Darkyear's Waterfall
Why would the Bible mention bacteria?
Because they are by far the most numerous and successful forms of life on the planet. Because they are everywhere we go. Because they can kill us with ease. Because simple precautions concerning cleanliness and food preparation could have saved millions of lives, if not billions. I'd say that is a huge oversight.
Then God made creatures from the dirt of the ground.
Then God made man from the dirt of the ground.
Only in the first origin account. In the second version, man came first.
The thing is, I do not believe the Bible is factual. Very little of it can be supported by observable reality. Meanwhile, vast amounts data support and reaffirm evolution.
It isn't guesswork so much as life is extremely complicated. Every life form has at least the potential to somehow affect every other life form in the local environment. So does the chemistry of the soil, and the lay of the land. And the local climate and change of seasons. And the changing supply of water. And now, human activities, which can affect an ecosystem on the other side of the planet. With all of these variables, every "guess" has numerous hoops it has to jump through to be valid. And the more we know, the more complicated it gets.
All evidence shows that single-celled organisms similar to bacteria (which the Bible never mentions) were first. Then came the earliest autotrophs (the ancestors of plants), and their interaction with the environment made multicellular organisms possible. And keep in mind, this was all in the ocean. Earth is 4.6 billion years ago, but life didn't appear on land until around 530 million years ago. There is evidence that animals (almost certainly the predecessors to amphibians actual got on land before plants did. Modern humans appeared less than 500 thousand years ago. Basically everything concerning God's creation in life is incompatible with the evidence we have.
Again, the way you are using terms is confusing and it is difficult to answer you since I'm not sure what you are asking. However, I do understand that you are not a science person and respect that you are showing curiosity, so I will do my best.
Isn't dominance a selective process in mutations?
Dominance of what? At its heart, natural selection means that if you don't live long enough to survive, you don't propagate your DNA, and if enough of your species can't do it, you go extinct and play no role in further evolution. If your survival involves dominating something, then so be it. But any local environment is complex, so likely, you wouldn't be dominating any more of it than you need to survive. And there is no guarantee that you could "dominate" any other environment that you might wander into.
As mutations dominate the field of available resourses used to excell independent mutations, isn't there a conflict of growth, survival, and reproduction with competing mutations?
I'm not sure if I'm parsing this correctly, but...I think by "mutations", you are referring to populations of specific species. I will use the words "populations" or "species" from now on. A population may or may not dominate the resources that it needs, but not all populations require the same resources. And when they do, it is possible to establish an equilibrium where both populations can use the same resources without major problem. In fact, it often occurs that each species limits the growth of the other, which tends to be best for the overall local ecosystem. But mostly, different species have vastly different requirements, so they can coexist without any problem.
Cancelling out progress of the weakest mutations?
If a species is surviving just fine, I don't think it makes sense to call it weak. Its as strong as it needs to be at that point. If it is "weak" it will likely go extinct, which has happened to 99% of all life forms.
How then did the variety thrive in survival with some being super mutations and others being small in value.
It isn't about numeric value. It is simply a yes or no question. Can it survive in that place at that time? If yes it goes on and usually slowly evolves to make survival even easier. If no, they go extinct.
As they mutate to substance that is consumable, wouldn't they become prey, and then cancel out their progress thus far?
Being prey doesn't mean they die off. Let's say you have a predator who only eats one form of prey. If they killed all of the prey species, the predators would be dead very soon. But both predator and prey are simultaneously evolving and getting more in tune with all aspects of their environment. Predators never eat just one form of prey, and prey has multiple ways of protecting their population.
As cells reproduce and mutate, what probability exists that the same species of mutations are completing their mutations at the same rate, to then fully evolve as 1 male and 1 female of the same species, for then the continued multiplying of that species?
Sexual reproductions only had to evolve once. Ever since then it has been passed from one species to the next. No mutation needed anymore.
As far as how sexual reproduction may have developed:
http://www.the-scientist.com/
I'm not entirely sure what you are asking, so I'll just respond to your main points.
the wouldn't selective mutations obey their genes for survival, reproduction, and dominance?
Well, the genes are what is being changed by the mutations. Also, dominance is not necessary. But the ability to survive long enough to reproduce is essential, yes.
And by doing so limit or eliminate exclusively for its own survival and progress?
Kind of? I'm not sure what you are asking, but if an individual can not survive long enough to reproduce, its DNA will not be propagated. That is the essence of natural selection, which itself is the essence of the Theory of Evolution.
But animals don't protect the survival of their prey, they just obey hunger.
Of course. I'm again uncertain about the point you are trying to make.
So in this rapidly multiplying field of evolving life forms, who defined the boundaries so the weaker life forms could survive and progress at an even rate to result in the full appreciation of all of nature, seemingly all at once?
Define weaker life forms. If they are still around, they are successful. There is no real boundary anywhere in the global ecosystem. And the life forms we have did not appear "seemingly at once" at all. ALL evidence shows them appearing at different points in time.
Ideological, self-imposed segregation? Doesn't seem wise. Could limit idealized potential of some areas. Popular regions could find their infrastructure overwhelmed. Plus, its note easy for everyone to just up and move, especially if they have families.
Well, as I said earlier, I'm not on the whole ORGANIC ORGASMS!!! kick, or opposed to GMOs. I'm kind of drawing a blank on anything else though. I used to be fairly centrist, sometimes even slightly on the right on economic issues. I was even a Libertarian for about an hour and a half. But once I got more educated, and especially learned how to think rationally and research effectively, and apply the scientific method to everything; once I got all that sorted out, I ended up becoming more liberal than ever. I may be the only person ever who became a confirmed liberal AFTER giving up my idealism.
Same here. As far as social issues go, I'm for letting people do what they want as long as nobody gets hurt. There are a lot of laws, A LOT, that aren't doing what they should and many are making things worse for everyone. I want them gone. In that respect, you could say I'm kind of a small government liberal. Economically, I'm somewhere on the right edge of Democratic Socialist, but that's a whole other topic. On social issues, we seem to have no grudge.
I never said I was the hippy dippy sort of liberal. I do like my pot though. But that's fine because I live in Colorado. We are legally obligated to smoke pot. At least that's what my pothead neighbor told me a few years ago, and I didn't want to get arrested, so.....
And telling people they can't do what they want to, like getting abortions, gay people getting married and the other legislating of moral values is any better? The conservative view that the focus should be on the individual ignores a) they can only rise up on the backs of other and b) high levels of success creates a gap between the wealthy and the poor. Taken to extremes, this kind of society is not sustainable. Extreme left isn't either, but that's not what I'm advocating for. Focus on society as a whole. Recognize that we are only as strong as our weakest group, and help give that group equal access to opportunity. Its not complex and works out just fine in liberal companies, while more conservative states are a disaster and sometimes a drain on the federal budget. Precedents, Joe. Facts. They usually support center left.
Interestingly, the most liberal countries in the world, the Scandinavian/Nordic nations, tend to score very high on categories like health care, life span, ease of starting business and so on; and very low on things you want to be low on, like crime, poverty, etc. Other European Countries, mostly more liberal than us, mostly do better than us. Arguably the most conservative major European nation, UK is falling further down the rankings as time goes on. Canada, quite liberal, fares better than us.
What are the worst states in the US in many categories? Usually the deep south, most of whom have been dominated by republican policy since the 60s or 70s. High unemployment, low educational attainment, above average crime, racism.
One industry where people spend pretty much all their lives looking at raw data and making sense of it is science. About 92% of working scientists identify as liberal/democrat.
Republicans love to call "Liberal Bias" on the media or education, forgetting that these people deal in facts all day long too.
Increasingly, Libertarian Economists are stuck in Academia. Those who are out there, working and depending on making accurate predictions to stay employed, are tending to point towards left leaning practices, with the majority favoring practices that are far left of where we are.
When practiced properly, Left= success and informational accuracy. Right= Nothing particularly good, aside from a strong military.
1. Its a shame they wanted you to sign up, no idea why. I don't have a subscription and have never needed one for older articles. I've posted that exact same article here and on facebook, and you are the first one to make this complaint, so I don't know what to say. It is the oldest ('08), so I made sure to include more recent sources, but it is quite thorough and well written. A lot of your criticisms can be addressed there, as well as in the gestalt of all of these articles.
2. Amusingly, your rant on the amygdala shows how simple your evaluation mechanisms are on this subject. Remember me saying conservatives tended towards more simplistic thoughts? Well you should understand that you can't do that in science. If you do, you make mistakes.
A. They worded it poorly. It should have said something like "in general the conservative brain has greater volume..." There are exceptions to every rule.
B. Psuedo-science? They actually had links to the original studies. If you are a sciences student, you should have, or be able to get, a code to get in and read those.
C. This is just one characteristic, and it is not independent of the countless other factors involved in the CNS. It showcases a trend, and the effect this has on the person's personality will obviously vary from one to the next.
D. When younger folks change their political stance, it typically happens in their 20s. Why? Well, as you know, the brain changes. At some point, usually in their 20s, the brain has finally finished forming, and from that point on they are usually much more affected by nature than nurture. But, before that, when the mind is more plastic and less crystallized, people can be more susceptible to nurture. So, a lot of people raised conservative might turn liberal in college, and then go back to conservative when their brain is fully formed and the genes are pushing them that question. Oooor....someone can be nonstop liberal, but around 26 or so, after their brain is more crystallized than plastic, they suddenly get very conservative.
E. Yes, many people get more conservative as they get older and we've know why since at least the 90s. Again, the brain crystallizes as one ages. This tends to lead people to have a harder time understanding or feeling comfortable with new concepts the older they get. Since conservatism trends toward being more traditional and resistant to change, a lot of people find themselves gradually shifting over time. Its the same reason why a lot of people get stuck on a certain range of music in their 20s or 30s, and stop getting into new stuff (for the most part) for the rest of their lives.
F. Neither of these affect amygdala size, nor do they need to. Again, other things are in play at all times. The point is, if you have a bigger and more developed amgdala, this tends to cause behaviors that fit in better with a conservative mindset.
G. There are links to the studies in each of these articles I believe. There have been a least 3 peer reviewed studies on this subject. I know for a fact that at least one of them has been replicated in Colorado, Vancouver, Japan and, if I remember correctly, Vienna. All showed the same results. The more conservative, the larger the amygdala tends to be. This is REAL science, man. Just because you don't know enough about it for it to make sense to you, doesn't mean it's wrong.
H. Political views aren't just opinions. Or rather the opinions form because of your programed preferences, priorities and perceptions. And so much of that comes from how your brain is shaped.
3. Uh....needless to say, I quit reading any more of your links after that.
Without even attempting to verify them through a google search or checking the actual papers they were based on. You, a student, chose to try to falsify them based on your own limited understanding of the topic at hand, essentially insinuating that you know more about this than people who've been working in this field for longer than you've been alive. How scientific of you!
The suburbs ARE where it is at, I agree. But, as a life long liberal (who used to work at Whole Foods, even), I really haven't known all that many people who got into holistic medicine, and many that did were actually conservative. And regardless of ideology, those folks aren't a renewable resource, what with presumed lower life expectancy.
Well dangit. I wrote a big old response, but either forgot to submit it, or there was a glitch. So, lets work on getting you educated:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/13/
https://braindecoder.com/post/
http://www.scientificamerican.com/
http://www.motherjones.
I believe these answer the main questions you have. There is also a link to a podcast interview with John Hibbings, who was one of the first to propose this theory. That's in the last article, but all are worth a read.
No they are not. There is not human equivalent to dinosaurs, you are speaking of totally different species. And the rest of your sentence here does not even make any sense.
LOL dude. It is an extended metaphor. Seriously, this ain't rocket science college boy. Although I guess we are talking about brain surgery-ish stuff.
I haven't had a cell phone in 2 years, and I'm not actually sure what a latte actually is. I'm not lost. I'm not found either, but that's a whole nother story.
Meanwhile, how bout those rural places. Low education, low wages, machinery that is decades out of date. Unless they work for a corporation. Which is in a city. Which is where they will go for treatment for the cancer caused by all that chewing tobacco. Yeah, its a wonderful life in the rurals.
There is a growing school of thought in neurology and psychology that conservatives are holdovers from before we had permanent settlements. Many of their traits; high fear response, strong in group loyalty/out group enmity, over simplified problem solving techniques, high religiosity; are more useful in a scary world where every day is a potential battle for your life. Where every tribe you meet could want your goods and women. Where you don't have unlimited time to make important decisions.
But we aren't there anymore. Life is safer, we can spend more time getting things right, not every other "tribe" wants to kill us. Religion isn't needed. Conservatives are the human equivalent of dinosaurs who happened to survive the meteor by clinging to the backs of liberals.
