No one chooses what they believe

[cormac mac airt]

13 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

Please find ANY academic proof that this is true. Nothing i have read indicates that this is necessary indeed it is highly unlikely that two or more individuals might be conceived and gestated with identical  genetic mutations or drift, while it is highly likely that such adaptions might be passed on from parents to offspring

Now, as in the case of the peppered moth, individuals existed in a range of shades but dark moths were only 2% of the population prior to 1848. By 1898 95 % of the moths were dark in colour. Natural selection caused this due to the industrial revolution darkening the English country side This is evolution in process.

  BUT  genetic or allelic drift is a different  part of evolution. There, a new gene would provide in one individual some advantage.  That advantage would be passed onto numerous offpsring who would then prosper more than the older version Over generations the new characteristics could become common and even universal.

That's pretty much EVERY genetic paper ever written. 

Genetic drift ISN'T about 'new' genes, it concerns new 'expressions' of already extant genes. Example, depending on how the various genes responsible for skin or eye color (examples - SLC24A5, MFSD12, OCA2 and HERC2) are expressed (i.e. switched on or off) different colorations can occur and any one or more genes NOT expressed in a given way changes said coloration. That IS NOT dependent on a single individual for transmission to later generations, but IS dependent on a population of such individuals. 

cormac

[Jodie.Lynne]

On 7/16/2019 at 4:12 AM, DieChecker said:

A person who denies genetics and evolution, may just as well demand to be a Young Earth Creationist, and Flat Earth believer. If someone is OK with the Earth being round, and orbiting the Sun, then why deny evolution? The one basiclly requires the other. We either believe science, based on observation, or we don't.

Because people seem to pick & choose what they accept as real?

Science is A-OK when it comes to things like cel phones, heart transplants, Jetliners and microwave popcorn, but evil-lution, big bang cosmology, round earths, climate change and stem-cell research? Not on my watch buster! Because that ain't what gawd intended!

It's rather like how people can look through their holy book and pick & choose what is relevant. Eating lobster or pork is ok, because 'jesus fulfilled the law', but 'homosexuality is an abomination!".

Or how "god loves everyone", but has no qualms about supposedly wiping 99.9% of the human population, because they p***ed him off. Or how god is 'unchanging', but has an entirely different message in the NT, from that of the OT. And before anyone tries to spin this, OT: 'kill the unbelievers!'  NT: 'love thy neighbour'

 

Now here is a thought, newly formed. Why is it that there have been no new prophets, no new testaments from heaven, in the last 2000 years? I'm not talking about profiteering prophets like Billy Graham and Benny Hinn, I mean, John the Baptist, Ezekiel type prophets, bringing the latest and greatest New News from the Almighty? Did god take a sabbatical after Jesus, and say "let the monkeys work it out for themselves"? 

[cormac mac airt]

Quote

MW:  “I said that evolution is a process which occurs VIA individuals not a species” 

Nobody cares what you said we already know the academic definition, what DOES matter is that the above is NOT true. 'Mutations" occur via individuals, "Evolution", as academically defined, occurs when there are sufficient expressions of a given mutation or mutations IN A POPULATION to change said population, either in whole or in part. 

cormac

Edited July 21, 2019 by cormac mac airt

[cormac mac airt]

10 minutes ago, Jodie.Lynne said:

Now here is a thought, newly formed. Why is it that there have been no new prophets, no new testaments from heaven, in the last 2000 years? I'm not talking about profiteering prophets like Billy Graham and Benny Hinn, I mean, John the Baptist, Ezekiel type prophets, bringing the latest and greatest New News from the Almighty? Did god take a sabbatical after Jesus, and say "let the monkeys work it out for themselves"? 

In general I would suggest that it's because we're more informed and less ignorant of our surroundings as a species. 

cormac

[Jodie.Lynne]

4 minutes ago, cormac mac airt said:

In general I would suggest that it's because we're more informed and less ignorant of our surroundings as a species. 

cormac

Oh you and your optimism!  LOL

[+Sherapy]

13 minutes ago, cormac mac airt said:

Nobody cares what you said we already know the academic definition, what DOES matter is that the above is NOT true. 'Mutations" occur via individuals, "Evolution", as academically defined, occurs when there are sufficient expressions of a given mutation or mutations IN A POPULATION to change said population, either in whole or in part. 

cormac

Thank you. 

And, thank you for taking the time to correct all the misconceptions in such a succinct and articulate way. 

Despite all the derailing, my own included, I have learned a lot. 

 

[Mr Walker]

7 hours ago, cormac mac airt said:

That's pretty much EVERY genetic paper ever written. 

Genetic drift ISN'T about 'new' genes, it concerns new 'expressions' of already extant genes. Example, depending on how the various genes responsible for skin or eye color (examples - SLC24A5, MFSD12, OCA2 and HERC2) are expressed (i.e. switched on or off) different colorations can occur and any one or more genes NOT expressed in a given way changes said coloration. That IS NOT dependent on a single individual for transmission to later generations, but IS dependent on a population of such individuals. 

cormac

Wont argue about the definition of new. I consider a difernt variation of a gene to be a new form of that gene, but I am using the word loosely However please explain how a gene which is passed down generationally can be passed on except by individual procreation. If it does not spread beyond one or two individuals and those individuals die off, then the evolution occurred but did not become successful or general  This can be seen by historical analysis of genetic forms in short lived  organisms.

Thus a population  of about 2% black moths went to a population of about 95 % black moths in half a century  because, during the industrial revolution, being black provided better camouflage and thus higher survivability and breeding rates, of individuals with black wings.  After various clean air acts took effect, the population reverted to predominantly white/grey colouration

[Mr Walker]

7 hours ago, cormac mac airt said:

Nobody cares what you said we already know the academic definition, what DOES matter is that the above is NOT true. 'Mutations" occur via individuals, "Evolution", as academically defined, occurs when there are sufficient expressions of a given mutation or mutations IN A POPULATION to change said population, either in whole or in part. 

cormac

This is simply wrong as any reading of almost every article on the issue will tell you 

Evolution is NOT measuring  point a with point b, and saying evolution has occured. Evoltuion is an ongoing process and every part of the process is evolution in action. each new generation any species is part of evolution  

I wont argue this any more. The truth is in any article you can read and research, and others can make up their minds, either in ignorance or  by being informed 

I have given you quotes bolded to show what i am talking about and you simply ignored them  because you believe your definition is right 

ONE expression of a given mutation in an individaul is an example of evolution and evolutionary change.  it doesn't even matter if that mutation dies out and becomes a dead end. It is part of the wider tapestry of evolution.

 

 

quote

Where's the evolution?
How do scientists look at the DNA of people alive today and figure out how recently natural selection acted on their ancestors? The answer relies on an evolutionary phenomenon called genetic hitchhiking (or a selective sweep). To understand, imagine that a new advantageous mutation (X) occurs on Chromosome 4, in the middle of gene versions P, Q, and R. In genetic terms, we would say that the mutation and those genes are linked — that is, they are close together on the same chromosome. The new mutation is so beneficial that its carrier leaves lots of offspring — many of whom also carry the mutation and the other linked genes. Over many generations, natural selection increases the frequency of mutation X, and because they are physically attached to X, gene versions P, Q, and R come along for the ride (i.e., "hitchhike" to high frequency). Of course, as X spreads, recombination occasionally occurs between it and its neighboring genes, breaking down this tight association somewhat. We begin to see X in association with different combinations of gene versions (e.g., with r instead of R). If we examine the population at the end of this process of natural selection, we will see mutation X at high frequency, often occurring alongside the same set of gene versions (P, Q, and R), and less frequently alongside other gene versions (p, q, and r).

When Henry Harpending of the University of Utah and his colleagues applied this technique to the genomes of people who trace their ancestry to different geographic regions (Europe, Africa, China, and Japan), what they found surprised them — lots of evidence for favorable mutations! Natural selection seems to have acted on these mutants in many different areas of our genome. In fact, the team identified more than 10,000 selection events (i.e., stretches of DNA bearing the marks of natural selection) that seem to have taken place in the past 80,000 years of human history. Interestingly, the researchers found that most of these selection events traced to the recent past, with the largest numbers having arisen in the last 10,000 years. Judging by these results, human evolution seems to have sped up: small numbers of beneficial mutations spread through human populations for most of our history, but since the end of the last ice age, we've experienced a renaissance of evolutionary innovation in which many new advantageous mutations arose and began to spread. This ratcheting up of our evolution seems to correspond with the timing of major lifestyle changes — a period when many groups of humans began relying on agriculture, as opposed to hunting and gathering, and started living in denser populations. Furthermore, according to the Harpending team's evidence, people from different geographic regions seem to have experienced different selection events. Only a small percentage of these positively selected genome regions were found in more than one of the four populations studied. This could mean that people on different continents were evolving in different directions.

 

https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/news/080101_recenthumanevo

Thus evolution includes process and result, not result alone 

Edited July 22, 2019 by Mr Walker

[Mr Walker]

13 hours ago, spartan max2 said:

I thought you were a religious ?

 

And yeah humans population is so large and we have such technology to keep everyone alive that we really stunted the evolution process in our species. 

Philiosphical humans will probably come to the point to where we artifically control our own evolution.  

In one sense we already are and we are  also already making minor genetic manipulations to get certain eye colours  and to eliminate some genetic disorders  For the price of a new car you can buy a gene sequencing outfit which will let you breed glow in the dark mice and rabbits by gene manipulation

 quote

These results are intriguing (and controversial — they've already generated much discussion within the scientific community), but they do have limitations. The technique that the researchers used (looking for genomic evidence of past hitchhiking events) is reliable, but it is not particularly good at detecting very old or very recent episodes of selection. That's because old advantageous mutants have been around for so long that recombination and mutation may have already wiped out the evidence of their selective sweep. Recent advantageous mutants, on the other hand, may not have spread enough to be identified at all by this technique. And this highlights a problem with the portrayal of these results in some media outlets. The scientists' techniques focused on the time period between 5000 and 80,000 years ago, but some media sources extend this window to today — suggesting that rates of human evolution are now peaking and that human racial groups are currently evolving away from one another. In fact, this sort of genomic evidence of hitchhiking can't tell us much about how humans are evolving right now — or even how our evolution might have shifted in the past 200 years as the result of the industrial revolution or more frequent global travel. Sure, over the past 10,000 years, we've come along way — but figuring out the current trajectory of human evolution is a topic that this technique can't directly address.

Nevertheless, the new results are suggestive. Humans are now able to mediate our environments with technology — to keep ourselves warm, to treat diabetes with insulin, and to provide food for those without farming, hunting, or gathering skills, amongst a myriad of other cultural innovations. So, for example, in many developed countries, the gene versions that contribute to juvenile diabetes are no longer strongly selected against. Some have argued that such technological advances mean that we've opted out of the evolutionary game and set ourselves beyond the reach of natural selection — essentially, that we've stopped evolving. However, if they are correct, the Harpending teams' results imply that technological and cultural advancement does not necessarily halt natural selection, but may rather change its direction. After all, if the cultural innovations of the late Pleistocene spurred human evolution in new ways 10,000 years ago, perhaps the technological innovations of the past 200 years are simply changing the rules of the evolutionary game we humans are playing today.

 

https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/news/080101_recenthumanevo

[Mr Walker]

10 hours ago, jmccr8 said:

Hi Walker

What I am seeing in most of the articles is that they are referring to groups living in varying environments adapt due to stressors unique to that environment and that there are several individuals involved in that adaptation and not one unique individual in each group from which the adaptation is caused. 

jmccr8

So explain   to me  how identical genetic events occur in a group of   isolated individuals.

The only way that gene transfer can occur in nature is via breeding,  and generational change.  But mutations and genetic drift occur uniquely in individuals

Thus, for example, ONE individual is affected by an event like a mutation or genetic drift 

They have 6 kids who all (or some)  have the same gene. it turns out that gene is highly pro survival in their environment.

Each kid has 6 kids  These humans have a higher rate of survival and of breeding than all those without the   adaption The y breed with non adapted people and their kids have the new gene  Soon (in historical terms ) most or all of the  population has the new genes, while the old form has died out 

Of course a cave bear might kill the individual, or even he and all his kids,  thus preventing this adaptation from becoming established   

Edited July 22, 2019 by Mr Walker

[Mr Walker]

10 hours ago, jmccr8 said:

Hi Walker

What I am seeing in most of the articles is that they are referring to groups living in varying environments adapt due to stressors unique to that environment and that there are several individuals involved in that adaptation and not one unique individual in each group from which the adaptation is caused. 

jmccr8

ps it is often not considered evolution when there is no genetic change  eg there are cases where due to food shortage  smaller, lighter animals survive tough conditions because the y require  less food Thus whether horses or humans the group slowly becomes smaller as smaller  children  survive and breed  while those requiring more food die out.  In this example many horses or humans may produce smaller offspring for the same reason  if this results in genetic change it is evolution. if it does not, then there is some dispute, 

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/phenomena/2010/02/17/africas-genetic-diversity-revealed-by-full-genomes-of-a-bushman-and-a-tutu/

 

Edited July 22, 2019 by Mr Walker

[Mr Walker]

my last word onthis

 

How are gene mutations involved in evolution?

Evolution is the process by which populations of organisms change over generations. Genetic variations underlie these changes. Genetic variations can arise from gene mutations or from genetic recombination (a normal process in which genetic material is rearranged as a cell is getting ready to divide). These variations often alter gene activity or protein function, which can introduce different traits in an organism. If a trait is advantageous and helps the individual survive and reproduce, the genetic variation is more likely to be passed to the next generation (a process known as natural selection). Over time, as generations of individuals with the trait continue to reproduce, the advantageous trait becomes increasingly common in a population, making the population different than an ancestral one. Sometimes the population becomes so different that it is considered a new species.

 

https://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/primer/mutationsanddisorders/evolution

 

Gene mutations can be classified in two major ways:

Hereditary mutations are inherited from a parent and are present throughout a person’s life in virtually every cell in the body. These mutations are also called germline mutations because they are present in the parent’s egg or sperm cells, which are also called germ cells. When an egg and a sperm cell unite, the resulting fertilized egg cell receives DNA from both parents. If this DNA has a mutation, the child that grows from the fertilized egg will have the mutation in each of his or her cells.

Acquired (or somatic) mutations occur at some time during a person’s life and are present only in certain cells, not in every cell in the body. These changes can be caused by environmental factors such as ultraviolet radiation from the sun, or can occur if an error is made as DNA copies itself during cell division. Acquired mutations in somatic cells (cells other than sperm and egg cells) cannot be passed to the next generation.

Genetic changes that are described as de novo (new) mutations can be either hereditary or somatic. In some cases, the mutation occurs in a person’s egg or sperm cell but is not present in any of the person’s other cells. In other cases, the mutation occurs in the fertilized egg shortly after the egg and sperm cells unite. (It is often impossible to tell exactly when a de novo mutation happened.) As the fertilized egg divides, each resulting cell in the growing embryo will have the mutation. De novo mutations may explain genetic disorders in which an affected child has a mutation in every cell in the body but the parents do not, and there is no family history of the disorder.

Somatic mutations that happen in a single cell early in embryonic development can lead to a situation called mosaicism. These genetic changes are not present in a parent’s egg or sperm cells, or in the fertilized egg, but happen a bit later when the embryo includes several cells. As all the cells divide during growth and development, cells that arise from the cell with the altered gene will have the mutation, while other cells will not. Depending on the mutation and how many cells are affected, mosaicism may or may not cause health problems.

 

[jmccr8]

26 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

So explain  how identical genetic events occur in a group of   isolated individuals.

Hi Walker

I suppose the simplest way to state this is that the whole group lived in the same environment and was subject to the same conditions much in the same way that lighter skin adaptation occurred, it didn't start with just one individual but was an adaptation that developed over time within the whole group. One should remember that they were small groups of related individuals that shared genetic similarities.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2935101/

jmccr8

[jmccr8]

27 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

ps it is often not considered evolution when there is no genetic change  eg there are cases where due to food shortage  smaller, lighter animals survive tough conditions because the y require  less food Thus whether horses or humans the group slowly becomes smaller as smaller  children  survive and breed  while those requiring more food die out.  In this example many horses or humans may produce smaller offspring for the same reason  if this results in genetic change it is evolution. if it does not, then there is some dispute, 

Hi Walker

Adaptation is still evolution.

jmccr8

[Mr Walker]

28 minutes ago, jmccr8 said:

Hi Walker

I suppose the simplest way to state this is that the whole group lived in the same environment and was subject to the same conditions much in the same way that lighter skin adaptation occurred, it didn't start with just one individual but was an adaptation that developed over time within the whole group. One should remember that they were small groups of related individuals that shared genetic similarities.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2935101/

jmccr8

Ah, but how did that lighter skin colour come about ? From whom did it spread over time?

It is possible that a number of individuals had exactly the same mutation in response to environment but this is  (highly) unlikely. it is much more likely that ONE individual has such a mutation and that it spread through offpsring.  There is little or no evidence that, in one environment, multiple beings have identical mutations. There is plenty of evidence that mutations in single beings ( if the y are advantageous) spread quite quickly over time  and alter an entire population) Keep in mind that genetic  mutations are random and not a response to environment ie an individual doesn't have a new skin colour so that it CAN fit into a hot environment The skin colour appears a t random and only spreads if it has a beneficial effect on survival.Yes they were related becsue such genetic mutations can ONLY be passed on by breeding and dna

[Mr Walker]

45 minutes ago, jmccr8 said:

Hi Walker

Adaptation is still evolution.

jmccr8

As i said, this is debated. You can read many articles which say that  non genetic adaptation is NOT evolution ie that, given adequate food that population would return to their original size over time, and be indistinguishable genetically from the original large animals.  However the differences between bushmen and  Bantus  for example is genetic and thus is an example of evolutionary change and divergence. There are even  strong genetic variations between all four of the bushmen whose genomes have been fully sequenced  

I think the correct answer is that some adaptions are evolutionary while others are not The difference is in whether the changes are genetic and inherited, or individual biological adaptions to changing environments which are reversible 

 I read one article which specifically  said that the case of horses on an island growing smaller was NOT an example of evolution but of adaption to the environment without evolutionary change    

Edited July 22, 2019 by Mr Walker

[+Pettytalk]

16 hours ago, Alchopwn said:

I bet you're just bad at maths.

Math cannot get along without letters and words, and neither the word alone, as for the construction of the Cosmos both are used. 

The equation — E = mc² — means "energy equals mass times the speed of light squared." It shows that energy (E) and mass (m) are interchangeable; they are different forms of the same thing.

Without the Living Word of God the equation falls apart. Genesis 1:3  And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light.

But as far as your bet, I'll give you the odds, as I'm just bad with anything. In fact, I remember way back when in high school, i had a crush on this girl in my Algebra class, she was really smart and math was her best subject. I, on the contrary, was really bad at it, as well as at other subjects, and she knew it. I kind of felt bad asking her out, since I thought she would not want anything to do with an ignoramus like myself. One day I brought her a gift, as it was her birthday, and along with the gift I included a record. It was sort of a note expressing my feeling towards her.

 

[+Sherapy]

1 hour ago, Mr Walker said:

This is simply wrong as any reading of almost every article on the issue will tell you 

Evolution is NOT measuring  point a with point b, and saying evolution has occured. Evoltuion is an ongoing process and every part of the process is evolution in action. each new generation any species is part of evolution  

I wont argue this any more. The truth is in any article you can read and research, and others can make up their minds, either in ignorance or  by being informed 

I have given you quotes bolded to show what i am talking about and you simply ignored them  because you believe your definition is right 

ONE expression of a given mutation in an individaul is an example of evolution and evolutionary change.  it doesn't even matter if that mutation dies out and becomes a dead end. It is part of the wider tapestry of evolution.

 

 

quote

Where's the evolution?
How do scientists look at the DNA of people alive today and figure out how recently natural selection acted on their ancestors? The answer relies on an evolutionary phenomenon called genetic hitchhiking (or a selective sweep). To understand, imagine that a new advantageous mutation (X) occurs on Chromosome 4, in the middle of gene versions P, Q, and R. In genetic terms, we would say that the mutation and those genes are linked — that is, they are close together on the same chromosome. The new mutation is so beneficial that its carrier leaves lots of offspring — many of whom also carry the mutation and the other linked genes. Over many generations, natural selection increases the frequency of mutation X, and because they are physically attached to X, gene versions P, Q, and R come along for the ride (i.e., "hitchhike" to high frequency). Of course, as X spreads, recombination occasionally occurs between it and its neighboring genes, breaking down this tight association somewhat. We begin to see X in association with different combinations of gene versions (e.g., with r instead of R). If we examine the population at the end of this process of natural selection, we will see mutation X at high frequency, often occurring alongside the same set of gene versions (P, Q, and R), and less frequently alongside other gene versions (p, q, and r).

When Henry Harpending of the University of Utah and his colleagues applied this technique to the genomes of people who trace their ancestry to different geographic regions (Europe, Africa, China, and Japan), what they found surprised them — lots of evidence for favorable mutations! Natural selection seems to have acted on these mutants in many different areas of our genome. In fact, the team identified more than 10,000 selection events (i.e., stretches of DNA bearing the marks of natural selection) that seem to have taken place in the past 80,000 years of human history. Interestingly, the researchers found that most of these selection events traced to the recent past, with the largest numbers having arisen in the last 10,000 years. Judging by these results, human evolution seems to have sped up: small numbers of beneficial mutations spread through human populations for most of our history, but since the end of the last ice age, we've experienced a renaissance of evolutionary innovation in which many new advantageous mutations arose and began to spread. This ratcheting up of our evolution seems to correspond with the timing of major lifestyle changes — a period when many groups of humans began relying on agriculture, as opposed to hunting and gathering, and started living in denser populations. Furthermore, according to the Harpending team's evidence, people from different geographic regions seem to have experienced different selection events. Only a small percentage of these positively selected genome regions were found in more than one of the four populations studied. This could mean that people on different continents were evolving in different directions.

 

https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/news/080101_recenthumanevo

Thus evolution includes process and result, not result alone 

I do think it is a good idea to move on, we all know Cormac is correct.

The thread is about beliefs, let’s get back on topic. 

 

 

[jmccr8]

10 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

Ah, but how did that lighter skin colour come about ? From whom did it spread over time?

It is possible that a number of individuals had exactly the same mutation in response to environment but this is  (highly) unlikely. it is much more likely that ONE individual has such a mutation and that it spread through offpsring.  There is little or no evidence that, in one environment, multiple beings have identical mutations. There is plenty of evidence that mutations in single beings ( if the y are advantageous) spread quite quickly over time  and alter an entire population) Keep in mind that genetic  mutations are random and not a response to environment ie an individual doesn't have a new skin colour so that it CAN fit into a hot environment The skin colour appears a t random and only spreads if it has a beneficial effect on survival.Yes they were related becsue such genetic mutations can ONLY be passed on by breeding and dna

Hi Walker

What I am saying is that given the same stressors the human body will adapt and the example I gave was that humans lived in small closely related groups so their genetic makeup would have little variation there is no 1 and it was a gradual adaptation so yes it was passed on through their parents.

Maybe these links will better demonstrate what I am saying.

https://academic.oup.com/gbe/article/8/4/1091/2574082

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4163920/

https://www.psychologytoday.com/ca/blog/lives-the-brain/201001/was-seafood-brain-food-in-human-evolution?quicktabs_5=0

These adaptations evolved in groups of humans because of change to the living environment.

jmccr8

 

 

[pallidin]

Issues of faith and science are difficult topics, to be sure.

[pallidin]

Ya know...

Does anyone really know the "truth"?

So, we have a problem.

[+Pettytalk]

10 hours ago, Jodie.Lynne said:

Now here is a thought, newly formed. Why is it that there have been no new prophets, no new testaments from heaven, in the last 2000 years? I'm not talking about profiteering prophets like Billy Graham and Benny Hinn, I mean, John the Baptist, Ezekiel type prophets, bringing the latest and greatest New News from the Almighty? Did god take a sabbatical after Jesus, and say "let the monkeys work it out for themselves"? 

Here I am, with the latest and the greatest New News about Atlantis. And also the last prophet before the New everything is ushered in.

Seriously, although you sound well versed in both the NT and the OT, you apparently did not understand Jesus gave on the The Parable of the Wicked Tenants
Jesus himself was the last prophet that God would send. God is the landowner in the parable, and Jesus is the landowner's son. Now we are just waiting for the harvest time, which will occur when all the grain has grown to maturity, and so too the weeds, along with the good grain. But that is another parable.

Jesus, like Socrates before him, made good use of parables.

Matthew 21:

The Parable of the Tenants

33“Listen to another parable: There was a landowner who planted a vineyard. He put a wall around it, dug a winepress in it and built a watchtower. Then he rented the vineyard to some farmers and moved to another place. 34When the harvest time approached, he sent his servants to the tenants to collect his fruit.

35“The tenants seized his servants; they beat one, killed another, and stoned a third. 36Then he sent other servants to them, more than the first time, and the tenants treated them the same way. 37Last of all, he sent his son to them. ‘They will respect my son,’ he said.

38“But when the tenants saw the son, they said to each other, ‘This is the heir. Come, let’s kill him and take his inheritance.’ 39So they took him and threw him out of the vineyard and killed him.

40“Therefore, when the owner of the vineyard comes, what will he do to those tenants?”

41“He will bring those wretches to a wretched end,” they replied, “and he will rent the vineyard to other tenants, who will give him his share of the crop at harvest time.”

[Mr Walker]

45 minutes ago, Sherapy said:

I do think it is a good idea to move on, we all know Cormac is correct.

The thread is about beliefs, let’s get back on topic. 

 

 

Actually, you cant know he is correct as he is wrong  

Read any or all of the sources i have provided. NEITHER of you has provided a single source to demonstrate the correctness your own views 

Move on as far as you like, but don't lie and then leave.

This debate began with the nature of human beliefs as a form of human cognition 

Humans evolved the abilty to think In abstract forms.

This  opened us up to beliefs and regions, to faith without a capital, and with one. 

Belief and faith is a functional appendage like our fingers, and evolved for the same reasons.

It was a pro survival adaptation which natural selection spread across the human race to help us cope with an increasing awareness of things like; death, pain, suffering, etc., as abstract constructs  

You  and others who decry any form of faith may feel the need to deny this and argue against it, but it is an established scientific understanding.

it goes to the very nature, origins, and purpose, of things like faith and belief in human cognition 

 

[Mr Walker]

54 minutes ago, jmccr8 said:

Hi Walker

What I am saying is that given the same stressors the human body will adapt and the example I gave was that humans lived in small closely related groups so their genetic makeup would have little variation there is no 1 and it was a gradual adaptation so yes it was passed on through their parents.

Maybe these links will better demonstrate what I am saying.

https://academic.oup.com/gbe/article/8/4/1091/2574082

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4163920/

https://www.psychologytoday.com/ca/blog/lives-the-brain/201001/was-seafood-brain-food-in-human-evolution?quicktabs_5=0

These adaptations evolved in groups of humans because of change to the living environment.

jmccr8

 

 

What was passed on and how did it originate? 

 The best answer  I can find from  research is that genetic changes were passed on, and they each originated in the genes of individuals. 

Where an adaptation in a specific environment enhanced the abilty to survive, and thus breed, that adaptation was genetically passed on to an increasing group of people until it reached all or most  of a population  Sometimes adaptations survived for other reasons, and some adaptations ( both pro survival and anti ) never got established enough to survive 

Edited July 22, 2019 by Mr Walker

[+Pettytalk]

48 minutes ago, Sherapy said:

I do think it is a good idea to move on, we all know Cormac is correct.

The thread is about beliefs, let’s get back on topic. 

 

 

We ALL? Don't you know the meaning of ALL? Mr. Walker for one, and I for two, are part of the ALL, and we know Cormac is incorrect. If we were all in all 100, your all would be just 98% of the all. And we all know that 98% is not at all, 100%. 100% is equal to ALL.Correction, we don't all know that 98% is not All.

That is the problem with some, criticizing others for twisting the meaning of words, and there, they themselves abuse the meaning. Don't say all, just say some, or a few, or many, or most, etc.. But even using those terms correctly, you need to add and subtract the individual numbers from the population you have corralled with the ALL.