DNA Argument for a Creator

Post Evidence Here - Beliefnet

From data of molecular biology and from some information theories, we can now argue that an "intelligent force" is the cause of the origen of life, do to the simple analogy that exists between DNA code and any written language. There is not a clear identification from scientific data, neither we can give it a proper name to that intelligent force, and from empirical deduction the only thing we can said is, the intelligent force that produced the first spark of life , is within the cosmos, and off the earth, or perhaps beyond the cosmos as historical theism maintains. We can ponder about all this for ever and the only sure answer will be that humanity might pondered about it until the end of time.
Silverada

This is basically a more sophisticated and intelligent reworking of the Behe's irreducible complexity argument. It has many of the same flaws the main one being where did the super irreducible complex designer come from? The assumption is that some omniscient something arranged the codons in the first DNA and either let it evolve from there or tweaked it as necessary to accomplish its aim of producing the amazing supremely intelligent being in the image of God namely me.

Frankly, I am not that important. The other problem with this argument is that it is assumed that this omniscient creator had some goal in mind when Hesh created that first DNA. If it wasn't me the atheist in God's image, what was it?

It is certainly possible in spite of the difficulties mentioned, but it is far more likely that a totally undirected chemical process that can be guessed at but not defined at this point ended up as that first DNA, and the organisms built by that DNA did their best to stay alive and reproduce more DNA as best they could, but that inevitably errors crept in, some helpful some lethal and by this time a bunch of intelligent people came about that could imagine God in their own image. I think my scenario takes a lot less faith, but you may not think faith is as dysfunctional as I do.

I do think DNA language code is not a selective, random or out of necessity evolutionary happening. Molecular biologists do know now how life came to be, but they don´t know from where that first cause came from or how that language code was introduce into the molecules with the ability to store, transmit and edit information and to use that information to regulate their most fundamental metabolic process. There is nothing under biological research that have had yet an indisputable answer to that. So mysticism findings are still the only answer untill science can otherwise contradict it and make it false forever without any doubt.
Silverada

Like many creator advocates you ignore the brutal power of selection. Any change to the DNA that doesn't work is generally lethal and that change disappears. Some changes don't make any difference and are conserved until they change again and either help or more frequently kill the organism. But there are billions of organisms and even the dead ones are food, that is sources of nucleotides to make new DNA for other organisms. So the fact that most of it doesn't work means very little in the big picture. As long as one strand of DNA works and the zygote lives to reproduce whatever the change is will be conserved. And successful zygotes tend to make lots more. It works even faster for cloning organisms. One successful strand of DNA makes two more, those 2 make 4 and 4 make 8 and you can do the rest of the math till you get a whole pond full of organisms until they run out of food.

Even the simplest form of life, with the store of DNA, are characterized by specified complexity, therefore life itself is "the first evidence" that some form of intelligence was in existence at the time of its origin.
Silverada

You can keep your designer if you wish, but the designer works by trial and error just like most human designers. The designer tried RNA and it was almost good enough but the thiamine introduced too many errors in transcription. So after a bunch of ungodlike expletives the designer tried uracil and finally found the stability in transcription that was necessary to compete in the nucleotide gobbling world of early protolife. A whole lot of errors in programming later the designer finally found a sequence that could wrap a lipid membrane around itself and protect its nucleotide sources.

If this sounds like natural selection to you it does to me as well. I just can't come up with a way to create a designer smart enough to figure out in one shot, that first DNA sequence that used the lipid membrane for protection.

Maybe you are smarter than I am or have more faith that the designer could just poof out of nothing, but in any event you have to explain the origins of the designer. "I believe it, and that settles it" works, but that is not evidence simply belief.

Did I post anything that a certified chemist might find a complete ignorance of the matter? if it is so, please correct me. For sure I do not have a chemist point of view of how DNA works, I only learn about from reading a few things.
Silverada

The major difference between the chemistry of DNA and written language is that DNA chemistry is relatively inflexible. It is similar to low level computer code, in that any minor error generally causes the whole program to crash. As a low level programmer at one time I can assure you that such programming is error and trial over and over again.

Even if your creator had the ability to manipulate individual codons of DNA that is "write" a strand of DNA my guess is that the creator would use up as many combinations as evolution did to finally get a self replicating strand that could encase itself in a cell membrane to create life. The difference is that the creator thought about it, while evolution just kept trying at random until something worked.

I just can't imagine a creator intelligent enough to "write" a strand of DNA that would waste the time it would take to create life, when the creator would presumably be intelligent enough to know that evolution would do the same thing, sooner or later.

When religion dies.

Is religion is a "mind rotting" disease? - Beliefnet

Atheism is not an answer for the mind rot of religion. If there were no theists there would be no atheists. Atheism is simply one solution to life without God. If the mind rotting religions of faith and salvation were somehow eliminated you would probably find much the same things you see now. People gathering in social settings for conversation, perhaps some music, many might choose something resembling a religion without the mind rot of imposed belief. As someone else pointed out a 'high' UU church has all the ritual, music, stories from the pulpit, of a traditional religion without the requirement for a specific belief. Arguing with the minister is a strong tradition in most UU churches. I suspect that many of the traditional religions to survive will adopt a similar strategy. Listen to the stories of Jesus, discuss them. What can they tell you about getting what you can from the life you know about, the one with the fancy bookends of birth and death.

Meaning and purpose must be found in this life, and traditional stories might help. But don't count on anything unusual happening at death.

- Sent using Google Toolbar"

Failed Theists

The Bright Line - Beliefnet

There is a reason that atheists are a small but rapidly growing segment of the population: It is hard intellectual work to find substitutes for the God myths of childhood that provided the security blanket that one can wrap oneself in when life spins out of control. Unfortunately many of those God myths are getting tattered and the blankie doesn't work as well as it used to without strong faith.

I know the University one failed theist attended and rational thought is not its strong suit. It is an excellent practical knowledge source, as it was designed to be. If you needed support for rational abstract thinking the University down the highway a piece might have provided more support. But I suspect that even there the support would have been insufficient.

Jesus as humanist.

Definitions - Beliefnet

The problem with Christian theology is that it has nothing at all to do with Jesus. John was closest to Jesus, but even he tried to wrap theology around Jesus. It didn't work.

Once you divorce Jesus from theology most of the objections to his historical existence as a person evaporate. The miracles become mnemonics, the eclecticism from past religious traditions only shows he was aware of them and incorporated what he thought were the best parts in his ministry. Paul's hijacking of his charisma is for me definitive proof of his existence as a popular preacher probably named Jesus in Greek. The fact that the Synoptics survived in spite of their disagreement with all Christian theology is additional proof for me of the importance and historicity of Jesus.

I find Jesus to be quite human, quite humanistic, and radically respectful of all people. No wonder they killed him.

ChooseYour Parents Well

The origin of self in relation to truth - Beliefnet

Why it is so important to pick your culture very carefully: A child will be necessarily be imprinted with the memes of his parents and their Social Support Group. It is called socialization and is critical if the child is to survive to puberty. This is in fact nature's plan. It in critical for a human to be a part of a tribe. A lone human is a dead human in the natural world. Nature has provided an escape hatch in the adolescent rebellion phase of any normally intelligent child. And if the child is exposed to other tribes as many modern children are in school, the rebellious child may find a better (or worse) tribe to associate with.

Obviously as a child this is a pipe dream, but as an adult anticipating reproducing the SSG that you will provide for you child will determine whether the child is warped into some form of aberration or becomes a useful, productive contributor to the larger society.

Religions can be acceptable SSGs but again it is important to choose, if you can, a religion that is aware of and trying to be a part of the larger society. Many are not, and treat the larger society as hostile and dangerous, even to the point of home schooling or religious schooling to keep the child warped into the aberrant group.

The Internet as SSG.

Rationally Speaking: Massimo’s Picks:

Nice article on the internet, thanks. The revolution that is being missed is the fact that until the net social groups were chosen for individuals. You belonged to a family, a church, a university, a company, a political party, a country etc. With the net your social group is whoever you want it to be. Many of the most important people in my social group I have never met and probably never will. Yet they shape my thinking and I shape theirs. In particular the ERSSG seems to be heavily dependent on the internet for its cohesion and ethos. The articles people link on facebook, the blogs they cite and write are all critical to the functioning of the ERSSG.

The group seems to expand on the net as well. Two middle aged high school buddies hooked up on facebook. No surprise there. The comments of a "friend" of one of them appealed to the other and that person requested friend status for the second degree friend. The second degree friend suggested to others that the person was a good addition to the local ERSSG.

As we are seeing around the world, a social group determined to change their world with the net has no problem doing so simply by creating a group dedicated to doing so and gathering enough like minded people into it to make it happen. I see the momentum building on the net for supporting the unions in Wisconsin. Hmm. If they can do it to Mubarak and Qaddafi how will Walker hold up?

Addendum: Listening to Finlandia on the KDFC stream, the thought occurred to me that perhaps music performed much the social grouping function as the net does now. As everyone can type, everyone can sing. The Marseilles, maybe Yankee Doodle, and a few others that provided the unifying identifier for the revolutionaries.

What is an Atheist?

Definitions - Beliefnet

Let me make it as simple as I can. If a person believes in at least one God or god that person is a theist. It doesn't really matter to an atheist what sort of a god it is or whether it is imaginary, delusional, or stands naked on mountain tops throwing lightning bolts at humans that are not liked and occasionally has sex with a human,.

They are all the same to an atheist. Not contributing anything of value to our lives. As soon as you define theist as A, Not A is an atheist. Just like there are many kinds of theists, there are many kinds of atheists. Since theists hate us all, we don't spend much time in public discussing our differences. Frankly they are of no importance to a theist.

If I don't believe in their particular God or vuvuzela it makes no difference why or how I don't believe. Fundie theists will respond with bigotry and spend as much time as I will let them trying to convince me that I am a horrible sinner that will burn in Hell forever if I don't convert to their God or vuvuzela or in any case I torture women and children and have sex with men.

Reasonable theists will try to figure out why I don't believe so that they can point out the error of my ways in not accepting their God of vuvuzela. They don't care whether I think God does not exist, whether I think God is a numinous brain fart or whether God is simply worthless. They will try to find that God hole and try to fill it.

A few don't care at all and let me go to Hell in my own way.

A minuscule subset will ask intelligent questions about how I deal with important issues of living and dying, meaning, purpose, spirituality, transcendence and wonder. But they don't care about what kind of an atheist I am. They are simply trying to find out how I cope without God or god(s) as the case may be.

Clan of the Cave Bear

Modern DNA analysis, mitochondrial vs whole genome puts a pretty dark slant on the movie Clan of the Cave Bear. No mitochondrial Neanderthal DNA in humans means that no Neanderthal women mated with Sapiens men. 3% Neanderthal DNA in the whole genome means that a lot of Sapiens women were, shall we say, used by Neanderthal men. Maybe they were incorporated into the Neanderthal clan, but it seems unlikely to me.

Neanderthals seem to have been the apex predator, with Sapiens surviving pretty well on wit and guile. But as Neanderthals were bigger, stronger and possibly more intelligent I suspect that a Sapiens man trying to mate with a Neanderthal woman would lose some valuable anatomy parts. However a foraging Sapiens woman would be helpless if encountered by a hunting party of Neanderthals or even a lone Neanderthal hunter.

Tribal Issues

king of the universe(s) - Beliefnet

The basic human social unit has been the tribe or clan. Certainly tribes and clans competed for space and resources, just as religions and nations do today. But within the tribe or clan social compliance, that is being nice to one another, was absolute. A serious social error got you expelled from the tribe, and until very recently a lone human was a dead human. Even today, disfellowshipping or shunning can be a devastating experience that frequently leads to suicide or in some cases being killed. The social contract between the individual and the social group is critical to the survival of both. Even at the nation level an individual who violates the social contract no matter how powerful can be brought down by the tribe abetted by modern communication channels. See Nixon and Mubarak. There will be more. You got to be nice to your fellow tribespeople no matter how big the guns at your back are. Those guns are operated by members of the tribe.

Social Elites

Nails in the Religious Coffin: Sex, Drugs, and Contraception - Beliefnet

We are the world's sweet chosen few.
The rest of you be damned.
There's room enough in Hell for you.
We won't have heaven crammed.

If you don't teach your children that little ditty, or at least smile when they recite it. You had better find a new Social Support Group (SSG). It is necessary for the socialization of children that they think their group is the elite group in society. When they reach the teen rebellion years a few might question that concept. They may have friends whose elite seems more attractive or better than theirs and try to change their 'colors.' Or an attractive potential mate may make changing 'colors' a part of the deal. I use 'colors' as a designator for any elite, religious or secular. It seems to be a human trait to choose colors in clothing to identify the elite group to which they belong. In fact this may be main purpose of clothing. Certainly bundling up in cold climates is necessary, but even in tropical areas a sarong or breechclout is socially necessary.

This is how societies evolve, or in the memorable words of Niven-Pournelle "Think of it as Evolution In Action."

As an additional point of fact, should my SSG decide that it was superior in an objective sense to any other SSG - to the point of endorsing the sentiments of that song - it's personal utility to me would decrease dramatically.
nieciedo

Noted and agreed. But to use the personal utility sense of superior for you and those in the SSG would you not agree that is superior to other SSGs so that at least an ironic use of the ditty might be possible. (As intended in the original, irony in print is very problematical, I probably should not attempt it but it is just too useful.)

My Educated, Rational SSG is certainly not objectively superior to the uneducated faith SSGs that do not see the irony in the ditty. Nor is it objectively superior to many other SSGs in the community. In fact in many ways it is objectively inferior to, for example, the investment banker SSG. They make a whole lot more money than we do. And one cannot consider raping the poor and middle class to be objectively bad. Nonetheless, I will do my best to indoctrinate those that are important to me into the mores of the ERSSG so that perhaps in the evolutionary sorting out of SSGs it will survive.

Pair bonding.

Nails in the Religious Coffin: Sex, Drugs, and Contraception - Beliefnet

The thing that religions generally do not recognize is that reproduction in humans is not just popping a litter out and seeing who survives. Reproduction in humans is a long term investment if the zygote is going to get to puberty. One of the main evolutionary purposes of pleasure in sex and the evolutionary reason for the hidden estrus in humans is that the pair bond is essential for reproductive success, that is getting a reproducing offspring into the world. Religions generally accept the fact that sex after the first rape will result in a pair bond, which is one of the reasons they insist on marriage prior to sex. But this pair bond is dysfunctional for the church since the loyalties of the pair will be to the family rather than to the church. Therefore the restrictions on eg contraceptive sex which might make the pair bond more important than the church.

Replacing the Church for Socialization

Nails in the Religious Coffin: Sex, Drugs, and Contraception - Beliefnet

I would agree that society has gone overboard in the nuclear family department church or no. But there are secular substitutes for the church. Have you ever walked through the student family housing area of a major university? Or gone to a popular family park in one of the good school districts in a city. I notice such things because I was the 'afternoon and Saturday parent' for two children in a large metro area. My support group was eclectic and as you might expect for an early Mr. Mom very unusual. I even found out it included the off-duty 'tourist services' ladies in a neighborhood SRO hotel. The Central Park playgrounds were our church once the ladies figured out that I had a right to be there. We all watched out for all the kids, and socialized them independent of whose kids they were.

Internet as a Social Group

Nails in the Religious Coffin: Sex, Drugs, and Contraception - Beliefnet

Let´s use this day to remind us of the importance of  friendship, brotherhood and unity.
The ciber space  has become the perfect instrument to achieve such a thing, because here distance, gender, race, nationality, beliefs, are not what is important  but the feeling of togetherness.
Silverada

It will be interesting to see if internet resources like Facebook (The intelligent old fart's friend) will be able to take up the slack in putting together social groups of like minded people. For a while it was just keeping in touch with old friends that have been scattered around the country, but recently I have been searching out and finding local like minded people. Although occasional face to face or group meetups are fun and valuable, the internet takes the place of the Post Office or mall greeting or for that matter the church socials.

As for charity, there are plenty of opportunities to make a difference in the world, and I find the resources of the net valuable for vetting them. Many of the church charity events are more about making the church participants feel good about themselves and look good to the community than actually making a difference in other people's lives. In many religious charities I find very little 'teaching them to fish' and a lot of throwing them a fish with a verse attached.

I thought about throwing the internet into the title, but it didn't have the right ring. But it is there, along with smartphone networks, that are going to change the way societies form and maintain their ethos.

Looking at the current crop of young adults one wonders. I suspect texting and twitter are just a fad, but social networks, can be quite powerful and rewarding. I have never met several "friends" from beliefnet, but most of them are more important to my mental well being than most of my casual face to face contacts even those who get hugs. I will try to get the face-to-face and will go out of my way to do so, but even that meeting is more of a reunion with an old friend rather than making a new acquaintance. The reserve and hesitancy of meeting a new even highly recommended face friend, just isn't there. I have personally done this several times once meeting a friend for the first time in the car at the start of a 2 day 1500 mile road trip to a rock concert both of us wanted to see. I knew the lead singer, but he had never met any of the people that were going to be there except for a high school classmate, who was the unifying contact for us all.

Atheists Behaving Badly.

Blag Hag: When Gender Goes Pear-Shaped

Let's continue to flog the messengers here. That will allow us to continue to avoid dealing with the real problem which has nothing to do with feminism but the fact that atheists have become so full of their Atheist BS that they can't be wrong about anything. Bad behavior? Atheists don't do that. They have the righteous Atheist TRUTH™.
J'Carlin

568 posts and counting worrying about whether a woman at panel discussion about making women welcome to Atheism© had the right to question their use of female in place of woman or women. The title of the post could have well as been Atheists behaving badly, although all the examples were men behaving as sexists as there were many other examples of inappropriate behavior by men, oh yes by women also for dressing provocatively (showing cleavage and causing men to stare at it.)

Jen actually had to delete the male half of the million dollar challenge "A $million to any man who thinks he could boff one of the attendee's by midnight." Apparently there was some controversy about whether the overall STRONGLY feminist tenor of the speech excused the challenge which would have been unacceptable at most bars. I objected to the original academic, dual sex challenge, as an inappropriate focus on a zipless fuck. In this day and age I think it would be inappropriate in any setting despite the excuse that we are genetically predisposed to fuck anything that moves. We may be, but anybody that has no control over that instinct had better find God to help. God will provide Burqas or Habits to disguise the fact that the moving thing is a woman. It might even work although available evidence says it won't.

One of the reasons I no longer identify as an atheist, is that many atheists seem to think that they have First Amendment rights to talk and behave any way they want to. The argument that fundies do it doesn't cut any ice with me. An asshole is an asshole no matter which God or NoGod is pushing out the shit.

Nails in the Religious Coffin: Sex, Drugs, and Contraception

Nails in the Religious Coffin: Sex, Drugs, and Contraception - Beliefnet

Controlling sex and drugs is certainly a huge issue for humanity. Which is the Achilles heel of religion. Religion wants the only source of extacy to be God or at least Herm humble representative on earth that little vuvuzela in the fancy dress in the over decorated balcony. Having fun in bed? God will send you to hell! A little too much booze at the party? Better spend a lot of time in the confessional.

The other related nail in the religious coffin is female contraception. If you can't keep them barefoot and pregnant, why on earth would they want to go to church and listen to all that sexist garbage.

Atheism's contribution to these issues is not so much providing answers, as exposing the religious answers as BS and stinking BS at that. Atheists have a variety of social groups that they can choose to provide the moral and ethical guidance on these issues. These days governments are as useless as religion for this purpose.

It will be interesting to see if social media will ultimately provide this function. The churches certainly think so. Every church has its Web2.0 network up. Some universities are trying to fill the gap for non-believers. Music and arts groups are also providing social networks outside the churches. Atheist groups are hopeless, they can't even agree on what an atheist is let alone what moral and ethical socialization should be for an atheist. See the Blag Hag discussion of gender issues at an atheist gathering

My guess is that self selected Facebook groups will emerge as the socializing force for the non-religious.

- Sent using Google Toolbar"

Power to the People

Matt Davies courtesy Gocomics

In today's world information is power. It is essentially free on the internet. 2012 anyone? Mr Bloomberg?

Feminist men.

Blag Hag: When Gender Goes Pear-Shaped

If feminist men don't speak out on feminist issues, the only ones left to do so are those rad-fem women who object to sexist language and treatment. I can call a sexist a prick and get away with it because I have one. (I try very hard not to think with it. Long socialization in a family of very strong women.) The women have to be oh-so-careful not to be seen as 'one of them.' Hang in there, you will get flack from both sides but that is the way entrenched mores get changed.

Feminist men have much more clout because we can't be simply dismissed as one of those hysterical women. We can even be polite about it. Simply reminding another man about a poor choice of words by suggesting a better one is frequently as effective as calling him a prick. If not and some men just don't get it either willful sexism or stupidity the fallback is always available.

The Little Vuvuzela in the Fancy Dress

This phrase grew out of a comment by one of my favorite ministers who would talk about standing out on the church steps in a fuchsia dress shilling for the tinhorn in the fancy balcony. I thought the fuchsia dress was a little too specific, so changed it to fancy dress, losing the shilling in the process. One of the beliefnet members kindly pointed out that a tinhorn was obsolete so I updated it to a modern metaphor.
I have to admit that the Bb one note blare of a vuvuzela is a much better metaphor for a sermon than a tinhorn. You can actually play music(?) on a tinhorn.

Thus:

That little vuvuzela in the fancy dress in the over decorated balcony

Solving Existential Nihilism

Beliefnet

Welcome to existential nihilism. You must solve this problem for yourself or you will fall prey to the first religion that provides the response that Unitarian Universalist minister Forrest Church noted that religion is: quite simply, "our human response to the dual reality of being alive and having to die."

Hint: on the wall of my shower I have the fossil of an invertebrate fossilized ~half a billion years ago. It ingested and excreted and died. Probably reproduced but we can't know that. Once you can explain that creature's contribution to a child's sand castle you can possibly be immune to the attraction of God. Otherwise enjoy the pie in the sky after you die. It will help you get through the day.

I have found the unique solution that works for me to avoid the trap of existential nihilism. It may not work for all others, but in fact others have found my solution useful in avoiding that trap without resorting to Pascal's wager. But it is not "the solution" to how to live life. It may not even be the best solution to how to live life. But for someone with my training and background or a similar background it may help them avoid existential nihilism and Pascal's wager assuming they find neither useful to live life.

No matter, if everyone in my tribe of educated rational humans finds meaning in doing whatever they can to improve the lives of all those in their chosen tribe that they can and improve their own lives in a way that others look to them for help, comfort, love and inspiration, the world would become a much better place in spite of the nihilists and the fundamentalists total lack of contribution to the welfare of the human tribe.

How much each achieves is really irrelevant. Some will be able to do more than others, some will be in the right place at the right time to make a huge difference in someone's life that will enable that person to go on to be a major player in the community. But like the invertebrates on my shower wall, by surviving they provide the foundation for something better than they are.

Objectively it might be better for the human race if all existential nihilists chose the Glock solution to their problem and those who chose to bet on Pascal spent their entire life on their knees begging for salvation. I am convinced that neither is better for the human race, or for the universe, than some solution that avoids both. Objectively it might well be better for the universe or at least the earth if no humans existed. I don't buy that argument but I cannot prove it wrong, objectively or subjectively.

The Value of Religion

No atheist "denies" the existence of any "God" - Beliefnet

Religion has been an avocation for me ever since I found out that my next door neighbor believed in God and tried to figure out why he and his family would waste so much time in abetting this worthless (to me) activity. Then I got into choral music, and most of the good stuff was commissioned by the church to keep the parishioners on their knees praying for salvation. It works. But in order to perform it I had to know why it worked.

I also was fascinated by what the composer thought of why it was working. It did pay the bills and provided high status, but that was a different issue from the meaning written into the music. I find an amusing correlation between composition and atheism. I certainly can't prove it, but my study of religious scores suggests to me the composer was serving herm patron the church by providing the music that kept them on their knees but also provided an opportunity for those whose knees were sore to find a way out. Not all, there are many whose music even with the most cynical atheist interpretation seems to be an unadulterated celebration of their God. It is quite clear that God gets them from one day to the next, and they find a calling in helping others do so.

The most important value of religion is that it helps people deal with their mortality. I think the religious solution is valueless, but a lot of people find it useful not to have to deal with finding meaning and purpose in a finite life span. They can go from day to day doing whatever it is they do to get from one to the next without having to worry about who cares, because God cares and will take care of them in eternity if not now. Existential angst is not pleasant for most people and it is easy to let God worry about it.

Lest I seem condescending, let me be clear that for those who can assign the worries about meaning and purpose to God and find a religion that lets them contribute to the welfare of all including us Godless heathen, I have nothing but envy. I spend way too much of my life figuring out the ins and outs of meaning, purpose, spirituality, transcendence, etc. For me obviously, it is a better choice, but it cannot be defended as the only choice or even the best choice.