God's Child responds to me:
quote:
I guess I have always been taught wrong that the US was based on God.
We learn something new every day.
quote:
As for the geological column I'll have to do some research because I've been told several opinions from credible people.
Who?
quote:
I'll define what I mean by greater when I say the evolutionary tree only shows animals getting greater. A greater characteristic would be something that benefits the organism according to its environment.
And all of them came about through mutation. We've seen it happen right in front of our eyes. I've described experiments that you, personally, can do in your own bio lab. In fact, it's often done in high school biology to show that mutation actually happens and provides benefit to the organisms.
So why is there some sort of denial that it can happen? Who are you going to believe: Your own eyes or someone who tells you it can't happen?
quote:
When you see siblings or cousins marry, negative things can happen to the genes of their child.
But it has nothing to do with the fact that they are siblings or cousins. That is, the fact that siblings or cousins have children does not cause genetic mutations. It isn't as if the sperm and the egg have little tags on them saying, "I'm your brother!" so that they'll know to be extra mutagenic upon conception.
Instead, the reason why we often see genetic problems in the offspring of closely related individuals is because they will often share the same recessive traits.
Suppose a woman is heterozygous for brown eyes. Thus, she has brown eyes, but she has a single copy of a gene for blue eyes. She can only pass on one copy of this gene to her offspring. Suppose the father of her children is homozygous for brown eyes. Thus, he has brown eyes and only has genes for brown eyes.
Therefore, there's a 50-50 chance that the children of these two people will be heterozygous for blue eyes, just like their mother. If these children then have children, it is possible that one of them might turn up with blue eyes. The fact that it is siblings having children does not create the blue-eyed gene. It is the fact that they are descended from someone who had a blue-eyed gene that makes it more likely. Since they both trace their genetic ancestry to the same source, it is more likely that they will share genetic traits than unrelated people.
quote:
The further away the relation the less of the effect though.
But not because of the nature of their relationship but because with distance from the shared genetic source comes greater genetic variety. Incest doesn't create mutations. It makes those common traits that do exist more commonly expressed.
quote:
This is what I mean by the gene pool very minutely being filled with mutations and such.
Surely after six billion individuals, this would be apparent, wouldn't it? And yet, there are more people living longer and longer lives than ever before. How could this be if the gene pool were getting worse?
quote:
The fact that there are 6 billion people on earth doesn't go against what I'm saying.
Yes, it does. Genetic effects should have shown up by now if the mutations are getting worse. Every generation produces mutations. On average, every human being has 3 to 6 compared to his parents. There are only about three billion base-pairs in the human genome. If the gene pool were getting worse and worse, then we should see something indicating that on the way to six billion people.
quote:
Everybody being nice to each other is very stable but being nice only when there's a positive response isn't (yes I am refining my previous statement).
Incorrect. That's actually the way to win the game. All other strategies fail over the long run. The only way to achieve stability is for everyone to cooperate. Until you reach that point, the strategy to win is to do unto others as they do unto you, but don't be the first to get nasty and be prepared to forgive.
quote:
Let’s say you're on your death bed eating lunch with a group of people and someone turns his back and you take his sandwich (not saying you would do this). He never knows or suspects that it's you.
But, he does notice that somebody has stolen his sandwich. Even if he doesn't know that it's you, it means he knows that somebody out there is working against him. Thus, he loses his trust in others and he will be on the lookout for a sandwich of his own, possibly stealing it from someone else...say you, since you have two.
You're confusing a single instance with a long-term strategy. Yes, for any single instance, you might be able to get away with it and come out even further ahead. But chances are, you won't be able to keep up that lucky streak for very long. Therefore, you will need to develop a better strategy for maintaining your position knowing that you cannot take advantage of everyone.
quote:
You knew you were dying and you weren't punished by man, what's to stop you from doing it?
The fact that he cries out, "Who took my sandwich?!" and then everybody starts casting about looking for the thief. They all drop their trust, even if only a little bit, because they know that there is a traitor in their midst. And since the strategy is to do unto others as they do unto you and we have an instance of somebody defecting, we are going to have a run of defections as people seek to find out who the uncooperative person is.
Again, a single instance might allow you to get ahead more by defection than cooperation, but that is a poor long-term strategy.
quote:
What good is it doing you if you leave the place better by not stealing the man's sandwich
I already explained this to you: The only reason I have the benefits I have is because the previous generations were in a position to give it to me. Therefore, I need to continue to play the game in order to maximize my own outcome by being cooperative, which necessarily puts those I leave behind in a better place.
The most likely way for me to achieve my goals is for me to help you achieve yours...right up to the very end.
It isn't that I'm thinking about the future. I am thinking only for myself. But in order to make sure that my selfish goals are achieved, it means I have to behave in such a way that your goals get achieved and leave a world that is better off than what I found.
A rising tide lifts all boats.
quote:
I agree that man can make a system that works well with morals, that most the laws are explainable, under logic, in this nation, for example, but I don't think decency is explainable.
Why not? Why can't it, too, be an evolved trait?
quote:
Walking around naked even saves you money even but it's not ethical under God.
What does god have to do with it? The laws of the United States have nothing to do with god.
quote:
If the US did it so Christians wouldn't be offended they would have passed many more a rule, and since you say the US isn't based under God, then explain what made man make this rule?
Prurient interest. A more stable society is one in which people aren't obsessed about sexuality. Therefore, it is beneficial to society to reduce the amount of friction (oy!) in the public spaces.
You are perfectly free to go about naked in your own domicile. You can even wear as little as you can get away with in public. There was a guy in Albuquerque where I used to live who was very much the nudist and, indeed, wore as little as he could legally get away with in public. He made the accession in the public square so that he could have a stable society, even though he may disagree with the rest of society, in exchange for having the freedom to do as he pleased in his private home.
------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!
OTOH, I've been beaten up enough about oversimplifying (all it takes is one creationist to jump in to point out the error and we spend the next 23 pages trying to convince them that we really DID know what we were talking about.) Also, I agree that the level of detail is probably more than GC would be interested in pursuing. Still, I thought you might enjoy the references, which expand on Kimura's and Ohta's neutral theory (and the second one is especially interesting in the implications for the development of sexual reproduction, IMO).
™ Version 4.2