Joe Rogan isnt sold on the Bing Bang theory finds Jesus resurrection more plausible

[Voodoo_Child906]

Yes, I’ve heard the story of how, what I wanna know is why? Why just one species of primate, and nothing else even remotely close?

Because our species, was the only species that went through the specific environmental pressure and mutations in our genome to develop higher brain functions. And to add, higher brain function was never a goal of evolution as evolution has no specific goals. It's a biproduct of traits that happened to be advantageous in our specific evolutionary context.

 

[Koro_11]

Because our species, was the only species that went through the specific environmental pressure and mutations in our genome to develop higher brain functions. And to add, higher brain function was never a goal of evolution as evolution has no specific goals. It's a biproduct of traits that happened to be advantageous in our specific evolutionary context.

Maybe.

 

[Voodoo_Child906]

I like your response, but the focus on extreme short-termism in the context of mutation and evolution feels out-of-synch to me.

I mean, yeah, billions of mutations have probably died out, but the cause of those mutations doesn't necessarily point to 'random' just because we can't see the potential benefit or even if they were actively detrimental.

Life is extremely prone to mutation, yet evolution is unlikely to take hold within a large population for a long period of time.

I don't honestly know how mutation could be provably random given how little we know about contextual/environmental influences. If mutation really was that random, I think we'd all be far more different from each other than we are now.

We've seen mutations occur in bacteria before any selective pressure. We've also added selective pressure and witnessed random mutations instead of mutations reacting to the pressure.

 

[Andy Capp]

I like your response, but the focus on extreme short-termism in the context of mutation and evolution feels out-of-synch to me.

I mean, yeah, billions of mutations have probably died out, but the cause of those mutations doesn't necessarily point to 'random' just because we can't see the potential benefit or even if they were actively detrimental.

Life is extremely prone to mutation, yet evolution is unlikely to take hold within a large population for a long period of time.

I don't honestly know how mutation could be provably random given how little we know about contextual/environmental influences. If mutation really was that random, I think we'd all be far more different from each other than we are now.

Why do you assert any sort of motivation? [Ninja edit noted] Take people with blue eyes and blond hair. Isn't it far more likely that all sorts of people tried to make a go of living in a Nordic climate but they're the only ones who did really well, rather than people got there and then developed these mutations?

"Life is extremely prone to mutation, yet evolution is unlikely to take hold within a large population for a long period of time."

I think this lacks evidentiary foundation. Please demonstrate. Ditto your last paragraph.

We're all quite different from each other now. That's extremely easy to demonstrate. It's just that only the most beneficial and the most detrimental are noticed because they have easily identifiable consequences, as I noted above. Die in infancy, write an opera at 11 years old that is good enough to be staged, and so on. The multitude of lesser differences just carry on unremarked upon because everyone has them.

Because we have developed control over our environment, insulation, AC, sunglasses, and so on, traits like blue eyes or blond hair only have relevance to one's chances of reproducing aside from what any individual deems to be more or less physically attractive. And make no mistake, Darwinism/evolution is entirely about whether you are more likely or less likely to get to reproduce and what contributes to that and what doesn't. Again, entirely random. Why don't all men look like Pierce Brosnan or Ryan Reynolds after 2 million years of evolution?

Being left-handed is often an advantage in combat and sports, right? But if almost everyone were left-handed it would cease to be an advantage and it would swing in favour of right-handers, wouldn't it? According to your logic there should be at least equal numbers of both by now.

 

[Andy Capp]

Because our species, was the only species that went through the specific environmental pressure and mutations in our genome to develop higher brain functions. And to add, higher brain function was never a goal of evolution as evolution has no specific goals. It's a biproduct of traits that happened to be advantageous in our specific evolutionary context.

Spot on.

 

[Hellowhosthat]

Your point of view is that British radio stations should play the music of a guy rapping about a murder he just committed because they also play Led Zeppelin whose guitarist fucked some underage girl back in the 70's, and no I won't come around to your point of view because I think it was idiotic then and it's idiotic now.

The second part wasn't a joke, it was a pathetic and intentional attempt at mischaracterization of my argument and it does a disservice to your own credibility. You can go that route if you like, but don't expect to be taken seriously next time you pretend to be engaging in a serious discussion.

That was not my point of view dude. I think you probably know that though.

 

[Bob Gray]

A pinhead? You are closer in size to the entire observable universe than a pinhead is to the singularity.

WTF are you talking about? The singularity concept is a point of infinite density. Theres no actual agreed upon size but some of the theories do have it as a sub atomic particle.

This is, again, one of the problems when lay-men think they're authorities on topics they cant actually comprehend. Im not saying I do comprehend it, but there are so many different theories about so many different things and you act like theres just one, a single one, agreed upon by most or all scientists, and thats no accurate at all, especially when we get into more abstract concepts in stuff like cosmology.

It's like string theory. How many dimensions are there? Depends on who you ask. It might be 4, or 11, or 27. All depends on how much of the dimensional overflow is stored in calibi-yau manifolds, the immeasurable, unobservable, and also we-dont-know if they-actually-exist particles that exist on every point of space time to actually contain the dimensional overflow that makes M theory have infinite answers instead of one.

Did that make any sense? Fuck no, but this is the level of inferential trails that we get when we start dealing with science of stuff like this. Lay people like us tend to think theres some hard, concrete science behind many of these things. There is and there isnt. There can be lots of mathematical equations, but that doesnt mean all variables are accounted for. The ptolemy model worked for hundredss of years. It made the planets and the sun predictable, but it was wrong. It assumed the Earth was the cetner of the universe but it wasnt. But, it was still pretty accurate as a predictive model because all the equations adjusted for what they thought was the truth, the Earth being the center of the universe, and they aligned it with what they could observe.

 

[Cajun]

Maybe.

I thoroughly enjoyed your back and forth. Well done

 

[Koro_11]

I thoroughly enjoyed your back and forth. Well done

Thank you bro, I'll be honest at the end I just got a bit fatigued from going back n' forth with people who were only in it to win an argument, but I think it did expose just how flimsy their arguments were.

In the end you can take a horse to water, but you can't make him drink it.

 

[Cajun]

Thank you bro, I'll be honest at the end I just got a bit fatigued from going back n' forth with people who were only in it to win an argument, but I think it did expose just how flimsy their arguments were.

In the end you can take a horse to water, but you can't make him drink it.

No I agree with that approach. There are many times where I just tell the poster let's agree to disagree because we're not getting anywhere and just repeating previous points. And there's some in here that just will never stop responding. But I agree after you said everything that you have to say you might as well just walk away. But you gave no insults that I saw... stayed on the points without passion. Excellent

 

[Voodoo_Child906]

Thank you bro, I'll be honest at the end I just got a bit fatigued from going back n' forth with people who were only in it to win an argument, but I think it did expose just how flimsy their arguments were.

In the end you can take a horse to water, but you can't make him drink it.

In Science, the question of "Why" is really the question of "How". I think you're looking for a deeper philosophical "Why did this all happen", which science is just not designed to answer.

 

[Koro_11]

In Science, the question of "Why" is really the question of "How". I think you're looking for a deeper philosophical "Why did this all happen", which science is just not designed to answer.

Sure I understand that, and I've already acknowledged in many of my replies that science is useful for answering many questions... but at the end of the day science is clueless as to how we got here and how it all began.

This is why it bothers me when people assume that the atheist position is somehow "more scientific", it's just such a smug take. I have no problem with people taking the agnostic position because that's a completely honest answer, but atheism is just another form of religion, they believe with great ferver that there is no creator or purpose, to the point that they'll ridicule people who do believe and throw out smug comments like "magical man in the sky sitting on a cloud", "believing in miracles" etc... completely blind to the hypocrisy of such comments when your consider the alternative.

At the end of the day if we are being honest, none of us "know" with certainty one way or the other. To me personally the idea of everything from nothing for no reason at all is the least logical scenario, and I choose to live my life as if there is a greater purpose because I believe it brings out the best in me, but if someone can get to the same place without believing in anything then that's fine too.

 

[Voodoo_Child906]

Sure I understand that, and I've already acknowledged in many of my replies that science is useful for answering many questions... but at the end of the day science is clueless as to how we got here and how it all began.

This is why it bothers me when people assume that the atheist position is somehow "more scientific", it's just such a smug take. I have no problem with people taking the agnostic position because that's a completely honest answer, but atheism is just another form of religion, they believe with great ferver that there is no creator or purpose, to the point that they'll ridicule people who do believe and throw out smug comments like "magical man in the sky sitting on a cloud", "believing in miracles" etc... completely blind to the hypocrisy of such comments when your consider the alternative.

At the end of the day if we are being honest, none of us "know" with certainty one way or the other. To me personally the idea of everything from nothing for no reason at all is the least logical scenario, and I choose to live my life as if there is a greater purpose because I believe it brings out the best in me, but if someone can get to the same place without believing in anything then that's fine too.

Atheism like theism is a spectrum, just like in political ideologies, once you move further from the center, the more rigid and narrow your worldview becomes. Atheism (Strong/Explicit) can be considered a belief system if it states that only the natural can exist, if a person just espouses a lack of belief in the supernatural then they are considered Weak/Implicit Atheists.

As far as "more scientific", I'd have to say that Naturalists should be "more scientific" as science and the natural world are all that they believe in. As far as how we got here, there's 2 parts:

1) Life on earth - We have strong evidence for evolution from the earliest known life forms to the present, but we do not have a complete, unbroken chain of evidence all the way back to the first form of life on Earth.

If you're talking about Abiogenesis, then yes it's still in the hypothesis phase and there are several plausible pathways for abiogenesis (e.g., RNA world, metabolism-first, lipid world), but no consensus on which is correct or most likely. The abiogenesis event(s) are proposed to be billions of years ago, and we still are gathering more data, and even though it's extremely difficult it's still possible/probable that we eventually fill in the gaps.

2) How the universe began - with the CMB we can observe the oldest light that dates back a few hundred thousand years after the big bang event. Theoretically we can go back to just after the Planck time by examining the CMB and its dispersion patterns.

If you're talking about the moment of or "before" the big bang then we just don't have any data (and may never get any) and we can only theorize with mathematical models like String Theory and LQG.

So, yes there are things that we may never have any data for and truly understand, but I think that the processes that Naturalism uses are "more scientific" compared to Super-Naturalism (Theism).

 

[Andy Capp]

In Science, the question of "Why" is really the question of "How". I think you're looking for a deeper philosophical "Why did this all happen", which science is just not designed to answer.

I already said that. Several times. They just ignore it. Every time.

 

[Natural Order]

I'm really surprised that you never heard of this before. It's mostly random mutations that drive evolution. The thing is, in a large enough population there may be just enough individuals who acquire just the right mutation to survive changes in habitat or environment or the microbiome (e.g. viruses and bacteria) and their progeny presumably carry the same mutation and multiply to fill the niche formerly occupied by individuals who are not so lucky.

The way you put this post it's like you believe there's some intention, some deliberate action a species takes to allow it to survive. It just isn't so. Some get lucky and some don't. That's why you get people with fatal heart defects, savants like Mozart, and infectious diseases that kill their hosts so quickly they have no chance to spread so they die out on their own.

Imagine thinking all of the diversity you see on this planet is micro evolutionary mutations (imagine how
many beneficial mutations that would require lol) from single celled organisms.

 

[Andy Capp]

No I agree with that approach. There are many times where I just tell the poster let's agree to disagree because we're not getting anywhere and just repeating previous points. And there's some in here that just will never stop responding. But I agree after you said everything that you have to say you might as well just walk away. But you gave no insults that I saw... stayed on the points without passion. Excellent

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on that.

 

[Andy Capp]

Imagine thinking all of the diversity you see on this planet is micro evolutionary mutations (imagine how
many beneficial mutations that would require lol) from single celled organisms.

Edit: it's hard to tell if you're just awestruck or if you think the idea is bullshit, (I'm thinking the former) but just for the sake of argument, I presumed the latter in my response below.

Consider the short lifespan and sheer number of them. Every time they multiply in their billions upon billions it only take one here and there in each generation to make (literally) all the difference in the world.

Look at how many variations of COVID-19 were identified over the course of the pandemic; and that was only over three or four years. Now, consider that same process only over billions of years. It's amazing, but not even the slightest bit implausible.

It's called Evolution by Natural Selection for that very reason. Notice that the harmful mutations get weeded out quickly while beneficial ones persist. So yeah, it takes many beneficial mutations to get where we are after 4.5 billion years, but they have many billions of times more opportunities than that to occur.

 

[Natural Order]

Consider the short lifespan and sheer number of them. Every time they multiply in their billions upon billions it only take one here and there in each generation to make (literally) all the difference in the world.

Look at how many variations of COVID-19 were identified over the course of the pandemic; and that was only over three or four years. Now, consider that same process only over billions of years. It's amazing, but not even the slightest bit implausible.

It's called Evolution by Natural Selection for that very reason. Notice that the harmful mutations get weeded out quickly while beneficial ones persist. So yeah, it takes many beneficial mutations to get where we are after 4.5 billion years, but they have many billions of times more opportunities than that to occur.

Comparing microscopic evolution to blue whales. Understood.

 

[Cajun]

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on that.

Hahaha. My man gif

 

[CyberRubberDuck]

You think I would waste my time typing a bunch of explanations for a goofball like you? I only have conversations with people that are smart enough to understand them. Does that make you feel better to call people names like an 8 year old? Time to block you kid, one day you will grow into a man and we can have a conversation. Bye now.

Yep, I knew the reply would be along these lines. Says something retarded then refuses to try and back it up.
Lol, crybaby.