[Aramis]

Have you ever stopped to question your beliefs?

That is the hugest problem about all of you people. You never leave you beliefs to look at them from some distance and I mean all kind of people from Jews to atheists. So many diffrent beliefs and only one conclusion for all who look at them without the tabs on the eyes.

 

[jimread]

What a load of complete drivel.

Music is like any other art 1% inspiration, mostly from someone elses work followed by 99% perspiration.

Elgar being a fine example if his missis hadn't kept him in to write in the mornings he would have shot off on his bike to meet his biker lady friends.

If Mozart had been born in 1950 he'd have been the lead guitarist in a heavy metal band.

 

[Petwhac]

What a load of complete drivel.

Music is like any other art 1% inspiration, mostly from someone elses work followed by 99% perspiration.

Elgar being a fine example if his missis hadn't kept him in to write in the mornings he would have shot off on his bike to meet his biker lady friends.

If Mozart had been born in 1950 he'd have been the lead guitarist in a heavy metal band.

Ha Ha Ha Ha. Heavy metal ha ha ha. I think given his genius for the stage it would be more likely Broadway!!

 

[jimread]

Ahh but by the 1970's Broadway was old hat, and heavy metal was the cutting edge and being dramatically staged

Jim

 

[Boccherini]

So let me get this straight. You have a book that's been translated several times through languages that lose a massive portion of their original content in translation, and that book was written by man, with the "assistance of God". In said book, there is a story, in which the entire foundation of the first half of the book is written by God on two stone tablets at the top of a mountain. A feeble old man climbs the mountain and carries these tablets down by himself somehow, and then he destroys them upon reaching the Isrealites' campground, when he finds them breaking rules they didn't know they had yet. Then God helps Moses to re-write the commandments just because he's compassionate and loving for that whole half of the book. Doesn't seem like much of a stretch at all.

It's a book about man, by man, and for man, telling stories of man and recording the belligerent and inhumane rule of a barbaric people.

True, there are quite a lot of translations of the Bible, but most of them were changing their original form into unauthorized transcriptions in relation to the real Bible (Not exactly the The Old Testament), but some of them were really trying to remain the same (King James's, JPS and more). As for the "assistance of God", I was not clear enough, you might think, according to Exodus 34:28, that Moses re-wrote the stone tablets by himself, but basically God has done that (according to several commentators) alone. However, there's quite a few commentators that would say that Moses re-wrote it with the "assistance of God", not that God couldn't have done that alone, of course; But basically it was God.

Do you think that the children of Israel were allowed to worship the molten Calfe (Exodus 32), after that God had saved them using "signs and wonders" (Deuteronomy 6:22) from Egypt? After they clearly proclaimed God as their one and own? (Exodus 24:7)

Yes, the Bible might look a little barbaric, especially for those who don't know anything about history who listen to classical music and proclaim themselves as gentlemen.

 

[Boccherini]

MJTTOMB, hit the nail on the head.

Boccherini, what if your tradition is based on lies? Have you ever stopped to question your beliefs? Have you ever stopped to consider the possibility that there may be no afterlife?

Human suffering and animal cruelty has been inflicted based on what you think god wants. If god doesn't communicate with us any more, how do we know what he wants? How do you know he hasn't changed his mind about the way animals are slaughtered or on which day you shouldn't work?

If God wants us to "update" the commandments, you might right, we wouldn't have known, but that's basically another reason why he doesn't want to. In addition, the fact that God doesn't communicate with us through prophets, doesn't mean we're not capable to know what he wants since we (jews) have the "dynamic" Oral Torah which specifically guide us what to do whether it's 2000 BC or 2000 AD.

 

[David58117]

Oh look, more support for Speciation:

http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/123532846/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0

 

[dmg]

I said it before: Religious faith instills intense emotion in people. Music can instill intense emotion in people. Therefore, people draw the conclusion that they're related somehow. It is a false presumption, but that is why people often create discussion topics like this.

Someone with strong religious faith feels an intense emotion. That same person listens to a powerful piece of music and feels a similar emotion. They then come to the conclusion that music must be of divine origin, when all they did was trigger similar euphoric emotional responses.

Changing subjects (sort of): This is why I think it's so difficult to show religious people the error in their ways. They're addicted to a drug. It's a naturally occurring drug that's manufactured right there in their brains, but it's a drug nonetheless. You can show them factual proof to their faces that their religion is wrong, and they'll refuse to believe it. When you see people doing weird chants and waiving their hands in the air and acting bizarre in religious gatherings, if you've never been on that side of it, it's flat out frightening. You think 'what in the HELL are they doing?' It's because their brains are being flooded with euphoria-causing chemicals. I think there may be a gene - a quick fix mutation - that our ancestors experienced to cope with difficult and emotionally intense situations, and religion is an expression of it.

When I discovered that depression runs in my father's side of the family, it made perfect sense why every single one of them were extremely religious. I'm not talking about 'I go to church occasionally and pray every now and then' religious - I'm talking 'I only listen to gospel music and pray every five minutes' religious. They cling to religion like a Xanax bottle. I have depression, too (I now treat it with medication and I'm OK), and I used to be religious - so I know what those feelings are like. It was an intense inner battle, though, because I KNEW it was wrong, but I felt so emotionally attached to it that I struggled with it for years. It isn't something that you can just say 'See? You're wrong!' and expect them to say 'Oh yeah! Thanks for showing me the error in my ways!'. That's like going up to a heroin addict and saying 'See what heroin can do to your body? It's bad!' and expecting them to immediately come off of it.

So you can provide all the links proving speciation, or all the brain scan images proving that homosexuality is not a choice, and they won't believe it. They'll create counter-arguments (that are bogus) and believe them whole-heartedly. They'll find one sliver of possible doubt , however minuscule, and cling to it like a piece of lumber from the sinking Titanic. They have to WANT to change, and want to change BADLY. Like a drug addict. They have to realize that what they're into is wrong, and even then it could take years, if at all.

 

[Guest]

Wow, I love how all of the little wannabe Dawkins and Hitchens on here are now throwing around their pseudo-intellectual analyses of how religious people have mental defects. You all, no doubt, have degrees in biology or psychology, or perhaps are experts in evolutionary genetics? Or do you just like to think that every trait in humans has some corresponding gene? I love the "religion" gene theory.

 

[David58117]

Wow, I love how all of the little wannabe Dawkins and Hitchens on here are now throwing around their pseudo-intellectual analyses of how religious people have mental defects. You all, no doubt, have degrees in biology or psychology, or perhaps are experts in evolutionary genetics? Or do you just like to think that every trait in humans has some corresponding gene? I love the "religion" gene theory.

As for myself, I said before I was finishing my 3rd year in biology/chemistry before I switched to nursing (I like the medical field, job security/opportunity, plus my wife is doing it as well). I plan to go back and finish once I complete this program.

I'm still very curious about why you made the comments you did earlier regarding speciation. You're a scientist, you work in the field, you MUST of heard about Diane Dodds experiment, about tiktaalik (2004), about island population studies, or read the article link I posted earlier today (I posted the abstract).

So no, I don't have my degree (yet), but I would very much be interested to read your rebuttal to why the experiment, transitional fossil findings don't matter.

And I think you and I are on the same page where I don't take evolution occurring as some sort of proof against God.

 

[Guest]

As for myself, I said before I was finishing my 3rd year in biology/chemistry before I switched to nursing (I like the medical field, job security/opportunity, plus my wife is doing it as well). I plan to go back and finish once I complete this program.

I'm still very curious about why you made the comments you did earlier regarding speciation. You're a scientist, you work in the field, you MUST of heard about Diane Dodds experiment, about tiktaalik (2004), about island population studies, or read the article link I posted earlier today (I posted the abstract).

So no, I don't have my degree (yet), but I would very much be interested to read your rebuttal to why the experiment, transitional fossil findings don't matter.

And I think you and I are on the same page where I don't take evolution occurring as some sort of proof against God.

I'm not sure how much can be taken from the Dodds experiment - flies were isolated for a period of time, given different diets, then allowed to mingle again, and they tended to match up with flies that they had been isolated with. But they were all still flies. You know, if you take people from different parts of the globe - Chinese, Africans, South Americans, Europeans - I think you will also find that, for the most part, they will match up with those from their geographic region. In fact, although there has been much intermingling over the millenia, there has been much isolation. And yet we all are still humans - Homo sapiens sapiens. An Inuit and an African can still mate and produce offspring.

Regarding tiktaalik, again, it is no smoking gun. It is all circumstantial. There were multiple differences between it and what potentially it sprang from, and what sprang from it, hypothetically. The larger rib cage, the wrist joint, etc. But what they have is an animal that looks a lot like other animals before and after. Centuries or more of domesticating the dog has resulted in quite the vast diversity of dogs. But they are all still dogs. Has anybody managed to create something other than a dog in this manner?

So you have animals that become isolated geographically who develop traits over time that make them better adapted to that particular region. That is still a far cry from developing into all different manners of life.

 

[HarpsichordConcerto]

So you have animals that become isolated geographically who develop traits over time that make them better adapted to that particular region. That is still a far cry from developing into all different manners of life.

What are your views on the primitive bird, Archaeoptryx? These primitive creatures appeared to be half reptilian dinosaurs and yet capable of flight (though probably lousy flight), with feather plumage. It had jaws with sharp teeth etc. No birds today have teeth in their jaws. It seemed to be quite a transitional creature. Thoughts?

 

[David58117]

I'm not sure how much can be taken from the Dodds experiment - flies were isolated for a period of time, given different diets, then allowed to mingle again, and they tended to match up with flies that they had been isolated with. But they were all still flies. You know, if you take people from different parts of the globe - Chinese, Africans, South Americans, Europeans - I think you will also find that, for the most part, they will match up with those from their geographic region. In fact, although there has been much intermingling over the millenia, there has been much isolation. And yet we all are still humans - Homo sapiens sapiens. An Inuit and an African can still mate and produce offspring.

Regarding tiktaalik, again, it is no smoking gun. It is all circumstantial. There were multiple differences between it and what potentially it sprang from, and what sprang from it, hypothetically. The larger rib cage, the wrist joint, etc. But what they have is an animal that looks a lot like other animals before and after. Centuries or more of domesticating the dog has resulted in quite the vast diversity of dogs. But they are all still dogs. Has anybody managed to create something other than a dog in this manner?

So you have animals that become isolated geographically who develop traits over time that make them better adapted to that particular region. That is still a far cry from developing into all different manners of life.

Mike, you're distorting what speciation is. It sounds like what you're after is something a long the lines of a dog turning into a cat - you're expecting Dianes fruit flies to turn into a butterfly, but that's a complete distortion.

Allopatric Speciation predicts that a population broken apart by a physical barrier will become reproductively isolated, that once the populations are reintroduced they will stay independent, allowing the mechanisms of evolution to work on two separate populations. By your own admission, this is what occurred.

I don't have my population genetics textbook any more, so I'll have to make do with what I have, here's wikipedias definition:

"Allopatric speciation, also known as geographic speciation, is the phenomenon whereby biological populations are physically isolated by an extrinsic barrier and evolve intrinsic (genetic) reproductive isolation, such that if the barrier should ever vanish, individuals of the populations can no longer interbreed."

Dianes fruit fly experiment is entirely what was to be expected.

 

[Guest]

Mike, you're distorting what speciation is. It sounds like what you're after is something a long the lines of a dog turning into a cat - you're expecting Dianes fruit flies to turn into a butterfly, but that's a complete distortion.

Allopatric Speciation predicts that a population broken apart by a physical barrier will become reproductively isolated, that once the populations are reintroduced they will stay independent, allowing the mechanisms of evolution to work on two separate populations. By your own admission, this is what occurred.

I don't have my population genetics textbook any more, so I'll have to make do with what I have, here's wikipedias definition:

"Allopatric speciation, also known as geographic speciation, is the phenomenon whereby biological populations are physically isolated by an extrinsic barrier and evolve intrinsic (genetic) reproductive isolation, such that if the barrier should ever vanish, individuals of the populations can no longer interbreed."

Dianes fruit fly experiment is entirely what was to be expected.

Again, this shows you can develop regional differences, but you still have a fly. You don't have a butterfly. So what is your point? I fully agree that by this mechanism, you can generate a vast diversity of life - but it hardly shows how you could expect to generate the entire spectrum of life that has ever, and will ever, live on this planet. Separate some flies over time, and voila - more flies.

But let me ask you this - suppose you take these various examples and extrapolate - if you only change a minor thing over time, how long to generate new species, completely different? Or if you were to have multiple changes that created something significantly different, wouldn't you need that incredibly rare event to happen at least twice, and in the case of sexually reproducing animals, you would need a male and a female? Because if a creature was significantly different than others, would it not make the process of mating more difficult, if, as Dodds shows, they tend to pair off with other animals similar to them?

No, she doesn't show a fly becoming a butterfly. But that is what an evolutionary explanation for all life on this planet ultimately requires. And even more dramatic than just fly to butterfly - single biochemical all the way to Homo sapiens sapiens.

 

[HarpsichordConcerto]

We are talking about millions of years of evolution. (That time frame is incomprehensible to the human mind, frankly). Chimpanzees appear to have split from some common ancestor what, 5 to 10 million years ago, yet despite having over 90% identical DNA as us. Evolution takes a long, long time but it appears "small" changes are enough for speciation.

I'm no natural scientist but just a general reader of fascinating topics.

 

[David58117]

Again, this shows you can develop regional differences, but you still have a fly. You don't have a butterfly. So what is your point? I fully agree that by this mechanism, you can generate a vast diversity of life - but it hardly shows how you could expect to generate the entire spectrum of life that has ever, and will ever, live on this planet. Separate some flies over time, and voila - more flies.

But let me ask you this - suppose you take these various examples and extrapolate - if you only change a minor thing over time, how long to generate new species, completely different? Or if you were to have multiple changes that created something significantly different, wouldn't you need that incredibly rare event to happen at least twice, and in the case of sexually reproducing animals, you would need a male and a female? Because if a creature was significantly different than others, would it not make the process of mating more difficult, if, as Dodds shows, they tend to pair off with other animals similar to them?

No, she doesn't show a fly becoming a butterfly. But that is what an evolutionary explanation for all life on this planet ultimately requires. And even more dramatic than just fly to butterfly - single biochemical all the way to Homo sapiens sapiens.

I'm a bit surprised, I thought you would of been aware that evolution works by other mechanisms as well. No population is closed, there are other factors influencing it - evolution doesn't work by rare bottlenecks or mutations alone.

The thing you're not understanding regarding the experiment, is that allopatric speciation predicted the population would become split once the barrier is removed - now that there are two seperate populations, and because they are not living in a closed environment, factors such as predation, genetic drift, gene flow, mutations, environmental factors, etc etc will act on each population.

Keep in mind Dodds experiment occurred over 8 generations...now give it a few billion years.

 

[dmg]

Recent research shows that a person on average has between 180 and 200 unique mutations - changes to your genome that are not present in either of your parents. Multiply that by the number of generations over millions of years, and by the number of siblings per generation.

So it's not just a change here and there - every individual organism has quite a few changes.

 

[Guest]

I'm a bit surprised, I thought you would of been aware that evolution works by other mechanisms as well. No population is closed, there are other factors influencing it - evolution doesn't work by rare bottlenecks or mutations alone.

The thing you're not understanding regarding the experiment, is that allopatric speciation predicted the population would become split once the barrier is removed - now that there are two seperate populations, and because they are not living in a closed environment, factors such as predation, genetic drift, gene flow, mutations, environmental factors, etc etc will act on each population.

Keep in mind Dodds experiment occurred over 8 generations...now give it a few billion years.

I'm aware of all of those concerns. But consider a system where the reproductive cycle is even shorter than a fly, and where you can generate a lot of diversity in a very short period of time due to high rates of mutation - viruses. Viruses replicate very fast. RNA viruses are highly prone to error in their genomic replication. And in many hosts, there is a strong selection pressure exerted by the host. And yet you still get viruses. A vast diversity even within a single virus (e.g. HIV, hepatitis C virus, influenza), but still viruses.

And I realize the time span we are talking about is incredibly large. But think about some of these things. Suppose that all of this could explain the generation of life up until sexual reproduction enters the picture, and then preferential mating becomes an issue, as is pointed out by the Dodds study. That study seems to suggest that you would then only be able to make incredibly small, incremental changes over time in order to not generate something so different that it would be seen as unfavorable for mating with. Either that, or if some major change did occur, you would need it to happen multiple times, within a relatively small geographic region so as to assure that those with that change could find each other. Granted, similar pressures on a given population, if they were responsible for the change, might make this possibility more likely.

Comparisons of chimps and humans are repeatedly addressed. But there, the difference is about 2.7%. That amounts to 35 million single nucleotide changes, 5 million insertion/deletion events, and various chromosomal rearrangements. Most of the differences arise from duplication events. That puts it in a little more perspective.

 

[karenpat]

I'm a Catholic art/art history student and for many years I've been of the conviction that every artform somehow is closely connected to God because it involves visible and/or audible beauty, and beauty is, I believe, one of the greatest proofs of God's existence.

Not trying to push my opinion down your throats, just saying what I think....
I would think it highly likely that people who don't believe in God can regard beauty as something eternal or greater than themselves.

 

[Edward Elgar]

I would think it highly likely that people who don't believe in God can regard beauty as something eternal or greater than themselves.

We have evolved to perceive our environment in a way that is most beneficial to us. If we perceive something to be beautiful that means it will help maintain a healthy human species either physically or mentally. Beauty in music will help the composers we love to live forever. They are the true gods!