Questions about evolution

Vangelis

The Corinthian wrote:

You can anticipate all you desire, but that’s not actually what I said.

I responded to how I interpreted your post.

No I didn’t as it is by your own definition of the topic at hand completely off topic. And if you cannot offer any other, then that is for you to rectify, not I.

So let's minimize the number of points here because I'm getting confused.
I don't have to rectify anything. I answered in my own way.

That’s not actually what repressive means. Repression denotes a process by which unacceptable desires or impulses are excluded from consciousness and left to operate in the unconscious. Of course this does not mean that repression is a negative thing in all cases, we repress many harmful desires and fears for the good of Society, for example.

I KNOW what repression is. And I presumed that you regarded the Bible as repressive in its LAWS. Perhaps I presume too much, or you will have to explain yourself better.

And so in the case of Abrahamic religions sexuality tends to be regulated and repressed to various degrees. I am not making any moral judgment on whether this is a good thing or not, simply pointing out a pretty well established fact.

Yes.

And you’re being highly presumptive - where did I call any of them that?

Actually, where did I even mention those societies?

I should have asked: Which societies are you referring to then? Be a little more exact, please. It's easy to misunderstand/misinterpret.

That’s touching, but also off topic, and you appear to know it is.

I'm a talented off-topicer.

You are the one who raised the topic of the evolution of religion and now seem unwilling or unable to discuss it. I would understand were you capable of arguing perhaps that it was divine rather than the result of an evolutionary social process, but even there you’ve yet to put forward a case.

In short, and with respects, have you actually thought out what you’re trying to say here? You’ll find argument works better than simply stating your position.

I contribute with what I can. I don't have a PhD in philosophy, but I'm doing what I can. Maybe I'm not as devoted to boards.ie as you are. Maybe I participate in too many discussions. I'll try to figure that out.

Actually, I'm studying evolution right now so hopefully I will get back to the discussion with a more evolved brain.

Vangelis

psi wrote:

Funny, you seem to ask lots of questions that I and others have answered previously in posts. If you read them, you certainly didn't take them in.

You haven't posted elsewhere in this thread.

You obviously don't have much of an understanding of genetics. Genetics describes expression of genes (segments of DNA) that may (or may not) result in a protein being made. What do you think it means, and how do you think any genetic trait could lead directly to religion?

I have some understanding of genetics, and currently enhancing my understanding of it through studying.

I cannot give any ideas of how a genetic trait could lead directly to religion.
If that is at all possible.

The "genes" that encode the proteins that ultimately make up the structure of our brain (there is actually ALOT more to it than this, but for the purpose of this, we'll keep the simplified version). The structure and components of our brain (specifically the abundance of essential fatty acids) allow us faster and better processing of information, reason, rationale and logic. They also allow us advanced communication abilities.

Thank you, now I've learned something new.

Now, for whatever reason, historically (and remember there is such thing as "cultural evolution" its not just physiology that is tracked in evolutionary terms) we evolved culture and society through stories. This is effectively how we warn others.

Yes...

We don't say "don't go there the lion is there". We tell a complex story to engender fear associated with the idea of a lion and ultimately the place we are warning about. This is how we have and still do communicate. We pass on emotions through stories.

Religion is no different. Incidents converted to stories, passed on through societies and cultures, they're embellished and eventually you get extraordinary stories that religions are based on. Its effectively the phenomenon referred to as chinese whispers.

Darwin understood that for a new genetic trait to "wake up"/become active, it must allready exist in the genes of an organism. So if there is a gene for religious/spiritual faith it must have existed for a loooong time? I'm not sure if you are talking about the possibility of a "religious gene" and before I say anything more, are you?

OF course there are other instances where religions are formed through other means. But basically the isea of stories is how they take hold on peoples minds (think of christianity "bad people go to hell - all descriptive stories designed to promote anxiety - "God speaking to people through a burning bush" etc etc - all impressive stories.)

Get it.

The last part was paraphrasing a farce/parody of the formation of religion.

I did not comprehend that. It's easy to misunderstand as I've said before.

One bible story tells of a man in the desert hearing the voice of god in a burning bush. A very impressive occurance for anyone. But it was (apparently, I'm not an expert in this area, I'm just recounting the point here) quite common for wanderers to partake in eating berries and fungi available in the wilderness/deserts that had hallucinagenic effects.

Its the nature of humans to take an incident where somebody has a vision of god while drugged and not focus on 90% who tell a story about a guy who ate some magic mushrooms (or whatever) and instead focus and spread the account by the other 10% that makes the guy out to be a prophet.

I see. But I don't see why you are speaking about wanderers who eat hallucinogenic berries and fungi in the wilderness/deserts. Are you asserting that the man who heard God's voice had eaten such hallucinogenic berries/fungi? To confirm this, we need someone with a knowledge of the vegetation in the Middle-East/Africa 4000 years ago and where exactly this man(for your information it was Moses!) walked.

One can have religious-like experiences when doped, yes. But what about me for instance. When I can feel God's spirit, I haven't consumed hallucinogenic berries.

GuanYin

Vangelis wrote:

You haven't posted elsewhere in this thread.

No but the topic wa stouche don briefly in the "lust" thread.

Darwin understood that for a new genetic trait to "wake up"/become active, it must allready exist in the genes of an organism. So if there is a gene for religious/spiritual faith it must have existed for a loooong time? I'm not sure if you are talking about the possibility of a "religious gene" and before I say anything more, are you?

Ok, you clearly don't understand genetics and how it applies to evolution.

Ther eis no such thing as a "religion" gene. There is no such thing as an "alzheimers gene" or a "cancer gene" or a gene for any human condition.

The human body is a very complex system of proteins that act as building blocks, messenger systems, on/off switches, or "keys" to activate switches (ok you understand that I am not using literal descriptions here, but imagery to try help you understand).

Genes are merely segments of DNA that contain the code for the initiation and building of these proteins.

Now, it may be that some people do or do not have a certain gene that change sthe way a protein is made, or whether it is made at all, and the effect of the gene on the protein may or may not lead to a higher chance of alzheimers, cancer or whatever. This DOES NOT infer that the gene itself is a "cancer gene".

So, there could not EVER be a "religion gene" because genetics doesn't work like that. genes code for proteins. That is all. Nothing else.

Now, the complexity of the human body, means that a single gene mutation, can lead to a major change in the organism, dpending on the gene itself and how it is coded.
That is how evolution works. If a gene change is significantly expressed in a body AND if the gene itself is a significant gene, you may see a change in the organism. If its an advantagous change, it survives. If not, it doesn't.

Genes simply don't code for large scale apparent things. You don't have an "eye gene" or a "sight gene" you have many many genes that create many different types of cells that through a range of factors converge to form an organ like the eye.

What CAN happen, is that genes may dictate that proteins that are formed in a certain way and these proteins may lead to the formation of something wonderfully complex, like the human brain.

And the way we think, well thats still up for debate, but the neurotransmitters and chemicals are upstream of genetics.

Go buy a nice simple eas to access (by which I mean accessible to lay people) book like Genome by Matt Ridley.

Your current level of understanding is your failing in this discussion.

I see. But I don't see why you are speaking about wanderers who eat hallucinogenic berries and fungi in the wilderness/deserts. Are you asserting that the man who heard God's voice had eaten such hallucinogenic berries/fungi? To confirm this, we need someone with a knowledge of the vegetation in the Middle-East/Africa 4000 years ago and where exactly this man(for your information it was Moses!) walked.

One can have religious-like experiences when doped, yes. But what about me for instance. When I can feel God's spirit, I haven't consumed hallucinogenic berries.

No, I'm suggesting that areligion could easily be formed through the stories people may tell about a man who has a religious experience.

Likewise, you have been socially conditioned through exposure throughout your life to feel that you have felt gods spirit.

The Corinthian

Vangelis wrote:

I responded to how I interpreted your post.

You should not interpret me. I say what I mean, nothing more.

If you need to interpret me, then I would suggest you either cannot understand what I have said or you’d prefer I’d said something else. Or both.

So let's minimize the number of points here because I'm getting confused.
I don't have to rectify anything. I answered in my own way.

Let me explain; you began a debate on specific topic. When others engaged you, you then replied not by debating it (this is what this forum is for, after all) but by essentially regurgitating dogma. Ultimately, you did not ask for a debate on what Bible says, you asked for a debate upon the (I presume social) evolution of religions in general. And to date you’ve been unable to engage the latter.

I KNOW what repression is. And I presumed that you regarded the Bible as repressive in its LAWS. Perhaps I presume too much, or you will have to explain yourself better.

I explained myself perfectly quite adequately; it is you who seem not to understand the definition of the word ‘repression’.

My own guess (only a guess, of course) is that you heard what could have been interpreted as a criticism of the Bible and so ran to its defence before understanding what was actually said.

Yes.

Well, at least something got through.

I should have asked: Which societies are you referring to then? Be a little more exact, please. It's easy to misunderstand/misinterpret.

I’m sorry but it’s not easy to misunderstand or misinterpret if you’re paying attention. I cited primitive societies and that’s what I meant - I even mentioned shamanism in relation to this, so it’s not so difficult to follow, TBH.

Look up the anthropological definition of the word primitive, if you’re still confused.

I'm a talented off-topicer.

And you’ll find you’ll be demonstrating your talent to no one but yourself if you continue to initiate debates and then fail to engage them. No one likes a time waster, after all.

I contribute with what I can. I don't have a PhD in philosophy, but I'm doing what I can. Maybe I'm not as devoted to boards.ie as you are. Maybe I participate in too many discussions. I'll try to figure that out.

Actually, I'm studying evolution right now so hopefully I will get back to the discussion with a more evolved brain.

You do not need to have a PhD in philosophy or be any more devoted to Boards.ie. and you will not return to the discussion with a more evolved brain, only (perhaps) a more educated one.

I suggest you do get back to the discussion, but more so when you’re less flippant rather than more evolved.

Vangelis

psi wrote:

Likewise, you have been socially conditioned through exposure throughout your life to feel that you have felt gods spirit.

While I may need further education in genetics, I don't accept that someone gives me a diagnosis as a victim of indotrination.

My faith is actually very different from my parents' and so is my respect for scientific evidence.

If you say that, I can say the same thing about you: You've been exposed to the science and to trust science only. That has shaped you.

GuanYin

Vangelis wrote:

While I may need further education in genetics, I don't accept that someone gives me a diagnosis as a victim of indotrination.

My faith is actually very different from my parents' and so is my respect for scientific evidence.

The word "may" was missing for that line, it should have read:
"Likewise you may have been..."

apologies for the misunderstanding.

If you say that, I can say the same thing about you: You've been exposed to the science and to trust science only. That has shaped you.

You'd be wrong, I grew up in two very devout religious family households. I studied both religions in depth, one through school the other from my time with family. One I ultimately rejected, the other I respect and appreciate, althoughit does not play a part in my life.

During this time I was exposed to science and trust science only.

All of these shaped me.

So, the difference between you and I, is that I made an informed choice after seeing several pictures.

Vangelis

psi wrote:

So, the difference between you and I, is that I made an informed choice after seeing several pictures.

I made an informed choice myself having read the Bible in-through-and-out.
After that I was informed enough to make a choice to believe or not.
And I chose to believe.

GuanYin

Vangelis wrote:

I made an informed choice myself having read the Bible in-through-and-out.
After that I was informed enough to make a choice to believe or not.
And I chose to believe.

You can't make an informed choice between two scenarios without being informed about both.

you made a choice, it wasn't an informed one because you were only informed about one of your choices.

Vangelis

psi wrote:

you made a choice, it wasn't an informed one because you were only informed about one of your choices.

So I was informed but not informed?
Aha. Eureka.

GuanYin

Vangelis wrote:

So I was informed but not informed?
Aha. Eureka.

No, youre being obtuse now.

If you have two options. And you only have information about one of your options.

You cannot say you made and informed choice.

Its a very simple concept.

It also applies directly to you.

Vangelis

Okay, okay, okay.
You win.