sized man. Those skeletons sure look different, but at the same time they look pretty similar.

[upper pine]

If you're going to argue in bad faith, I will not partake. You ignored the entire message of mine that you were replying to just to try to make yourself seem correct on an argument that we aren't even arguing.

I'll recap my message again since you obviously didn't read it. I never once said the bible doesn't talk about slavery, I said the bible shows us a process of bringing people from sinners to Children of God. People were already living their own lives, having their own cultures, which yes, included slavery. God, as the scripture says, is saying that since they may already have slaves, they can continue taking slaves from neighboring lands, but the verses right before that, which you left out, is already placing limits on Slavery, saying of the people of their tribe, they may not take slaves from, because they are God's servants. And then we see over time God placing more restrictions on slavery, Ephesians 6:9 "Masters, do the same to them, and stop your threatening, knowing that he who is both their Master and yours is in heaven, and that there is no partiality with him."

They already had slaves, he did not get the Israelites to start slavery. Slavery was a common placed practice in that day and my previous comment which you ignored explains why he didn't start entierly with "No slaves whatsoever, including people not of Israel".

[upper pine]

It's not a single passage, that's not how the bible works, which from this conversation I can tell you don't understand how series of books work.

[fringe bolt]

You can change the physical appearance of a creature without changing the creature.
Evolution only works on heritable traits. I think there is some evidence of the expression of the traits differing due to environmental conditions, but as long as you have genetic variation, and your children can inherit these traits, you already have the building blocks for evolution.

Once you start changing a lot on an animal, it can no longer survive.
You aren't directly changing stuff on the animal though. Think of it more as a gradually shifting genetic variation in a population. Like how if tall people are more likely to make tall babies. If being tall was a major reproductive advantage, you'd see the average height of people increase, because tall people are making babies with other tall people.

[gilded pollen]

I'm confused by your objection to creatures evolving into creatures that are very different. I just don't see the reason for it. If you're happy that small changes can occur even over the course of only a few hundred or thousand or million years, then doesn't simple mathematics mean that those small changes would add up to big changes over the much larger time scales of billions of years that evolution has been functioning over?

Also, I don't think you ever replied to my point about it being very easy to see evolution at work in organisms that reproduce quickly, like viruses. it's simply not true to say that we can't witness evolution. We absolutely can, and do.

What would you expect to find in the way of evidence that evolution has occurred, other than what we have?

One of the most striking pieces of evidence for evolution is the fact that so many creatures that are so different, nevertheless have very similar anatomy. Even when it provides no useful function for some of the species. I invite you to look up Vestigiality, physical evidence of evolutionary processes that are only part way complete. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vestigiality

There is really no other explanation for why cave fish have eyes, or why ostriches have wings, or why snakes have pelvises, or why human men have nipples, or a thousand other examples of physical features in creatures that serve no practical purpose, other than as a result of evolutionary processes physically changing creatures. This is physical evidence of the processes. We are literally witnessing these changes happen.

Really, all of the evidence you need can be found in the physical structures of living creatures. Read up on it, and then come back to us. There's no point discussing things without having looked at the evidence.

[obtuse kettle]

"Sure, you can have a ton of DNA change, but the DNA that does change that we see, doesn't affect most of the way that it lives, they still work the same way." Look at the person becoming a blonde, them going from redhead -> blonde is a DNA change that did affect their life (made them more likely to survive and produce offspring). It's a question of if it affects our ability to reproduce, even if ever so slightly, then it will be adopted by the species, changing the species, evolving the species.
"Once you start changing a lot on an animal, it can no longer survive.", this isn't entirely true, it's dependent on the changes. If all the changes benefited the chances of them surviving, then it would obviously be able to survive, or at least have a higher likelihood of surviving, if that's wym.

They found a mutation. If the scientists only found that one midget in that area of that height at that time, they'd assume it's a mutation, but if the researches found the majority of humans x years ago were normal height and then the majority of humans x - y years ago were midgets, then we'd call that evolution.

[upper pine]

We get all of our DNA from our parents though, no? If some DNA isn't heritable, then wouldn't that mean we'd be missing some DNA? Or do you mean like the portion that we get from a single parent, rather than both parents?

So how does a population slowly shift from being a omnivore to a carnivore? Curious if you cna point me to any articles on that, this is stuff I'm looking into. The major shifts that would need to occur to get from a single common ancestor to our current animal kingodm.

[upper pine]

You can have a ton of simple changes, but those simple changes never ultimately change the creature is what I'm arguing. There are some thing that if you change in a creature, they just aren't viable. And some changes would require big changes in DNA at once in order to happen, such as changing from herbivore to homnivore, or omnivore to herbivore. It's not as simple as 1+1 =2 +1=3...+1=1000, it's more like 1+1=2+1=3...+1= DNE. (DNE being Does Not Exist in mathematics).

Do you have any sources on the bacterial evolution, I've found some articles refering to evolution of bacteria, but when I read the articles it's mostly just talking about the bacteria adapting to current situations, such as becoming used to certain drugs or growing slightly bigger. As again, I believe that we have proof of adapation/micro-evolution, I don't believe we have proof for macro-evolution.

Well I mean, it's convenient to say that something must be true because hey, we can't find any other evidence on this and we can't see it happening, but look these creatures look pretty similar, so they must've all came from a tiny singular cell billions of years ago. As for what I'd expect to find, all I want to find is proof of the large-scale shifts in types of animals rather than just small adaptions that ultimately don't change the creature. (I don't think this is something we can see, which I think you'd agree with, but in the future with documentation from today in labs, we can start the process for future generations to see animals evolving.)

Vestigiality is something I'm hesitant with, as Science keeps progressing, we notice that many things once considered vestigial actually have purposes. We used to think the apendix was vestigial, now we know it's not. For the nipples specifically, men and women share many similar features that are basically the same, but change based on the sex.

I have looked at these, I just haven't found anything substantial that isn't also being disproven.

[fringe bolt]

Not sure about that specific example, but I do know that our ability to digest alcohol is a direct result in evolutionary pressures early on in our development.

Like individuals who were able to tolerate the ethanol and/or break it down were able to eat more than individuals who weren't. And so, family groups with the gene pools that were able to consume alcohol were more likely to survive than those without.

In this case, there is inherent variability in a population (alcohol tolerance) and an evolutionary pressure (lack of calories) selected for increased alcohol tolerance.

To add on, the ROOT cause of the genetic variability is a much more technical discussion with a bunch of research. However, it is an undeniable fact that within a population there IS variability though.

[upper pine]

If the red hair and blonde hair are of the same species, and one hair color of the species dies out, the species isn't evolving, it's just loosing one of it's species adaptions.

I mean changes that fundementally change the animal, I don't believe animals can change from being herbivores to carnivores, even over thousands of years, there is just too much in the creature that'd need to change simutaniously, as well as parents that it would need to teach it how to live that type of lifestyle.

Ok, so would (I forget the region, so forgive me if this is wrong) the Dutch people be an evolved form of human (Homo Sapien in this case) since the vast majority of Dutch people (I believe) are taller than other regions? Also, what about for creatures where we find very little fossils of that they consider different species?

[upper pine]

That isn't changing the fundementals of our diet though? I don't think this really answers my concern unless I'm missing the point you were trying to say?

(Also yes, I do know that there is variability in population, we can see that just by looking at people(

[fringe bolt]

No, with the ethanol example, it is enabling individuals to consume a new food source that was previous toxic.

The ethanol example would be similar to a herbivore -> omnivore transition, where the population gets access to a new food source.

[fringe bolt]

Addressing your concern directly, the reason that coming up with an omnivore -> carnivore transition is hard is unless there's a DIRECT reproductive benefit to this transition, it won't happen. It's clear in the herbivore -> omnivore transition, or the evolution of ethanol tolerance, because there is a direct link to reproductive fitness.

[obtuse kettle]

If the red hair and blonde hair are of the same species, and one hair color of the species dies out, the species isn't evolving, it's just loosing one of it's species adaptions.
Well it is still evolving, it changed from some having red and some having blonde to most having blonde. But what I meant by my example wasn't that half started out blonde and half red, more everyone is redhead, then a blonde comes along, since blonde is more likely to not die, the species will evolve to be blonde. Which seems to align better with your idea of evolution.

It's important to understand that very few animals are purely herbivores and very few are purely carnivores. My cat often munches on grass. Really it is a matter of where an animal lies on the spectrum, not whether it is one or the other.. Animals are opportunistic, deer will sometimes devour baby birds, if there were baby birds everywhere and not much grass, the deer would be forced to eat baby birds more often and they'd evolve to be as good as possible at digesting these baby birds. They may get very little nutrition from it, but every bit counts as long as it doesn't kill them, and they don't eat more than they are able to (they'd gradually be able to eat more and more as they evolve to be able to digest the baby birds).

"Evolution occurs when a species becomes more adapted to the environment it’s in via natural selection, etc. In the case of carnivores, better adapted to consuming other animals, because they were the best food source available for that species to consume. Likewise, with herbivores - being able to take advantage of a food source that was readily available improved their survival. Animals better adapted to glean nutrition from the vegetation that was there, survived better."

Yeah, the Dutch are evolving to become taller, just like how equatorial people evolved to have brown skin and Southeast Asian people evolved to become smaller.

It's truly fascinating.

Also, if you have time, this looks interesting: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/04/080417112433.htm

[upper pine]

But our bodies always had the capabilities to, it's not like herbivores where they're stomachs are not designed to process meat and carnivores where they're not designed to process plants. Herbivore -> Omnivore requires a restructing of the stomach to allow for digestion of meat, not just building a tolerance.

[upper pine]

Well yea, but that isn't evolution, that is adaptation. It is still fundementally the same creature.

I do agree that most animals are not herbivores or carnivores exclusively, not sure the point this attempts to make though, that is just adaptation, they have the ability to digest meat as it is, they aren't evolving to be able to digest a completely new food group. Cows as an example, are pure herbivores, while they can swallow meat, they don't process it correctly because of their stomach design.

Question, do you view evolution and apatation as one in the same? Also, I'd like to point out, I don't disagree with evolution, I fully believe in adaptation/micro-evolution, I just believe there is not enough evidence for macro-evolution. Changing of entire groups of animals such as lions and monkeys all having a common ancestor millions of years ago.

Ima read that article right after responding to the rest of the people here (well gotsum since he just replied.

[fringe bolt]

But our bodies always had the capabilities to
No, that's the point of my example. We literally used to not have this capability. We used to have bodies that would be severely incapacitated or dead by any amount of alcohol. It's literally a poison for most animals.

[upper pine]

So what part of our body changed to allow for it to be processed better, because we still can't fully process it without adverse affects?

[fringe bolt]

What specifically changed literally doesn't matter for the theory of evolution.

1. We have variation (even today) in our ability to process alcohol.
2. Selective pressures in the environment made those who could process alcohol able to make more children.
3. Many generations later, more of this population can now process alcohol, and now you have a new capability.

You can literally say that God gave them some individuals the ability to process alcohol and evolution still works just fine, as long as whatever God did is a heritable trait.

[upper pine]

Well yea, you can say God did anything, that doesn't make it true. Science for me is showing how God works. My belief is God created animals, I'm not sure which ones entierlly he started with, but we know he made plants, then sea creatures and birds, then land animals. SO my belief doesn't start with a singular common ancestor, but it does leave room for evolution. We don't know if he created each individual species as a kind, or a larger group as a kind and those evolved into various other groups still of that one kind though.

I don't deny evolution, I simply say macro-evolution doesn't have sufficient proof. I don't deny it though.

Your first statement kinda goes with this too. I don't see that as macro-evolution, I see it as adaptation. We dind't change stomach systems to be able to digest it. We just gained enzymes that could better break down the ethanol as far as I'm aware of.

[fringe bolt]

I don't see that as macro-evolution, I see it as adaptation.
What's the difference in your eyes?

[obtuse kettle]

I don't know what you mean by evolution, I think some definitions are at hand. And I generally don't understand what you're confused about.

The point I'm trying to make with that carnivore-herbivore-spectrum paragraph is that they already have some of the abilities to digest this meat, just not too well, so it's just a process of getting better at digesting the meat (or plants if they're becoming more of a herbivore) which is pretty basic. If cows were forced to only eat meat, they'd get better at it, they'd evolve to eat it for obvious reasons.

Yes but I don't see how there's a problem when you look at micro evolutions being applied over a large scale of time since that's all evolution is? They're the same thing, the same processes, just try to imagine it playing out over millions of years, you get significant change

I view evolution as the change of a species over time due to natural selection and other processes in order to be most adapt for its environment / maximise procreation. Adaptation is the same thing, you're adapting to a given environment... to maximise procreation.

[upper pine]

Macroevolution usually means the evolution of large-scale structures and traits that go significantly beyond the intraspecific variation found in microevolution (including speciation). Basically macro-evolution is changing of entire taxonomic groups above species.

Adaption is slight changes to allow the animal to better function in it's environment.

[upper pine]

Well it is evolution in the since that evolution is just change, but I usually refer to evolution in the sense of macro-evolution, and micro-evolution as adaptation as there is a distinct difference in the two. I think the difference comes from whether we agree that species, even if there are small changes over time, can change key functions to their survival.

If they have the capacity to process it, then yes, if they start consuming more of it they will adapt to consume it better, but for the example with cows, if all vegetation was removed (assuming animals would still live without it) then the cows would die though, they wouldn't have time to evolve enough to eat meat. Also, the point fails to recognize the fact that all animals, according to most scientist, originated from one original animal which was not an omnivore.

This part goes again with my first paragraph being whether or not key functions on an animal can change, even slowly.

Adaption and evolution are the same in that sense, but there is a difference in macro- and micro- evolution.

Also, macroevolution at the core believes in different causes than natural selection

[obtuse kettle]

Why don't you think small changes over time can change "key functions" though?

I didn't mean for my example to assume all vegetation was removed, just enough so that there is competition and cows are forced to eat meat.

There wasn't really an original animal and to define it as an omnivore or whatever would be wrong as it didn't have a stomach or mouth and the food it ate can't really be classified in the same way we'd classify plants and meat today.

At what point does it go from being micro to macro evolution? I don't understand why you think they're any different at all, is it because the bible contradicts it? You can split any macro evolution up into micro evolution steps.

[terse belfry]

Nothing I say is in bad faith. You claimed that God sometimes based his guidelines on what people were willing to accept at the time. I found that to be outlandish apologist cope and that's what I wanted to talk about, because it's pretty important.

You're a fundamentalist from what I gather. You think there actually was an Adam and Eve, Noah, Moses, etc. And that all the events transpired as they are written in the books.

Everything in and after Exodus is supposed to come from Moses I believe.

So what you are trying to convince people is that the Israelites would not have possibly been able to grapple with the idea that owning others is unacceptable, even with it being common practice at the time, when their most defining tale was of their leader, conduit to God, and law giver freeing their people from enslavement in Egypt.

That seems like the most obvious and opportune time to decree that slavery is unacceptable.

"Hey, you know how you were owned by the Pharoah? You didn't like that right, so we are not going to do it to anyone else ever again."

Yahweh is a detestable deity as written, but he was no bitch to humans. If he wanted something done, he told you. Now whether he actually wanted it done or if it was a test to prove whether you were morally bankrupt or not depends on the situation. But he didn't base his rules on what society was willing to adhere to at the time.

[hushed pulsar]

https://youtu.be/eSujxG5gJLM?si=DYE9p8lEFdLNb0sX

[fringe bolt]

but both macroevolution, microevolution, and adaptation would involve changes to an individuals DNA right?

[deft fossil]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought exaptation was just the process of one body part/feature being used in a different manner, not necessarily changing the body to serve a different use. That's the thing I don't believe in, I don't believe a fish could evolve to live on land or that a bird could evolve to have hands, etc.
Exaptation is the process where an existing bodypart is used for another purpose. It does not exclude changing the shape of the body part. Hence i made the example of mammal limbs into whale fins.

[deft fossil]

I say that evolution is an assumption because it is taking various things, such as different animals, and making the assumption that because we have different animals, and the fact that we know genes can mutate slightly, that they must have all been mutated from one common animal billions/millions of years ago (not too sure the scientifically accepted timeframe for the beginning of life).
Yeah but if you pass evolution away as an assumption, then everything in science is an assumption. We have more evidence of the fact of evolution than we have of any other subject in science.

Something being proven means the evidence directly links it, such as with gravity, when something is not supported off the ground, it falls.
Two things here. One, we have evidence that directly links it, you just choose to not accept that evidence. Second is that things falling when not supported is not necessarily evidence for gravity. Sure, it is an observable result of the spacetime curvature set forth by the theory of general relativity, but so is the existence of DNA for the theory of evolution. In the scientific community, both are held on a pretty high pedestals, which makes me wonder why you accept the one but do not accept the other, even though the type of evidence we have for both is similar. Surely it cannot be the type of evidence like you mentioned earlier.

[deft fossil]

And yes we have observed creatures changing body parts to suit their environment in real time. I told you about the bacteria experiment. Well, some bacteria (between generation 31000 and 31500) have developed mutations in their DNA that allows them to code a certain protein that is able to digest some food (citrate) that would otherwise be toxic, allowing it to outcompete all other bacteria that are in similar environments, and opens up a whole other way of living and gives them a totally different niche, isn't that the evidence you are looking for?

So it took billions of mutations in the ecoli strains in order to exploit a new food source that would otherwise be unavailable to them, and now ALL of their offspring is able to use that food source. The first mutation that allowed this binding of Cit+ was at around generation 20.000 but then it took another 15.000 generations before they got a mutation that actually allowed them to extract energy from the citrate.

And according to the researchers DNA analysis, these are changes that were NOT present in any way in the ancestral cells, so all information on this was gained by DNA mutations, e.g. copying strands, copying repeats, pointmutations etc.

Oh another example is color vision in mammals. Where originally there are/were no cones present able to detect red light. This meant that anything with a red color was somewhat exciting the green cones, but just slightly. So although early mammals cannot observe the color red, they can almost definitely feel/experience a distinction between red and green for example, just not visually. Now, in one of our primate ancestors, a copy was made for one of the genes that codes for the cone opsins, the proteines that react to a certain color of ligth (specifically the green one), got extra repeats through dna copying errors. So imagine that instead of -ACTACTACT- (3x) it now became -ACTACTACTACTACTACTACTACT- (8x, purely illustrational), which resulted in a slightly deforemed green cone opsin. Now by chance it results in a protein that is sensitive to red light, which is a mutation that can be extremely beneficial, specifically in primates, as being able to see in multicolor also enhances depth vision, which if you live in the trees can be quite useful.

So if you are able to see red, that is evidence for evolution

[deft fossil]

Question, do you view evolution and apatation as one in the same? Also, I'd like to point out, I don't disagree with evolution, I fully believe in adaptation/micro-evolution, I just believe there is not enough evidence for macro-evolution. Changing of entire groups of animals such as lions and monkeys all having a common ancestor millions of years ago.
This is exactly what I have a problem with. The thing is, or at least within biology, that there is not a distinction between macro and micro evolution. They are describing the exact same process. There is no distinction between micro and macro evolution. Either you support the idea of evolution or you don't. What you are saying is analogous to saying: "I accept gravity on a planetary scale, but i don't accept that two atoms have a gravitational effect on each other because i cannot directly observe it with my own eyes."

Because in evolution, time is a variable, not a driving force

[scenic lance]

admittedly we have 2 theories of evolution

graduated and punctuated evolution

and technically speaking both are correct

I personally believe in a god that created the conditions for life to exist and adapt according to evolution

as far as i know the story of adam and eve has been said to just be a story

like by the bible

[deft fossil]

They are not different theories of evolution, rather they are different hypotheses on the pattern of evolutionairy change within the theory of evolution

Similar to how Newtonian physics is a different hypothesis from general relativity, both describing gravitational theory

[scenic lance]

can you remind me how a hypothesis is different from a theory?

is a theory more commonly accepted?

[deft fossil]

My personal belief is that gradualism is merely a subset of punctuated equillibrium, like how newtonian physics are a subset of general relativity

A scientific theory is an explanation of an aspect of the natural world and universe that can be (or a fortiori, that has been) repeatedly tested and corroborated in accordance with the scientific method, using accepted protocols of observation, measurement, and evaluation of results.

A hypothesis is an assumption, an idea that is proposed for the sake of argument so that it can be tested to see if it might be true.

So in the example of evolution

The theory is that within biology, organisms change over time which results in biodiverse variation (huge simplification)

then the hypothesis is HOW that theory might work

[scenic lance]

oh yeah gotchu makes sense

[deft fossil]

So you could see it as that a hypothesis is a proposed mechanism of some theory

[scenic lance]

for example in humans i think its safe to say we have undergone gradualism

on the other hand

i dont really think it kind of counts

since we werent separate species from our ancestors

since i believe we interbred

which makes us the same species

[deft fossil]

Or with gravitational theory, general relativity is a hypothesis for the mechanism through which gravity works

[scenic lance]

bro physics is so fucking wacky

everything about it

[deft fossil]

Like, we know for a fact that gravity exists, but we don't know exactly HOW it works

[scenic lance]

once you think you understand it you realise you dont

[deft fossil]

so we develop hypotheses of how it could work and then test these hypotheses

turns out, newton did this some couple hundred years ago

[scenic lance]

we will never understand physics

the best we can hope for is understanding it with our perspective

[deft fossil]

which was then the ''main'' hypothesis until einstein tagged along

[deft fossil]

Well as i have studied physics, i might say im probably even deeper in that hole than you are

[deft fossil]

Agreed, althoug the concept of general relativity for example is not that hard once you actually study the theory and maths behind it ngl

I think its when we get to quantum physics where every understanding of ''normal'' physics breaks that it gets quite confusing

Did about three courses on quantum physics and quantum chemistry and I still am confused by the most basic stuff

[deft fossil]

Interbreeding does not make you the same species

Actually, the concept of a ''species'' is not really well defined

Since it really is a big gray area

And as humans we like to put things into categories

So this animal goes into this box and that animal goes into that box

but thats not how biology works, its just a flawed system of our brain to understand it like that

For example, everyone agrees that Homo neanderthalensis was definitely a different species from Homo sapiens, yet they were able to interbreed and create ''hybrid'' babies

Yet, the fact they could interbreed, does not make them the same species

[deft fossil]

In the hypotheses you brought up, it is safe to say that punctuated equillibrium is definitely correct, i don't see how you have any confusion about that

As the gradualism model is in fact a subset of punctuated equillibrium

Just a simplified version of it

[deft fossil]

No, with humans it is VERY apparent we underwent punctuated equilibrium to get to the point we are now

Actually, it is one of the best documented evolutionairy history of any species there is

BUt maybe its just that my understanding of these hypotheses is wrong

Now thinking about it, although the two are often represented as contradicting hypotheses, I don't see how they couldn't both be viable ways of evolution

[scenic lance]

thats what im saying

[upper pine]

I mean micro and macro evolution are just the scientific terms for the two. Sure, without the possibility of animals dying from mutations that change how they live their lives fundementally then micro-evolution would just be steps of macro-evolution.

The bible doesn't contradict macro-evolution, there's just not enough evidence to support it, the only evidence there is are assumptions. The only thing the bible contradicts is science's view of an original common ancestor, which is required for evolution to happen to get to where we are, as science suggests, all life comes from the single cell-ed organisms. (which how life came about from no life is a whole other issue)

The reason I think small changes over time can't change key functions ultimately comes down to the fact that many key functions would be required to be shifted all at once, not small changes, those small changes would be incompatible with each other and the organism would die. I don't see any evidence for the ability for creatures to be able to change stuff in that sense, and evolution pretty much required random mutations which aren't going to change that all at once as tehir DNA isn't entierlly being changed in every part responsible for such developments.

[deft fossil]

Out of interest, because I am not sure what you mean, could you elaborate a bit more on this specific point?

The reason I think small changes over time can't change key functions ultimately comes down to the fact that many key functions would be required to be shifted all at once, not small changes, those small changes would be incompatible with each other and the organism would die.

Like why would you think that is the case? I fail to understand why small changes would be incompatible with eachother in order to form bigger changes, and why key functions require big changes in order for them to happen? You have made similar statements earlier already, but I keep wondering what the logic or reasoning is behind that?

Like, from my perspective it sounds like: "I cannot imagine that it could work this way, so therefore it does not work this way", however believe you do have some justification to make those statements. So I wouldn't want to put you in that camp straight away as it seems unfair.

[upper pine]

So you think because he didn't originally make a hard stance to the people that he is somehow in the wrong, even though we can clearly see what his true moral stance on slavery is - slavery bad?

I am a Christian, I believe in what the bible says, based on the literary styles of a lot of the first books in the Torah, we have no reason to assume that the events aren't intended as historical documentation. You can tell by reading each book and understanding the context around each book/letter what they were intended to be conveying. The old Testament contains: History & The Law, Poetry and Wisdom, and the Prophets. I'm not going to read Psalms in the same context as I'd read Leviticus, because they weren't meant to be the same type of book.

I'm not saying the Israelites couldn't have had any possibility of the idea of slavery being unacceptable, I'm saying the majority of them would not have supported such idea because it goes against their culture and traditions. That's one of the main reason why God says that in the rapture, only 1/3 of the Jews will be saved, Jesus says that the Jews are more concerned with the traditions of Man then actually worshiping and accepting God.

Slavery in the day was a commonplaced practice even among Jews, they didn't have the same moral view on it as we do now, in fact pretty much the entire world didn't have the same moral view. I mean, even some slaves put themselves into slavery.

Also one quick note too, as morality is subjective without a God, why is slavery wrong? Why would that be detestable to allow? It is through the morality of God saying that all humans are created in God's image and that there will be no slave or freeman in the New Jerusalem, to treat each other with kidness and be fair to one another that we see his clear opinion on slavery.

[upper pine]

Is there something wrong with killing your own creation though, especially if it isn't fulfilling it's intended purpose?

[hushed pulsar]

Wow

And you are saying abortion is a crime?

[deft fossil]

Also one quick note too, as morality is subjective without a God, why is slavery wrong? Why would that be detestable to allow? It is through the morality of God saying that all humans are created in God's image and that there will be no slave or freeman in the New Jerusalem, to treat each other with kidness and be fair to one another that we see his clear opinion on slavery.
Please, refrain from this type of reasoning. Just because I did not get my morals from a book, does not mean that I don't have morals. This rhetoric is always accusing the idea that without the bible or without god, morals wouldn't exist, which is not true at all.

More strongly, morals existed before current mainstream religions

[hushed pulsar]

I would also say that if it isn’t fulfilling it’s intended purpose, that is God’s fault. Why would He have made something that didn’t work like he wanted it to, if He was so perfect?

[deft fossil]

Think of it like this;
A) Is some immoral act wrong because the bible says its wrong
or B) Does the bible say some act is wrong because the immoral act is wrong

Like what is the cause and effect

Were people raping and killing left and right before the bible was written, or was it already a societal standard that raping and murdering is wrong, and therefore it was included when the bible was written

[terse belfry]

I do not agree that his true moral stance on slavery is that it is bad. Saying that you need to not beat and kill your slaves says nothing about slavery being bad. Saying that slaves and masters are the same in the eyes or God also does not mean slavery is bad. That's a long used tool for control. "Be happy with the station you are born into because you will be rewarded in the afterlife."

Even Jesus said nothing about slavery being bad, he told slaves to obey their masters. Using the same idea that they will be rewarded in heaven.

Moral subjectivity doesnt really matter much in this case. As humans, it is pretty easy to get to a position where owning other humans is bad.

If you lay it out for people that they had an option to be born into a world where they had a 50% chance of being the property of someone else, or a 100% chance to be born into a world where they had the freedom to choose how to live their life, there will not be anyone honestly choosing the former.

It's basically Jesus' golden rule which he stole from Confucius and flipped the negative to a positive. But in general it's a fairly good tool to determine whether something should be allowed in a society. Not perfect of course, because you'll always have the fools who will say that they are fine with X being done to them only from the perspective that it isn't likely to happen to them.

[obtuse kettle]

The reason I think small changes over time can't change key functions ultimately comes down to the fact that many key functions would be required to be shifted all at once, not small changes, those small changes would be incompatible with each other and the organism would die. I don't see any evidence for the ability for creatures to be able to change stuff in that sense, and evolution pretty much required random mutations which aren't going to change that all at once as tehir DNA isn't entierlly being changed in every part responsible for such developments.
Look at tuataras, they have a third eye on the top of their head that they can't see out but can detect if it's night or day, clearly a transition organ. Look at our tailbone on our bottom, clearly a remnant of when we had tails, showing how just as body parts are gained slowly, they are lost slowly by shrinking.

All you need to do is start with the agreement that it is possible to gain these functions via mutation. It might seem unikely and/or sketchy (the 'pathway' of mutations that leads to this body part) so that a) the creature doesn't die and b) it puts them on the right track to recieving the mutation and c) it is an advantage in itself. But then you notice how there have been living things evolving for millennia and so the probabilities add up, right? Sometimes the small mutations might be fatal or put them back, yes, then they would likely die and the gene wouldn't be passed on so it doesn't matter, sometimes their mutations would put them seemingly "forward" but it wouldn't be an advantage in itself, but as long as sometimes it works, then boom, you have the possibility of getting that function.

I think the eye is a good example, let's try to guess how the eye would have been formed (much of this is supported by findings of ancient species with these properties).

1. Light sensitive patches (like tuataras), since they are only detecting whether photons are hitting them a lot or not, this need not be a complicated function. Euglena (single celled organism) have these light sensitive patches called stigma.
2. Circular light sensitive patches, the creature's light sensitive patch could become more circular. Flatforms have these.
3. There could be a depression formed which would help better determine the direction of the light and protect the skin cells. Some mollusks have just this.
4. Lens formation, over time, a transparent layer could form over the eye, making light clearer.
5. The eye could even shift down the face.

[upper pine]

Your child is not your creation, it is God's creation. It is a sin for man to kill man. Man being mankind in this case.

[upper pine]

Morals are subjective, they don't matter without a God. Your morals are just as good as Hitler's morals. It's all subjective. That doesn't mean morals don't exist, it just means they are useless in describing anything. I never said morals don't exist, I said since morality without a God is subjective, he can't say anything is wrong without being hypocritical.

[upper pine]

You haven't read the bible I'm assuming. The answers are in there. He created humans in his image, without sin. We were perfect, but we had free will. We weren't slaves, because God loves humans. Lucifer becamse jealous because he was the highest angel, but look here comes these pathetic little humans who have limited knowledge than us angels, why would God love them more than us, his first creation? So Lucifer came down to the garden to deceive mankind into sinning, using their free will, the same one that the angels have.

You forget the qualities of God when you speak about him. God is just, so of course punishment is required. God is love, he's not going to force humans to love or accept him, he will let us come to our own conclusions, he isn't going to make us his slaves to just worship and obey him, he wants us to choose to worship and obey him. With this love, he also offers us a way to have our sins paid for, just like how you can get bailed out of jail, so can we get bailed out of our sins.

He made us just how he wanted, but that doesn't mean he has to accept our actions, especially when they go against what he commanded of us. We work exactly how he wanted us to, free and made in his image.

[upper pine]

Yes they do, the difference between macro-evolution and micro-evolution is the fact that macro-evolution requires entire systems to change, that can't happen gradually, it'd have to happen instantly. The whole system has to work with its adaptation, which just isn't possible when you try changing small thing that are of key importance, that's how animals die.

[upper pine]

Doesn't that assume that mmal limbs and whale fins came from one another?

[fringe bolt]

So both macro and micro evolution are resulting from changes in an individuals DNA. So what's stopping a bunch of gradual changes from accumulating over time into an entire system changing?

[upper pine]

That simply isn't true, we have evidence for plenty of things in science to the point where we can proove them. Hence why evolution is still called a theory. Photosynthesis for example is a scientific fact. It has way more evidence that is actually meaningful than evolution.

What evidence do we have that directly links to macro-evolution? DNA can mutaute, yea but we also know that changing systems in an organism enough kills it, which many systems needed for macro-evolution would have to be changed all at once, which we know is not possible because of out study of DNA mutation. So we get there where from what we have observed, it seems impossible for macro-evolution, unless there is evidence that we can see that disproves the standards already set forth.

The existence of DNA does not prove evolution? The existence of DNA proves that we have a set code responsible for our growth and development which can slightly be mutated, sometimes hurting us, sometimes helping us, sometimes beign un-noticeable. The existence of genetic mutations proves evolution, but not macro-evolution. For that we need proof that entire systems of a creature can change, not just assmptions. Gravity we have proof of, the point mentioned in the sentence above, we do not. That is why I can accept one, but not the other. Science isn't supposed to be just accepting whatever we are told, it is meant to be tested and observable. Once you get into theorizing, it is that, a theory, and more aking to philosophy than science.

[upper pine]

The evidence I'm looking for isn't being able to tolerate new food groups, it's completely changing your body's structure (mostly parts of importance to your wellbeing)

[upper pine]

Yes, but that is micro-evolution, which I believe in

[upper pine]

Ok let me write an example. Snakes, only eat meat. They do not eat plants. They body is not designed to eat plants. They're body has no reproducitve value from say changing their fangs one day into more of a molar shape, that doesn't help them eat meat, so the snakes with a mutation like that would die in the wild. The snake also would need to develop a different digestive system, so sure, let's say the digestive system comes first. Lets say they develop enzymes to break down and use the nurients of plants. Well, they have no way to eat those plants, so now they need the teeth. But wait, the snake's mind tells it to hunt for meat, which to be honest, I have no idea how this part works, I'd love to learn more about what makes snakes beahve the way they behave in regard to food. Like snakes, all snakes have the instict to hunt animals, venomous snakes learn to regulate their poison, this is why baby snakes are much more dangerous than adults as they will often over-inject their venom. But, whatever causes the snakes to act the way they do in terms of genes, if there are genes for that, then those would have to change next to allow the snake to even conceive the idea of eating plants. Then once it starts eating plants, it has to do it more than it eats meat, get more nutrients from the plants than it does meat. They're already wired to eat meat, if they have to do both, they'd probably only ever eat plants in dire circumstances, but to even be able to eat that plant they need to start now developing the teeth whcih requires their jaw to become mutated allowing for more teeth and those teeth to be eventually mutated into molars.

So in theory, yes, macro-evolution is possible, but that's why I'm saying, there isn't proof. There are a lot of assumptions we have to make to get to that conclusion. I do howvere want to try to research like I mentioned about animal instics.

[upper pine]

You are partially right, he views volunatry servitude as good, but the notion we associate with slavery today is not included. Slavery in the sense of someone working for someone else is entierly acceptabel to God, as long as the slave in that case is treated fairly. That sense of slavery is just working though. God does not condone mistreatment of people if that is what you are trying to get at. He does not condone forcing slavery onto people. Slaves in those days were paid especially by the Israelites. We see the condemnation of unjust treatment of others everywhere in the bible.

Deuteronomy 15:15-18 "15 You shall remember that you were a slave in the land of Egypt, and the Lord your God redeemed you; therefore I command you this today. 16 But if he says to you, ‘I will not go out from you,’ because he loves you and your household, since he is well-off with you, 17 then you shall take an awl, and put it through his ear into the door, and he shall be your slave[c] forever. And to your female slave[c] you shall do the same. 18 It shall not seem hard to you when you let him go free from you, for at half the cost of a hired worker he has served you six years. So the Lord your God will bless you in all that you do."
[c] the Hebrew word here was ebed which means servent and convered a wide range of social classes.

Owning other humans is bad? Forcing ownership onto someone is bad. But wait, many of y'all keep saying that God allowing free will among humans is bad and that if GOd truly was perfect he'd make us slaves. Hmmm, a little interesting I might say.

[upper pine]

The tailbone being from another creature is just a theory though, it is not even a vestigial body part, it has a clear and distinct purpose, balance when sitting. Just because we have similar body parts does not mean we came from other creatures, it just means we have similar body parts.

[upper pine]

I believe I mentioned that in the post you just quoted.

[obtuse kettle]

"Just a theory" everything in science is just a theory. We could argue the likelihood of the tail bone being from an ancestor for ages and I could give you the evidence from fossils and thinking but then there's many holes you can worm through by saying things like "that's not 100% proven" but that was just one sentence of my message. Do you agree with the rest?

[deft fossil]

Yes, my morals are as good as Hitlers morals, but also as good as Jesus' morals, making Jesus' morals and Hitlers morals equal. Is that what you are trying to argue here?

[deft fossil]

Yes, whale fins came from mammal limbs, as whales are mammals. Some 50 million years ago, they did not exist yet, then some mammal lineage started to slowly become aquatic, leading to the current group of cetacians that we now know (including whales, dolphins etc). Thier closest land-locked relatives are actually hippo's.

[deft fossil]

That simply isn't true, we have evidence for plenty of things in science to the point where we can proove them. Hence why evolution is still called a theory
A theory is a well-substantiated explanation of an aspect of the natural world that can incorporate laws, hypotheses and facts. The theory of gravitation, for instance, explains why apples fall from trees and astronauts float in space. It has nothing to do with something not being proven, rather it means the opposite. And since I have not already mentioned this earlier in this discussion, but also in previous discussions with you specifically, you should know this. Claiming evolution is ''just'' a theory, acting like it is also just another idea is wrong on so many levels.

[deft fossil]

What evidence do we have that directly links to macro-evolution?
The problem here is that you make a supposed contradiction/separation between ''macro'' and ''micro'' evolution, whereas in reality they are the same thing. There is no difference between the two. You created that difference and are now arguing on the back of it, but it makes no sense. If micro-evolution can exist, there is no way that macro-evolution cannot exist as they are THE SAME PROCESS. Well there is plenty of evidence we already went over, the problem is that you dont accept the evidence.

DNA can mutaute, yea but we also know that changing systems in an organism enough kills it,
I asked you earlier to substantiate this claim. How do you mean this? What changes would kill an organism and why?

which many systems needed for macro-evolution would have to be changed all at once
Same for this, why do you get the impression that for big changes everything needs to change at once? We actually observe the opposite in experiments. Some changes can lay dormant for tens of thousands of generations before they are actually impactful on an organism due to some trigger mechanism with other changes.

The existence of DNA does not prove evolution?
True, maybe that was stated a little bluntly. What I meant was certain variance in the genetic code of different animals is evidence for the existence of evolution. The fact that you do not accept it as evidence is a different story.

[deft fossil]

The existence of DNA proves that we have a set code responsible for our growth and development which can slightly be mutated, sometimes hurting us, sometimes helping us, sometimes beign un-noticeable.
Exactly, so evolution exists.

The existence of genetic mutations proves evolution, but not macro-evolution.
What is ''macro-evolution''? There is no micro or macro evolution, they are both describing the same process. You are making up a fake distinction in order to not have to accept part of a scientific theory that does not exactly fit with your beliefs. But that is not how science works. Science does not care about your beliefs or my beliefs. But if you are so adamant about making this distinction, then what is the difference and where do you draw the line?

For that we need proof that entire systems of a creature can change, not just assmptions
Again, we do, and we went over some of it already, you just do not accept the evidence due to your beliefs. And that is fine, i am not telling you what and what not to believe, but instead of keep saying ''there is no evidence'' you can also be honest and say you are simply not willing to accept the evidence, even if it is there.

[deft fossil]

Gravity we have proof of, the point mentioned in the sentence above, we do not.
Exactly, gravity we have evidence for, otherwise the scientific community wouldnt deem it a theory, JUST LIKE EVOLUTION. They are very much the same in many ways, yet you seem to think that because you can observe gravity with your own eys (which is not the gravitational theory i am talking about btw) that therefore it somehow is more ''proven'' than evolution, whereas in reality, before 2015, big parts of general relativity were merely unproven, unobserved hypotheses. We actually have more evidence for evolution than we have for pretty much any other scientific theory.

Science isn't supposed to be just accepting whatever we are told, it is meant to be tested and observable.
But it is observable and repeatable, i don't understand this objection?

Once you get into theorizing, it is that, a theory, and more aking to philosophy than science.
Again, not what the word "theory" means in a scientific context. And no, evolution is not nearly in the realm of phillosophy rather than science, you are spewing out gibberish. Again, it is one of the most evidence-based accepted systems in scientific history.

Here are some of the things that are used to support the scientific theory of evolution.

Fossil Record; Comparative Anatomy; Embryology; Biogeography; Molecular Biology (DNA and genetic similarities); Vestigial Structures; Observable Evolution (e.g., bacterial resistance); Phylogenetic Trees; Radiometric Dating; Transitional Fossils; Homologous Structures; Comparative Genomics; Molecular Clocks; Experimental Evolution; Pseudogenes; Genetic Drift; Speciation Events; Endosymbiosis; Chromosomal Evidence; Adaptive Radiation; Convergent Evolution; Artificial Selection; Protein Similarities;

[deft fossil]

Im not sure what point you are trying to make here. That it is unlikely for snakes to turn herbivorous?

[deft fossil]

Well, there is evidence, you just choose to not accept it. Proof is a word we use in mathematics, and is not really used in any scientific context other than that. I think you refer to evidence

[scenic lance]

wait

cause i think were not understanding eachother here

what do you consider to be macroevolution

and what do you consider to be microevolution

what is your personal belief as to the origins of humans

or other species in general

[terse belfry]

That passage is only referring to Hebrew slaves, who could enter into indentured servitude contracts.

The slaves that came from other nations did not get the option to leave, did not get paid, and were passed on as inheritance. This is the slavery that I mentioned.

Also, they said that if the indentured servant was given a wife and had children during his servitude, in order to go free he had to leave his wife and children. So obviously masters offered wives hoping the servant would have children and stay forever because a normal person who loves their wife and child would do that.

[upper pine]

Yes, I agree it is possible, which I've mentioned before, but it is highly unlikely and little evidence, and so far with contradicting evidence. I'm curious why most of y'all are willing to accept something based on assumptions and logical rabbit holes when it is from a viewpoint that requires no diety, but as soon as a diety is involved it is illogical?

[upper pine]

Well if there wasn't a God yes. But since Jesus followed the morality of God perfectly, he was perfectly moral. Hitler's morals go against God's morals. A diety is the only way to have objective morality, there is no reason to argue any moral point without one is my point. Just because you think something is good or bad is irrelevant to everyone else, only an objective view really matters. Now I may agree with your morality in some parts, but that doesn't make it any more moral.

[upper pine]

Ok, so you just admited it is based on an assumption. If it is an assumption then why are we entertaining it? Sure, we could entertain it in the since of experimenting with the idea, but entertaining it in the sense of presenting it as fact is just dishonest.

[upper pine]

That's exactly what it is though and y'all haven't shown me anything to the contrary. In fact, you even admitted to it being based on assumptions. I find presenting something as fact when it is just based on assumptions to be wrong on so many levels.

[upper pine]

I do accept the evidence, the evidence doesn't prove evoltuin though, and if you can't see the difference between macro and micro evolution, that just shows your extent of knowledge on the situation.

I get the imptession that for big changes evertything needs to change at once because that is what would be required from the biological processes we know. Macroevolution as we know it contradicts what we do know about viable life. That's why I'm hesitant to believe it without seein actual connecting evidence. Not a few scattered pieces of evidence that are connected based on assumptions.

Ok, so if I write a program and you write a program, out programs came from each other, or where they created separately? Assuming there is a God (which I don't assume, but I assume y'all assume there isn't) then of course it'd make since that DNA would look similar in similar looking creatures. Just because it has a similar base does not mean they had to have come from each other. That is an assumption.

[upper pine]

Yes, microevolution exist as we've established.

Ok, so you disagree with science then. I'm not making up any distinctions, if you cared enough you'd actually google the terms to realize that micro and macro evolution are scientifically recognizied processes and are distinct from one another. Macroevolution could easily fit into my beliefs, I just choose not to believe something as scientific without proper evidence, unlike you. The difference I have already explained several times to several people. Google can also give you a definition of the two.

If you want to talk about honesty, I recommend you look at your position a little better. At least be honest that it is not scientific fact and quite portaying it as such. That doesn't mean it isn't a good or likely theory, it just means it isn't fact. I don't go around portarying God as fact because there is no proof for God outside of anecdotal experience.

[upper pine]

My personal beliefs is that each "kinds" of animal, humans being their own kind, where created by God. Speciation is a natural process of those kinds diversifying due to small DNA mutations. My belief is not steadfast in any theory other than simply where life came from. I have no idea what denotes a "kind" according to the bible, if kind even fits into out taxonomical structure (if so what level of taxonomy would it be, which it seems to not fit entierly as generally speaking species can only interbreed, but we see some exeptions to that such as wolves and coyotes). The only thing I know to be true is speciation, because that is proven alone by DNA mutations.

[upper pine]

So your point is that because humans are flawed and do not listen to the morality set forth by God, God is immoral?

[obtuse kettle]

Okay so I feel like you aren't listening to me because I've showed you;
a) The unlikelihood doesn't matter, because creatures have been evolving for billions of years, that's a lot of creatures if you take into account the amount of creatures who have contributed to evolution. It's hard to understand the numbers, but it's a lot. But regardless, you agree it's possible, meaning you agree it can happen in a long amount of time, and living creatures have been around for a long time, thus, you agree.
The total number of living, evolving creatures right now is 20,000,121,091,000,000,000 according to some random dudes blog, even if only 1/100,000,000 of those animals get the mutation, that's still 200,001,210,910 who got it.
b) We have evidence, fossils, and lots of them, they all show the same trend, what excuse do you have for all these fossils that all show this evolution occurring? Do you think god laid them all out there to make us think this? But realistically, if you believe in the logic, which I have just shown you do, lack of evidence shouldn't convince you to disagree. We have plenty of evidence for what you call micro evolution but you can conveniently dismiss all that, claiming that macro evolution is a different thing, when it isn't, as I've shown.
c) You keep saying it's based off assumptions so we shouldn't believe it. That's true, there is slight wriggle room for the possibility that this is wrong, maybe god laid out all the skeletons in these exact places with these exact properties to make us think this evolution happened.
But the important thing is everything in science is based off 'assumptions', well, pretty much everything. You can't rigorously prove anything, you can show the evidence which is never perfect, you can show the logic, but it can never be 100% true, just very likely.
This is the scientific method and it's the best thing we have for learning new things, testing those things, gathering evidence for those things, and refining those things.

I don't know what you're talking about with deities, I don't know what your beliefs are, though don't call me ignorant for not learning them as I consider myself a man of science, and that's not science.

[terse belfry]

No, my point is that God explicitly told them they could buy slaves from the nations around them, make them property for life, and pass them onto their children as inheritance.

That's the morality set forth by God that religious humans very much did listen to for thousands of years until they were forced to stop by other humans, not God.

[deft fossil]

Well going by that logic, literally everything in science is based on assumptions

But the fact they are resting on assumptions do not neccesarily mean they are therfore false, or that therefore there is some huge gray area

because in many cases, including evolution, there is not

for example, general relativity is based on the assumptions of general covariance; sort of meaning that if we measure something in meters vs yards, the relative outcome will be the same, just in differnt units

that is not a fact

thats an assumption we make about the universe in order to make coherent theories

I dare you to name me one scientific theory that is not based on any assumptions

[deft fossil]

Well then i must conclude that based on my observations in this thread, you have no idea on what the scientific method is, how it is used and why it is used.

And with that, there is no reason to have a further discussion

[scenic lance]

i believe with you yes, that god created life

however we have archeological evidence of evolution

we can actually see the timeline of evolution

i believe as a christian that god gave us the GIFT OF LIFE

but everything else happened due to the process of evolution

adaptation to the worlds changing conditions and the interractions of different species with eachother

humans were not around during the time of the dinosaurs

[upper pine]

a) My agreement is that it is possible, as we know science finds new things showing previous discoveries as not absolute. My reason for saying it is possible is because the required mutations for important changes that would kill creatures could very well have a scientific reason for not killing the animal. In that case, yes, it very well could be possible. Possibility isn't the same as fact. I mean it's possible God exist, should everyone now have to believe in him as scientific fact?

b) I don't deny there is evidence, but theres no connections between those evidence (most of them) that aren't assumptions or based on assumptions. Fossils assume that evolution already exist to explain why the fossils are different, it's an assumption. They also assume that because the DNA isn't 100% the same in many creature that they must all come from one original common ancestor. I don't think God laid them all out there, I believe that those are fossils of various creatures such as dinosaurs, I don't deny fossils exist and were of creatures previously, I deny portraying assumptions as fact. I think one issue is that you think I disagree with evolution, I don't disagree with evolution, I simply believe there is not enough evidence to say that evolution is the true system, the only acceptable system and that it should be portrayed as fact.

c) No you're missing my point entierly, I'm not saying that because it is based on many assumptions that it shouldn't be believed, I'm saying that because it's based on assumptions it shouldn't be portrayed as fact. If someone disagrees that it might not be the actual way creatures came about, that they shouldn't be called science-deniers. Evolution is based on more assumptions than most scienctific principles that are portrayed with the same level of "truth". I mean assuming that micro and macro evolution are the same is again an assumption, not saying it's an unreasonable assumption, but nonetheless it is one.

[upper pine]

Ok so you just deny the bible when talking about the bible is what I'm hearing.

[upper pine]

That's the thing, scientific theories are all based on assumptions at some level or another. If they weren't based on assumptions they'd be scientific laws, no? Such as the laws of motion, those can be easily observed and tested. DNA mutation is not based on assumptions, but we can use DNA mutation to make assumptions.

I don't think that the fact ideas are based on assumptions make them inherently false, I just think it means they should not be portrayed as entierly true.

[deft fossil]

No thats not what a scientific law is either

I think you have mixed up all the scientific terminology

A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of an aspect of the natural world that is based on a body of evidence and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation.

[upper pine]

I agree on the fundementals of life, I just don't think there is enough evidence ot explain the hows of getting from God's original creation to where we are now, notably dinosaurs evolving into modern birds and reptiles.

I don't deny that looking at fossils we can assume that one creature could've evolved from another, but it is that an assumption, even if it is the most likely explanation, it is still an assumption at its core.

[deft fossil]

A scientific law is a relation between one or more variables that describes the specific relations between these variables

So for example, a law can be written as a formula

e.g. E = mc^2 is a law

as it describes the relation between mass and energy

And that scientific law is part of the theory of relativity

So no, a scientific law is something completely different from a ''proven scientific theory''

[deft fossil]

Sure, but literally everything around us is based on assumptions

the fact that i have this conversation with you is based on assumptions

the fact that your computer is functoining is based on assumptions

the fact we can fly to the moon is based on assumptions

the fact that we can go to the grocery store and buy food that is farmed on a farm is based on assumptions

THere is nothing in this universe that is not based on assumptions from the perspective of a human

so saying ''yeah but it is not true cus its based on assumptions'' is a pretty meaningless thing to say

Okay let me rephrase, something being based on an assumption is not an argument for that thing to be dismissed

[deft fossil]

The most important thing here is that the meaning of some words in scientific terms are different from their colloqiuial meaning, but you seem to have a hard time understanding that

In science, we accept something as a fact whenever there is a repeatable, observable and testable phenomenon that is consistenly confirmed through empirical evidence and widely accepted in the scientific community, in other words, a scientific theory

Any scientific theory IS regarded as a fact

so the idea that you entertain that ''because its a theory there is some wiggle room for whether or not it is correct'' is just misunderstanding what those things mean within the scientific community

[gilded pollen]

In your mind, what would "proof of the large-scale shifts in types of animals" look like? To me, that would look a series of snapshots of the creatures on this planet, spread out over a large period of time, with each snapshot showing small yet significant differences from the previous creatures chronologically and the series ending with substantially different creatures from the one at the start of the sequence. And that's exactly what we have.
We can say "OK, at this time period we have creatures that look like X. In a slightly later time period we don't have any creatures that look like X, but we do have creatures that look a lot like X but with a few changes." This is as good a set of evidence as we have for any pattern we have observed.

It is important to note that any creature can only evolve in a fairly limited number of directions. Nobody is saying that birds are going to start evolving arms, for example. Evolution can only produce significant changes where there is a gradual path of small changes where every step along the way both produces a viable organism, and also produces an improvement over the previous step in terms of dealing with the challenges faced by that organism.
So you are right in as much as there are changes that cannot happen through evolution. It's just that there are also changes that can happen through evolution, and do.

It is really important to note as well that evolution does always, and only, happen in environments that accommodate it. It is explicitly always about an organism adapting better to its current environment, or adapting to a slowly changing environment. Evolution simply does not happen if each small genetic change caused by mutation does not provide benefit. It's hugely dependent on the organism's environment. So if you're discounting examples of evolution because they are just examples of organisms adapting to their environment, well, then you're discounting the very thing you're looking for.

[gilded pollen]

I would really advise looking into more examples of vestigiality. Not just in humans, but in other creatures. It would really help your understanding of evolution to understand this concept better.

There will almost never be any feature/trait of a creature that has absolutely no function at all, except in the most crazy one-off genetic mutations or diseases that will not be passed on through evolution. Like I explained above, evolution is about small, gradual improvements over time in an environment that accommodates it. If a feature/trait was useful in the past, it will continue to be useful in the future in the same environment it developed in, just not as useful as the things that are gradually replacing it.

An example on a different scale would be landline phones, perhaps. They are still useful, you can still use them for things. But they are just not as good as mobile phones, and so mobile phones are gradually replacing them.

That's what vestigiality is. It's not something that is totally useless, it's just something that has been left behind by other improvements. That can only happen if the organism is changing, evolving.

[scenic lance]

the thing is we have arhaelogical proof of evolution

[obtuse kettle]

a) No no no, it's not a possibility that it's a correct theory, that's not what I mean. I just mean that sure it's very unlikely for these mutations to happen without killing the animal and all that other stuff I mentioned a while ago. But since there have been an incredible amount of animals over an incredibly large amount of time, it's bound to happen.
b) But why else would the fossils be like that? Everything in science has assumptions in it, but these assumptions are so small. Fossils don't assume that evolution already exists, we use fossils to show that evolution has happened/exists.
c) The theory of evolution has been developed by some of the greatest minds of science for the past 200 years. It is what everybody thinks happens and we do have lots of evidence to show it. It's as close to fact as any theory can get, it doesn't have any more assumptions than any other theories, and it has very few assumptions. Also while saying this, there is no other (scientific) theory which describes the phenomena seen in evolution, so what are you gonna believe in?
Nobody's assuming micro and macro evolution are the same, the way they're defined, they are, or at least the core mechanisms of them both are the same. If I am to be so controversial, I'm going to say it's something that creationists have clung to to hide behind to self justify their beliefs.

But most of that was redundant, what are the assumptions that you say evolution consists of?

[terse belfry]

Leviticus 25
42
Because the Israelites are my servants, whom I brought out of Egypt, they must not be sold as slaves.
43
Do not rule over them ruthlessly, but fear your God.
44
"`Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves.
45
You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property.
46
You can will them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.

Please explain how I am taking the Bible out of context here.

[obtuse kettle]

What do you mean by regarded?

It's not fact

[deft fossil]

As in, it a scientific theory is the closest to a factual understanding of some phenomenon that we can reasonably achieve

[upper pine]

I'm not saying that though, that's what I keep trying to point out.

[upper pine]

Just because we regard something as fact, doesn't mean it is fact. For the longest time the appendix was considered a vestigial part in our body and generally represented as fact, much like macroevolution, until we found the actual use of it in our bodies, instead of being some pointless, leftover structure.

Also, I think this is why macro and micro evolution are key to use in vocabulary when talking about evolution. microevolution is a scientific theory, if we go by the scientific definition. Macroevolution is not based on the same definition you gave. It is not observable currently. The only evidence for macroevolution is microevolution which you assume to be the same as macroevolution, the only difference being the time.

There is no way an impartial scientist would call macroevolution a scientific theory given what we know. As for assumptions, there are very few assumptions we have to make in order to start getting into the scientific process, and those just come with humans functioning properly and together basically. Those are not the type of assumptions i am talking about. I am talking about assumptions that evidence connect with other evidence.

[upper pine]

Proof for macroevolution would be proof of major systems that fundamentally alter animals can and do change over time. I'm well aware we won't have that for a while, but if we want to be scientific we can't just make assumptions. I don't think similar looking creatures is enough proof to say that they are evolved forms of the previous creatures. I don't base my scientific beliefs on assumptions alone. That isn't evidence unless you can prove those were the same creatures, just evolved slightly. Which by the way, we keep finding fossils that contradict what we previously understood and transition fossils, such as fossils of what appear to be dinosaurs transitioning into birds where there was a fossils discovered that dated back before most of those transition fossils of an even more bird-resembling creature.

Yes, and I understand and accept that. I'm not denying changes in animals.

I haven't discounted any adaptations, on the contrary I said I believe in adaptation and microevolution, those are scientifically proven. We have observed creatures changing features.

[upper pine]

Ok so I just googled the definition of vestigial structures, turns out I had some things wrong about it. I thought vestigial structures were only useless structures in a animal that no longer served a purpose because of evolution. Since it mostly involves parts that we assume came through evolution, that is just more evidence now that seems to be connected by assumptions. I mean yea, the effectiveness of any part of the body will be affected by DNA, and thus vestigial structures are just parts of every creature that has a body parts. My problem isn't small changes, it's the large changes, even gradually happening over millions of year, being presented as scientifically proven.

I mean, some people can't produce as much insulin as others, does that mean their pancreas (or however you spell that) is a vestigial structure and they're evolving. Doesn't seem like a beneficial trait.

[upper pine]

a) Small changes are bound to happen, yea.
b) The only way we interpret fossils as proof of evolution is by already accepting the worldview of evolution.
c) I believe in every kind of creature being created by God, and those kinds then diversifying by evolution, but still staying within their kinds. I don't deny macroevolution is possible, as I'm not too sure where the cutoff point taxonomically for kinds in the bible are, but it does seem to be in-between what we call species and genus, as kind can only reproduce with kind, so we know taxonomically speaking it can't be clearly cut as species as wolves and coyotes can breed and produce viable offspring that can reproduce. I don't think that just because we can't come up with other options means we must take the most thought of one. Also, it's just not true that evolution is based on little assumptions. The vast majority of evolution is based on a variety of evidence that we assume relate to each other.

Examples of assumptions of evolution:

1. Fossils pointing to evolution, we have no way of knowing that, it is not observable, testable, or repeatable, by the very definition that is not a scientific belief and does not follow any principles of the scientific theory. 2. That because DNA can mutate, that it will eventually lead to viable offspring of a different genus, family, or higher biological taxonomic class. We have no way to know that until we hold to the scientific method. Just because a process works at one stage doesn't mean it'll work across all stages. 3. Life was created without a deity from no life. We've never observed this, there are just proposed ideas for how this happened, assuming it did happen. 4. The present is the same as the past. Because one thing is true today, it must always have been true (this one also goes with dating objects such as fossils). (I'm running out of characters here, but you see the point of what I'm saying assumptions, not that what we see is true type of assumptions)

[upper pine]

Where does it talk about treating people against their will, as you so extrapolated from the text?

[terse belfry]

You mean buying people against their will? Yes, buying slaves from the nations around you, making them property for life, and passing them on as inherited property means you are not paying the slaves. You are buying them from someone else. It doesn't matter if they are okay with it, the lack of ability to leave if they want to is the issue.

[obtuse kettle]

c) mk but ironically you believe this and then you claim that evolution shouldn't be treated as fact due to lack of evidence and assumptions

1. Don't know what role evidence like that plays in science tbh.
2. I don't understand your point here. What are stages?
3. True, you can't go back in time to see exactly what was happening in the world, you do have to assume based off the evidence that is collected and analysed. Since all evidence coincides with our assumptions, the chance of it being right are high. We see the same processes happening in the past in the evidence we have as in modern experiment, we can explain all evolutionary steps of the past with the understanding that we have based off modern experiment, thus, it's realistically correct.

Since it agrees with all current experiment and evidence, it's the best theory we have. And also, if you're trying to advocate for a small font at the bottom saying "0.001% chance this is wrong" then you're going to have to add that to pretty much everything in the world anyway.

These assumptions aren't blind assumptions out of the blue, they are all backed up by extensive evidence and observation.

[upper pine]

Again extrapolating something that wasn't in the text. Inheritance is something legally recognized. Not all work need to be paid. I volunteer in my free time, that doesn't make the people I volunteer under immoral. When you read the bible, it even talks about "making slaves for life" of people who are Hebrew in the sense of treating them to where they want to stay with you, what is immoral about being so kind to someone that they want to stay with you, even past their debt?

[terse belfry]

You mean giving them a wife who can't go free with them so that they will stay and be your property? So very generous.

You are so deep you can't even read the words honestly. They specifically make a distinction between how to treat Hebrew indentured servants and chattel slaves from other nations. They are not volunteers. They are not allowed to leave. I'm not extrapolating anything. I am reading the exact words and taking them at face value

[deft fossil]

Also, I think this is why macro and micro evolution are key to use in vocabulary when talking about evolution. microevolution is a scientific theory, if we go by the scientific definition. Macroevolution is not based on the same definition you gave. It is not observable currently. The only evidence for macroevolution is microevolution which you assume to be the same as macroevolution, the only difference being the time.
Ofcourse you think this is an important distinction because otherwise your whole argument on this topic would fail. But the truth is that no biologists makes a distinction between macro- and microevolution. They are 2 sides of the same coin. If you need to come up with semantic tricks only to be able convey yourself as credible, than I do in fact have a problem with that. Why don't we just stick to the scientific side of the story and stop making things up.

[deft fossil]

There is no way an impartial scientist would call macroevolution a scientific theory given what we know. As for assumptions, there are very few assumptions we have to make in order to start getting into the scientific process, and those just come with humans functioning properly and together basically. Those are not the type of assumptions i am talking about. I am talking about assumptions that evidence connect with other evidence.

THere is every way we call it that, because it by definition is. The problem for you is that you have to jump through all sort of hoops in order to partially agree to it, to later call it ''just a theory''. You are the one here not understanding what evolution is and how it ties into the evidence we have found for it, or just simply how the scientific method works.

By saying ''there is no way an impartial scientist would call macroevolution a scientific theory'' is so telling of your misunderstanding of the subject

[upper pine]

So you say scientist are just playing semantics with they're already agreed upon hypothesis to help people who don't call an assumption fact have a stronger standing point? Seems kinda weird, no? Why would scientist create a different term for the same thing and give it a different meaning and then call it unscientific while at the same time claiming something that physically can't be scientific on the basis of the scientific method is scientific?

This whole thing just seems strange to me. Are we sticking to sciene or no when talking about what is scientific?

[deft fossil]

No im saying that micro and macro is not nomenclature that is used by actual scientists in the field

[deft fossil]

This whole thing just seems strange to me. Are we sticking to sciene or no when talking about what is scientific?
Ofcourse

[upper pine]

Explain for me the scientific method and how we can apply that to fossils evolving, you know, the whole observable portion of the scientific method that you keep mentioning, seems like if you want to include the scientific method you should stick to evidence that upholds the scientific method, no? I think we both here agreed on what evolution is, we jsut disagree when it comes to the parts that are not-observale. You use faith, I choose to not make an opinion on if it is true or not, is that fair to say?

[upper pine]

The nomenclature of macro and micro evolution are actual scientific terms though, no?

[deft fossil]

No I have been telling you like 5 times already but you keep ignoring it.

They used to be

Like 100 years ag9

But for a long time now the terms are regarded unscientific

As they both refer to the same process

[deft fossil]

That's completely unfair to say

But I'll respond after work

[deft fossil]

Okay so what are the steps in the scientific method?

1. We start with an observation
2. We set up a research question
3. We determine a testable hypothesis and make a prediction on our expected results
4. We set up an expirement
5. We analyse the data
6. We draw conlcusions
7. Go back to step 1

So lets go by them 1 by 1

1. Lets say we observe differences in similar animals, e.g. bonobos and chimpanzees

2. We want to ask a question, e.g. how have these similar animals came to be

3. Now our hypothesis may be: The similar animals are the result of a mostly shared ancestral history, e.g. evolution

Now we predict that, if our hypothesis is true, our prediction would be that we should see skeletal fossils of chimps and bonobos converge as we go into deeper layers, if they are more closely related

4. We start our experiment, and start up digging fossils left right and center.

5. We analyse the data and see that the deeper we dig (older layers) the more resemblance there is between chimps and bonobos until a point where we cannot make a distinction anymore

6. We conclude that our hypothesis was correct and evolution is indeed real

Now I am wondering @upper pine, what part of this does not follow the scientific method, and at which point do you believe i need ''faith'' in order to believe it?

[upper pine]

You are saying that because they look similar, they must come from the same animal at one point in time. We cannot observe that, which science requires. My hypothesis is that there were creatures that are extinct, differnt to us. I predict that if this hypothesis is true, we will see various different fossils in the fossil record. That's all that proves. And the idea that there are fossils of every single step of the transformation provess is just wrong. We see very little of that, besides actual changes in species. We have no idea why they are different animals other than the fact that they are different animals.

Science requires observable data, not assumption data. Sure, assumptions can lead us to a scientific discovery, but assmuptions themselves are not scientific discoveries. If that were true, God would be scientifically proven.

[deft fossil]

You are saying that because they look similar, they must come from the same animal at one point in time.
That's the hypothesis, which we would like to either confirm or deny

Then we perform an experiment; we dig up fossils

And the longer we go back in time, the more similar the fossils become

Up to a point where they are indistinguishable

Therefore, we accept the hypothesis

Now we do that 10.000 more times

And in all those 10.000 times, we find exactly 0 contradictory evidence

therefore, we accept the hypothesis

[upper pine]

1. We observe that we are here on Earth
2. How did life come to be?
3. My hypothesis is, we were created by a more advanced being or deity
   Prediction: If we were created by a deity, we'd see life and a universe designed to sustain life.
4. We start our experiment and start looking at the creation of life.
5. We analyze the data, that from our knowledge, life can't come from non-life, yet we have life.
6. We conclude that out hypothesis was correct and a deity is indeed real.

[deft fossil]

So what would need to be found to reject the hypothesis?

because it must be possible to reject it if you find contradictory evidence

Why would a universe sustaining life be indicative of being created by a deity

and how could we replicate it in such a way to find similar or contradictory results

[upper pine]

Why would similar looking fossils be indicative of evolution?

[upper pine]

To find contradictory results? Prove life can come from non-life. Prove something can come from nothing.

[deft fossil]

Because, if they converge, then it means they came from the same spot. If they don't converge, it shows they did not come from same spot

[deft fossil]

No how would we find something contradictive in the experiment itself

What would we need to see in the creation of life (that is our experiment) to conclude that we reject the hypothesis

An experiment where there can only be one outcome is not an experiment

[upper pine]

Prove life can come from non-life. Prove something can come from nothing.
this

[deft fossil]

So if at some point, it would be proven that life can be created from non-life, than we reject the hypothesis that life was created by god?

[upper pine]

Yea, it'd be a fair assumption. Doesn't mean everyone would accept it though.

[deft fossil]

Okay, then the next question we have is we look for alternative hypotheses

So we may have an alternative hypothesis, for example: life was 'spontaneously' formed

how would we test that

[upper pine]

I don't know if there is a way to test that. If it is spontaneous, there is no control over it, it can't be repeatedly tested

[deft fossil]

exactly

[upper pine]

Or reliably at least

[deft fossil]

so there is no way currently to make this whole topic something scientific

[upper pine]

So because we can't find any good reasons to the contrary, it's not scientific?

Didn't you say there were no other good arguments other than evolution?

[deft fossil]

what do you mean?

[upper pine]

It might've not been you, but I thought it was, that someone said there was no other reasonably acceptable scientific explanation for life ( or at least the diversification of life from the single common ancestor, other than evolution.

[deft fossil]

wasnt me who said that

although i do agree

[upper pine]

Might've been Arklar

[deft fossil]

I am not aware of a different explanation that meets any scientific standards

[upper pine]

Well you see, now this seems contradictory to me though

[deft fossil]

But if you know of one, then please enlighten me

Why?

[upper pine]

Because you just established that if there aren't other explanations, then it isn't scientific

[deft fossil]

No

i said if it is impossible to find rejecting evidence than something is unscientific

Or if there is no way to repeatedly test something

[upper pine]

How is there rejecting evidence for something that is true?

[deft fossil]

There is not

but you can reject the opposite hypothesis

E.g. if chimps and bonobos are NOT related, we would expect to find fossil evidence where their fossils do not converge

now if we find evidence for converging fossils, even if its one, we can reject the hypothesis

because at least on one count the hypothesis was not true

[upper pine]

But mine has the same exact thing

[deft fossil]

Now we repeat 10.000 times

Yours is neither rejectable nor repeatable because the experiment does not test for the hypothesis

You ask a question, but the experiment you perform to answer the question does not test the original question

[upper pine]

It does though, just as well as assuming if we see similar fossils, there is a common ancestor.

[deft fossil]

"looking at life'' does not answer the question how life came to be

thats a flawed experiment

Nor do we have reason to assume that if we see life, it would support the idea of life being created

how do we know its evidence for life being created instead of life being sponaneously formed

you cannot possibly know that

[upper pine]

Because that goes against our entire understanding of life and the universe

[deft fossil]

But why though?

Just because you said so

[upper pine]

Because the world says so

[deft fossil]

In order for something like this to be justified, you would need to actually support such a claim

In my expermint all im saying is:

If they came from the same source, then at some point they would have been the same. If not, then we would find evidence for both species, or for one of the species to just appear or something

Now thats something you can just look for

not just with chimps an bonobos ofc

but it was just an example

If they came from the same species, than at some point they had to branch off

thats a factual statement

[upper pine]

But now, can you prove that the fossil is the fossil both chimps and bonobos came from?

[deft fossil]

If they did not come from the same species, they did not branch off at any point

[deft fossil]

Depends what you mean with proof

If you do not accept DNA analysis its gonna be difficult

[upper pine]

Oh yea I don't because that is just assuming the worldview of no creation as well

I mean we can use it for smaller inter-species analysis

[deft fossil]

DNA is assuming a worldview of no creation?

[upper pine]

No assuming similar DNA means common ancestor

[deft fossil]

well yes, but thats why you use many different sort of evidence

Not JUST dna

although dna does do wonders ngl

But the problem with your statement that i have is

what is ''inter-species''

[upper pine]

Well yea, showing that everything has the building blocks of life does do wonder for showing that they both are living, ro where

[deft fossil]

because species is not really a straight boundary, more like a blurred area

[deft fossil]

I just meant we can do a lot of cool stuff now that we've figured out how dna works

[upper pine]

Yea it is, generally species is just animals that can interbreed and (I think) produce viable offspring.

[deft fossil]

Well thats the highschool definition yea

but there are plenty of animals we group in different species that can also interbreed and create viable offspring

so it doesnt really work

[upper pine]

Yea I agree

Such as coyotes and wolves

[deft fossil]

I was thinking Homo neanderthalensis and Homo sapiens but sure that works for me

But based on most ways we ''measure'' speciation, we can confidently say coyotes and wolves are not the same species right

[upper pine]

I guess so, to be honest I don't really know the whole criteria for species, and different taxonomical orders. But, yea they are considered different species.

Other than the high school definition lol

[deft fossil]

Okay, so if DNA can only be used on inter-species level like you suggested, then where do we draw the line between species

because at some point, there will be an organism that is closely related but not exactly the same species, but how would you be able to make that distinction

so for example between wolves and coyotes

or humans and neanderthals

SO i guess the question moreso is, at what point does DNA analysis stop being reliable ?

[upper pine]

Ok, so just quick research, and maybe it's just because it is in fact just quick research, the only criteria for species I'm seeing is just the ability to pass on genes and produce viable offspring

[deft fossil]

Yeah but if you go into biological scientific literature its actually a warzone

Everyone make their own definitions

because for every definition there will be an exception etc

The problem is

As humans we like to group things

Some things are not discrete but continuous

Continuous things are hard to put in a box

because you have to make an arbitrary cutoff somewhere

[upper pine]

Well it depends, what I was really trying to say there was that similar DNA doesn't mean common ancestor, it does show us how similar DNA is, which we can use for showing relation, but at the same time We'd expect every living thing to have some level of similar DNA just because they need similar DNA to start the process of creating an organism. I guess my cut-off would be at the inter-breeding level.

[deft fossil]

Yeah sure but even for that you still have to make some arbitrary cutoff

is 99.6% still similar enough

99,9%?

What if the DNA variation within a species is larger than between species?

Or in statistical terms, what if the standard deviation is larger than our observed deviation?

At that point it becomes statistically impossible to determine whether two samples are or are not from a similar animal

[upper pine]

Well that's why I say at inter-breeding because then there is at least a standard thatn we can test and observe. We know if they breed together, they can pass on their DNA together, and thus they will have part of the DNA from one parent and part from the other

[deft fossil]

Now hypothetically you have some fossil evidence, one specimen from a bonobo and one of a chimp. Both go back about 6 million years and for some magical reason you are sure you have one specimen for every 10 years that have passed. Now you perform some analysis on the DNA and between each specimen that is separated by 10 years and the difference between their DNA is statistically insignificant. Now we go all the way back and for each specimen that is separated by 10 years this is the case. Now we measure between the first and last specimen and their DNA does differ significantly. Then would you argue that the individual measurements between specimens separated 10 years is reliable, but the one between the oldest and newest fossils is not?

And if you would argue that the measurement between the first and last is not realiable but the rest are, my follow up question would be, so where do we draw the line?

What if it is 20 years. What if it is 50 years. What if it is a 1000 years?

[upper pine]

Yes, I would be inclined to agree with that

[upper pine]

After doing some research, I'd have to admit I was wrong in the sense of macro-evolution. I believe that is possible, based on the scientific definition as scientific taxonomy doesn't necessarily align with what I believe in terms of evolution. Doesn't mean I think I was wrong about some of the points, such as evidence for such, but I admit that it can happen and likely did, as macro-evolution is just change from past a species level.

What I was more trying to mean by macro-evolution would be closer represented by the "kind" as referred to in the book of Genesis. I don't believe evolution can happen outside of kinds. Kinds are simply just creatures that can reproduce with each other, which as we figured out, is not akin to species. It even in some cases is not akin to the biological genus/genera classification as is seen with goats and sheep which can interbreed. It can even go up to the order as Guineafowl and chickens can reproduce despite being different families.

[scenic lance]

as for your last example still not the same species

they can interbreed and in very rare cases do produce viable offspring

but this offspring is infertile

[upper pine]

I wasn't talking about species, I was talking about kinds.

As refered to in the bible

[scenic lance]

what does kinds mean?

[upper pine]

The only definition that I can seem to find for kind (according to Genesis) is ability to reproduce with each other. That may or may not imply viable and/or fertile offspring

[scenic lance]

in that case a zebra is the same kind as a horse

[upper pine]

Yea

[scenic lance]

a horse is the same kind as a donkey

[upper pine]

Yea

[scenic lance]

so what do you mean when you say evolution cant happen outside of kinds

[upper pine]

Animals within one kind cannot evolve to where they are now a part of a different kind.

Well let me rephrase

I don't think it can't happen

The bible never mentions anything about that, so that is entirely left up to science. I just believe it is unlikely.

[scenic lance]

the bible isnt a scientific journal

its a book of faith

[upper pine]

Yea, and science explain the processes the God of that faith used/uses.

From my viewpoint at least

[deft fossil]

I hate to break it to you but a kind is not a scientific term

And if we are discussing a scientific topic

I'd suggest sticking to the scientific terminology

Unless you can give a hard definition of kind

Which it seems you can't for the same reason there is not one for species

[deft fossil]

I don't believe evolution can happen outside of kinds
I mean, if we consider ourselves only with monophyletic groups, then all four-limbed animals can be considered fish. Does that make them all the same kind?

I just don't see the point in accepting specific parts of a theory because they fit your worldview with regards to the bilbe, but as soon as they start to contradict, you reject the scientific part instead of the biblical part

I wonder why that is

What makes you believe that people around 1500-2000 years ago knew more about the world than we do now

Especially with regards to biology

But yeah lets be real with eachother, there is no such thing as a ''kind'' of animal.

Its an incredibly subjective way of grouping different animals together

[scenic lance]

technically there are an infinite ways of classifying life

its just that our species way is the most accurate and is therefore the convention