Atheist question...

[shhhnake_eyes]

If you do not believe in God, what is the point in caring about anything that happens or anything. I believe everyone should have morals, but whats the point?
Also, knowing there is no God, how do you find motivation to do anything productive? Sure you can say your job is reproduction and making the world a better place, but cmon is it really? Just wondering...

[Prodigy54321]

curiosity about the world...

and we still derive pleasure from most of the things that everyone derives pleasure from...

and most of us are not 100% sure there is not god..that doesn't really change much though

[evolvedForm]

thread (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=0&Number=4336474&an=0&page=46 #Post4336474)

[shhhnake_eyes]

oops, thats what i get for not searching. thanks

[bunny]

I think life is a good thing for its own sake. A universe created purely by chance and with no designer that contains life is of more value than one without imo. So although an atheist's life makes no difference on a cosmic scale, it is still important to live well and to participate in life even if there is no God.

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
If you do not believe in God, what is the point in caring about anything that happens or anything. I believe everyone should have morals, but whats the point?
Also, knowing there is no God, how do you find motivation to do anything productive? Sure you can say your job is reproduction and making the world a better place, but cmon is it really? Just wondering...

[/ QUOTE ]

The question doesnt even make sense to me, as an atheist. Why would the existence of a creator make me anymore (or less) happy than I am?

The universe/world/nature still has its beauty. The people we love are no less dear to us. Our children are (most of the time) our pride, joy and responsibility. Mussic (excpet Country, rap and disco) creates the same feelings, and bad beats cant be blamed on anything except variance.

morality for its own sake is no less rewarding then some nebulous threat/promise of punishment or reward.

[Lestat]

What is the point in YOU caring about anything that happens in this life? Why would you care if your entire family was murdered tomorrow? That should be a good thing, right? Why not embark on the journey to magicland as soon as possible? Just wondering...

[$_DEADSEXE_$]

People aren't productive because of belief in God...their productive so they don't starve to death.

[yukoncpa]

[ QUOTE ]
Mussic (excpet Country, rap and disco) creates the same feelings

[/ QUOTE ]

You forgot about hymns - the most depressing, soul destroying form of music ever invented. To get back on track with the OP, If believing in God means listening to hymns for the rest of eternity, then there’s truly no point in existence; I’d rather just poof out when I die.
This of course is a slight exaggeration ( I could always get ear surgery to make me deaf ), but my point is that there are many aspects of “God” belief that make existence nearly unbearable.
I do the morally right thing ( most of the time ) because it makes me feel good.

[cambraceres]

[ QUOTE ]
People aren't productive because of belief in God...their productive so they don't starve to death.

[/ QUOTE ]

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
If you do not believe in God, what is the point in caring about anything that happens or anything. I believe everyone should have morals, but whats the point?

[/ QUOTE ]

This is an interesting question but unfotunately it is loaded.

1. You raising the need of a "point" to existence indicates to me a lack of maturity. In the same way that, more obviously so, an infant, very young, acts (and perceives itself) as the center of universe, then goes thru a phase where he seeks attention endlessly, again as a compensation to the realisation that he is not the center of the universe, and then matures and, to the degree of maturity achieved, becomes less concerned with his significance in, or, to others lifes as a natural inclination (that is if he grows up); the development continues with the realisation/acceptance that humanity is not the center of the universe.

2. There have been a number of studies, some that already have been quoted on this forum that indicate a negative correlation between religion and social health (or positive with crimes). Those studies have been comparisons of equally (or near) developped society with different religious demographics. Some similar studies have been made comapring various states intra-USA withe same results. Rapes, homicides, STD's etc. are more pravalent in those more religious samples. No, neither those studies, nor myself, claim causal ralationship between belief in god and criminality, altough it may be so. At least, it shows that the endless mantra of theists about "where would the world be without believe in god", is a statement that should be subject to a bit closer scrutiny, at the very least: wilful and hopeful repetition rarely make things true...

[ QUOTE ]
I believe everyone should have morals, but whats the point?

[/ QUOTE ]

My morals are based on understanding the human (and animal) condition without colouring it with wishful thinking. I seem to naturally experience compassion and understand that other having compassion towards me will help alleviate the meaningless situation I find myself in. In fact, it does give meaning to my life. I accept that it may be that theists are suffering some pathogical problems that would make them inure to that realisation. I am sure it is not all of them. /images/graemlins/smile.gif This may be the usefulnesss of religion altough staistics as mentionned early do not support religion effectiveness in promoting morality in actions.


[ QUOTE ]
Sure you can say your job is reproduction and making the world a better place

[/ QUOTE ]


I am an atheist, and I surely don't think that my job/function/mission is reproduction. In fact I choose not to reproduce as I really do not wish to be instrumental in bringing another sentient existence into being. IMO reproduction is definitely not making the world a better place.

[yukoncpa]

Hi Midge,
I thought your post was great, but have a question about your point #2. I’ll preface by saying that I don’t remember our earlier posts on this subject (probably I just never read them).

It occurs to me that poor countries and poor states (U.S.), have the highest population of religious folk. These places, would naturally have higher crime rates, etc. for reasons related to poverty as opposed to religion. I don’t envision that it’s the religious folk in these areas rushing out to commit crimes.

[cambraceres]

I live in a poor area of very Rural Va, and a small church down the street has had 8 out of ten elders be caught stealing from the church, a few while they were treasurer. This is standard in small churches here, and I've heard in other like areas. These are the only people who claim religion, and the funny thing is, every one of them will apologize, conjure the image of god saving them from nefarious sin, and go on like nothing happened.

[MidGe]

Hi yukoncpa,

AFAIK, the international studies were done between countries equally develooped (incl the USA). The intra-USA studies could have been done without this economic balancing, altough as far as I remember they were a comparison between 50+ states, whilst the international studies were less than 20 countries. As I said there is no causal relationship proven.. only a correlation, again afaik. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

If you can't find the studies..(google etc..). I will look up the references for you. Let me know.

[yukoncpa]

[ QUOTE ]
I live in a poor area of very Rural Va, and a small church down the street has had 8 out of ten elders be caught stealing from the church, a few while they were treasurer. This is standard in small churches here, and I've heard in other like areas. These are the only people who claim religion, and the funny thing is, every one of them will apologize, conjure the image of god saving them from nefarious sin, and go on like nothing happened.



[/ QUOTE ]

Interesting Cambraceres, Although I don’t believe this to be the norm among Christians. If Christian beliefs ( Satan made me do it; God will understand and forgive me ) actually cause Christians to commit more immoral acts than the general population, then you are on to something profound. Again, I don’t believe it.

edit: I just saw that Midge has a study for me to read, I'll google it and get back

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
Interesting Cambraceres, Although I don’t believe this to be the norm among Christians. If Christian beliefs ( Satan made me do it; God will understand and forgive me ) actually cause Christians to commit more immoral acts than the general population, then you are on to something profound. Again, I don’t believe it.


[/ QUOTE ]

Again.. there is no proven causal relationship (altough there may be one), but, at the very least, the notion that religion gives a cause for moral actions, should seriously be put in question. [That's not quite what you are getting at, going on by your above statement]

[cambraceres]

I believe their particular religious convictions do carry weight in making the decision to commit or not commit a crime. But in general I'd assess it more ro be caused by their total situation, hillbilly morals hold things to be much different. Every single person in this area you ask has read the bible, and didn't understand it, but is following it to the best of their abilities. This leads them to do what they will and follow the only portion of the bible they do understand, forgiveness will come.

Cambraceres

[yukoncpa]

[ QUOTE ]
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Interesting Cambraceres, Although I don’t believe this to be the norm among Christians. If Christian beliefs ( Satan made me do it; God will understand and forgive me ) actually cause Christians to commit more immoral acts than the general population, then you are on to something profound. Again, I don’t believe it.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Again.. there is no proven causal relationship (altough there may be one), but, at the very least, the notion that religion gives a cause for moral actions, should seriously be put in question. [That's not quite what you are getting at, going on by your above statement

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, that is what I’m getting at. I’m very curious if Christianity is indeed a cause of moral turpitude.

Edit: A cause of moral turpitude over and above the general population of people. My question: Are Christians worse morally than buddists, athiests, Jews, etc. Are Christians more likely to commit a burglary, etc.?

[MidGe]

Hi yukoncpa,

[ QUOTE ]
I’m very curious if Christianity is indeed a cause of moral turpitude.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have no idea. I know of no studies related to this.

[cambraceres]

A study of this would be difficult. My empirical evidence would say yes, but even it is not decisive.

[yukoncpa]

Hi Midge,
You replied before I edited my response. I’ll ask this to either you or Cambraceres. Do you believe that because of specific Christian beliefs ( studies aside, just educated opinion) that Christians are more likely than Buddhists, Jews, atheists, etc. to commit crimes such as burglary?

[MidGe]

Hi Yuconcpa,

I have no idea. It seems that christians are less tolerant though, than Hindhus (since they accept many gods) and than Buddhists (since they do not concern themselves that much with gods).

[cambraceres]

I believe that there is a pervasive law of human nature that causes one to search for value, and aquire it through what means your rationality deems appropriate.

Religion adds to and alters the basic constitution of one's rationality, it changes your views and helps set the course of one's life. All the major religions espouse a general view that to use force in gaining an advantage over another is wrong, but some seem to provide a better base for the rationalization of these actions. To take the criminal and make it merely distasteful. Christian theocracy is normally accompanied by a particular mindset. That mindset holds that an action may be wrong, but also may be necessary, and therefore will be not only forgiven but advocated. This schism is allowed and natural. Christianity allows for an obviation of the rules if you will. Timothy told his churches that one can be "dead to sin" and in this way not have to follow the orthodox rules. Timothy's message essentially said that although rules are present, one can transcend them and judge actions on an individual basis, after one is dead to sin. This is an example of a feeling, a concept that is brought to the surface in select points in the text, but is not so much an explicit premise.

The only passage I remeber that tells followers to follow what rules which exist in an eaxaustive fashion is in the old testament, when the ark is falling off a cart, and one of the Israelites catches it. God kills him and says that he made the rule for a reason.

This old testament view is the exception. In summation, yes Christianity causes more allowances for immoral behaviour then obstacles to it.

Now the problem with giving a definitive answer is that I am not familiar with the nuances of the other major religions, and would be overstepping my bounds in a gross and criminal fashion to give any answer pertaining to them.

Cambraceres

[yukoncpa]

Thank you,
As usual Cambraceres, a most interesting and provocative discussion.

[Roy Munson]

There are some atheists that find beauty in all music. Country , rap and disco included. That is not to say that one can not find an equal level of ugly in each style of music.

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
There are some atheists that find beauty in all music. Country , rap and disco included . That is not to say that one can not find an equal level of ugly in each style of music.

[/ QUOTE ]

Link? /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[HotPants]

I do what makes me feel best

[shhhnake_eyes]

im not religious and was just wondering on the atheist point of view to see if i accepted it, sry if i was saying that i was part of a religion

[Roy Munson]

The ability to post a link far exceeds my computer skills. However, the work of Chic, Heatwave, Brothers Johnson and Off The Wall Michael Jackson have proven to stand the test of time.

Much of disco music not unlike any genre is pretty mundane. Without the unremarkable the brilliant would not stand out.

From the tag at the end of your post I assume that you are a Pink Floyd fan. The song "Young Lust" on "The Wall" album has definite disco influences.

Also, the delay that David Gilmour makes regular use of and has been ripped off blatantly by the guitar player in U2 is quite similar in technique to much of the disco guitar work. The primary difference being how it has been altered electronically.

[Lestat]

[ QUOTE ]
im not religious and was just wondering on the atheist point of view to see if i accepted it, sry if i was saying that i was part of a religion

[/ QUOTE ]

I just get irritated by these types of questions. Needing a supernatural being in order to find purpose in life is the weakness. Not the other way around.

[moorobot]

[ QUOTE ]
If you do not believe in God, what is the point in caring about anything that happens or anything. I believe everyone should have morals, but whats the point?
Also, knowing there is no God, how do you find motivation to do anything productive? Sure you can say your job is reproduction and making the world a better place, but cmon is it really? Just wondering...

[/ QUOTE ] Funny, I think people who believe in an afterlife tend not to 'live life' to the fullest (both ethically and aesthetically) because they always have the 'better world' to fall back on when they die, hence they don't need to care as much about enjoying and fixing this one.

[moorobot]

[ QUOTE ]
I believe their particular religious convictions do carry weight in making the decision to commit or not commit a crime. But in general I'd assess it more ro be caused by their total situation, hillbilly morals hold things to be much different. Every single person in this area you ask has read the bible, and didn't understand it, but is following it to the best of their abilities. This leads them to do what they will and follow the only portion of the bible they do understand, forgiveness will come.

Cambraceres

[/ QUOTE ] Well said.

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
The ability to post a link far exceeds my computer skills. However, the work of Chic, Heatwave, Brothers Johnson and Off The Wall Michael Jackson have proven to stand the test of time.

Much of disco music not unlike any genre is pretty mundane. Without the unremarkable the brilliant would not stand out.

From the tag at the end of your post I assume that you are a Pink Floyd fan. The song "Young Lust" on "The Wall" album has definite disco influences.

Also, the delay that David Gilmour makes regular use of and has been ripped off blatantly by the guitar player in U2 is quite similar in technique to much of the disco guitar work. The primary difference being how it has been altered electronically.

[/ QUOTE ]

"Young Lust"? There is nothing in the instrumentation or rhythm that remotely resembles disco other than Water's bass being a bit more prominent than it had been since Atom Heart Mother. It owes much more to Edgar Winter and Rick Derringer than anyone else that comes to mind.

Also I think you blur the lines betwee Funk and Disco fairly liberally.

[HLMencken]

[ QUOTE ]
If you do not believe in God, what is the point in caring about anything that happens or anything. I believe everyone should have morals, but whats the point?
Also, knowing there is no God, how do you find motivation to do anything productive? Sure you can say your job is reproduction and making the world a better place, but cmon is it really? Just wondering...

[/ QUOTE ]

Does a wolf have no reason to hunt, play, sing, or raise its pups just because it doesn't believe in a wolf god?

[purnell]

[ QUOTE ]
Midge: There have been a number of studies...

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Hi Midge,
I thought your post was great, but have a question about your point #2. I’ll preface by saying that I don’t remember our earlier posts on this subject (probably I just never read them).

It occurs to me that poor countries and poor states (U.S.), have the highest population of religious folk. These places, would naturally have higher crime rates, etc. for reasons related to poverty as opposed to religion. I don’t envision that it’s the religious folk in these areas rushing out to commit crimes.

[/ QUOTE ]


Link to the thread where we discussed the referenced study a few months ago (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=0&Number=3623875&page=0&fpart=1&v c=1)


Link to the discussed publication (http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2005/2005-11.html)

/images/graemlins/smile.gif

[MaxWeiss]

especially considering it's been answered before way too many times to count.

[evolvedForm]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Interesting Cambraceres, Although I don’t believe this to be the norm among Christians. If Christian beliefs ( Satan made me do it; God will understand and forgive me ) actually cause Christians to commit more immoral acts than the general population, then you are on to something profound. Again, I don’t believe it.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Again.. there is no proven causal relationship (altough there may be one), but, at the very least, the notion that religion gives a cause for moral actions, should seriously be put in question. [That's not quite what you are getting at, going on by your above statement

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, that is what I’m getting at. I’m very curious if Christianity is indeed a cause of moral turpitude.

Edit: A cause of moral turpitude over and above the general population of people. My question: Are Christians worse morally than buddists, athiests, Jews, etc. Are Christians more likely to commit a burglary, etc.?

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a loaded question. First you'd need to differentiate among Christians in different social environments. I believe this would be the case in America in the last 300 or so years.

[Aver-aging]

[ QUOTE ]
If you do not believe in God, what is the point in caring about anything that happens or anything. I believe everyone should have morals, but whats the point?
Also, knowing there is no God, how do you find motivation to do anything productive? Sure you can say your job is reproduction and making the world a better place, but cmon is it really? Just wondering...

[/ QUOTE ]

It's because we're living breathing things that are programmed to serve functions.. reproduce, raise our kids, achieve a good status in the community, have a good outward image, etc, etc. Desires are innate, and our actions (whether immoral or moral) are just expressions of our innate desires (for the most part). People care about their lives not because they were informed to, but simply because they naturally care. Why do kids not want to be the loser of their peers? Why do people want to survive? Why do people want to have a comfortable life? Why do people help each other out?

I can tell you, with 100% certainty, that people do not do those things simply because their belief in god motivates them to do so.

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
I just get irritated by these types of questions. Needing a supernatural being in order to find purpose in life is the weakness. Not the other way around.

[/ QUOTE ]
I think this argument would irritate me also and I certainly dont think life is meaningless if there is no God. However, it seems to me that acts which just occur by chance are not as important as those that occur through an act of will of an intelligent being. (I mean this within an atheistic framework - ie assuming there is no God).

What I mean is that although I find the intricate workings of the solar system and other naturally occuring, complex systems beautiful and amazing - they are not as inherently valuable as something created by someone through an act of will - such as work of art, machine, complicated theory, terrific novel, etc etc.

[Lestat]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I just get irritated by these types of questions. Needing a supernatural being in order to find purpose in life is the weakness. Not the other way around.

[/ QUOTE ]
I think this argument would irritate me also and I certainly dont think life is meaningless if there is no God. However, it seems to me that acts which just occur by chance are not as important as those that occur through an act of will of an intelligent being. (I mean this within an atheistic framework - ie assuming there is no God).

What I mean is that although I find the intricate workings of the solar system and other naturally occuring, complex systems beautiful and amazing - they are not as inherently valuable as something created by someone through an act of will - such as work of art, machine, complicated theory, terrific novel, etc etc.

[/ QUOTE ]

If God designed the universe, it is truly spectacular. But why wouldn't it be so much more spectacular if the intricate beauty that is our universe came about through a combination of randomness and natural laws? Would you really be any less in awe?

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
If God designed the universe, it is truly spectacular. But why wouldn't it be so much more spectacular if the intricate beauty that is our universe came about through a combination of randomness and natural laws? Would you really be any less in awe?

[/ QUOTE ]
I wasnt making any argument for God's existence. I was saying that as an atheist I found a novel philosophically theory (for example) far more important and special than a spiral galaxy which I believed to have formed through purely materialistic mechanisms.

In other words, I think things done by intelligent beings on purpose are inherently more important than things that happen by chance. (All this irrespective of if God exists or not)

[HedonismBot]

Hahaha, there is no point! Taoism baby /images/graemlins/cool.gif

[Lestat]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If God designed the universe, it is truly spectacular. But why wouldn't it be so much more spectacular if the intricate beauty that is our universe came about through a combination of randomness and natural laws? Would you really be any less in awe?

[/ QUOTE ]
I wasnt making any argument for God's existence. I was saying that as an atheist I found a novel philosophically theory (for example) far more important and special than a spiral galaxy which I believed to have formed through purely materialistic mechanisms.

In other words, I think things done by intelligent beings on purpose are inherently more important than things that happen by chance. (All this irrespective of if God exists or not)

[/ QUOTE ]

Don't feel a need to respond if what you're saying isn't important, but I'm not getting you...

Assuming God doesn't exist for a sec, do you feel building a suspension bridge is more important (valuable), than the array of mechanisms that allow us eyesight? What about a spider's web?

I've always thought it was the things that occured naturally that held more value. I think it's telling that we instinctively place high value on diamonds or gold for expample. I don't think it's just because they are rare, but because they are rare, beautiful, AND occur naturally. I could be wrong about this however. Still, most things that occur naturally seem important (and more significant). Wind and rain for example. I'm not sure why you say it's the opposite unless I'm still misunderstanding you.

[traz]

I think you're kind of comparing apples and oranges lestat.

I don't want to put words into bunny's mouth, so this is my perspective related to what you guys are talking about.

Take 2 similar results...if one was "created" and one randomly occured by chance, its very common for people to be more amazed at the "created" result.

For instance, if someone created a cure for cancer, or if someone randomly came across a cure for cancer...which would seem more impressive?

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
Don't feel a need to respond if what you're saying isn't important, but I'm not getting you...

Assuming God doesn't exist for a sec, do you feel building a suspension bridge is more important (valuable), than the array of mechanisms that allow us eyesight? What about a spider's web?

I've always thought it was the things that occured naturally that held more value. I think it's telling that we instinctively place high value on diamonds or gold for expample. I don't think it's just because they are rare, but because they are rare, beautiful, AND occur naturally. I could be wrong about this however. Still, most things that occur naturally seem important (and more significant). Wind and rain for example. I'm not sure why you say it's the opposite unless I'm still misunderstanding you.

[/ QUOTE ]
I think we are just disagreeing on values - I think the bridge has more value than a spider web which has more value than a snowflake. I find naturally occuring complexity amazing, but I value the fact that something is produced by a conscious being for its own sake. (All this without reference to God - I think God either exists or doesnt but it in either situation life has meaning imo)

[bunny]

I think we agree. Also, as well as being more impressive, I place more value on the results of deliberate, creative effort as opposed to things produced through sheer chance.

[spaminator101]

[ QUOTE ]
are programmed to serve functions..

[/ QUOTE ]

ooh i have a question
how were you programmed
nature cant program you
all evolution says is that by some odd chance that would never happen in the first place our dna got rearranged ina fashion that makes us who we are

that my friend is not programming
programming is what God does

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
all evolution says is that by some odd chance that would never happen in the first place our dna got rearranged ina fashion that makes us who we are

[/ QUOTE ]
I dont think this is a very fair statement of evolution's claims

[spaminator101]

well would you like to provide me with some "politically correct" alternative

[bunny]

Dont know about "politically correct" but...

I think evolution claims that organisms evolve through the dual processes of random mutation and natural selection. It also claims that there has been sufficient time to account for the diversity of life we find on Earth given primitive starting conditions. It doesnt make any claims as to how those conditions arose.

[spaminator101]

i will not give a thought to beleiving in evolution untill i see a mutation to something living that actually helps it

And I dont want any of that billions of years crap either. Find me proof weve been around that long.

Give me some reason to beleive that evolution isnt just as far fetched as the tooth fairy

[bunny]

I'm not trying to convince you of anything. If you are serious about criticising any philosophical viewpoint though, you should attack its strongest formulation, not an inaccurately worded paraphrase or caricature. That was my only point.

[spaminator101]

alright ty
im young (8th grade)
havent had much experience other than arguing a few months ago here.

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
i will not give a thought to beleiving in evolution untill i see a mutation to something living that actually helps it

And I dont want any of that billions of years crap either. Find me proof weve been around that long.

Give me some reason to beleive that evolution isnt just as far fetched as the tooth fairy

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you mean "see it" with your own eyes, or see examples of it? If its the latter there are many examples of helpful mutations...its the entire basis of evolutionary theory...a mutation occurs that favors the species, those with the mutation are more successful than those without it and become dominant and so on.

[ChrisV]

[ QUOTE ]
i will not give a thought to beleiving in evolution untill i see a mutation to something living that actually helps it

[/ QUOTE ]

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/mutations.html

Scroll down to "Are there favorable mutations?"

[ QUOTE ]
And I dont want any of that billions of years crap either. Find me proof weve been around that long.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well I won't even bother linking for this one, since you're doubtless going to claim that radiometric dating doesn't constitute proof.

[spaminator101]

alright now all youve done is tell me there are examples of it you havent given me a speific example yet
all youve done is said it happened you havent given any proof

[timotheeeee]

[ QUOTE ]
If you do not believe in God, what is the point in caring about anything that happens or anything. I believe everyone should have morals, but whats the point?
Also, knowing there is no God, how do you find motivation to do anything productive? Sure you can say your job is reproduction and making the world a better place, but cmon is it really? Just wondering...

[/ QUOTE ]

Now that I think about it, you're absolutely right. I'm going to immediately quit my job and cut off all relations because, ya know, what's the point?

[spaminator101]

"Antibiotic resistance in bacteria
In modern times antibiotics, drugs that target specific features of bacteria, have become very popular. Bacteria evolve very quickly so it is not surprising that they have evolved resistance to antibiotics. As a general thing this involves changing the features that antibiotics target.

Commonly, but not always, these mutations decrease the fitness of the bacteria, i.e., in environments where there are not antibiotics present, they don't reproduce as quickly as bacteria without the mutation. This is not always true; some of these mutations do not involve any loss of fitness. What is more, there are often secondary mutations that restore fitness.

Bacteria are easy to study. This is an advantage in evolutionary studies because we can see evolution happening in the laboratory. There is a standard experiment in which the experimenter begins with a single bacterium and lets it reproduce in a controlled environment. Since bacteria reproduce asexually all of its descendents are clones. Since reproduction is not perfect mutations happen. The experimenter can set the environment so that mutations for a particular attribute are selected. The experimenter knows both that the mutation was not present originally and, hence, when it occurred.

In the wild it is usually impossible to determine when a mutation occurred. Usually all we know (and often we do not even know that) is the current distribution of particular traits.

The situation with insects and pesticides is similar to that of bacteria and antibiotics. Pesticides are widely used to kill insects. In turn the insects quickly evolve in ways to become immune to the pesticides."

could the traits have been there all along and not jsut been a mutation?
Natural selectoin favors and we notice an increase in the bacteria with this specific trait.
Because bacteria reproduce so fast we notice the work of natural selection quickly
These statements do not prove ne thing about mutations.


"Well, no, they don't actually eat nylon; they eat short molecules (nylon oligomers) found in the waste waters of plants that produce nylon. They metabolize short nylon oligomers, breaking the nylon linkages with a couple of related enzymes. Since the bonds involved aren't found in natural products, the enzymes must have arisen since the time nylon was invented (around the 1940s). It would appear this happened by new mutations in that time period.

These enzymes which break down the nylon oligomers appear to have arisen by frameshift mutation from some other gene which codes for a functionally unrelated enzyme. This adaptation has been experimentally duplicated. In the experiments, non-nylon-metabolizing strains of Pseudomonas were grown in media with nylon oligomers available as the primary food source. Within a relatively small number of generations, they developed these enzyme activities. This would appear to be an example of documented occurrence of beneficial mutations in the lab."

Again nothing proven about mutations.
NO reason to beleive that these enzymes werent there before and used to break down different things and it just to happened that thes e enzymes together can break down these bonds.

"Sickle cell resistance to malaria
The sickle cell allele causes the normally round blood cell to have a sickle shape. The effect of this allele depends on whether a person has one or two copies of the allele. It is generally fatal if a person has two copies. If they have one they have sickle shaped blood cells.

In general this is an undesirable mutation because the sickle cells are less efficient than normal cells. In areas where malaria is prevalent it turns out to be favorable because people with sickle shaped blood cells are less likely to get malaria from mosquitoes.

This is an example where a mutation decreases the normal efficiency of the body (its fitness in one sense) but none-the-less provides a relative advantage."

Ok this one is stupid.
Proves nothing about a benifit to the bacteria

"Lactose tolerance
Lactose intolerance in adult mammals has a clear evolutionary explanation; the onset of lactose intolerance makes it easy to wean the young. Human beings, however, have taken up the habit of eating milk products. This is not universal; it is something that originated in cultures that kept cattle and goats. In these cultures lactose tolerance had a strong selective value. In the modern world there is a strong correlation between lactose tolerance and having ancestors who lived in cultures that exploited milk as a food.

It should be understood that it was a matter of chance that the lactose tolerance mutation appeared in a group where it was advantageous. It might have been established first by genetic drift within a group which then discovered that they could use milk. [9]"

Different poiple have had different genes since the beginning.

unneeded genes can be lost so in cultures with no cattle the genes for lactose tolerance could have been lost over time because there was no need for them.


"Atherosclerosis is principally a disease of the modern age, one produced by modern diets and modern life-styles. There is a community in Italy near Milan (see Appendices II and III for biological details) whose residents don't get atherosclerosis because of a fortunate mutation in one of their forebearers. This mutation is particularly interesting because the person who had the original mutation has been identified.

Note that this is a mutation that is favorable in modern times because (a) people live longer and (b) people have diets and life-styles that are not like those of our ancestors. In prehistoric times this would not have been a favorable mutation. Even today we cannot be certain that this mutation is reproductively favorable, i.e., that people with this mutation will have more than the average number of descendents. It is clear, however, that the mutation is personally advantageous to the individuals having it.
"

This one said it for itself. not proven if it is helpful for everyone.

and since im only in 8th grade and have no clue what half the stuff in #6 means i wont try to explain it.

[HLMencken]

[ QUOTE ]
and since im only in 8th grade and have no clue what half the stuff in #6 means i wont try to explain it.

[/ QUOTE ]

lol... 8th grade but you'll claim that 99% of scientists are full of b.s. You da man... I mean... you da boy!

[AceofSpades]

Hi spaminator,

I think this should clear up some misunderstanding you may have. Let me know if I need to explain anything more clearly.

"antibiotic resistance"

>could the traits have been there all along and not jsut >been a mutation?

You can check to see if there are surviving exact copies of the original organism, that would show the organism already had the trait. If that happens then the experiment pretty much failed, and would not be claimed to show adaption.

You also can compare the genes of the original organism and the offspring that have adapted and see the difference caused by mutations.

One thing that may be confusing you is that bacteria reproducing asexually have NO traits that are not expressed in the organism. Unlike a human that reproduces sexually and thus can carry latent genes that combine with the same latent genes from the other parent and produce a baby showing traits from those (no longer)latent genes.

>Natural selectoin favors and we notice an increase in the >bacteria with this specific trait.
>Because bacteria reproduce so fast we notice the work of >natural selection quickly
>These statements do not prove ne thing about mutations.

Natural selection is based on the fitness(basically how many offspring it produces) of differing organisms. If all you have are clones(identical organisms), then natural selection cannot favor any of them because they will all be equally adapted to the environment. So if they had the trait they would all survive, or all die if they did not.

>Again nothing proven about mutations.
>NO reason to beleive that these enzymes werent there >
>before

You didn't read it carefully. They took strains that couldn't break down and eat nylon. Then put them into a place with lots of nylon. And then after a while, they could eat the nylon. They also identified the place on the gene where the mutation occurred and the way that it occurred a "frameshift mutation". Which is like having a gene like this: AAA-BBB-AAA and sticking a "A" in to get AAA-ABB-BAA, it causes an alteration in the genetic code.

>In areas where malaria is prevalent it turns out to be >favorable because people with sickle shaped blood cells >are less likely to get malaria from mosquitoes.

>Ok this one is stupid.
>Proves nothing about a benifit to the bacteria

It's not a benefit to the bacteria. Malaria resistance is a benefit to the human (but only in areas with heavy problems with malaria).

[ElaineMonster]

Relationships make life worthwhile. Romantic love, friendship, familial love, love for pets, love for nature...

We're atheist, not solipsistic.

[MikeGuz]

WOW - I beleive god and religion was made up for people like you who need the hammer to do the right thing.

[spaminator101]

yep i da boy

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
WOW - I beleive god and religion was made up for people like you who need the hammer to do the right thing.

[/ QUOTE ]
Its sometimes called 'the noble lie'

chez

[tolbiny]

You forgot about hymns - the most depressing, soul destroying form of music ever invented.

You must never have visited a mostly black southern baptist church.

[purnell]

[ QUOTE ]
You forgot about hymns - the most depressing, soul destroying form of music ever invented.

You must never have visited a mostly black southern baptist church.

[/ QUOTE ]

Seconded. Praise the Lord, and a couple o' Halleluias on the side, please.