Join TSR now to have your say on this topicSign up now

When will the religious people realize there is NO afterlife ?

    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Robby2312)
    Yes hypothesis's are part of science.But those hypothesis which aren't backed up by evidence are discarded.That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence..
    I can certainly agree with that. However that appears to be a red-herring since metaphysics doesn't deny the importance of empiricism in some areas.

    The difference between the metaphysicist and the physicist is that the physicist has a laboratory.
    As a physics student myself, I can assure you we don't always have access to a laboratory :lol:

    The question is most definitely in the realm of science since the dualist is claiming an immaterial substance which has an impact on the physical world.If you cant prove or disprove the claim by science then how else are you going to do it?
    In the realm of science, we don't speak in terms of proof. But no, by definition the immaterial world is outside the reach of physical science so there's nothing within the confines of science that can "disprove" dualism, even in principle.

    And if science doesnt work and its simply a question of metaphyics then using the same logic you could claim anything exists.An immaterial substance separate from the brain.Why not? A unicorn which flys around on a magic carpet?Sure.A teapot revolving around the intergalactic core?No evidence against it.You can't just say stuff exists without evidence.Otherwise anything you can imagine can exist.There has to be a limit somewhere.
    Look, I'm on your side with regards to the question of mind-body duality, but unlike "unicornists", dualists actually present some sort of logical arguments (see the works of David Chalmers, a naturalist/atheist who isn't convinced by physicalism) for their positions. It's one thing to disagree with them as we rightly should, but to dismiss their arguments with a wave of arrogant scientism reflects ignorance with regards to the subject manner. There's a huge body of literature on the subject; I doubt you can say the same for unicorns or teapots.

    I'd recommend the following SEP article for a good, neutral introduction: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/dualism/#MinBodHisDua
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ThatOldGuy)
    Please quote where I'm misinterpreting. Because it actually sounds like you are. Here, let me point out where you're misinterpreting the study that I provided:

    You said this:



    While the study claims this:



    Or perhaps I'm misinterpreting that, so I'll give another quote:



    Or perhaps:




    So it actually seems like you are the one with an agenda. I have stated that the evidence is sparse, but it's not non-existent. You have then proceeded to come up with all sorts of explanations for why it might have occurred, but that's nothing more than the cries of the Geocentric crowd insisting that evidence to the contrary of Geocentrism is clearly incorrect because it doesn't match with what they've seen before.

    You are the ones making claims the study - And the team that did the study - Are not. And the fact that you clearly are unable to recognize your own bias in this is what is so frustrating and so foolish. Man has, since time immemorial, been shown that their view of the universe was incomplete or incorrect: Geocentrism, Ether or a host of other beliefs that fit with what we had seen to that point. What does the study mean? We don't know, yet. You claim to, which anyone who doesn't share your clear bias can see.

    Science must be prepared to evolve based upon observations. These observations do not fit with the existing model - Is it the observations that are wrong or is it the model? Could be either, but you have automatically assumed the first.

    That's just bad science designed to serve your dogma.
    You're being silly and again creating a strawman ad hominem attack, and making circular statements.

    You know that people are able to evaluate the study on their own terms.
    The study isn't particularly helpful for what you're trying to say - no EEG component and treatment provided. In real terms it is extremely useful, on the psychological sequilae of cardiac incidents.
    If you're holding that treatment doesn't serve to cause reperfusion of the brain, provide that information from a reliable source.

    Evidence IS NON-EXISTENT for a separation of the brain and mind.
    You can't just give one paper as evidence to the contrary, when it doesn't even do so.

    You keep citing some journalists conversation with a lead researcher... not helpful, and means little. Read and cite the actual paper.

    In what way is my statement dogmatic? You are the one suggesting something which is completely in contrast to all medical knowledge. That would make your stance the dogmatic one. As I said, its all about finding out new things - but you have no evidence to go on at all.

    What is your interpretation of the paper?
    You also can't just use a single paper. What other proof (not that that paper is even suggestive, as it is confounded - which you seem not to understand) do you have for a dualism of mind and brain?
    Online

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dima-Blackburn)
    I can certainly agree with that. However that appears to be a red-herring since metaphysics doesn't deny the importance of empiricism in some areas.



    As a physics student myself, I can assure you we don't always have access to a laboratory :lol:



    In the realm of science, we don't speak in terms of proof. But no, by definition the immaterial world is outside the reach of physical science so there's nothing within the confines of science that can "disprove" dualism, even in principle.



    Look, I'm on your side with regards to the question of mind-body duality, but unlike "unicornists", dualists actually present some sort of logical arguments (see the works of David Chalmers, a naturalist/atheist who isn't convinced by physicalism) for their positions. It's one thing to disagree with them as we rightly should, but to dismiss their arguments with a wave of arrogant scientism reflects ignorance with regards to the subject manner. There's a huge body of literature on the subject; I doubt you can say the same for unicorns or teapots.

    I'd recommend the following SEP article for a good, neutral introduction: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/dualism/#MinBodHisDua
    Ok I pretty much agree with you.To be fair I can understand why some people might think conciousness is seperate from the brain.I find it hard to reconcile how different living beings are to everything which is inanimate.Its natural to think there is something more than physical about humans.But that ignores evolution.If you say that humans have souls then since we have a common anscestor with everything else then all other life forms should have a soul.Unless someone wants to argue that humans somehow aquired souls in the process of evolution.But thats nonsensical.I think its much more likely that our conciousness simply comes from having a large brain with billions of neurons all working together in it.That would also explain why animals seem to have less conciousness.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by hellodave5)
    You're being silly and again creating a strawman ad hominem attack, and making circular statements.

    Evidence IS NON-EXISTENT for a separation of the brain and mind.
    You can't just give one paper as evidence to the contrary, when it doesn't even do so.

    What is your interpretation of the paper?
    Actually, you're the one making circular arguments. You have boiled it down to: "It isn't true, because it can't be true." where it came to talking about NDEs and people having memories and thoughts during a time period where brain activity is non-existent.

    That's it. You have repeated numerous times that brain activity is still present - Which it clearly wasn't, and which I quoted you(So not a strawman. Because it was a direct quote of you).

    So: What did I think of the paper?

    1) Over 2000 cardiac arrest events occurred - Events wherein no brain activity was present(Which I can quote again, if you wish, but as I have done this numerous times and you still have continued to say that brain activity is present, I don't feel it necessary).

    2) 250 people were interviewed.

    3) 1 person was able to identify an audible that only occurred when all brain activity had ceased.

    So what does this mean and how do I interpret it? I don't. I also don't immediately dismiss it as false as you seem to(Where you claim that brain activity is, in fact, present when it was repeated numerous times that it did not).

    From what we've seen from this study, the evidence is clear: We do not know. There is no clear theory of mind, yet. We have oceans of data on the brain, but no overarching theory of mind.

    So whereas your theory is, "There is no afterlife" and you seek to prove this, I am providing evidence that is counter to your theory. My interpretation of the paper is, "We don't know what we don't know." - We are simply in our infancy in these sorts of studies(Of which you will note I have stated numerous times in this discussion). Your refusal to accept evidence that is counter to what you know is simply a result of the dogma of your beliefs. It is not scientific.
    Offline

    3
    (Original post by scaredofdeath)
    There is NO life after death.
    We are our bodies , more precisely our brains.
    There is no such thing as a "soul".
    There is no such thing as "heaven" " hell" .
    These are all inventions of the religious people.
    No one is going to reborn , we only live once.
    Well, I'm glad that's settled. I can relax now.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Robby2312)
    Ok I pretty much agree with you.To be fair I can understand why some people might think conciousness is seperate from the brain.I find it hard to reconcile how different living beings are to everything which is inanimate.Its natural to think there is something more than physical about humans.But that ignores evolution.If you say that humans have souls then since we have a common anscestor with everything else then all other life forms should have a soul.Unless someone wants to argue that humans somehow aquired souls in the process of evolution.But thats nonsensical.I think its much more likely that our conciousness simply comes from having a large brain with billions of neurons all working together in it.That would also explain why animals seem to have less conciousness.
    It does seem like a spectrum as opposed to a binary on/off option. I came across some research on animals having less-awareness than humans, which makes sense from an evolutionary scientific perspective. As for how consciousness itself "emerges" from a given configuration of matter, unfortunately we're no closer to understanding that yet than we were centuries ago, and given the nature of the problem I don't think we'll be able to resolve it in the future. You might find this wiki article interesting: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_mysterianism
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ThatOldGuy)
    Actually, you're the one making circular arguments. You have boiled it down to: "It isn't true, because it can't be true." where it came to talking about NDEs and people having memories and thoughts during a time period where brain activity is non-existent.

    That's it. You have repeated numerous times that brain activity is still present - Which it clearly wasn't, and which I quoted you(So not a strawman. Because it was a direct quote of you).

    So: What did I think of the paper?

    1) Over 2000 cardiac arrest events occurred - Events wherein no brain activity was present(Which I can quote again, if you wish, but as I have done this numerous times and you still have continued to say that brain activity is present, I don't feel it necessary).

    2) 250 people were interviewed.

    3) 1 person was able to identify an audible that only occurred when all brain activity had ceased.

    So what does this mean and how do I interpret it? I don't. I also don't immediately dismiss it as false as you seem to(Where you claim that brain activity is, in fact, present when it was repeated numerous times that it did not).

    From what we've seen from this study, the evidence is clear: We do not know. There is no clear theory of mind, yet. We have oceans of data on the brain, but no overarching theory of mind.

    So whereas your theory is, "There is no afterlife" and you seek to prove this, I am providing evidence that is counter to your theory. My interpretation of the paper is, "We don't know what we don't know." - We are simply in our infancy in these sorts of studies(Of which you will note I have stated numerous times in this discussion). Your refusal to accept evidence that is counter to what you know is simply a result of the dogma of your beliefs. It is not scientific.
    Thanks for your response, in that you was respectful and addressed my points.

    I'll go through sequentially:

    You think my stance is that - "It isn't true, because it can't be true."
    - not in any way. I think that dualism is not true because it goes against all the knowledge that we as humans have at the moment. If for instance there was in some way dualism, I do not see how in any way this would exist. Though it is very interesting to think about.

    "NDEs and people having memories and thoughts during a time period where brain activity is non-existent "
    - the issue with that study is that they cannot prove that brain activity was non-existent, and is largest flaw in using it to suggest some form of duality or afterlife is that there were no electroencephalographic readings present to determine if there was or was not cortical brain activity at that time. In the future, in replication, if someone wanted to investigate a duality - then the inclusion of EEG would serve to be highly instrumental. Interestingly this may also be possible in animal studies, if people believe also in a duality of animal brain and mind.

    "Over 2000 cardiac arrest events occurred "
    - of those only very few (was it like 300?) of those individuals were included in the study due to issues. I'm not sure of the inclusion criteria of the study, but I assume that it was just because the individuals were too injured (mild-moderate brain damage is common in those with heart failure).

    "1 person was able to identify an audible that only occurred when all brain activity had ceased. "
    - just to reiterate, the issue that it cannot be proven that brain activity had ceased. In effect, this study currently serves to suggest, clinically, that there may be more cognitive functioning than would be apparent upon simple clinical observation. There is, I think, ongoing research similarly with those in vegetative states which also seems interesting.

    We have oceans of data on the brain, but no overarching theory of mind.
    - agreed. It appears to be very difficult to understand how the complex interactions on the cellular level (100,000,000,000 neurons and 100 trillion synapses) translates to consciousness. I assume this is what you mean?


    "There is no afterlife" and you seek to prove this, I am providing evidence that is counter to your theory.
    - I do appreciate the evidence to the contrary, and I have considered it... and also considered what it would require to make me question further if we could be missing a piece of the puzzle. But my stance is I could never see that happening, just because it is contrary to all current scientific rationale.

    "We don't know what we don't know." - in this area, you are right - that is, regarding the extent to which people are able to remember information in critical brain states etc. But my issue is that in terms of a duality, I do not understand in what form it could exist. I would be interested in hearing an interpretation of how it could, if anyone has one to offer.

    "Your refusal to accept evidence that is counter to what you know is simply a result of the dogma of your beliefs. It is not scientific."
    - this is simply not the case. There is no dogma of my beliefs. I have discussed the information with you that you have offered, and have evaluated it appropriately. None of my beliefs are 'dogmatic'. You can't say I have not been scientific as I have looked at the evidence and evaluated its input into the notion you suggest in the context of current knowledge.


    Honestly, I as much as the next person would like there to be some kind of duality and afterlife. Life would be less brutal and harsh if that was the case. But rationally, I can find no information to support the idea. I'm happy to change my stance if evidence someday points in another direction.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dima-Blackburn)
    It does seem like a spectrum as opposed to a binary on/off option. I came across some research on animals having less-awareness than humans, which makes sense from an evolutionary scientific perspective. As for how consciousness itself "emerges" from a given configuration of matter, unfortunately we're no closer to understanding that yet than we were centuries ago, and given the nature of the problem I don't think we'll be able to resolve it in the future. You might find this wiki article interesting: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_mysterianism
    Just cause of the complexity of the processes, but we'll get there. We have figured out many of the larger scale neurobiological pathways which bring about our cognitive functioning. Similarly we also understand fairly well a lot of the cognitive processes as well.

    This whole duality thing really baffles me, as a cognitive neurosciency person.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by hellodave5)

    "We don't know what we don't know." - in this area, you are right - that is, regarding the extent to which people are able to remember information in critical brain states etc. But my issue is that in terms of a duality, I do not understand in what form it could exist. I would be interested in hearing an interpretation of how it could, if anyone has one to offer.
    If duality were true, then the brain would have to be very similar to a HAM radio transmitting information to the operator(The body).

    The Source(The soul, the consciousness or what have you) -could- theoretically be transmitting information to the body through the most complex engine ever created, which then sends information back to The Source. If there is damage to the Ham Radio(The brain), then the message becomes garbled both to the Source and to the operator. This could result in misinterpreting commands, of the Source sending conflicting commands based upon information that was incorrectly sent and so on and so forth.

    That's just an off-the-cuff for-instance. If I spent more time, I could come up with a better interpretation.

    How could such a thing be proven? I suppose one could isolate a brain from conception(Or engineer one) and provide exactly the same stimulus to each brain. If the brain reacted differently, then that would suggest the source of mind was different. If each brain reacted the same, it would indicate that free will was an illusion and we are all simply programmed to live out our lives.

    But such a theory would account for various mental disorders and damage.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ThatOldGuy)
    If duality were true, then the brain would have to be very similar to a HAM radio transmitting information to the operator(The body).

    The Source(The soul, the consciousness or what have you) -could- theoretically be transmitting information to the body through the most complex engine ever created, which then sends information back to The Source. If there is damage to the Ham Radio(The brain), then the message becomes garbled both to the Source and to the operator. This could result in misinterpreting commands, of the Source sending conflicting commands based upon information that was incorrectly sent and so on and so forth.

    That's just an off-the-cuff for-instance. If I spent more time, I could come up with a better interpretation.

    How could such a thing be proven? I suppose one could isolate a brain from conception(Or engineer one) and provide exactly the same stimulus to each brain. If the brain reacted differently, then that would suggest the source of mind was different. If each brain reacted the same, it would indicate that free will was an illusion and we are all simply programmed to live out our lives.

    But such a theory would account for various mental disorders and damage.
    It is an interesting notion that the brain may be in some way a relay centre; particularly in keeping in line with clinical issues in that distortion would occur and therefore a failure to express 'the soul'.

    I think I remember an early notion of brain functioning involving duality whereby it was something like the pineal gland which was proposed to be a window between soul and brain, and mediated behavior through something like the cerebrospinal fluid.

    Though it is clear that nerves serve to relay messages of information; for example from the retena of the eye to the brains computational visual centres or a tap on the patellar tendon causing a spinal reflex action. The computational component is also clear; for instance if you lose your arm, that computational area will eventually be taken over/infiltrated and used for something else.

    But I suppose in some way it could be brought back to a sort of intertwine of neurons and an ethereal 'soul' component, which in a way keeps a record of our consciousness. Though I guess the issue for me would be that it would never be testable, unless 'the soul' and/or its interaction with the brain can be in some way detected.

    Unfortunately I personally believe that we have little free will. For example, it appears that childhood experiences and brain functioning determine a lot of our behavior. Though I still think we're amazing things, I fail to see us as anything more than computationally magnificent creatures; whose thoughts are predominantly determined by evolutionary past, immediate environment, and biological needs, as are all other animals.

    But from a religious perspective (which this thread has), it doesn't necessarily suggest that there isn't some form of creator of the universe - but I just don't feel humans are special in any way, after having studied them most of my life to this point. Though, from a non-religious perspective, I find it astonishing that atoms can, in the form of a human (and anything else that has ever popped up with similar or greater complexity), engage in evaluation and introspection.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by hellodave5)
    It is an interesting notion that the brain may be in some way a relay centre; particularly in keeping in line with clinical issues in that distortion would occur and therefore a failure to express 'the soul'.

    I think I remember an early notion of brain functioning involving duality whereby it was something like the pineal gland which was proposed to be a window between soul and brain, and mediated behavior through something like the cerebrospinal fluid.

    Though it is clear that nerves serve to relay messages of information; for example from the retena of the eye to the brains computational visual centres or a tap on the patellar tendon causing a spinal reflex action. The computational component is also clear; for instance if you lose your arm, that computational area will eventually be taken over/infiltrated and used for something else.

    But I suppose in some way it could be brought back to a sort of intertwine of neurons and an ethereal 'soul' component, which in a way keeps a record of our consciousness. Though I guess the issue for me would be that it would never be testable, unless 'the soul' and/or its interaction with the brain can be in some way detected.

    Unfortunately I personally believe that we have little free will. For example, it appears that childhood experiences and brain functioning determine a lot of our behavior. Though I still think we're amazing things, I fail to see us as anything more than computationally magnificent creatures; whose thoughts are predominantly determined by evolutionary past, immediate environment, and biological needs, as are all other animals.

    But from a religious perspective (which this thread has), it doesn't necessarily suggest that there isn't some form of creator of the universe - but I just don't feel humans are special in any way, after having studied them most of my life to this point. Though, from a non-religious perspective, I find it astonishing that atoms can, in the form of a human (and anything else that has ever popped up with similar or greater complexity), engage in evaluation and introspection.
    All of what you're saying is possible and understandable given the contexts of our current understanding.

    However: The real problem we have right now is that this thread is based upon some form of finality, as if we have a total understanding of the mind. In fact, we have more information on the brain than almost any other organ - But we also have no real theory of mind. It is still a mystery in so many ways.

    Duality -could- be possible(Though some religions believe that the body is a requirement for consciousness and existence: Ref: many Christian denominations and the resurrection). We simply do not know right now. Any claims to the contrary are simply untenable given our current understanding(Or lack thereof).
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by QE2)
    No, we aren't monkeys, we are humans. But both humans and monkeys share a common ancestor millions of years ago (that was not a human or a monkey, but a different species).
    Look, your inability to understand how evolution works does not mean it doesn't work - just like the 5 year old's inability to understand how his iPad works doesn't mean that it stops working.

    Baffling that people would still rather adapt reality to fit their beliefs, rather than adapting their beliefs to fit reality.
    Major evolutionary changes in an organism take millions of years, while changes in outside influences on an organism can change in few short years.

    The external influences that would take an organism from the land to the trees, for safety or for food, would have to act on that organism for a few million years. I don't think outside influences remained constant enough for any real change to happen.

    In other words any path that evolution would choose to make a organism more viable would come to a dead end when conditions changed again, forcing evolution to begin another set of changes. The constantly changing conditions of the earth would force so many "restarts" in a species that no meaningful change could occur.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by oldercon1953)
    Major evolutionary changes in an organism take millions of years, while changes in outside influences on an organism can change in few short years.

    The external influences that would take an organism from the land to the trees, for safety or for food, would have to act on that organism for a few million years. I don't think outside influences remained constant enough for any real change to happen.

    In other words any path that evolution would choose to make a organism more viable would come to a dead end when conditions changed again, forcing evolution to begin another set of changes. The constantly changing conditions of the earth would force so many "restarts" in a species that no meaningful change could occur.
    As I said to the other poster, "just because you don't understand evolution, doesn't mean that it doesn't work".
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by QE2)
    As I said to the other poster, "just because you don't understand evolution, doesn't mean that it doesn't work".
    I don't know exactly how fuel injection works but I know many people are aware of the entire process and I can go to any number of resources and learn about the entire process from start to finish.
    However, when I post a question about the basic idea of gradual change in the evolutionary theory I get an answer that sounds like one you get from religious people regarding the existance of God; " Just because you don't believe in God doesn't mean he doesn't exist".
    Please answer my question or say you can't
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    I haven't read the OP, just read the title.

    That is a silly question to ask! Just because you don't believe there's any after life, doesn't mean you should disrespect others who do believe.

    The fact is, nobody will know if there's after life until they actually die.*
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by oldercon1953)
    I don't know exactly how fuel injection works but I know many people are aware of the entire process and I can go to any number of resources and learn about the entire process from start to finish.
    However, when I post a question about the basic idea of gradual change in the evolutionary theory I get an answer that sounds like one you get from religious people regarding the existance of God; " Just because you don't believe in God doesn't mean he doesn't exist".
    Please answer my question or say you can't
    You didn't ask a question. You made a series of statements that demonstrated a lack of knowledge of the evolutionary process.
    You are starting from a false premise
    "any path that evolution would choose to make a organism more viable would come to a dead end when conditions changed again, forcing evolution to begin another set of changes."

    Evolution has no consciousness. It is a blind process. It does not make choices or change its mind. But yes, because evolution has no set goal in mind, the evolution of a species is partly determined by environmental change, so when external pressures change, the evolutionary path may change.

    "I don't think outside influences remained constant enough for any real change to happen."
    Environmental change is one of the environmental pressures that can drive rapid natural selection.Look up "Peppered Moth".

    Also, environmental pressure only makes genetic mutations more or less advantageous. It is not environmental pressure that causes the changes.Evolution doesn't think "Oh look, the natural habitat of that moth is gradually becoming darker, so I will make the moths darker". It is just that those moths that have the genetic mutation that causes darker colour are less likely to be seen and eaten by predators than they were when their habitat was lighter, thus making them more likely to pass on that mutated gene to the next generation, and the population carrying that advantageous mutation grows exponentially, while the lighter coloured moths are eaten and consequently constitute a smaller population leading to a decreasing numbers.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by QE2)
    You didn't ask a question. You made a series of statements that demonstrated a lack of knowledge of the evolutionary process.
    You are starting from a false premise
    "any path that evolution would choose to make a organism more viable would come to a dead end when conditions changed again, forcing evolution to begin another set of changes."

    Evolution has no consciousness. It is a blind process. It does not make choices or change its mind. But yes, because evolution has no set goal in mind, the evolution of a species is partly determined by environmental change, so when external pressures change, the evolutionary path may change.

    "I don't think outside influences remained constant enough for any real change to happen."
    Environmental change is one of the environmental pressures that can drive rapid natural selection.Look up "Peppered Moth".

    Also, environmental pressure only makes genetic mutations more or less advantageous. It is not environmental pressure that causes the changes.Evolution doesn't think "Oh look, the natural habitat of that moth is gradually becoming darker, so I will make the moths darker". It is just that those moths that have the genetic mutation that causes darker colour are less likely to be seen and eaten by predators than they were when their habitat was lighter, thus making them more likely to pass on that mutated gene to the next generation, and the population carrying that advantageous mutation grows exponentially, while the lighter coloured moths are eaten and consequently constitute a smaller population leading to a decreasing numbers.
    Weren 't the changes that occurred in the peppered moth determined to be adaptation
    If I understand you, the changes in a organisms DNA occur more or less "willy nilly", and if that change fits it's environment better, than it will survive in greater numbers and will soon dominate that particular species.

    Do they know what actually causes the change in the DNA?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    I used to be an atheist. But, thinking about it objectively and rationally, there's no more evidence of the lack of a divine entity, as there is in it's existence. It's still an exercise of faith.

    I'm agnostic about the nature of reality. 'Cogito ergo sum'. How can we know this apparent existence is real reality and not a simulation, a matrix?

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bp4NkItgf0E

    Prepare to be mind-****ed.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by oldercon1953)
    Weren 't the changes that occurred in the peppered moth determined to be adaptation
    Determined by what?
    No. The genetic mutations are random. Only those that lead to increased reproductive capacity increase (darker colouring = less likely to be eaten, therefore larger next generation carrying that trait). The ones that decrease reproduction, decrease (lighter colouring, more eaten, fewer offspring carrying that trait)

    If I understand you, the changes in a organisms DNA occur more or less "willy nilly", and if that change fits it's environment better, than it will survive in greater numbers and will soon dominate that particular species.
    More of less. It may not necessarily fit its environment better. It may give it some other advantage that allows it to out-reproduce others. Other mutations may be detrimental, many have no effect.

    Do they know what actually causes the change in the DNA?
    Every time DNA copies itself, there is a chance that a mutation may occur. Less frequently, an external influence can cause mutation - chemical, radiation, and now manipulation.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 303Pharma)
    I used to be an atheist. But, thinking about it objectively and rationally, there's no more evidence of the lack of a divine entity, as there is in it's existence. It's still an exercise of faith.
    There is plenty of evidence for the lack of a divine entity. Every single attempt to demonstrate its existence, for starters! And while "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence", if a thing is there, it should be easier to detect that if it isn't.

    It is ridiculous to insist that we must give equal creedence to both the existence and non-existence of everything that cannot be detected or disproved.
 
 
 
Poll
Which party will you be voting for in the General Election 2017?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Quick reply
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.