They want to forget Darwin ... [help]

[Cat]

In the jewish tradition, AFAIK, she has become a sort of demon, mother of demons and also associated in some strange way with masturbation ...

As primitive hebrew culture was very paternalistic, it was not acceptable that the woman, Lilith, was equal in status to the man, so she was "eliminated". She has since been exploited in horror and fantasy literature, IIRC Anne Rice also referred to her somewhere in her vampire books ...

 

[brianleahy]

An interesting random tidbit here: in Genesis 6:3, God declares that men's lives be limited to 120 years. Yet Genesis 11 lists many generations of men living more than 200 years. Change of heart? You'd think that'd be documented.

An inconsistancy?!?!?

EDIT: after posting this, I thought it came off somewhat more flippant than it needed to be. Mockery is not helpful here.

Just the same; I can see only three explanations for this:

1 - Either Genesis 6:3 or Genesis 11 (or both) is false.
2 - God changed his mind or made a large number of exceptions (things He is not normally reputed to do) and this fact was not noted or included in Genesis.
3 - The sequence of 6:3 and 11 is wrong; they actually happened in the opposite order.

 

[chevy]

Religion is funny.

 

[dlloyd]

Very interesting, I never knew about Lilith. I must look up more about that.

 

[MDLarson]

An interesting random tidbit here: in Genesis 6:3, God declares that men's lives be limited to 120 years. Yet Genesis 11 lists many generations of men living more than 200 years. Change of heart? You'd think that'd be documented.

An inconsistancy?!?!?

EDIT: after posting this, I thought it came off somewhat more flippant than it needed to be. Mockery is not helpful here.

Just the same; I can see only three explanations for this:

1 - Either Genesis 6:3 or Genesis 11 (or both) is false.
2 - God changed his mind or made a large number of exceptions (things He is not normally reputed to do) and this fact was not noted or included in Genesis.
3 - The sequence of 6:3 and 11 is wrong; they actually happened in the opposite order.

That's a good observation. I think an adequate explanation is that God was referring to the number of years humanity had left before the Great Flood. Here's a more thorough explanation:
http://www.lookinguntojesus.net/ata20030615.htm

I've actually never heard of Lilith, except from the concert. You don't suppose there's any connection?

There's a lot of incest going on in the bible isn't there? I mean, the children of Adam and Eve, the children of Noach, the good guy who escaped from Sodom & Gomorra and his daughters ... this certainly hasn't done much good to our species.

As explained in the link I posted earlier, strangely, incest was not a sin in early humanity. It only became a sin at the time of Moses. Why do you infer that this incest "hasn't done much good to our species"? Speaking from a strictly evolutionist (and somewhat nihilistic) point of view, who cares? Since there was no apparent birth-defects, it seemed to work out for them. Genesis 19 even goes on to credit the birth of two nations to incestuous encounters.

By the way, I stumbled on this somewhat humourous look at this situation.

Brian (and dlloyd), I want to thank both you for a very thoughtful debate thus far. Your respect and patience for my position has been appreciated.

 

[mdnky]

And people wonder why Neo-Pagan religions are becoming so popular now a days. <G>

 

[brianleahy]

I had a feeling that this apparent glitch (so easily noticed by me with such brief research) would have been addressed by someone by now. Numbers are tricky; you can't debate their value - it's what they MEAN that can sometimes be vague.

It's a little surprising that your link is titled "Answering the atheist" -- surely, this question has been raised by more than a few believers over the years as well. Upon reading Genesis, the question leaps quickly to mind: how is it that long ago, people (well, first-born sons anyway) sometimes lived nearly a thousand years (!!!) and now they seldom live to reach 100? With this question in mind, it is not surprising that 6:3 strikes many as the much-awaited answer. Is there another passage that addresses this mystery?

Interesting; by my math, Methuselah died the same year as the flood. Did he drown??

In any case, returning belatedly to the issue of genetics and disease:

There are many diseases whose entire cause is a flaw in the victim's chromosomes. Briefly: when a child is conceived, he receives pairs of each 'gene' (a section of chromsome which defines a specific trait). Those genes were delivered by sperm and egg, and they were selected from each parent's genes by the process of meiosis. Meiosis (happening within each parent's body) selects separately and at random either the maternal or paternal copy of each gene to be included in each sperm or egg cell.

Each gene has a function (such as eye color) and a value (blue, green, brown etc.) called an allele. An allele can be either dominant or recessive. A dominant allele will be expressed if the individual has even one copy of it. A recessive allele will only be expressed if the individual has two copies of it. If the individual receives two different dominant, or two different recessive alleles, then 'comparative dominance' comes into play. While each trait is either dominant or recessive, some are actually 'more dominant' or 'more recessive' than others.

Anyway, some diseases are caused by recessive alleles. Individuals receiving two copies of a disease allele will become ill. In many cases, the illness is sufficiently debilitating that the individual cannot conceive a child, and thus does not pass along the disease. However, individuals with just one copy of the allele do not become ill, and can still pass it along for many generations. This is why, despite their occasional devastating effects, the disease alleles do not go entirely extinct.

Now, science holds that some, if not most, of these disease alleles are the result of mutations. I took your position to be that you doubted the heritability of mutations. If that is the case, then the only other conclusion is that these recessive disease genes have been with us since the beginning. If that were so, then between Adam and Eve, all of those recessive traits had to be there in their genomes.

 

[Satcomer]

I've actually never heard of Lilith, except from the concert. You don't suppose there's any connection?

Well I found this page. I actually first heard of her from a Jewish friend.

 

[frizbone]

MDLARSON: What about Islam, Jews, Buhdda, Pagans, and so on and so on. There have been many religions created by man including Christianity and many of them before Christianity. So how do you justify their Bibles. Is there a different God for the other side of the planet?

Please think about one thing. You don't have faith in God, you have faith in the stories you've been told by human beings. So you have faith in their word. I would love to be a street hustler trying to sell you something, because you could have faith in me too. Everything you know about God and your's or any religion was told to you by a person. All of your faith lies in the truthfullness of people. Please think about that seriously. In the old day's religion was very powerfull, it was the political system. That would be like people today beleiving in everything our politicians tell us. Religion started as a way to govern people. And through torture and murder and brainwashing, all of the world's religions have created a pretty good following. I am just utterly supprised that in today's world of educated people there is still that following.

 

[brianleahy]

Everything you know about God and your's or any religion was told to you by a person. All of your faith lies in the truthfullness of people. Please think about that seriously.

I made much the same case in my blog - link also provided earlier in this thread. Thus far we are on the same page.

In the old day's religion was very powerfull, it was the political system. That would be like people today beleiving in everything our politicians tell us. Religion started as a way to govern people. And through torture and murder and brainwashing, all of the world's religions have created a pretty good following. I am just utterly supprised that in today's world of educated people there is still that following.

While I would not normally plead the case of religion, I this case I'm going to interject a thing or two, playing the 'devil's advocate' (how ironic is that?)

Religion's role in history as a mechanism of control and governance is indisputable. How do you make people stay in line, even when there is almost no chance of their disobedience being detected? Tell them there is an all-seeing God, who will punish then after they die! The utility of this idea, and the near-impossibility of proving it false, are impossible to ignore.

In particular, in medieval times the Roman Catholic Church became a brutal and corrupt entity on par with George Lucas' Empire, holding Europe in an iron fist for a thousand years. The New Testament was long withheld from the general public; only the clergy had access to it. Hence, they could (and did) tell Christian followers that Jesus said anything they wanted, whatever suited their purpose at the time, and no commoner could prove them wrong. It even seems clear that this reign of terror, and its supression of new ideas of any kind, halted any sort of technological or scientific advancement. If not for this period, men might have landed on the moon around the year 1050 AD...

But by the same token, believers can and do point out that Jesus never advocated such a tyrannical, abusive system. They'll tell you the message remains valid and true, even though the church's mortal agents lost their way... for many centuries...

To reiterate, I am not a religious person, and in many cases I have an abiding distrust of large and powerful religious organizations. Yet I try not to ignore the value that religious beliefs can have for individuals. Indeed, I wonder sometimes if I might not be happier if I believed in a God who thought of human lives as important. I just don't, and can't.

The biggest issue that I have with the pious is that, on one hand, many (and I hasten to add that I am not alluding to MD nor anyone else here specifically) become indignant if I disrespect them or their beliefs, yet they seem to feel no obligation to respect me or my beliefs. There are legions who want to make everything illegal that is considered "sinful" by Christian lights, and don't hesitate to introduce scripture and dogma as if it constituted a basis for a new law. I find this incredibly offensive, but if I (or people who feel as I do) object, let alone question the validity of the Bible as a basis for new secular laws, I am denounced as insensitive or impolitic. It is not enough for these people to personally refrain from having abortions, using contraception, having sex any way besides with the opposite gender, and in the missionary position -- they want to make it illegal for ANYBODY to do so, regardless of their personal beliefs.

Why aren't the pious content to let the sinners burn in hell? Why require them to rot in jail too? Doesn't the Bible say "revenge is mine, saith the lord"? (Well, close. Romans 12:19)

It is an abuse of faith; using it as a blunt instrument to remake the world so that everything can fit into their personal comfort zones.

 

[cfleck]

Why aren't the pious content to let the sinners burn in hell? Why require them to rot in jail too?

you are entitled to believe what you will, but this question is easily answered.

it is within the teachings of most religions that you should do what you can to help people live a life in 'god's image'. you are supposed to care for ALL of mankind, not just the 'good' ones. its that simple.

 

[brianleahy]

you are entitled to believe what you will, but this question is easily answered.

it is within the teachings of most religions that you should do what you can to help people live a life in 'god's image'. you are supposed to care for ALL of mankind, not just the 'good' ones. its that simple.

Yes, easily answered, but not well answered. This is precisely where acceptance and tolerance reach their logical limits.

From here forward, I use the words "you" and "I" on opposite sides of this matter. This is an expedient, no more - your post implies you may feel this way, but in fairness you did say "the teachings of most religions" - not "I think that..." -- so I am not pointing my finger at you, cfleck, specifically.

You believe that helping me should extend to locking me up if I sin. Let's turn that around. Let's suppose that as an agnostic, I believe that Christian dogma is pernicious and ruins peoples' lives, saddling them with needless guilt and clouding their judgement. Let's say I don't believe in an afterlife, so rather than worry about saving souls, I am concerned with people making the most of their lives, and I see religion as an obstacle to this.

Thus I feel it is my duty, even my moral obligation, to help them. I try to persuade them with reason and with evidence, but the efficacy of this is limited. So I haul out the big guns, and try to lobby congress to lock people up for teaching this stuff to their children.

Of course, the religious will cry that I am persecuting them, repressing them, curtailing their freedom. But I am unfazed; this is my moral duty, if I truly feel this way, I must believe that I really DARE not allow myself to be swayed into backing off. I sleep well at night knowing that I am doing the right thing, and those who cry "intolerance" are simply victims of their own delusions. It is "just that simple."

The demand for tolerance cuts both ways; each side (religious and non) must either leave the other to its own devices, or gird itself for all-out conflict. Do not ask for tolerance if you aren't prepared to practice it. If your religion precludes tolerance for other beliefs, then don't pretend that you're actually in favor of tolerance; you just aren't -- indeed, you're morally bound to INtolerance.

The 9/11 hijackers quite literally believed they had a moral obligation to do what they did; should we just roll with that blow in the name of tolerance?

 

[MDLarson]

I had a feeling that this apparent glitch (so easily noticed by me with such brief research) would have been addressed by someone by now. Numbers are tricky; you can't debate their value - it's what they MEAN that can sometimes be vague.

I would agree; quite often meanings change, rapidly, even when it makes no sense at all. Kind of like how "bad" means "good" in some slang contexts. Just to reiterate, the thrust of Genesis 6:3 is a pronouncement of complete destruction of the human race, in 120 years time. It is not talking about the average lifespan of a human.

It's a little surprising that your link is titled "Answering the atheist" -- surely, this question has been raised by more than a few believers over the years as well. Upon reading Genesis, the question leaps quickly to mind: how is it that long ago, people (well, first-born sons anyway) sometimes lived nearly a thousand years (!!!) and now they seldom live to reach 100? With this question in mind, it is not surprising that 6:3 strikes many as the much-awaited answer. Is there another passage that addresses this mystery?

Interesting; by my math, Methuselah died the same year as the flood. Did he drown??

I agree with your sentiment; the page should have been entitled "Answering the Skeptic".

Here's a page describing the Creationist stance on the issue. The main reason is probably the huge change in environmental conditions after the global flood.

Good observation about Methuselah! His name means "when he dies, judgement" or "his death shall bring" (depending on translation). My guess would be that he didn't drown, but rather he died, then it started raining. This would be a good example of subliminal prophecy. As a sidenote, one could conclude that God had made up His mind to destroy mankind at least as early as when his parents named him, and yet God apparently "decided" to destroy mankind 120 years prior to the flood. There is some argument even within Christianity about God not knowing the future / changing His mind, etc., but I believe such passages are intended to put the events into the readers' language and understanding, and not as completely literal to the letter. Hope that makes sense.

Some good stuff about genetics, desease and alleles...

Yes, as I had stated earlier, I changed my position slightly on that issue. I once believed (wrongly) that mutations do not pass down to offspring. This is just me not paying attention in class, I guess. I also didn't believe any mutation was beneficial. I now believe that mutations can appear to be beneficial, but that the key issue for mutations is if they ever add genetic information to the mix, as is required to achieve true evolution from simple species to complex. This doesn't happen.

If you could answer this question for me (I'm just ignorant on this issue): Is it even possible for any one person to contain multiple dominant and recessive alleles in their genome? I thought that a person would have a maximum of two alleles for any one trait.

Anyways, I think I understand your question as to whether Adam and Eve could have held all the recessive traits you talked about, and my position would be that, when God cursed mankind with death and other diseases, He also allowed these recessive-allele causing diseases to originate. I can think of no scientific explanation at this time to account for your question.

Also, the bottle-neck in human history would have been Noah's family. "Diseases on the Ark" talks about some possible explanations about how diseases might have survived the flood. I also found an article about how Sickle Cell Anemia does not prove evolution.

 

[MDLarson]

MDLARSON: What about Islam, Jews, Buhdda, Pagans, and so on and so on. There have been many religions created by man including Christianity and many of them before Christianity. So how do you justify their Bibles. Is there a different God for the other side of the planet?

Please think about one thing. You don't have faith in God, you have faith in the stories you've been told by human beings. So you have faith in their word. I would love to be a street hustler trying to sell you something, because you could have faith in me too. Everything you know about God and your's or any religion was told to you by a person. All of your faith lies in the truthfullness of people. Please think about that seriously. In the old day's religion was very powerfull, it was the political system. That would be like people today beleiving in everything our politicians tell us. Religion started as a way to govern people. And through torture and murder and brainwashing, all of the world's religions have created a pretty good following. I am just utterly supprised that in today's world of educated people there is still that following.

Before you so quickly judge me for having blind faith in legends, I would invite you to take an objective look at how often you are guilty of believing the experts, who are from time to time proven wrong later. Actually, I am a very skeptical person and am a hard sell to the casual salesperson.

Looking at the big picture with history in mind, it is not uncommon for the general beliefs of the day to be completely laughable a few generations later. A good example of this is Galileo's round earth discovery in the otherwise flat-earth beleiving culture. A more recent example is with Dr. Ignaz Semmelweis. He is credited with discovering that not washing your hands is actually a very dirty and dangerous thing in a maternity hospital (or any hospital), and yet he was ridiculed to no end after his discovery by other respectible doctors who thought that washing their hands was "undignified". Source.

How can we be so certain in our scientific beliefs today? Last I checked, we still don't know a whole lot about ourselves or the universe, for that matter. So let's all take this thing with humility and admit first to ourselves that we really don't know a whole lot.

 

[chevy]

Reality doesn't change. Tales change, our perception of reality changes. Therefore reality always wins globally, even if we sometimes need a long time to recognize it, even if some forces want to change or hide it.

Example: the greek thought the earth is a sphere 2000 years ago. The same is true for the egyptians at the end of their reign. But some forces thought they needed a flat world to impose their idea in europe. Reality came back in 1400-1500.

Yes, there is a lot we don't know. It's not a reason to give any kind of answer for all question we cannot solve today. I prefer a good question to a bad answer. Questions open the mind.

 

[dlloyd]

MD, how can you believe in mutations, but not those that don't 'stick'?

 

[chevy]

...

I now believe that mutations can appear to be beneficial, but that the key issue for mutations is if they ever add genetic information to the mix, as is required to achieve true evolution from simple species to complex. This doesn't happen.

If you could answer this question for me (I'm just ignorant on this issue): Is it even possible for any one person to contain multiple dominant and recessive alleles in their genome? I thought that a person would have a maximum of two alleles for any one trait.

...

Sickle Cell Anemia does not prove evolution.

Nothing proves evolution. Science is not proofs. But most (if not all) information we get from scientific study drive us toward some kind of evolution.

"beneficial" is difficult to define in scientific sense.

There is not scientific impossibility to increase complexity through mutation. There is another concept related to "complexity" in science which is named "emergence". Maybe you can read "The Quark and the Jaguar" by Murray Gell-Mann http://www.santafe.edu/sfi/People/mgm/mgmquark.html if you like reading. Some complex features emerge from simple rules defining matter's interaction in space. Think about the weather. It's made of simple materials and simple rules, add a little bit of solar power... and you end up with a complex and completely chaotic system with locally predictable behavior.

 

[MDLarson]

MD, how can you believe in mutations, but not those that don't 'stick'?

I do believe in mutations, and I do believe they stick. I see a further distinction however, which you're not picking up on; whether the mutation is a loss of genetic information or a gain.

Here's a quote from this page: (same link as posted earlier)

"Darwin called attention to wingless beetles on the island of Madeira. For a beetle living on a windy island, wings can be a definite disadvantage, because creatures in flight are more likely to be blown into the sea. Mutations producing the loss of flight could be helpful. The sightless cave fish would be similar. Eyes are quite vulnerable to injury, and a creature that lives in pitch dark would benefit from mutations that would replace the eye with scar-like tissue, reducing that vulnerability. In the world of light, having no eyes would be a terrible handicap, but is no disadvantage in a dark cave. While these mutations produce a drastic and beneficial change, it is important to notice that they always involve loss of information and never gain. One never observes the reverse occurring, namely wings or eyes being produced on creatures which never had the information to produce them."

 

[chevy]

Darwin is dead for a very long time now. He wrote what he wrote long time ago, and our knowledge significantly improve since that time. Don't take it by the word. He had brilliant ideas and paved a good theory... and his theory was improved by others.

Never take to the letter old writings. Mankind evolves too.

 

[Giaguara]

Reality doesn't change. Tales change, our perception of reality changes. Therefore reality always wins globally, even if we sometimes need a long time to recognize it, even if some forces want to change or hide it.

The only thing that does not change, is that everything changes.

What is now, is gone in a moment. Reality, realities change, only a few principles bigger than humanity, may remain unchanged under ..