If you find things you disagree with in Dawkins, these would be interesting to discuss. You need to understand that this discussion is about a branch of science and this part of it is about a popular book on biology, not a holy book.
Please feel free to respond in any colour you like and correct anything that is wrong.
[I must say I am getting a little bored of this preamble. Please do try to get to a discussion of objective facts at some time].
In chapter 1 Dawkins defines altruism from a genetic point of view. Do you really accept his definition?
If you find things you disagree with in Dawkins, these would be interesting to discuss. You need to understand that this discussion is about a branch of science and this part of it is about a popular book on biology, not a holy book.
Please feel free to respond in any colour you like and correct anything that is wrong.
[I must say I am getting a little bored of this preamble. Please do try to get to a discussion of objective facts at some time].
Agreed, but I simply don't trust you. If we run into objectionable material you will disown Dawkins, and I will have wasted my time.
What you are doing here is prejudging that scientifically minded people will act as creationists do all the time, when they generally don't. This is ridiculous.
When people's opinions are aligned with the body of established scientific knowledge, they not only agree a lot, they also don't need to change their positions very much.
Anyhow, why not just argue with what Dawkins says rather than demanding that someone agree with it all before you even get to a single objective point? If you can find someone to agree with you in disagreeing with Dawkins isn't that a great success? Or are you looking to checkmate an enemy rather than clarifying the truth?
Bear in mind that the motivation of many of us to participate in discussions is mainly to improve our own understanding. So far, you are obstructing that by wasting time without getting to any objective scientific point.
If you find things you disagree with in Dawkins, these would be interesting to discuss. You need to understand that this discussion is about a branch of science and this part of it is about a popular book on biology, not a holy book.
You are backpedaling already? Is the book worth reading, or isn't it? Just because something is popular doesn't give it license to be inaccurate.
Please feel free to respond in any colour you like and correct anything that is wrong.
[I must say I am getting a little bored of this preamble. Please do try to get to a discussion of objective facts at some time].
You claim to want an honest dialogue and by your contentiousness you do everything possilble to shut it down.
What you are saying is this.
You do not wish to discuss any point in The Selfish Gene because someone you consider an enemy (because of their religious beliefs) might agree with you and disagree with Dawkins. This would deprive you of a victory over them.
You need to learn that facts are more important than such pettiness. There is no honest reason why you would not find the idea of agreement against Dawkins very appealing (the real issue is the difficulty of achieving that).
Let me help you. I will vouch for Dawkins as a biologist (his knowledge and understanding is superior to mine in many ways), and you can consider any success in refuting his scientific writing a victory over me. Heck, I'll even throw in a trophy (seriously).
Have you read anything in the book you disagree with yet?
What you are doing here is prejudging that scientifically minded people will act as creationists do all the time, when they generally don't. This is ridiculous.
Who said anything about creationism?
When people's opinions are aligned with the body of established scientific knowledge, they not only agree a lot, they also don't need to change their positions very much.
Who said anything to the contrary?
Anyhow, why not just argue with what Dawkins says rather than demanding that someone agree with it all before you even get to a single objective point? If you can find someone to agree with you in disagreeing with Dawkins isn't that a great success? Or are you looking to checkmate an enemy rather than clarifying the truth?
I'm not demanding anything from anyone. And ALL I asked is if you had any disagreements with Dawkins. That has nothing to do with your paragraph.
Bear in mind that the motivation of many of us to participate in discussions is mainly to improve our own understanding. So far, you are obstructing that by wasting time without getting to any objective scientific point.
When I said that the first person to drag religion into this scientific discussion would be demonstrably an idiot, I honestly thought it would take two or three days for that to happen.
Once again, I was mistaken.
Elroch, why are you so frightened by this process? Why do you think you are immune from the critical eye? Why the anger? Why the mischaracterizations?
And what do you think of Dawkin's definition of altruism?
It's BS.
And what do you think of Dawkin's definition of altruism?
Firstly, I will emphasise that this is a semantic question about the definition of a word, not yet a point about objective facts, but it's a useful starting point and it's the best I have to work with.
Dawkins' definition of altruism is a specialised version of the dictionary definition, where benefit is restricted to actions that may increase the chance to produce viable offspring, as this is the sole quantitative factor evolution deals with. This was true when Darwin used the term "fitness", and it remains true with a gene-centric viewpoint.
If applied to a gene (an "altruistic gene") it would imply behaviour that helps to replicate other genes without helping to replicate that particular gene. Such behaviour is selected against, so it is not what is seen. Hence the title of the book.
It's BS.
Maybe. chapter one, contrary to my expectations, has not been painful at all. And I agreed with the definition of altruism as adopted by Dawkins, even though the others have probably already scurried to talkorigins to look for rebuttals of all criticisms.
I suspect that the meaning of altruism is fungible in the hands of a materialist, but I don't know that as a fact. I just want to see if materialists are capable of making the most basic of judgments: "Yeah, I agree with it. Don't you?"
But they sense a trap.I'm not that clever.
It's BS.
Maybe. chapter one, contrary to my expectations, has not been painful at all. And I agreed with the definition of altruism as adopted by Dawkins, even though the others have probably already scurried to talkorigins to look for rebuttals of all criticisms.
I suspect that the meaning of altruism is fungible in the hands of a materialist, but I don't know that as a fact. I just want to see if materialists are capable of making the most basic of judgments: "Yeah, I agree with it. Don't you?"
But they sense a trap.I'm not that clever.
As I pointed out, this is a point about semantics. Perhaps you have never realised that definitions of words and objective facts are entirely separate things?
I am happy to agree with the definition, so you are clearly terribly clever.
You are also projecting your own paranoia onto someone who does not share it (see post #589, paragraph 4).
I think it would be helpful to start a new thread solely dedicated to discussing "The Selfish Gene" which this thread seems to be becoming.
RE: the pre-big bang diameter of the universe. I still hold to classical cosmological principles. The universe has no center and no edge therefore no meaningful diameter. I also think time does not have a starting or end point. Our current location in the cycle of time began at the big bang and has lasted until now. It will continue for a long time and then return to another big bang. I would write about how this could occur but it is very theoretical and belongs in yet another thread.
Elroch wrote:
einstein99 wrote:
V1, Its up to the claimant to prove the case of fusion of two chromosomes.
Firstly, it's not. All that matters is that it was possible and it is consistent with the observed genomes of the primates. We live in a world where many unlikely things have happened and a far greater number of unlikely things have not happened. There would be a need for an intervention hypothesis if there was an absence of unlikely things.
As Popper pointed out, it is necessary to falsify a scientific hypothesis to reject it. While it is unfalsified and makes successful predictions its scope remains universal.
[It's worth mentioning that established scientific theories never actually get falsified, because extensive testing makes that statistically impossible. What happens is that one of two things occurs: they are shown to be an approximation to a better theory, or their scope is found to be limited to a realm including earlier testing, but not all contexts. For examples, think of Newton's law of gravitation or Maxwell's electrodynamics].
Your viewpoint is a very odd one. You can only disagree with the fact that primates are variations on a theme by concentrating on the Y-chromosome and ignoring the fact that even that is quantitatively consistent with evolution (as well as grossly misrepresenting the close relationship in almost all the autosomal DNA).
But you are now claiming that it is not that the two halves of chromosome two map to two genes in other primates that is in question, but that they could have fused by accident (an event which is known to happen in other examples). You believe that some kind of intervention was needed to fuse these two chromosomes.
This suggestion has no basis in ancient myths and is not needed by the scientific evidence. There is nothing about the merged chromosomes that is inconsistent with it having occurred by accident: don't believe me, ask the geneticists.
_____________________________________________________
It's been falsified. A transcribable gene at purported fusion site, the DDX11L2 gene . No gene syteny with the supposed chimp fused chromosomes around this transcribable gene for 640,000 bases.
No DDXIIL2 gene found on either purported fusing chromosome 2a or 2b. A fusion of telomereDNA-telomereDNA has never been observed to have happened anywhere before. No correlation of chimp 2a and 2b to chromosome 2, sorry 68% is not correlation. That's about the same correlation as all the other chromosomes.
And to top it off human chromosome 2 has human telomeres on its ends, 10,000 bases of repeating AAGTT
sequences. Chimps have 23,000 repeating bases.
But if ape 2a and 2b fused in telomere-telomere fashion like evolutionists say then how come there are human telomeres on the ends of two. There shouldn't be anything there.
Now, if I was an evolutionist, I would be quick to refute this stuff. No one has yet that I'm aware of. This can mean a few things.
1) Too lazy to do it.
2) Don't know how.
3) Maybe it will all go away if we just keep quiet.
4) Someone else already did it and it showed the same
results as DR. Tomkins, so mums the word!
5) It's our religion so we'll just believe it no matter if all
evidence showed it didn't happen, therefore just keep
repeating the same old nonsense that there's a fusion
site there! 😂
( Sort of like repeating that silly mantra, random processes make non random complex specified functional biological information, repeat that one long enough and one becomes a useful tool for the devils😈 evolutionary
minions)
And what do you think of Dawkin's definition of altruism?
Firstly, I will emphasise that this is a semantic question about the definition of a word, not yet a point about objective facts, but it's a useful starting point and it's the best I have to workd with.
He gave a clear concise definition of altruism. Words mean something, or they don't. If you argue with every damn thing that comes across this thread, I'll never get through the book, plus it makes you appear to be absurdly contentious.
Dawkins' definition of altruism is a specialised version of the dictionary definition, where benefit is restricted to actions that may increase the chance to produce viable offspring, as this is the sole quantitative factor evolution deals with. This was true when Darwin used the term "fitness", and it remains true with a gene-centric viewpoint.
Yes. I was asking about HIS definition. We are all familiar with the use and function of dictionaries.
If applied to a gene (an "altruistic gene") it would imply behaviour that helps to replicate other genes without helping to replicate that particular gene. Such behaviour is selected against, so it is not what is seen. Hence the title of the book.
99, you appear not to realise that the chromosomes that fused were those of whatever hominid had them, probably quite a long time before modern humans (I am not familiar with what is known about the time), and over 6 million years away from modern chimpanzees (since the fusing occurred after the last common ancestor of the two species).
Also, you need to learn about the mutation type called "deletion". This can (and does) occur to telomeres, and can happen to chunks of DNA deep within a chromosome.
If applied to a gene (an "altruistic gene") it would imply behaviour that helps to replicate other genes without helping to replicate that particular gene. Such behaviour is selected against, so it is not what is seen. Hence the title of the book.
No. You need to read it more carefully. He emphasises that the behaviour of genes is purely selfish (i.e. not altruistic, in the precise sense I just described) but:
"there are special circumstances in which a gene can achieve its own selfish goals best by fostering a limited form of altruism at the level of individual animals. "
This is NOT altruism at the gene level, and this is a crucial point.
Elroch wrote:
99, you appear not to realise that the chromosomes that fused were those of whatever hominid had them, probably quite a long time before modern humans (I am not familiar with what is known about the time), and over 6 million years away from modern chimpanzees (since the fusing occurred after the last common ancestor of the two species).
Also, you need to learn about the mutation type called "deletion". This can (and does) occur to telomeres, and can happen to chunks of DNA deep within a chromosome.
_________________________________________________
Telomeres with the repeating sequence AATGG do not delete to make the DDX11L2 gene. Besides, there were no telomeres found there anyway, and they don't even fuse together anyway.
Being a scientist Elroch, I really didn't think you would use my reason number five as an excuse for your religion. Are you a flat Earther too? Balls in your court. 😭
Elroch wrote:
einstein99 wrote:
V1, Its up to the claimant to prove the case of fusion of two chromosomes.
Firstly, it's not. All that matters is that it was possible and it is consistent with the observed genomes of the primates. We live in a world where many unlikely things have happened and a far greater number of unlikely things have not happened. There would be a need for an intervention hypothesis if there was an absence of unlikely things.
As Popper pointed out, it is necessary to falsify a scientific hypothesis to reject it. While it is unfalsified and makes successful predictions its scope remains universal.
[It's worth mentioning that established scientific theories never actually get falsified, because extensive testing makes that statistically impossible. What happens is that one of two things occurs: they are shown to be an approximation to a better theory, or their scope is found to be limited to a realm including earlier testing, but not all contexts. For examples, think of Newton's law of gravitation or Maxwell's electrodynamics].
Your viewpoint is a very odd one. You can only disagree with the fact that primates are variations on a theme by concentrating on the Y-chromosome and ignoring the fact that even that is quantitatively consistent with evolution (as well as grossly misrepresenting the close relationship in almost all the autosomal DNA).
But you are now claiming that it is not that the two halves of chromosome two map to two genes in other primates that is in question, but that they could have fused by accident (an event which is known to happen in other examples). You believe that some kind of intervention was needed to fuse these two chromosomes.
This suggestion has no basis in ancient myths and is not needed by the scientific evidence. There is nothing about the merged chromosomes that is inconsistent with it having occurred by accident: don't believe me, ask the geneticists.
_____________________________________________________
It's been falsified. A transcribable gene at purported fusion site, the DDX11L2 gene . No gene syteny with the supposed chimp fused chromosomes around this transcribable gene for 640,000 bases.
No DDXIIL2 gene found on either purported fusing chromosome 2a or 2b. A fusion of telomereDNA-telomereDNA has never been observed to have happened anywhere before. No correlation of chimp 2a and 2b to chromosome 2, sorry 68% is not correlation. That's about the same correlation as all the other chromosomes.
And to top it off human chromosome 2 has human telomeres on its ends, 10,000 bases of repeating AAGTT
sequences. Chimps have 23,000 repeating bases.
But if ape 2a and 2b fused in telomere-telomere fashion like evolutionists say then how come there are human telomeres on the ends of two. There shouldn't be anything there.
Now, if I was an evolutionist, I would be quick to refute this stuff. No one has yet that I'm aware of. This can mean a few things.
1) Too lazy to do it.
2) Don't know how.
3) Maybe it will all go away if we just keep quiet.
4) Someone else already did it and it showed the same
results as DR. Tomkins, so mums the word!
5) It's our religion so we'll just believe it no matter if all
evidence showed it didn't happen, therefore just keep
repeating the same old nonsense that there's a fusion
site there! 😂
( Sort of like repeating that silly mantra, random processes make non random complex specified functional biological information, repeat that one long enough and one becomes a useful tool for the devils😈 evolutionary
minions)
Another thing that is striking fear and trembling into the hearts of committed materialists is that some very bright Christians are getting doctorates in prestigious secular institutions in evolutionary biology. I heard McLatchy give a very esoteric discussion about how much time, assuming that EVERYTHING taught in evolutionary biology is true, it would take for a whale to evolve from a land animal. Using their own models, it's not likely to have happened within the time frame available.
My own opinion: the creationists need to be quiet for awhile and people need to learn evolutionary dogma. If it holds up to reason, then so be it. If it doesn't, then have an honest debate about it.
What I find interesting is how unsettling this process has been to PW and Elroch. Their responses really were not what I was expecting. I thought they would enjoy my foray into Dawkinsland. Who knows, maybe I'll become a believer. He's a bright enough fellow.
Instead it just seems to enrage them. I sure don't understand it.
I really wouldn't know about the bible. As you pointed out, and well-backed by scientific research, Christians don't bother to read it. We'll all just liars. And we insult people to boot 😃
How true. We finally agree on something. But I think you are being unkind: "We'll (sic) all just liars."
Some are, especially priests, bishops, cardinals, ministers, popes. But the great majority are simply ignorant, superstitious, hypocritical, easily fleeced of their money...that's why they are referred to as "sheep". You strike me as a sheep. e99 is more in the first category.
Anyway, enjoy the book. I never meant to say that the book is a "hard read". It is a book written for the layman. It is a rather "easy read". The hard part (at least for me) is digesting the technical aspects of microbiology.
Part of the reason is that I don't have the time or inclination to make microbiology a major undertaking in the short span of years that I have left. Chess already chews up a goodly chunk of my time. lol
Anyway, old sport, I am very pleased that you are taking off your blinders and digging into some science for, apparently, the first time in your sordid life (hey...I couldn't resist...just joking, of course). 
Elroch, when I ask if you have any major objections to Dawkins science, it means this: "do you have any objections to Dawkin's science?"
Leave inferences to people who are more adept at it.