<p>Also: [MIT</a> OpenCourseWare | Linguistics and Philosophy | 24.00 Problems of Philosophy, Fall 2005 | Lecture Notes](<a href=“http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/linguistics-and-philosophy/24-00-problems-of-philosophy-fall-2005/lecture-notes/]MIT”>http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/linguistics-and-philosophy/24-00-problems-of-philosophy-fall-2005/lecture-notes/)</p>
<p>Is that flat earth society satirical? It seems so. And I hope so as well.</p>
<p>Bacterial colonies reproduce very fast. Each generation lasts ~2 hours, or even less. They can simulate millions of generations - the time it takes for beneficial mutations to occur to create macroevolution. However, it has never happened. No bacteria has become another species altogether, even with millions of generations passing. </p>
<p>Explain this. (this isn’t a hypothetical situation, it’s a real experiment that has been tested)</p>
<p>No the flat earth society is not satirical. But they don’t understand why they’re wrong regardless of the evidence that proves them wrong just like talking w/ MM is like arguing w/ a three year old over the existence of Santa Claus.</p>
<p>Scientology, it’s both!</p>
<p>(I am not a scientologist)</p>
<p>
I believe so. </p>
<p>
Well perfect, the more you people talk, the more I can show your incompetency in biology. So first you have to ask, how is a species defined in taxonomy? A species is often defined as a group of organisms capable of interbreeding and producing fertile offspring. How do bacteria reproduce? Binary fission, or prokaryotic fission, is the form of asexual reproduction and cell division used by all prokaryotes, some protozoa, and some organelles within eukaryotic organisms. </p>
<p>Clearly there seems to be contradiction (bacteria almost ALWAYS produce fertile offspring and do not interbreed). Therefore, bacterial species are somewhat arbitrarily defined by similar traits - how would you ever scientifically be able to differentiate two bacteria without using some arbitrary standard? And for the record, bacterial mutations DO occur and through natural selection take over the population. This is commonly what’s known as anti-bacterial resistance. </p>
<p>Of course, that’s not the only thing wrong with the experiment you provide. For speciation to occur, you have to prevent interbreeding (which of course bacteria don’t do?). You would need to separate the populations over LONG periods of time through geographic or other types of barriers. See [Speciation</a> - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia](<a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciation]Speciation”>Speciation - Wikipedia)</p>
<p>
Link please. Probably quite the joke of an experiment… either that, or you did a poor job in explaining it.</p>
<p>So let’s see: Mosby doesn’t know the age of the earth or what an allelle or phenotype is, and you don’t understand speciation, the definition of species, “new” genetic traits, or how bacteria reproduce. Mosby’s case is like trying to explain to a 5 year old that the light barrier can’t be broken even though Santa Claus has to do it to pass out all his presents, and you’re case is like trying to explain general relativity to someone who doesn’t know what multiplication is. Of course the latter is much more productive and quite possible - certain misinformation can be cured to an extent, while sure delusion cannot.</p>
<p>
I don’t care for the organized religion aspect of it, but it sure ain’t science.</p>
<p>Yeah I know; I was just kidding around.</p>
<p>Science wins.</p>
<p>Would this be the correct way to implement a (Christian) God Program?
class God
{
};
class TheFather : public God
{
};
class HolySpirit : protected God
{
};
class Jesus : private God, public Human
{
};
</p>
<p>
That’s the easy part. You might run into some problems creating objects.:)</p>
<p>i actually wrote about something similar in my blog. so i will link it. [url=<a href=“http://www.kahnthoughts.blogspot.com%5DThe”>http://www.kahnthoughts.blogspot.com]The</a> Journal and Creative Works of Marcus Kahn<a href=“don’t%20spam%20me%20or%20anything%20i%20trust%20you,%20cc%20people”>/url</a>
I think they serve different functions no so you can’t compare them. religion helps people who would naturally do immoral things to do good things in their own self-interest, so regardless of whether or not god exists it s a beneficial institution. to the rest of the world who have skepticism about god science provides a frame of reference for questions that woudl usually be explained by the presence of an all knowing. the morality aspect is not covered by science so i think they are incomparable</p>
<p>^ Would religious people be immoral w/o their religion? (there are quite a few immoral religious people but thats not the point.) If they would be then they’re innately immoral people. What about atheists/agnostics/non-affiliates who lead outstanding lives? Plus we already have an evolutionary understanding of morality and social cooperation. Mifune debunked the “we need religion to be moral” or “god makes us moral” argument a long time ago.</p>
<p>I do agree that you can’t equate the two b/c they aren’t the same (assuming answers vs. discovering answers).</p>
<p>What about meaning? Do you think that many people’s lives would lose a measure of personal meaning if they stopped believing in a personal God?</p>
<p>to answer adenine i would say no not necessarily. of course there are some genuinely morally upstanding religious people. but i’m not sure what your asking. if you asking do immoral religious people go to heaven and moral atheists go to hell i would niether go to either. how can the innately immoral religious person be sent to hell if they were just born that way? thats not fair. and how could they go to heaven if they did something bad? how could the atheist go to hell if the reason they were atheist is because of some book they read or parent they had? it wasn’t there fault. people are the products of situation, genetics, accident of birth etc. so even when htey make immoral choices it wasn’t really there fault they made that choice. god can’t punish them for being the way he made them. it doesn’t make sense</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>What if? The problem is that genetics don’t work that way. You can’t make a reptile grow fuz unless code for fuz exists. If the species already has code for fuz which is activated by a hormone, then we haven’t solved the problem.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The problem is that the little difference can’t “add up” over the generations. A creature either reproduces or it doesn’t. Something that grants it a +0.000001% chance of reproducing has a 0.000001% better chance of being perpetuated. To me this is not a plausible situation.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes, the system of Natural Selection does an excellent job of making sure the best existing traits for an environment are perpetuated.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes, I agree with that. Given a population of humans with a range of muscle sizes, and a harsh survival situation in which big muscles are useful, the Charles Atlas types will be more likely to have more children, and over time the overall muscle size of the population will shift towards what was originally the top of the range.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That’s ok, at least you are willing to admit that. That’s all I expect from the other side; I don’t expect them to agree with me.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Seconded. [10char]</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This, sadly, is often true. Any time something becomes a “national institution”, there is potential for abuse of power. Any time there is potential for abuse of power, sooner or later the power will be abused.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Lol, and when I first saw this thread I said “I am NOT getting involved in that.”</p>
<p>… That went well.</p>