What if the Theory of Evolution is Right? (Part I)

Your lack of knowledge of the quantitive theory of evolution is your failing and is not something you can use to draw any conclusions. It is however, a good reason why you yourself would not draw the right conclusions.

Sticking my neck out, I'll say that The Selfish Gene is a pretty reliable description of the real world (where hypotheses are stated, I think they are generally clearly identified as such) and explains a great deal about it.

But if you want to discuss it, stick to the science, and try to remember there is no "SHOULD" in science.

hapless, I am very disappointed in you. First off, you want to insult non-theists with this "feativus" insult (btw...it is "festivus".

Don't you know the origin of Christmas? Here, try this:

http://www.simpletoremember.com/vitals/Christmas_TheRealStory.htm

Don't you know that Biblical scholars don't know the birth year of Jesus? They give an approximation of sometime +/- 3 years. Or the month and date? (There would be no shepherds in the field in late December). Here, try this:

http://www.ucg.org/bible-faq/when-was-jesus-christ-born-was-jesus-born-december-25-christmas-day

The Christmas holiday is preceded by Christianty. It is both a religious and a secular holiday.

I have studied both western and eastern religion at a universtity. Believe it or not, from a Jesuit university.

With these thoughts in mind, I wish you a very Merry Christmas.

No thanks. Christianity has been kicked around plenty these days. We're going to be focused on your beliefs for awhile. 

I would invite all theists out there, including lurkers, to go to iBook and download Dawkin's The Selfish Gene - Thirtieth Anniversary Edition (only $12.95 USD, probably cheaper at Kindle) and let's read this together. 

PW is reading it now, too. We can all discuss it together, like one big happy family, the brotherhood of man. Imagine all the people...

I know, everytime the temperature goes up Elroch will play the stochastics card, and that stuff is just too complex to bone up on at Wikipedia (even though I'm seperated from someone by two degrees who has a PhD in stochastics and would probably be thrilled to call elroch's bluff).

It will be evened out by the fact that everytime he speaks about metaphysics or something historical he's just blowing smoke and probably knows it. 

Or maybe he doesn't. Unlike atheists, I can't read people's minds and I'm prone to error. 

So, what do you guys think? Einstein99, Ghostess? Shall we become educated?

It's an almost trivial principle when you describe systems in which the distribution of information changes over time in a stochastic manner, that fragments of information that are more inclined to be replicated become common and those that are less inclined to be replicated remain rare. When you add mechanisms by which these fragments of information can be randomly modified (mutation) you have the essentials of the Theory of Evolution as applied to genes.

It's worth pointing out that the most important aspect of the environment of a gene is the organism in which it resides. Replication of this organism is generally the only means it has to replicate.

Also, hapless...

You strike me as one not unlike Paul with your fervid, rapacious comments such as: "Why it is that atheists cannot back down on anything and why they defend their dogma with such ferocity is a profound psycholologic question. On this I don't care to speculate."

You slander Darwin and Dawkins yet you can't be bothered to read their books. What is wrong with you, dude?

I have read all of the major western religous handbooks...Bible, Quran, Book of Mormon (as well as some of the eastern religious works, such as The Tibetan Book of the Dead, Buddhism...even a bit of Bhagavad-gita. 

I could talk for hours about the fallacies of all these books because I have actually done some homework on the subjects. Yet you...one who hasn't even read your Bible from cover-to-cover, one who refuses to read Darwin or Dawkins, one who has his fingers in his ears and toots "You can't make me read any of these books!" have the gall to eviscerate all knowledge except your rigid, pious dogamtic belief in things which you know nothing except miasma?

Shame...shame...you are, indeed, hapless.

Striking a nerve, am I? Criticizing Dawkins is now lese majeste, is it?

Oh, I have read the Bible cover to cover, and the NT several times cover to cover, and have studied (albiet in homeletic fashion) the Old Testament prophets extensively. 

But we're going to focus in on what you believe for a while. Would that be OK?

hapless: "So, what do you guys think? Einstein99, Ghostess? Shall we become educated?"

That would be a good start, my friend. But I fear that knowledge is the enemy of religious dogma. I wish it were otherwise. I sincerely do.

I just looked at hot topics and this was at the top. 

hapless: "But we're going to focus in on what you believe for a while. Would that be OK?"

Muy bien!

Do I believe you've read the Bible from cover-to-cover? No. Why? Because you would be the one out of a 100 million of your faith-system to have done so. And, you've exemplified a lack of wanting unbiased knowledge. Frankly, lad, you are like my sister who said: "Oh...I don't want to even think about questioning my faith!"

But...I condone such stiff-necked intolerance toward facts and knowledge. I expect that from the 95% of the "holier-than-thou" population. What I don't care for is proseletyzing and intolerance for other beliefs, other faiths, non-faith and that probing-for-real facts known as "science"...which has brought you and me out of the dark ages.

btw...I am an old guy. I was going blind from cataracts. An eye surgeon gave me new eye lenses. Now I can see! If I was waiting for religion to assist, I'd not even be able to read your paltry scribblings. (Hows's that for an insult? lol) 

Yeah, but you came back. What does that say about you?

READ MY PEER-REVIEWED PAPERS (certainly not mine, but you get the reference).

• Similarity of autosomal DNA (allowing only for duplicated genes in the mapping):  98.7%.
• Average human protein has about 2 SNPs (different amino acids) to the corresponding chimpanzee protein (out of an average of about 450 amino acids).
• 30% of human proteins are identical (all amino acids) to the corresponding chimpanzee protein. That's hundreds of amino acids in the same order in every case.

[And every respectable scientist you refer to would point out the falsity of your conclusions]

Ha! Old fudged, biased, manipulated information to fool the masses. The experts including Preuus, the greatest primate evolutionist of them all, don't use that malarkey anymore, but if you want to remain ignorant Elroch have at it!😃

hapless...an afterthought.

I am pleased as punch that you are going to read Dawkin's "The Selfish Gene". May I also heartily recommend that you also read Darwin's "On the Origin of Species"?

That would be swell! Then you could bash both books to smitherines, and I would even join in if you can pose a valid critique.

btw...I am not an atheist or an agnostic. Call me a freethinking- existentialist. Thank you very much. 

You look foolish: it is state of the art, and was published in Nature in 2012.

If you want the most recent research relating specifically to MSY in hominids, which is entirely consistent with their common origin (in truth, real scientists in the 21st century would consider it absurd to question this), here it is. This is presumably the sort of thing creationists are bastardising.

Evaluating the Relationship between Spermatogenic Silencing of the X Chromosome and Evolution of the Y Chromosome in Chimpanzee and Human

Yah, and nature had it all wrong in 2005 Elroch, especially the MSY human/chimp comparison!

From 98% to 43% shows their complete ineptitude!😃

Except that statistic is meaningless.

If you think it is meaningful, direct us to the peer-reviewed research that supports it. If you can't, you are exposed as a fraud.

You're the fraud Elroxh!😛

We are all still waiting for you to provide a reference for that claim.

More relevant to this discussion, looking at recent peer-reviewed papers relating to MSY, while I can't say I understand every detail, what I can understand is that there isn't a hint of doubt in the consistency of the data and the  Theory of Evolution.

I'm just wondering what it means when all the experts on a subject are in firm agreement with each other on a well-tested proposition ... ?

You just got superior reviewed Elroch!😉

Your modus operandi is to insinuate that there is support for your falsehoods without ever saying what that support actually is, brandishing the names of scientists at least some of whom are respectable, but whose work contradicts your claims in every respect and who would not agree with a single thing you say.

This is why you were wise to drop out rather than attempt to do a job for which your personality disqualified you from: honesty, integrity and openness are essential to a scientist, as well as respect for your peers and predecessors and their work where that is due (which is often).