How can atheism have morality?

originally posted by: Venkuish1
a reply to: cooperton

Let's see.

You claimed viruses don't evolve contrary to the evidence and proof we have. Don't you want to reconsider your position given that you are clearly wrong. There is still time!

Here is some good read

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...


Viral infection is a highly dynamic process, which lead to constant evolutionary changes on both sides of the viral–host interface. The high mutation rates of viruses, coupled with short generation times and large population sizes, allow viruses to rapidly adapt to the host environment. However, this high mutation rate also comes at a cost to the viral population, as deleterious mutations are constantly created, leading to a plethora of defective genomes. Here, we will discuss the basic tenets that govern the evolution of viruses: mutation rates, population size, selection, the multiplicity of infection, and how these factors modulate infection as viruses evolve within a host, during transmission to novel susceptible hosts, and as viruses establish infections in new host species.

And just as everyone has told you viruses do evolve despite the claims made by creationists.

Unless of course the two scientists from the Departments of Molecular Biology and Microbiology & Immunology don't know what they are talking about and they are brainwashed just as you claimed a few pages back.




www.sciencedirect.com...

Viruses have mutation rates that are higher than any other member of the kingdom of life. This gives them the ability to evolve, even within the course of a single infection, and to evade multiple host defenses, thereby impacting pathogenesis.

Oh look, influenza still being influenza, polio still being polio, herpes still being herpes. Also, viruses are not independent organisms, they rely on the host cell to do normal cellular functions, such as amino acid polymerization.

For the virus to evade detection it doesn't need to evolve, it just needs to have a slightly different protein capsid. Similar to the various blood types in humans, yet we wouldn't say humans with different blood types are evolved. They're still obviously human

If influenza remaining influenza is the best evidence for evolution that you have, then you have no evidence for evolution.

originally posted by: Venkuish1
a reply to: cooperton

You haven't answered my question even though I asked you a few times earlier. You claimed amino acid polymerization is thermodynamically impossible.

Can you provide the names of the scientists who proved it and can you show me their work? Because your have come to a conclusion out of nowhere.

Yeah you learn it in most bio or chem 101 classes. Condensation reactions are when peptide (protein) bonds form, hydrolysis reactions are when the peptide bond breaks. Here is a mentioning of hydrolysis, the opposite reaction of polymerization:

"The degradation of the peptide is an exergonic reaction that releases about 8-16 Kjol/mole of energy."
link


link

Polymerization of amino acids require peptide bonds, and here we see clearly that it is actually the degradation of these bonds that is exergonic, having a "negative delta G" (meaning it is a spontaneous reaction / thermodynamically favored). Unlike the Miller-Urey experiment which added energy to amplify the reaction in the way it is favored to go, if you add heat to water it will actually amplify the hydrolysis of the peptide bonds, because breaking peptide bonds is thermodynamically favored rather than forming peptide bonds.

We can also see by the positive value for the equilibrium constant (pKb - pKa) that this reaction will go concentrate towards degrading into monomers rather than polymerizing into polymers. I know this is probably way over your head, but this is the science behind knowing that amino acid polymerization is thermodynamically unfavorable. Again, it is like lighting a match underwater

originally posted by: Xtrozero
I'm not really trying to argue the point other than to say that people from around the world with different languages and cultures across 1000s of years of differences would not have the same religions. I would bet that each of us has different perceptions of reality. If you looked at the world in my perception you might say wow what the hell is that? I'm sure people's perception of God is different too.


So you kind of prove my point that atheists tend to not have set morals and kind of let them flow to personal whims. I'm a firm believer that human morals tend to drift in not good directions when they have big shifts. There is a reason we are the apex predators on our planet, and it isn't because we are nice or docile, though we like to play that part when it is convenient.

It seems you suggest there is no good or bad direction and so let's just get rid of these confounding restraints we have on society that slow that process down and just open up Pandora's box.

One thing I do agree with is that every person who believes in a 'god' most certainly has a unique idea/perspective of what 'god' even is. You could take all the congregations and all the believers in the world, you will not find 2 people with identical perceptions of god or 'faith-based' things. Morals, on the other hand, are different.

"Close, loving friendships evolved among early human hunter-gatherers to promote survival- People with long-term friendships could more easily gain the resources and support needed to have a mate and raise their children to reproductive age." (blogs.bcm.edu...)

"Cooperation made Homo sapiens the last human species standing. Some of the other human species were more technologically advanced (I wanted to add that they were also extremely physically robust relative to us), had been around for much longer—a million years—or had brains as big as or bigger than ours. Compared with other human species, it turns out we were the friendliest. What allowed us to thrive was a kind of cognitive superpower: a particular type of affability called cooperative communication. This friendliness evolved through a process known as self-domestication. Domestication is a process that involves intense selection for friendliness." (www.scientificamerican.com...)

That last article is specifically about *social cohesion*, something severely lacking in today's society. Religions keep people separate, it is designed to create the conditions to divide and conquer. Christianity promotes a fervent, self-righteous individualism, for example (think of manifest destiny). Most theologies are also predicated on race supremacy and land entitlement. I maintain my earlier arguments that theology is in fact the enemy of basic empathy (morality) and social cohesion. Atheists are far more likely than a theist to have their common sense (morality) intact.

a reply to: cooperton

Lol what? Polyethylene isn't an amino acid polymer. Do YOU know anything about organic chemistry? I love when you get cocky enough to try to post something relevant again, and you don't even land in the same area code as the conversation

It's the same reaction - polymerization regardless which atoms are involved. Get a chemistry book. Oh wait, you can't read!

originally posted by: Phantom42338

It's the same reaction - polymerization regardless which atoms are involved. Get a chemistry book. Oh wait, you can't read!

Hahaha phantom I love these posts you gift me with, and that was a good try at covering your tracks of ignorance. While it is 'polymerization' it is by no means the same reaction. Ethylene polymerization is an addition reaction, whereas amino acid polymerization is a condensation reaction

Ethylene addition reaction:


Amino acid condensation reaction:


link

The difference is that for addition reactions all the same atoms are maintained in the polymerizing structure. Whereas In condensation reactions, an OH and H are removed from the reactants in the process to form water, this is why it is called a "condensation" reaction. This is why these reactions are unfavorable in water, because the presence of water causes the reverse reaction to happen, and it undergoes hydrolysis and breaks the peptide bond.

When you try to accuse others of being illiterate, make sure you know what you're talking about. Or better yet, never call anyone illiterate just because they know more than you about a topic.

originally posted by: Phantom42338
a reply to: cooperton
It's the same reaction - polymerization regardless which atoms are involved. Get a chemistry book. Oh wait, you can't read!

youtu.be...

originally posted by: NovemberHemisphere

originally posted by: Phantom42338
a reply to: cooperton
It's the same reaction - polymerization regardless which atoms are involved. Get a chemistry book. Oh wait, you can't read!

youtu.be...

lolol atheists cheering on other atheists when they're wrong. I love it!

Phantom is patently wrong saying ethylene and amino acid polymerization are the same bonds. I wouldn't call you all illiterate, you're just ignorant of chemical processes. It is a beautiful example of the blind leading the blind.

originally posted by: whereislogic
Keep in mind that someone can also feign ignorance in order to stick with shoddy arguments and blind beliefs. In that case, they do understand the problem with their so-called "evidence", they'll just never admit to it. People like Richard Dawkins will use this tactic 'all the time' (pardon the hyperbole, but it does feel like 'all the time'). In reality, they know better, just like they know their so-called "evidence" doesn't hold up to scrutiny. They'll stick to their cards in their house of cards, playing one after the other and then declaring a win by referring to their house of cards as "a mountain of evidence".

Yeah if you notice they refuse to ever admit they are wrong, even when patently shown to be wrong. Even if it is an ancillary issue. This shows their lack of objectivity. Like phantom for example will not admit they were wrong about ethylene and amino acid polymerization being the same reaction. I will say though, degradation33 has conceded points, which is greatly admirable. Giving up evolution is a lot like giving up santa claus as a kid.

originally posted by: HKMarrow

If the Old Testament laws don't apply because- Jesus- then "concerned" people need to stop sweating about other folks sexual inclinations.

Yeah people can do whatever they want to themselves as mature consenting adults, I don't care. But it absolutely crosses the line when it is taught in schools.

originally posted by: cooperton

lolol atheists cheering on other atheists when they're wrong. I love it!

Phantom is patently wrong saying ethylene and amino acid polymerization are the same bonds. I wouldn't call you all illiterate, you're just ignorant of chemical processes. It is a beautiful example of the blind leading the blind.

I didn't intend to 'cheer him on', I was teasing him for saying that to you.

Anyways, you don't have any answers or solid theories for anything, you just like pointing out where scientific knowledge on abiogenesis basically ends so you can pretend your worldview has anything to do with science. Your extremely flawed logic is basically "we haven’t done/seen it yet, so it can’t be possible without intelligent design". You talk about 'blind leading the blind' while making the astronomical leap to assuming there must be a fully developed intelligence- some omnipotent creator entity predating the entire solar system- because no scientist can definitively prove how the literal first organism on Earth came to be over 3.5 billion years ago? Well I'm sorry that us mere mortals can't be all-knowing and omnipotent enough to look back 3.5 billion years like you believe your imaginary friend can.

Your argument is that because no one has figured out how to reproduce the necessary conditions for abiogenesis, that it some how automatically means a simple self-replicating chemical network is impossible to form independently through natural conditions over millions/billions of years. You couldn't possibly know that based on our limited understanding of the biology involved, yet your only alternative explanation is an infinitely intelligent/omnipotent/omniscient personality that creates universes and humans? It is a ridiculous and asinine assertion, to say the least.

People will continue to test theories and run experiments; scientists have setup prebiotic conditions that allow for the spontaneous generation of RNA polymers since the 2010s. Even meteorites have been found containing about 50 types of amino acids and nucleobases, if it turns out that Earth was in fact incapable of abiogenesis..

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: whereislogic
Keep in mind that someone can also feign ignorance in order to stick with shoddy arguments and blind beliefs. In that case, they do understand the problem with their so-called "evidence", they'll just never admit to it. People like Richard Dawkins will use this tactic 'all the time' (pardon the hyperbole, but it does feel like 'all the time'). In reality, they know better, just like they know their so-called "evidence" doesn't hold up to scrutiny. They'll stick to their cards in their house of cards, playing one after the other and then declaring a win by referring to their house of cards as "a mountain of evidence".

Yeah if you notice they refuse to ever admit they are wrong, even when patently shown to be wrong. Even if it is an ancillary issue. This shows their lack of objectivity. Like phantom for example will not admit they were wrong about ethylene and amino acid polymerization being the same reaction. I will say though, degradation33 has conceded points, which is greatly admirable. Giving up evolution is a lot like giving up santa claus as a kid.

originally posted by: HKMarrow

If the Old Testament laws don't apply because- Jesus- then "concerned" people need to stop sweating about other folks sexual inclinations.

Yeah people can do whatever they want to themselves as mature consenting adults, I don't care. But it absolutely crosses the line when it is taught in schools.

If it's a natural process of the evolution of the human race, then I don't see it crossing any "line" at all. What does it matter if people change thier bodies? Are we not more then the temporary shell of the body, especially according to religion?
What gender is a spirit, or pure conscience?

If the world continues long enough, and technology continues unbroken, then the ability to do things such as changing one's outer appearances, including thier sex, will only improve and evolve along with the human race.

Given enough time, such arguments against it, will be deemed naive at best.

Let humanity evolve. It will anyway. Nothing and no one can stop it, outside of the source of existence itself. And, whatever happens is God's will, right? So why even bother with protesting...?

a reply to: cooperton

It's the same reaction. Get a chemistry book.

a reply to: cooperton

It's the same reaction. Get a chemistry book.

originally posted by: NovemberHemisphere

I didn't intend to 'cheer him on', I was teasing him for saying that to you.

That's fair, it is a funny clip.

Anyways, you don't have any answers or solid theories for anything, you just like pointing out where scientific knowledge on abiogenesis basically ends so you can pretend your worldview has anything to do with science.

Well part of science is dismantling old theories that don't work anymore to allow the way for more comprehensive theories

Your extremely flawed logic is basically "we haven’t done/seen it yet, so it can’t be possible without intelligent design".

No it is more so that we know the thermodynamics of amino acid polymerization, thereby making the theory drastically implausible. This mixed with the fact that the sequences of the amino acids need to be precisely ordered and also all in the L-configuration, allows me to know it did not happen in this manner.

You talk about 'blind leading the blind' while making the astronomical leap to assuming there must be a fully developed intelligence

Sure from a scientific perspective it is merely a theory, but that theory is based on the very blatantly designed micromolecular machines that exist in all living things. Motors, for example, indicate that something designed it. We're upright bi-pedal encephalized organic supercomputers, of course there was a designer lol. Artificial intelligence could not come to be by random chance, so why would organic intelligence be any different? Especially given the very blatant thermodynamic hurdles.

That is why I came to the conclusion I am at today.

originally posted by: Phantom42338
a reply to: cooperton

It's the same reaction. Get a chemistry book.

I love when you double down. Let's take another analysis:



Notice how the highlighted regions of the two peptides in this reaction second picture? The 'O' from the carboxyl group and 2 H's from the amino group form into a water molecule. That is patently different than the ethylene polymerization where all the constituent atoms remain the same:



This is the difference between an addition reaction and a condensation reaction. They are not the same reaction lol.

originally posted by: HKMarrow

If it's a natural process of the evolution of the human race, then I don't see it crossing any "line" at all. What does it matter if people change thier bodies? Are we not more then the temporary shell of the body, especially according to religion?
What gender is a spirit, or pure conscience?

They're kids dude, they're fn kids. If you call genital mutilation of kids 'evolution' then this is clearly one of the moral repercussions of atheistic belief.

a reply to: cooperton

It's the same reaction. Get a chemistry book.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: HKMarrow

If it's a natural process of the evolution of the human race, then I don't see it crossing any "line" at all. What does it matter if people change thier bodies? Are we not more then the temporary shell of the body, especially according to religion?
What gender is a spirit, or pure conscience?

They're kids dude, they're fn kids. If you call genital mutilation of kids 'evolution' then this is clearly one of the moral repercussions of atheistic belief.

Kids are part of the human species.

Genital mutilation of kids... like circumcision?
Oh, but that's different, I know, I know... in one case it's desired, in the other it's forced upon the kid. Clearly one of the moral repercussions of religious belief...

originally posted by: Phantom42338
a reply to: cooperton

It's the same reaction. Get a chemistry book.

@whereislogic, see? This is the perfect example of what we were talking about. Refusing to admit they are wrong, and even cunning attempts at pretending not to understand the points being made. This is the epitome of willful ignorance. Ethylene and amino acid bond reactions being patently different also has no bearing on the validity of abiogenesis, yet phantom still refuses to concede that they are textbook different bonds. It is an astonishing feat of willful ignorance.

a reply to: cooperton

Get a chemistry book.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Venkuish1
a reply to: cooperton

Let's see.

You claimed viruses don't evolve contrary to the evidence and proof we have. Don't you want to reconsider your position given that you are clearly wrong. There is still time!

Here is some good read

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...


Viral infection is a highly dynamic process, which lead to constant evolutionary changes on both sides of the viral–host interface. The high mutation rates of viruses, coupled with short generation times and large population sizes, allow viruses to rapidly adapt to the host environment. However, this high mutation rate also comes at a cost to the viral population, as deleterious mutations are constantly created, leading to a plethora of defective genomes. Here, we will discuss the basic tenets that govern the evolution of viruses: mutation rates, population size, selection, the multiplicity of infection, and how these factors modulate infection as viruses evolve within a host, during transmission to novel susceptible hosts, and as viruses establish infections in new host species.

And just as everyone has told you viruses do evolve despite the claims made by creationists.

Unless of course the two scientists from the Departments of Molecular Biology and Microbiology & Immunology don't know what they are talking about and they are brainwashed just as you claimed a few pages back.




www.sciencedirect.com...

Viruses have mutation rates that are higher than any other member of the kingdom of life. This gives them the ability to evolve, even within the course of a single infection, and to evade multiple host defenses, thereby impacting pathogenesis.

Oh look, influenza still being influenza, polio still being polio, herpes still being herpes. Also, viruses are not independent organisms, they rely on the host cell to do normal cellular functions, such as amino acid polymerization.

For the virus to evade detection it doesn't need to evolve, it just needs to have a slightly different protein capsid. Similar to the various blood types in humans, yet we wouldn't say humans with different blood types are evolved. They're still obviously human

If influenza remaining influenza is the best evidence for evolution that you have, then you have no evidence for evolution.

Clearly you don't understand what viral evolution means. Do you think the a human virus like influenza will evolve to become another human virus?

See link

www.sciencedirect.com...

Viruses have mutation rates that are higher than any other member of the kingdom of life. This gives them the ability to evolve, even within the course of a single infection, and to evade multiple host defenses, thereby impacting pathogenesis.

Clearly viruses evolve and to become more or less virulent and often coexist with the host.

www.cdc.gov...#:~:text=While%20flu%20viruses%20evolve%20genetically,more%20information%2C%20see%20pandemic%20flu.

While flu viruses evolve genetically all the time and often undergo antigenic drift, antigenic shift happens infrequently. Flu pandemics occur rarely; there have been four flu pandemics in the past 100 years. For more information, see pandemic flu.

Again you are proven wrong.
You don't know what you are talking about.