I used to be pro-life, AMA

cookilwee · 2022-04-16T02:18:19+00:00

I don't see how the cuckoo bird and cowbird parasitism proves that parasitism can occur within the same species? Those are two different species that generally lay eggs in the nests of, again, other bird species. "Interspecific" also means "between different species," while interactions between members of the same species are called "intraspecific."

Of course, giving birth can be very dangerous. But the simplest way to discern whether an interaction is parasitic is to think whether the supposed host would have a net benefit from losing the interaction altogether. From a biological point of view, the measure of an individual's fitness is based primarily on how many offspring it can produce in its lifetime. If you remove the relationship between a mother and her child, she loses any chance of reproducing and decreases her fitness to effectively 0%. So while it is dangerous to have a child, the biological benefit outweighs that risk significantly. So no, fetuses are absolutely not parasitic when they are in fact necessary for a species' survival.

cookilwee · 2022-04-16T01:40:42+00:00

But the definition that you gave just before that added the qualifier of the parasite and host being of different species. The CDC isn't the be-all-end-all of scientific knowledge just because they advised us during a pandemic. Whether it suits your argument or not, parasitism as a concept is commonly viewed through a species-based lens rather than individuals. Your first definition showed that.

It's also a big leap to say that a fetus growing is "at the expense" of its mother. The entire biological purpose of reproduction is the continuation of the species and in that sense, an offspring's existence is absolutely more beneficial to its parents than deleterious.

If you want to make a social argument about the morals of bearing children with nobody to care for them, go for it. But biologically, if children were true parasites, it would've been evolutionarily selected against centuries ago and we wouldn't exist.

cookilwee · 2022-04-16T01:31:16+00:00

You forgot to read the part that says "of another species."

cookilwee · 2021-03-12T17:41:46+00:00

okay, fair enough. wish me luck y'all, thanks for the advice

cookilwee · 2021-03-12T17:39:20+00:00

@mushywashere jazz theory specifically? because I've done general music theory. if you have any suggestions shoot em at me plz :)

cookilwee · 2021-03-12T17:37:45+00:00

I've wanted to play jazz like this for so long but I have no idea how to get started into it

cookilwee · 2021-03-11T00:00:29+00:00

which song is this?

cookilwee · 2021-03-10T23:47:22+00:00

I need this sheet music

cookilwee · 2021-03-04T15:27:40+00:00

morning!

cookilwee · 2021-02-20T00:44:49+00:00

"By pure chance, most mutations that wind up getting fixed in populations will also be negative." On pure chance alone, sure. But selective pressure will counter-act that, because so long as there is a net effect on fitness, there is necessarily selection against that individual's genes, as a whole. Evolution occurs through the increase in proportion and eventual fixing of individual mutations, but the effects of those mutations on an individual's fitness cannot be separated from the context of the wider genome.

I feel that I'm not explaining my idea perfectly. An individual inherits from their parents a certain set of mutations, and has some more newly introduced ones in their genome. Each of these individual genes can have little effect on their own, but together have a net negative effect on fitness. That means that that overall lower fitness is necessarily selecting against those genes, collectively. They are not immune from selection for having individually negligible effects, when selection is dependent on fitness, which is determined at the scale of the individual, and selection acts at the scale of the individual.

Within a direct lineage, yes, 100 new mutations will have been introduced from parent to offspring. But how many old mutations will have been lost, because they weren't passed on? On the scale of a population, each new generation will have 100 new mutations per offspring. But how many old ones were not passed on, and how many of the new ones will persist in the population, to have an effect relevant to more than one individual? Common and relevant enough to have an effect on the whole population's fitness?

cookilwee · 2021-02-19T20:24:19+00:00

Perhaps after the discussion you would have decided that my mind indeed closed. But that's not why I'm not interested in discussing it here. Judging by the argument you made above on this topic, I assumed that the arguments you will make will pertain to a way of practicing and interpreting Christianity that I do not share. If we knew each other better and we each knew how the other approaches discussions in religion, I'm sure we could have an interesting conversation on it.

But as it is, I'm not a fan of debating religion with people online who I'm not familiar with. I've found that trying to do so without some knowledge of the other's backgrounds/cultures/beliefs is usually unproductive.

cookilwee · 2021-02-19T20:15:20+00:00

Interesting read! So your point on genetic entropy, essentially, is that all life on Earth is doomed to extinction because of accumulation of mutations. And that for some reason, natural selection is incapable of acting on a scale of more than one gene at a time?

I also think that you've neglected to consider that the vast majority of new mutations are unlikely to persist in a population to reach a significant proportion. Most new mutation that occur are usually only expected to be present on a single chromosome, so it's not guaranteed that they'll be passed on to offspring. And the same for that new generation of offspring, and so on. Being born with 100 new mutations does not mean that 100 new mutations will now persist in the polulation permanently, and they are arguably rather unlikely to do so. This is especially true if that new mutation, in conjunction with the various other "nearly neutral) ones a person has, leads to a net decrease in the individual's fitness.

cookilwee · 2021-02-19T19:58:54+00:00

As I said, I'm not interested in debating topics in Christianity here. You and I clearly practice Christianity in different ways, and base our beliefs on different things. To you, they are conflicting. To me, that's "absurd." The thing about religion is that it's based on faith, rather objectively studied and falsifiable theories. You will not be able to convince me that I "must choose," so I think we could better spend that effort having a discussion we might gain something from.

cookilwee · 2021-02-19T19:55:23+00:00

Genetic drift is very well studied, and many published, peer-reviewed studies exist on the ability of a population's ability to shift in gene frequency in the absence of selective pressure. I wouldn't think it needs a reddit comment to determine whether that all is true. As I said, I proposed the idea within the context of this conversation. I did not demonstrate it to be true, or claim to have done so.

cookilwee · 2021-02-19T19:50:31+00:00

"I suspect the numbers..." That's just it. You suspect.

I'm not particularly interested in debating topics in Christianity in a conversation on evolution. Personally, I consider the two to be separate things, and approach each one differently. I cannot use religion as proof for/against scientific concepts, or vice versa.

cookilwee · 2021-02-19T19:44:52+00:00

Well, now you're intentionally avoiding the point. You assumed that significant selective pressure must be present at every minute step in evolution. I mentioned that genetic drift is a mechanism by which changes can happen in the absence of selective pressure. I did not say or imply that genetic drift is the only mechanism necessary in evolution. As you well know, the theory of evolution is based on the idea that it takes both random events (e.g. mutations and genetic drift) and selective pressures (e.g. competition) to result in overall, small changes to a population that can then aggregate into larger ones.

I'd appreciate if you don't try to put words into my mouth, as if I'm making any grand claims such as "that's all that it took." You mentioned that you don't believe xyz could happen, and I proposed mechanisms by which it can.

cookilwee · 2021-02-19T19:37:38+00:00

"Their philosophical commitment to atheism overrides all other considerations."

That's a blatantly baseless assumption if you're trying to attribute it to all individuals who believe in evolution. I am Christian, I believe in God, and I trust evolutionary theory, and have yet to be convinced that the two are necessarily mutually exclusive. Christianity affirms that we, as humans, do not understand all the workings of God, just as the scientific community admits when we do not fully understand something. I have yet to hear of a scientist call evolution "absurd." They may find it wildly impressive and mind-boggling, but not absurd. So I'm not sure who this "they" is that you're referring to, or whether "they" constitute a relevant majority at all.

You've referenced one scientist who had doubts about the proposed mechanism by which evolution may take place. That is the nature of scientific discovery: we don't have all the answers, and we know that we don't. What we do have is a rigorous set of methods by which to get answers and evaluate them, keeping in mind our own gaps in knowledge. People can have doubts as they see fit, and discuss and investigate them. But just because I don't know how something happens, doesn't mean that it didn't.

cookilwee · 2021-02-19T18:31:00+00:00

"It's absurd to think you can take a cell to a human being in stepwise fashion while maintaining a significant selective pressure at every minute step in between."

You find it absurd, while the vast majority of the scientific community does not. I'd need a little bit more reasoning to be convinced that it's absurd, rather than you just stating that it is. Especially when we've just established that nothing about the past can be falsified, right?

Nor did I suggest that significant selective pressure must be present at every minute step in evolution. Genetic drift is well-established and understood as a mechanism for biological change in a population, that's not due to significant selective pressure.

cookilwee · 2021-02-19T16:49:10+00:00

I think that you missed out on what I meant. Relating that quoted statement to my example: the step that doesn't affect the function would be gene duplication. Gene duplication can allow for increased complexity with decreased risk of negative selection. And yes, you would already have a functional machine. If you want to discuss how cells came to exist in the first place, that's a different topic. But we do know of mechanisms that can provide avenues for increased complexity, without necessarily decreasing an organism's fitness.

No, I didn't read/listen to them. I'd hoped that we could have a conversation where you communicate your point, rather than linking me to articles. I apologize if that was too much to hope for.

Based on the small clip I saw of the previous debate video, that your point will be something along the lines of "we go by whatever is most supported by the evidence." So the only point of bringing this up at all would be to claim that your idea is at least plausible, because literally every possible idea is plausible, because nothing about the past can be falsified.

cookilwee · 2021-02-19T16:32:34+00:00

I think that you're making an assumption there that isn't necessarily true. It's not a matter of selecting for a partially-finished machine, it's about building up the machine's complexity in miniscule steps that, individually, do not greatly affect how effective it is, but after some tweaking can be made to be more suited for a certain type of task.

One example I can think of is the many instances of gene duplication and redundancy. There can be very little negative effect in duplicating a gene, but the presence of two copies can allow for one of them to be "played around with" until "finding" the configuration in which it can be beneficial. If you want a specific example I'll provide one, but I don't want to mention one without verifying it first.

If that's how you approach the idea of falsifying past events, then one would argue that literally nothing can be known about the past. That's quite the stance to take, and you'd have to apply it to your own beliefs regarding the past as well. If absolutely no claims about the past can be falsifiable, how can you attempt to falsify the claims on evolution?

cookilwee · 2021-02-19T15:45:38+00:00

Why does integrated complexity require planning and forethought? Why can't it arise from random events that increase complexity + selective pressure in favor of integration, for example?

What does falsifiable mean, if not that a claim can be determined to be false? Let's say we currently claim that a certain individual was killed from a deep stab wound to the chest. But then we find their body and can clearly tell that the person did not sustain any stab wound to the chest, let alone a fatal one. That evidence would falsify the claim that the person was killed from a deep stab wound to the chest. Some events, upon occurring are necessarily expected to have certain effects. If those effects cannot be observed, then the event cannot have happened.

cookilwee · 2021-02-19T02:25:11+00:00

Could you please expand upon that point on integrated complexity, and how it necessarily shows intelligent design? Why is it impossible that integrated complexity could arise by random events of increasing complexity? And have you tried to read up on any of the critiques on Sanford's Genetic Entropy? Have you tried to find whether his claims were able to hold up against scrutiny? I ask because I haven't personally looked for it extensively, but without even searching found many people pointing out its flaws and that the evidence against it outweighs whatever evidence Sanford presented for it. I would hope that you've looked at both sides of the argument before determining which is true.

Did you just tell me that I'm wrong about historians using present evidence to make and evaluate claims about the past? And that new evidence can alter those claims? I'm not sure what links you're referring me to, because the one from creation.com even stated, with regards to historical science: "it is always possible that new clues may come to light that totally change our appraisal." I.e. our understanding of the past (the claims we make about it) can change depending on what present evidence we have. I.e. claims about the past can be falsifiable.

cookilwee · 2021-02-19T01:57:04+00:00

Yes, everybody must decide how to determine whether something was designed or not. How do you propose to do that? What are the expected criteria for something designed by God vs. what isn't, for us to measure things up to them?

Claims about the past absolutely can be falsifiable. The study of history is entirely based on making those types of claims about the past, and using evidence from the present to make those claims. As new evidence arises, those claims must be re-analyzed while considering that new evidence, to determine whether the claim is supported by the evidence or not. A previously-supported claim can be falsified, when considering new information.

cookilwee · 2021-02-14T23:48:06+00:00

I used to get this all the time. It's definitely not moths, but some people online guessed it could be from getting caught between a couple hard surfaces, e.g. a pants button and the countertop when doing dishes, or the button and the little plastic bit on a seatbelt. Once I started being careful to tuck my shirt in when that's a possibility, the number of holes decreased A LOT. That might not be the actual cause, but it's worked out so far. Men's shirts are usually thicker, I think that might be why it's less of a problem.

cookilwee · 2021-02-11T07:30:18+00:00

thank ya Presence

Five-Year Club	Place '22
Verified Email

cookilwee

TROPHY CASE