Being A Christian

[Dibbles old paperboy]

Giving birth to a child ALWAYS has a potential health implication for the mother and the child.

It is physically the most stressful and demanding thing a human can be put through excluding violence.

IMO the unborn childs rights are trumped by those of the mother because IMO it doesn't exist as a human being yet at the stage we are talking about (20 weeks or so).

The rights of the father are trumped by those of the mother because the emotional and physical trauma and the risk to the health of giving birth far outweigh the impact on the father.

Any statistics which show abortion as the 3rd highest cause of death in Scotland are IMO irrelevant.

The only thing worse than abortion is forcing women to give birth who don't want the baby whether that is for health reasons or because of rape or simply because of choice. That would be disastrous in terms of the life chances of that baby.

Again all of those are my personal opinions and I'm happy to be convinced of other arguments.

That was a good set of questions.

Shame about the last sentence which was as childish as it was idiotic.

So your view on euthanasia is...

[BuddieinEK]

So your view on euthanasia is...

No different from the youth in Europe or the youth in Africa!

[pozbaird]

No different from the youth in Europe or the youth in Africa!

FFS you're on fire big man.

[pozbaird]

Here's the very thing for Alan & Dave. No need for them to go anywhere else to get hitched....

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-36062126

[Tommy]

f**k all religion, I will just stick to being a saint

[insaintee]

Only those with a modicum of proof underlying them.

Anything else being "taught" should be prefaced with a MASSIVE health warning about the lack of any form of validity as yet.

That last bit should be rammed home.

IMO children should be taught to be very sceptical of "truth" and be very cynical about those proclaiming to be in possession of it.

That goes for science as well as fairy stories about burning bushes and people with beards parting seas.

DOB does actually have a point, I think in text books it's possible and desirable to present a straight forward simplified version of the theory of evolution. But that theory has and still is developing. The biggest advances were not really Darwin codifying what a great number of scientists where thinking (Wallace etc) but the discovery of Mendellian laws of inheritance (who falsified his results by the way), and Watson Cricks model of DNA. Even in the thirties and beyond Lamarkism was taught at some universities and papers would be published in support of the theory. Don't get me started on De Vris. We still do not have comprehensive models of mutation (other than very simple single gene . single chromosome models ) that would explain the evolution of for example eyes. Nor of selection processes that would allow such an assembly of gene mutations to accumulate.

I should point out I'm not suggesting that the theory of evolution is wrong far from it, I'm suggesting there is a lot of discovery still to happen there.

Edited April 16, 2016 by insaintee

[insaintee]

There are no "selection processes" as such. If a mutation is beneficial, e.g. allows the animal to better find food or avoid danger, then it is more likely to survive than the general population of that animal and pass on the mutation when it breeds. It doesn't guarantee that the animal will survive or breed or even pass on the mutation, it just gives it a better chance. There will be lots of beneficial mutations that haven't been passed on for one reason or other.

Just because there isn't a step by step fossil record of how something evolved, e.g. the eye, doesn't mean it didn't. Soft tissue like the eye tends not to survive long enough to be fossilised. The argument about the eye is a favourite of IDers but the argument doesn't hold water.

Reading between the lines, it looks to me as if you might be an IDer - simply because you are using the eye as your example. I apologise in advance if I am wrong.

It has been proven that life can spontaneously arise from non-life, it has been proven that mutations can be passed on to offspring, etc, etc, etc ..

In other words, it has been proven that there is no requirement for a creator for life to arise and evolution to take place. Whether a creator was involved or not is a totally different argument altogether and one that can't be proved either way.

Go and read the literature. As I said I'm not suggesting the theory of evolution is wrong just that it is incomplete and has changed over time.

Try not reading between the lines and reading what's actually in the post. Your first line says it all. There is no selection process. Of course there is, have you ever read Darwin, have you ever heard of natural selection or game theory, or evolutionary surfaces. What do you think evolutionary geneticists do all day? Sit around saying "there is no god," They build evolutionary models and test them. The most famous being Darwin's hawkmoth and finches. However by and large they demonstrate that genetic and phenotipic plasticity leads it speciation (reproductive isolation) rather than the evolution of whole new features. So far we do not have a model that explains that. The best ideas currently run around polyploidy and plasmid development via viral infection.

The problem is real, so much so that there is a tentative drift by some evolutionary geneticist back to Lamarkism (admittedly by French ones), who suggest that RNA can "feed back" mutation to DNA. Did you know that the mutation rate is sperm is much higher than the mutation rate in ova! This may be one of the reason that more sperm than ova are produced as a great deal of sperm is actually non viable.

It has not been proven that life can spontaneously arise from non life, it's been proved that the building blocks of life (RNA, DNA) can be artificially synthesised in laboratory conditions. There is a circular argument that the earth once had conditions similar to those in the laboratory, because those are the conditions required for life to evolve. That may or may not be a logical assumption, You actually do science a disservice when you talk shit.

By the way the theory that DNA, RNA and bacteria came from comet dust seems to be getting more and more popular as evidence for life on other planets and water on comets make this more feasible, (and the theory of spontaneous generation on earth becomes more and more problematical),

[FTOF]

DOB does actually have a point, I think in text books it's possible and desirable to present a straight forward simplified version of the theory of evolution. But that theory has and still is developing. The biggest advances were not really Darwin codifying what a great number of scientists where thinking (Wallace etc) but the discovery of Mendellian laws of inheritance (who falsified his results by the way), and Watson Cricks model of DNA. Even in the thirties and beyond Lamarkism was taught at some universities and papers would be published in support of the theory. Don't get me started on De Vris. We still do not have comprehensive models of mutation (other than very simple single gene . single chromosome models ) that would explain the evolution of for example eyes. Nor of selection processes that would allow such an assembly of gene mutations to accumulate.

I should point out I'm not suggesting that the theory of evolution is wrong far from it, I'm suggesting there is a lot of discovery still to happen there.

The biggest advance was Darwin having the balls to stand up to the religious fanatics and scientists who thoroughly ridiculed him and bullied him, to the point of making him ill, when he had the bravery and foresight to relate human development to that of apes.

Don't kid yourself. If it wasn't for Darwin we'd most likely be living in the dark ages when it comes to the origin of life.

The rest of the evidence is just the icing on the cake.

I've read the literature on Evolution and I disagree with your assertions.

For every piece of literature that "proves" something, there is one that "disproves" it. It's up to the individual what they believe is the truth. It's called having an opinion.

For example, Mendel, who was another remarkable individual, did not falsify his results. I've read scientific journals that suggest he did and others that state that he didn't. I base my opinion on the latter.

Edited April 17, 2016 by FTOF

[Dibbles old paperboy]

The biggest advance was Darwin having the balls to stand up to the religious fanatics and scientists who thoroughly ridiculed him and bullied him, to the point of making him ill, when he had the bravery and foresight to relate human development to that of apes.

Don't kid yourself. If it wasn't for Darwin we'd most likely be living in the dark ages when it comes to the origin of life.

The rest of the evidence is just the icing on the cake.

I've read the literature on Evolution and I disagree with your assertions.

For every piece of literature that "proves" something, there is one that "disproves" it. It's up to the individual what they believe is the truth. It's called having an opinion.

For example, Mendel, who was another remarkable individual, did not falsify his results. I've read scientific journals that suggest he did and others that state that he didn't. I base my opinion on the latter.

So much for scientific evidence then if its up to the individual to believe what they like!

[oaksoft]

DOB does actually have a point, I think in text books it's possible and desirable to present a straight forward simplified version of the theory of evolution. But that theory has and still is developing. The biggest advances were not really Darwin codifying what a great number of scientists where thinking (Wallace etc) but the discovery of Mendellian laws of inheritance (who falsified his results by the way), and Watson Cricks model of DNA. Even in the thirties and beyond Lamarkism was taught at some universities and papers would be published in support of the theory. Don't get me started on De Vris. We still do not have comprehensive models of mutation (other than very simple single gene . single chromosome models ) that would explain the evolution of for example eyes. Nor of selection processes that would allow such an assembly of gene mutations to accumulate.

I should point out I'm not suggesting that the theory of evolution is wrong far from it, I'm suggesting there is a lot of discovery still to happen there.

I am not disagreeing with that last sentence.

The beauty of science is best revealed in the willingness of those engaged with it to deliberately seek to undermine its core belief system and to change their entire position when new evidence arises. You do need to be careful only to teach the currently accepted state of science at school level because otherwise you end up confusing kids but as science becomes accepted you can start introducing it at that level. Some very basic quantum mechanics ideas are now taught at high school for example.

Religion could learn a lot from this approach.

[oaksoft]

So much for scientific evidence then if its up to the individual to believe what they like!

You obviously dont understand science at all.

[FTOF]

So much for scientific evidence then if its up to the individual to believe what they like!

Read the scientific studies, then make up you're mind what you believe. There are plenty of contradictory studies out there.

For every piece of literature that "proves" something, there is one that "disproves" it. It's up to the individual what they believe is the truth. It's called having an opinion.For example, Mendel, who was another remarkable individual, did not falsify his results. I've read scientific journals that suggest he did and others that state that he didn't. I base my opinion on the latter.

Sheesh!

You'd think people would read things properly before trying to deflect from the main point.

Edited April 17, 2016 by FTOF

[insaintee]

You're off on a bit of a rant there.

I never said that life, or more specifically its "building blocks" (I agree with you on that and I should have phrased it as such), arose on earth and never came originally from somewhere else. I just said it could come from non-life. It doesn't matter, to me anyway, where it arose, just that it happened naturally.

Game theory involves logical decision making and is therefore totally irrelevant to evolution, unless you are trying to say that there was a logical mind behind it - sounds like an ID argument. When you said "evolutionary surfaces" did you actually mean "evolutionary landscapes"? I'll leave that one for the moment. Natural "selection" isn't a "process" in any way other than how I described it, though obviously my description did not include all the variables that are possible. In other words, there isn't a process due to the fact that a process would result in, at least, a general consistency in the outcomes. As I said, if a mutation was beneficial to the animal (or organism or whatever you want to call it) then it would be "more likely" to survive and possibly pass on the mutation. Detrimental mutations would have the opposite effect. Of course, these mutations are random, as in not the result of any logical decision making.

Your argument about speciation just backs up what I said.

I don't see what your mention of sperm and ova brings to the table (apart from boiled eggs ).

The theory of evolution is incomplete in the respect of not having physical proof of all of the intermediate stages. I wouldn't say it has really "changed", more that it has been refined as more evidence has been found. The basic premise is still the same.

Game theory involves logical decision making and is therefore totally irrelevant to evolution

Wrong wrong wrong. Look at the literature, Game theory is about successful strategy and explains why having genetically heterogeneous populations is more beneficial than have homogeneous populations by making group selection work at the individual level.

evolutionary surfaces - mathematical optimisation of multiple selection pressures, Simple two dimensional ones explain why we don't just get bigger and bigger as a species.

Darwin's hawkmoth model is very different from what you've described.

The question is about in what way is having the genes for a nose benifical without the genes for the neurological capacity to process the information, It's not difficult to see the problem. These leaps require multiple mutations. I've out line the current best theories, but there is to date no agreed mechanism.

And you most definitely should have said the building blocks of life.

Evolutionary theory is a fascinating subject that raises all sorts of questions.

[Dibbles old paperboy]

You obviously dont understand science at all.

Apologies for not adding a smiley face to indicate the post was a flippant and not serious comment said in jest.

How are we doing with you revealing your thoughts on euthanasia, now that you've said you are all for abortion on demand with 11,475 abortions in Scotland in 2014, when one sixth of all pregnancies in Scotland were ended with an abortion?

[insaintee]

Oh, FFS. You say that game theory is about successful strategy but say I'm wrong when I say that it involves logical decision making? Where does a strategy come from without logical decisions?

Is that not Genetic (or Evolutionary) Algorithms that you're talking about? I've never heard of evolutionary surfaces and Google isn't much help, do you have a link?

Darwin's Hawkmoth is not different to what I described. As for the nose, there is nothing in evolutionary theory that says that non-beneficial but non-disadvantageous mutations will not be passed on. Besides that, the nose isn't just used for smelling. You obviously don't understand evolution at all, I'm beginning to think that I'm wasting my time here.

Oh the Irony!

Google is the source of your knowledge. OK

[insaintee]

The biggest advance was Darwin having the balls to stand up to the religious fanatics and scientists who thoroughly ridiculed him and bullied him, to the point of making him ill, when he had the bravery and foresight to relate human development to that of apes.

Don't kid yourself. If it wasn't for Darwin we'd most likely be living in the dark ages when it comes to the origin of life.

The rest of the evidence is just the icing on the cake.

I've read the literature on Evolution and I disagree with your assertions.

For every piece of literature that "proves" something, there is one that "disproves" it. It's up to the individual what they believe is the truth. It's called having an opinion.

For example, Mendel, who was another remarkable individual, did not falsify his results. I've read scientific journals that suggest he did and others that state that he didn't. I base my opinion on the latter.

Sorry FTFO there is really no doubt Mendel's results were falsely recorded, (they were never actually reported in his lifetime). His experiments have been repeated time after time and they are never as given in his records. What you get is close approximations to the classic 1:3 ratio in part due to simple frequency statistics and partially because of gene re-assortment. This does not negate his conclusions in anyway.

[Dibbles old paperboy]

Do you have a breakdown of the reasons for the abortions?

1.4% of abortions are for genuine medical reasons where the likes of a likelihood of the child being born with Downs Syndrome were picked up. I think 66 abortions in 2014 were for a likelihood of Downs. 2 weeks ago I did a residential where 2 of the pupils had Downs Syndrome and were taking part in activities on assault courses, climbing walls, crafts, beach walks etc.

0.1% of abortions in Scotland take place to save the life of the mother or prevent grave injury to the mother. 98.5% of abortions are under Ground C: "the pregnancy has NOT exceeded its 24th week and that the continuance of the pregnancy would involve risk, greater than if the pregnancy were terminated, of injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman."

Edited April 17, 2016 by Dibbles old paperboy

[Dibbles old paperboy]

1.4% of abortions are for genuine medical reasons where the likes of a likelihood of the child being born with Downs Syndrome were picked up. I think 66 abortions in 2014 were for a likelihood of Downs. 2 weeks ago I did a residential where 2 of the pupils had Downs Syndrome and were taking part in activities on assault courses, climbing walls, crafts, beach walks etc.

0.1% of abortions in Scotland take place to save the life of the mother or prevent grave injury to the mother. 98.5% of abortions are under Ground C: "the pregnancy has NOT exceeded its 24th week and that the continuance of the pregnancy would involve risk, greater than if the pregnancy were terminated, of injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman."

Oh and since oaky spoke about the danger and trauma of childbirth, in 2014 4 deaths in Scotland were as a result of "pregnancy /childbirth and the puerperium".

[Dibbles old paperboy]

Another stat from 2014 is there were a grand total of 8 same sex marriages in the year which were not an 'upgrade' of an already existing civil partnership.

[oaksoft]

1.4% of abortions are for genuine medical reasons where the likes of a likelihood of the child being born with Downs Syndrome were picked up. I think 66 abortions in 2014 were for a likelihood of Downs. 2 weeks ago I did a residential where 2 of the pupils had Downs Syndrome and were taking part in activities on assault courses, climbing walls, crafts, beach walks etc.

0.1% of abortions in Scotland take place to save the life of the mother or prevent grave injury to the mother. 98.5% of abortions are under Ground C: "the pregnancy has NOT exceeded its 24th week and that the continuance of the pregnancy would involve risk, greater than if the pregnancy were terminated, of injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman."

I couldnt care less personally about statistics. The mothers rights trumps everyone elses including those of religious nutters obsessed with stcking their noses into the affairs of others for no good reason.

[rea]

There are no "selection processes" as such. If a mutation is beneficial, e.g. allows the animal to better find food or avoid danger, then it is more likely to survive than the general population of that animal and pass on the mutation when it breeds. It doesn't guarantee that the animal will survive or breed or even pass on the mutation, it just gives it a better chance. There will be lots of beneficial mutations that haven't been passed on for one reason or other.

Just because there isn't a step by step fossil record of how something evolved, e.g. the eye, doesn't mean it didn't. Soft tissue like the eye tends not to survive long enough to be fossilised. The argument about the eye is a favourite of IDers but the argument doesn't hold water.

Reading between the lines, it looks to me as if you might be an IDer - simply because you are using the eye as your example. I apologise in advance if I am wrong.

It has been proven that life can spontaneously arise from non-life, it has been proven that mutations can be passed on to offspring, etc, etc, etc ..

In other words, it has been proven that there is no requirement for a creator for life to arise and evolution to take place. Whether a creator was involved or not is a totally different argument altogether and one that can't be proved either way.

Could you tell me where to look for this proof please?

[rea]

You haven't read all the posts, have you?

nope...was hoping for a quick summary, been away for 3 weeks

[rea]

Well, in that case - nobody missed you.

I should have said "the building blocks of life" not "life". I have already admitted my error and been suitably chastised - which I enjoyed immensely.

"It has been proven that the building blocks of life can spontaneously arise from non-life"

so basically non life can come from non life.....no problem with that

[rea]

OK, maybe it should be stated as "It has been proven that, under the right conditions, the building blocks of life can arise from inorganic compounds". I'll remember to be more exact in the future. To be fair, I was talking to someone who made out that they knew what they were talking about, so I didn't think that I had to be too precise as I assumed that they would understand what I was getting at.

To be clear (before some of the usual dafties appear), I am in no way attempting to suggest that an elephant (or any other animal/plant/complex organic structure) can spontaneously arise from a lump of inorganic matter.

You never come across Boltzmann Brains then?

I think there are two main issues at the heart of generally accepted evolutionary theory, and i include cosmological evolution in this

1. what would appear to be the fine tuning of the universe for life and the scientific run in the direction of a impossibly provable M theory/ multiverse which because of the lack of a causal link could not be proved from this universe, thus is certainly science reaching for the faith bucket

2. the complexity problem (though Boltzmann noted above had some thoughts on this) we appear to see the universe tending to equilibrium (2nd law of thermodynamics etc) we see this everywhere, in the universe at large as it expands and cools to the cup of hot coffee on your desk that also gets cold....everywhere except in biological evolution where if you leave the "building blocks" stuff gets more complex, this has yet to be completely explained, and in an Occams Razor type way as science progresses it is starting to look at lot more like faith on a macro level so maybe faith would be the simplest solution.

N.B i think it is the point of the differentiation of species that the point 2 above has the most issue. Darwins theories point 1 to 7a all read fine to me it is 7b i think runs up against some of the above

Edited April 18, 2016 by rea

[pozbaird]

Surely life can be created from a non-life lump if an Old Firm fan is lucky enough to get his hole.

Next issue please.