what religion?

Jeremy · Post by **Jeremy** » 25 Apr 2007 20:48

Examples of evolution occurring before our eyes. Not records of evolution that has occurred. Us actually seeing the changes occur.

http://www.newscientist.com/channel/lif ... -bold.html
http://www.newscientist.com/channel/lif ... ction.html
http://www.newscientist.com/channel/lif ... rward.html
http://www.newscientist.com/channel/lif ... -heat.html
http://www.newscientist.com/channel/lif ... n-lab.html

Of course the evidence for evolution is a great deal stronger than these articles or transitional fossils. The DNA evidence is overwhelming, and the fact that it corresponds perfectly with the fossil records would be an unbelievable coincidence, were it not for the explanation of evolution.

Jeremy · Post by **Jeremy** » 26 Apr 2007 20:27

http://chronicle.com/temp/reprint.php?i ... zbmg3rg2db

Fantastic essay about religion and science.

lotus · Post by **lotus** » 27 Apr 2007 02:27

when an organism evolves, does it consciously control or instigate its transformation, does it simply want/need/will it to be so, or does it have absolutely no control over the process whatsoever?

this question does not support any side of the eternally dividing and subjective God/gods/no god/no gods debate ... it is just one that i'd love to hear some answers to

.

Tsiangkun · Post by **Tsiangkun** » 27 Apr 2007 10:33

There is no conscious control or participation.

Jeremy · Post by **Jeremy** » 27 Apr 2007 16:11

To elaborate slightly; evolution is adaption to environment, not any kind of attempt to better oneself. It relies on genetic diversity and natural selection over time. Natural selection doesn't select life that will be able to breed better in the future, it selects the life that can breed better now.

SnowBlindSloth · Post by **SnowBlindSloth** » 30 Apr 2007 17:20

The above description of evolution is almost flawless, except I would use the word "survive" rather than "breed". The adaption doesn't nessecarily have to do with the breeding, but the survival of the species. With more survival comes more breeding oppurtunities. So in essence, breeding is right, but survival is slightly more percise, in my opinion.

Jewish

Tsiangkun · Post by **Tsiangkun** » 30 Apr 2007 22:04

except that only genetic changes that are inherited are part of evolution, otherwise it's just an advantageous mutation.

Jeremy · Post by **Jeremy** » 01 May 2007 03:36

Yeah, actually I started writing "survival" and then changed it to "breeding" because the ultimate thing things are selected for is their ability to pass on DNA over time, not survive for a long time. In fact most of the animals with long life expectancies in the world are threatened, and there are plenty examples of animals with very short life expectancies that survive very well (flies for example).

SnowBlindSloth · Post by **SnowBlindSloth** » 01 May 2007 14:47

Jerem- Hrm, you have a point. I guess what i was trying to get at is that usually, the longer the animals lives then the higher chances it has to procreate and pass its traits on. Flies live for a short time, but compared to how often they mate and the amount of offspring, it can be seen why they can die quicker and still thrive.

Tsiangkun - Every single genetic mutation can be passed on. Its just a matter of the chances. Assuming we are dealing with the basic level, we are talking about monhybrid, ressessive crosses, furthermore most likely heterozygous and a homozygous. The chances of the trait being expressed is impossible until the next generation mates with another heterozygous carrier, then the chance of that offspring inheriting the trait becomes 1/4. But we probably arent talking about such simple things, so the chances are much lower, thus it would seem that some mutations cannot be passed on, but in reality they all can. Unless we are talking about gender specific mutations and so forth, which can only complicate things more.

Tsiangkun · Post by **Tsiangkun** » 01 May 2007 16:39

On the cell reproduction level, sure, all mutations are inheritable.

On the organism level however, the mutations have to be in the germline. I could have a ton of mutation in my left hand from years of radiation work, but none of them are going to be inherited to my offspring.

SnowBlindSloth · Post by **SnowBlindSloth** » 01 May 2007 18:03

I dunno about mutation from that aspect, so I'll take your word for it. But i know on the cellular level that all mutations can be passed on.

jrstubs · Post by **jrstubs** » 03 May 2007 03:05

Doesn't anybody realize that once you die absolutely nothing happens, With your body dead you have no sense of anything, no feeling, smell, thought, anything...you just don't exist anymore.

Tsiangkun · Post by **Tsiangkun** » 03 May 2007 09:24

why do you think you exist inside of your body ?

Jeremy · Post by **Jeremy** » 14 May 2007 07:41

Why I hate religion.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn1 ... girls.html

What other concept in the world could make people oppose something that is clearly good, thinking that they're doing the right thing?

I can't understand at all how people can support the belief that a vaccination that stops people getting cancer is a bad thing.

Imagine somebody dying of cervical cancer, needlessly, because of ludicrous superstitious beliefs.

This is a clear example of people being oppressed by the religious views of others.

apoplectic · Post by **apoplectic** » 14 May 2007 08:46

most of the controversy is about parents not wanting their 13 year old girl to get the vaccine because they think it will inspire their girl to have sex because there is less chance of her catching something horrible.most of the controversy isnt religion related (some is), but i'd say most isnt

Jeremy · Post by **Jeremy** » 14 May 2007 08:54

Bullshit. I can't believe that.

Show me one parent who does want their daughter to ever have sex in her entire life. The HPV vaccine only works if the person hasn't already contracted HPV, so it needs to be administered before they have sex. More than 1 in 4 Americans currently have a form of the HPV virus, so if you have sex with 2 people in your life, you are more likely to catch the virus than not catch it.

You say it's not religious, but show me one atheist or agnostic who opposes a vaccine for cancer. Of course you can't, because only religious people could oppose such a positive thing.

Moxie · Post by **Moxie** » 14 May 2007 09:09

Yes, there are definitely non-religious people who are opposed to vaccines in general. I know a few of them. These people are against vaccines because they believe that they can do more damage than good. Ex) There has been research linking autism to vaccinations.

Plus, even if there's no evidence of any links to bad results from a vaccination: just because someone isn't religious, that doesn't automatically mean they're not stupid or ignorant for some other reason. (triple negative?

) Even non-religious people have been misinformed about health issues.

Let's not be unfair to religious people in general. I have encountered parents* who don't want their children learning about safe sex because they think it'll lead to their kids having sex earlier. If they can believe that, I bet the same thing could happen with making sex safer through a shot. It doesn't mean that's the majority of people, (and definitely doesn't mean they're right,) but I bet there are some people some where who are so close minded or naive.

*Don't know if any are religious or not

Jeremy · Post by **Jeremy** » 14 May 2007 16:46

Yeah good point, that is true that some people oppose vaccines because they think they'll cause bad side effects. However in this case, that's not why the cancer vaccine has been banned.

I would be amazed if those people who oppose sex education because they fear it will make their children have sex earlier are not religious.

Jeremy · Post by **Jeremy** » 26 Jun 2007 18:33

So in Australia in the last 5 years "No religion" has been easily the fastest growing religious belief of the top 5 religious beliefs (beliefs accounting for at least 3% of the population or higher). In fact "No Religion" was the only religious belief that has increased in the last 5 years of the major religious beliefs, all the others dropped. "No Religion" no accounts for 18.7% of the population, and if that trend continued after the census (2006) then it's now the second biggest religious belief in Australia after Catholicism.

Jeremy · Post by **Jeremy** » 16 Sep 2007 05:04

Check out this message I got on facebook. Super convincing stuff;

jermey my brothwer my friend look clearly u have the free to choose what ever u want becoz god say to the human u ar efree not esclave but i dont want that u lose ur life jermy maybe ur right mayeb the Christianity has a decidedly negative effect on society today but think in ur heart in ur deep deep heart life like this without any one to pray without anythin if u gona die what do u think ???? what is the life is gona be ??? my brother jermy the man named jesus cam her to save any one even the persons who like devil jesus love allllllllllllllllll alllll of us even our sins jermy i want to change u that u find ur life n /2 the same time to enjoy ur life 2 coz god say enjoy life christianty say love ur enmies imagine that imagine the big love of jesus how die for us maybe now u are saying to me fuck u get off but the reason is i dotn want to lose ur life maybe its hard now for u but im goan be enar u help u alwys beside u im gona solve all ur problems jermy im gona change u for better god bless u n plz take care n for now ur free to be inthis group butafter u gona realize that u want to removeur self from this group becozof me im gona change u hehee bye for now im gona be online @night my friends are here bye my giood friend jermey :)
ur friend n ur brother edward

This is God punishing me for belonging to atheist groups; religious people trying to force their opinions on me with the literacy skills of a rock.