Meiosis: The Science of Messiah.

[Dan From Smithville]

. . . In the age of immortality, the environment was the sole selector so far as death is concerned. The organisms would live forever if nothing in the environment said otherwise.

But it did. The environment selected some organisms to survive, and others . . . well . . . not so much. They died off.

So immortality lost it's luster since immortal organisms still died.

Fear not, the mind, hidden inside, enslaved and encapsulated inside, biological living matter, had everything under control. It allowed the serpent of death into the very holy of holies of the body, the womb, in a trade off with death. This trade off between living organisms, and the serpent of death, is the greatest story never told.

And trying to tell it now confirms for me why it's never been told since there has to be a target audience abel to receive it, so to say, rather than constantly and arrogantly raising Cain.



John

You have written a lot here. Unfortunately, it has nothing to do with the points I made regarding your confusion over natural and sexual selection.

 

[John D. Brey]

There is no evidence of conscious design or a designer.

. . . You almost make me believe that with the vapidness of your statements. Alas, you are one and only one. Praise the Lord.



John

 

[Dan From Smithville]

. . . Darwin is as close to a man of the cloth as atheists get. He's their savior.



John

You are waffling here. Your original statement promoted everyone that accepts the scientific theory of evolution to be Darwinist. Now it is just atheists. An inaccurate conclusion, but one that strict creationists run to for safety out of ignorance.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

. . . You almost make me believe that with the vapidness of your statements. Alas, you are one and only one. Praise the Lord.



John

Do you have anything in response here that is not a poorly veiled personal attack?

Do you have evidence for your claims? So far, you have failed to provide any. It appears that is the paradigm you are going to run with.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

. . . You almost make me believe that with the vapidness of your statements. Alas, you are one and only one. Praise the Lord.



John

Do you have evidence of conscious design and the designer? Do you? You speak of the vapidity of others, but that pales in comparison to your own. You offer nothing of a challenge here, since it is all your interpretation, empty claims and wildly inaccurate conclusions.

 

[John D. Brey]

Darwin was a scientist that proposed a theory of evolution and a mechanism. What you choose to believe beyond the scope of that or any reason, does not make it so. Many Christians accept the theory of evolution too.

. . . Darwinism has been utterly and mercilessly debunked by men like Karl Popper, and Richard Lewontin, a philosopher and a biologist. It's now a viable theory only for scientific aborigines.

Natural selection is scientific. On the other hand, Darwinism is archaic silliness and has been thoroughly refuted for all but those who still believe in the evolutionary version of the flat earth, or geocentrism.



John

 

[Dan From Smithville]

. . . Darwinism has been utterly and mercilessly debunked by men like Karl Popper, and Richard Lewontin, a philosopher and a biologist. It's now a viable theory only for scientific aborigines.

Natural selection is scientific. On the other hand, Darwinism is archaic silliness and has been thoroughly refuted for all but those who still believe in the evolutionary version of the flat earth, or geocentrism.



John

You will have to explain what Darwinism is and show us that it has been debunked. Given the record you have established so far, I expect nothing in response to support your obligation.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

. . . Are you the Bible's spokesperson?

Are you?

I'm just a guy who can read.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

. . . I apologize if I'm not worthy of your presence in the discussion. My ignorance can't be helped. Your simply too smart. . . See I even spelled "you're" wrong.

It has little to nothing to do with being "smart" and everything with engaging in reasoning error.
Even the most intelligent are perfectly capable of engaging in logical fallacies.

If anything now is the time to show you are indeed smart. Smart guys will reconsider their argument when it is pointed out to them that they use logical fallacies.

And ignorance can very much be helped btw, all it takes is some study of the subject.
Also, there's nothing shamefull about ignorance. Especially not when it concerns unknowns.

I'm ignorant about a LOT of things. So was Einstein. So was Stephen Hawking. So is every single human. Nobody contains all human knowledge about everything in their brains.


There's nothing shamefull about that. Now, being ignorant while pretending to be knowledgeable... that I would call shamefull. Being willfully ignorant a well.

 

[John D. Brey]

You will have to explain what Darwinism is and show us that it has been debunked. Given the record you have established so far, I expect nothing in response to support your obligation.

In his book, The Triple Helix, Professor Richard Lewontin explains that Darwinism is false since there is no such thing as an environment until there is an organism, and that the organism determines what elements of the external world will exist as its "environment" by choices made according to its genes:

These are simple and obvious examples of the generality that it is the biology, indeed the genes, of an organism that determines its effective environment, by establishing the way in which external physical signals become incorporated into its reactions. The common external phenomena of the physical and biotic world pass through a transforming filter created by the peculiar biology of each species, and it is the output of this transformation that reaches the organism and is relevant to it. Plato's metaphor of the cave is appropriate here. Whatever the autonomous processes of the outer world may be, they cannot be perceived by the organism. Its life is determined by the shadows on the wall, passed through a transforming medium of its own creation' (p. 64).​

Lewontin further states:

Whether or not gravitation is an effective factor in the environment of an organism depends upon the organism's size . . .bacteria living in a liquid medium are not effectively subject to gravity, which is a negligible force for objects of such small size floating in a liquid medium. But the difference in size between elephants and bacteria is coded in their genes, so, in this sense, the organisms' genes have determined whether gravitation is or is not relevant to them' (p. 65).​

Professor Lewontin goes on to say that the science that implies environments exist apart from organisms, and, or, that organisms are selected by the environment, misses what is most obvious about the interdependence and symbiotic relationship between an organism and its environment.



John

 

[Dan From Smithville]

In his book, The Triple Helix, Professor Richard Lewontin explains that Darwinism is false since there is no such thing as an environment until there is an organism, and that the organism determines what elements of the external world will exist as its "environment" by choices made according to its genes:

These are simple and obvious examples of the generality that it is the biology, indeed the genes, of an organism that determines its effective environment, by establishing the way in which external physical signals become incorporated into its reactions. The common external phenomena of the physical and biotic world pass through a transforming filter created by the peculiar biology of each species, and it is the output of this transformation that reaches the organism and is relevant to it. Plato's metaphor of the cave is appropriate here. Whatever the autonomous processes of the outer world may be, they cannot be perceived by the organism. Its life is determined by the shadows on the wall, passed through a transforming medium of its own creation' (p. 64).​

Lewontin further states:

Whether or not gravitation is an effective factor in the environment of an organism depends upon the organism's size . . .bacteria living in a liquid medium are not effectively subject to gravity, which is a negligible force for objects of such small size floating in a liquid medium. But the difference in size between elephants and bacteria is coded in their genes, so, in this sense, the organisms' genes have determined whether gravitation is or is not relevant to them' (p. 65).​

Professor Lewontin goes on to say that the science that implies environments exist apart from organisms, and, or, that organisms are selected by the environment, misses what is most obvious about the interdependence and symbiotic relationship between an organism and its environment.



John

This does not say that the environment does not exist without life. It does not state that living things create their environments out of a conscious choice. You are interpreting this to fit what you want it to.

It also does not relieve you of your duty and obligation to provide a valid argument for your claims.

 

[John D. Brey]

You have written a lot here. Unfortunately, it has nothing to do with the points I made regarding your confusion over natural and sexual selection.

Natural selection, selection related to the environment, is, for the sake of argument mindless. While sexual selection incorporates strategies and intuitions about design characteristics that might benefit survival. It's this intuitive mindful selection that will, has, led to everlasting life: a life no longer enslaved to the environment whatsoever.

The environment is mindless. But living organism want to survive. So they develop strategies to survive. The greatest organ for designing strategies is the human brain. In the human brain, mind found its soul mate.

The human brain is now designing strategies to protect the planet from meteors and dangers outside the biosphere. The human brain is planning colonies on other planets. The human brain, with its mind, is in the early stages of creating a new universe where death and want will not exist.

Hope to see you there.


John

 

[Dan From Smithville]

In his book, The Triple Helix, Professor Richard Lewontin explains that Darwinism is false since there is no such thing as an environment until there is an organism, and that the organism determines what elements of the external world will exist as its "environment" by choices made according to its genes:

These are simple and obvious examples of the generality that it is the biology, indeed the genes, of an organism that determines its effective environment, by establishing the way in which external physical signals become incorporated into its reactions. The common external phenomena of the physical and biotic world pass through a transforming filter created by the peculiar biology of each species, and it is the output of this transformation that reaches the organism and is relevant to it. Plato's metaphor of the cave is appropriate here. Whatever the autonomous processes of the outer world may be, they cannot be perceived by the organism. Its life is determined by the shadows on the wall, passed through a transforming medium of its own creation' (p. 64).​

Lewontin further states:

Whether or not gravitation is an effective factor in the environment of an organism depends upon the organism's size . . .bacteria living in a liquid medium are not effectively subject to gravity, which is a negligible force for objects of such small size floating in a liquid medium. But the difference in size between elephants and bacteria is coded in their genes, so, in this sense, the organisms' genes have determined whether gravitation is or is not relevant to them' (p. 65).​

Professor Lewontin goes on to say that the science that implies environments exist apart from organisms, and, or, that organisms are selected by the environment, misses what is most obvious about the interdependence and symbiotic relationship between an organism and its environment.



John

You did not even try to answer my questions. It appears that all you can do is dodge and make sarcastic comments.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Natural selection, selection related to the environment, is, for the sake of argument mindless. While sexual selection incorporates strategies and intuitions about design characteristics that might benefit survival. It's this intuitive mindful selection that will, has, led to everlasting life: a life no longer enslaved to the environment whatsoever.

The environment is mindless. But living organism want to survive. So they develop strategies to survive. The greatest organ for designing strategies is the human brain. In the human brain, mind found it's soul mate.

The human brain is now designing strategies to protect the planet from meteors and dangers outside the biosphere. The human brain is planing colonies on other planets. The human brain, with its mind, is in the early stages of creating a new universe where death and want will not exist.

Hope to see you there.


John

So you are creating a philosophy based on your own half-understood thoughts on biology. I was hoping this might be a grounded discussion. Anyway, good luck with all that. Write when you have evidence.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Natural selection, selection related to the environment, is, for the sake of argument mindless. While sexual selection incorporates strategies and intuitions about design characteristics that might benefit survival. It's this intuitive mindful selection that will, has, led to everlasting life: a life no longer enslaved to the environment whatsoever.

The environment is mindless. But living organism want to survive. So they develop strategies to survive. The greatest organ for designing strategies is the human brain. In the human brain, mind found its soul mate.

The human brain is now designing strategies to protect the planet from meteors and dangers outside the biosphere. The human brain is planing colonies on other planets. The human brain, with its mind, is in the early stages of creating a new universe where death and want will not exist.

Hope to see you there.


John

You are equating intelligent choice as the driving force behind the evolution of all organisms where there is no evidence to show such intelligence and choosing exists. It sounds like you already have your philosophy and are just revising reality to fit it. Where have I seen that before?

 

[John D. Brey]

An amazing amount of nothing in your response. How unexpected.

Darwin was a scientist that proposed a theory of evolution and a mechanism. What you choose to believe beyond the scope of that or any reason, does not make it so. Many Christians accept the theory of evolution too.

. . . I accept the theory and science of evolution. And yes, Darwin did a great service to science; was a great scientist. But believe it or not, so were many of the alchemists who were some of the first to start designing experiments and performing chemistry studies.

Darwin is, to a modern understanding of evolution, as the alchemists are to modern chemistry; beloved fore-bearers if you can bear the temptation to laugh at their errors.



John

 

[John D. Brey]

Do you have evidence of conscious design and the designer? Do you? You speak of the vapidity of others, but that pales in comparison to your own. You offer nothing of a challenge here, since it is all your interpretation, empty claims and wildly inaccurate conclusions.

. . . You say that presumably with a straight face? You ask a conscious agent possessing the most complex design artifact in the history of the universe, a human brain, if he has evidence of design, or a designer. . . Where can we possibly go with this?


John

 

[Dan From Smithville]

. . . I accept the theory and science of evolution. And yes, Darwin did a great service to science; was a great scientist. But believe it or not, so were many of the alchemists who were some of the first to start designing experiments and performing chemistry studies.

Darwin is, to a modern understanding of evolution, as the alchemists are to modern chemistry; beloved fore-bearers if you can bear the temptation to laugh at their errors.



John

I have a hard time believing you considering that you are attacking outdated concepts and making sweeping claims without basis.

You are not claiming that alchemy is the current paradigm of chemistry as you are trying to do with the original theory posited by Darwin over 150 years ago. Your own words highlight you hypocrisy here.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

. . . You say that presumably with a straight face? You ask a conscious agent possessing the most complex design artifact in the history of the universe, a human brain, if he has evidence of design, or a designer. . . Where can we possibly go with this?


John

All you have are the same old chestnuts. Man is intelligent, therefore an unobserved intelligence must exist. You just work hard to word them differently in an effort to sneak them passed vigilant eyes.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

. . . You say that presumably with a straight face? You ask a conscious agent possessing the most complex design artifact in the history of the universe, a human brain, if he has evidence of design, or a designer. . . Where can we possibly go with this?


John

Like I said, write when you have evidence.