tpaine posted:if you want an example of what i mean just wait for someone to say something about dawkins
richard dawkins really shed light on the concept of a ring distribution of interrelated "species" in a book of his i read a while ago. consider a series of speciation events in which one divergence happens after another in the sequence A diverges into B, B diverges into C, C diverges into D, and D diverges into E (this represents starting at one end of the "ring" and going to the other; you can also start in the "middle" of the ring and radiate outwards from both sides).
now, in terms of the ability to interbreed we can say:
A=B (A can interbreed with B)
B=C
C= D
D=E
(the distribution is a literal circle, so you don't need to worry about, say A interbreeding with C, they may or may not be able to; let's focus on the ends of the circle, A and E)
A≠E (A CANNOT interbreed with E)
so much divergence has happened between the two ends of the ring, that when the ends begin to converge, some kind of reproductive isolating mechanism has already evolved to keep A from interbreeding with E.
at first when i learned about this i thought "whatever," but then i read something interesting dawkins said about it. he explains that what you see occurring here is like a "geographic" representation of what occurs over time when a population diverges from and succeeds its parent population, which goes extinct. for example, consider the proposed Homo erectus lineage H. erectus -> H. rhodesiensis -> H. sapiens. H. erectus would be C, H. rhodesiensis would be D, and H. sapiens would be E. Extrapolate that a bit to the past and you would have a straight "line" in time with what could look like a "ring" if those species existed concurrently on earth.
idk if that makes sense but i think it's really cool
if anyone is interested in a real life example of what I'm talking about, check this out btw: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/05/2/l_052_05.html
well tbh I don't really care either way, so nvm
Edited by Peelzebub ()
Peelzebub posted:tpaine posted:if you want an example of what i mean just wait for someone to say something about dawkins
richard dawkins really shed light on the concept of a ring distribution of interrelated "species" in a book of his i read a while ago. consider a series of speciation events in which one divergence happens after another in the sequence A diverges into B, B diverges into C, C diverges into D, and D diverges into E (this represents starting at one end of the "ring" and going to the other; you can also start in the "middle" of the ring and radiate outwards from both sides).
now, in terms of the ability to interbreed we can say:
A=B (A can interbreed with B)
B=C
C= D
D=E
(the distribution is a literal circle, so you don't need to worry about, say A interbreeding with C, they may or may not be able to; let's focus on the ends of the circle, A and E)
A≠E (A CANNOT interbreed with E)
so much divergence has happened between the two ends of the ring, that when the ends begin to converge, some kind of reproductive isolating mechanism has already evolved to keep A from interbreeding with E.
at first when i learned about this i thought "whatever," but then i read something interesting dawkins said about it. he explains that what you see occurring here is like a "geographic" representation of what occurs over time when a population diverges from and succeeds its parent population, which goes extinct. for example, consider the proposed Homo erectus lineage H. erectus -> H. rhodesiensis -> H. sapiens. H. erectus would be C, H. rhodesiensis would be D, and H. sapiens would be E. Extrapolate that a bit to the past and you would have a straight "line" in time with what could look like a "ring" if those species existed concurrently on earth.
idk if that makes sense but i think it's really cool
you should read The Dialectical Biologist by Richard Levins and Richard Lewontin
i still bought that book this second though because i think it would be a good idea to push the concepts onto other people i have influence over lol.
Peelzebub posted:i just have a passive interest in this stuff; don't think i have the ability to analyze hardcore, abstract, mathematical biology. part of why i'd rather go into applied science: "memorize, practice, use."
i still bought that book this second though because i think it would be a good idea to push the concepts onto other people i have influence over lol.
its not really a bio math book. i know some of those if you want some good ones tho
NoFreeWill posted:tpaine posted:if you're stupid enough to have ever considered yourself religious past the age of 17 you have no place here
most people are raised in the faith. i became atheist around 16/17 when I bet God (something you aren't supposed to do/only one guy in the Bible is allowed to have done) my faith over the Super Bowl and i once told someone that people who were raised atheist/were never religious aren't true atheists haha
actually, like the gays who consider themselves "gold star gay" because they never had sex with a woman, so too is the lifelong atheist the most pure
tpaine posted:*ASSaults the one man who did more than any other to destroy the one impediment to creating a livable society than* GGGGGGGGGGAAYYYYYYYYYYYY
wait who assaulted the Lord Jesus Christ? 
le_nelson_mandela_face posted:NoFreeWill posted:tpaine posted:if you're stupid enough to have ever considered yourself religious past the age of 17 you have no place here
most people are raised in the faith. i became atheist around 16/17 when I bet God (something you aren't supposed to do/only one guy in the Bible is allowed to have done) my faith over the Super Bowl and i once told someone that people who were raised atheist/were never religious aren't true atheists haha
actually, like the gays who consider themselves "gold star gay" because they never had sex with a woman, so too is the lifelong atheist the most pure
nice... I'm gold star gay
i'm willing to give muslims a pass for being religious because they really don't have a choice in the matter in most cases but no motherfucker gonna cut your head off if you live in the us and stop believing in magic
dipshit420 posted:Plr81gaUIr0
*gets beat by control*
*gets beat by control deck again*
ya blew it buddy. pssst blue is always the best in magic
ditto professional sports, except they're even fucking dumber and i have a much harder time not getting mad about it
belief as something foreign to self−consciousness, something that is not a bone of its bone, but is surreptitiously foisted on it like a changeling child. But here enlightenment is entirely foolish; belief experiences it as a way of speaking which does not know what it is saying, and does not understand the facts
of the case when it talks about priestly deception, and deluding the people. It speaks about this as if by means of some hocus−pocus of conjuring priestcraft there were foisted on consciousness as true Reality something
that is absolutely foreign, and absolutely alien to it; and yet says all the while that this is an essential reality for consciousness, that consciousness believes in it, trusts in it, and seeks to make it favourably disposed towards itself, i.e. that consciousness therein sees its pure ultimate Being just as much as its own single and universal individuality, and creates by its own action this unity of itself with its essential reality. In other words, it directly declares that to be the very inmost nature of consciousness which it declares to be something alien to consciousness. How, then, can possibly speak about deception and delusion? By the fact that it directly expresses about belief the very opposite of what it asserts of belief, it ipso facto really reveals itself to belief as the conscious lie. How are deception and delusion to take place, where consciousness in its very truth has directly and immediately the certitude of itself, where it possesses itself in its object, since it just as much finds as produces itself there? The distinction no longer exists, even in words.
When the general question has been raised, whether it is permissible to delude a people, the answer, as a fact, was bound to be that the question is pointless, because it is impossible to deceive a people in this matter. Brass in place of gold, counterfeit instead of genuine coin may doubtless have swindled individuals many a time; lots of people have stuck to it that a battle lost was a battle won; and lies of all sorts about things of sense and particular events have been plausible for a time; but in the knowledge of that inmost reality where consciousness finds the direct certainty of its own self, the idea of delusion is entirely baseless....
(Enlightenment) states regarding belief that its absolute Being is a
piece of stone, a block of wood, having eyes and seeing not, or again a bit of bread−dough, which is obtained from grain grown on the field and transformed by men and is returned to earth again; or in whatever other ways belief may be said to anthropomorphize absolute Being, making it objective and representable.
Enlightenment, proclaiming itself as the pure and true (notion ), here turns what is held to be eternal life and holy spirit into a concrete passing thing of sense, and contaminates it with what belongs to sense−certainty−−with an aspect inherently worthless and one which is not to be found at all in the worshiping attitude of belief, so that enlightenment simply calumniates it by introducing such an aspect.What belief reveres is for belief assuredly neither stone nor wood, nor bread−dough, nor any other sort of thing of time and sense. If enlightenment thinks it worth while to say its object all the same is this as well, or even that it is this in its inherent nature and in truth, then belief also knows that it is this "as well", but for it this something lies outside; its worship....
In the same way enlightenment finds it foolish for consciousness to absolve itself of its characteristic of being absolutely individual, excluding all others, and possessing property of its own, by itself demitting its own property, for thereby it shows in reality that this isolation is not really serious. It shows rather that itself is
something that can rise above the natural necessity of isolating itself and of denying, in this absolute isolation of its own individual existence, that e others are one and the same with itself.
Pure insight finds both purposeless as well as wrong. It is purposeless to renounce a pleasure and give away a possession in order to show oneself independent of pleasure and possession; hence, in the converse case,
insight will be obliged to proclaim the man a fool, who, in order to eat, employs the expedient of actually eating. Insight again thinks it wrong to deny oneself a meal, and give away butter and eggs not for money, nor money for butter and eggs, but just to give them away and get no return at all; it declares a meal, or the
possession of things of that sort, to be an end in itself, and hence in fact declares itself to be a very impure intention which ascribes essential value to enjoyment and possessions of this kind. As pure intention it further
maintains the necessity of rising above natural existence, above covetousness as to the means for such existence; it only finds it foolish and wrong that this supremacy should be demonstrated by action. In other words this pure intention is in reality a deception, which pretends to and demands an inner elevation, but
declares that it is superfluous, foolish, and even wrong to be in earnest in the matter, to put this uplifting into concrete expression, into actual shape and form, and demonstrate its truth.
Pure insight thus denies itself both as pure insight−−for it denies directly purposive action, and as pure intention−−for it denies the intention of proving its independence of the ends of individual existence.
-From The Phenomenology of Spirit by Hegel
I prefer my Pietism a la Hamann; but this is perhaps of some interest to y'all (as well as the the whole section on the Enlightenment stage and its successor, Absolute Freedom, in the Phenomenology)
And with that, I shake the dust off the sandals of my feet against this thread.
thirdplace posted:the disconnect between how clearly false and pointless religion is to me and how common and popular it is in wider society has led me to believe that i'm some kind of weird mutant who is missing some kind of fundamentally human attribute and therefore really shouldn't be commenting on the subject
ditto professional sports, except they're even fucking dumber and i have a much harder time not getting mad about it
probably everyone here is the same way, even if they don't consciously acknowledge it. religion (and sports) is cool for those times when ya feel like pretending. chanting and acting like an ape with a bunch of idiots is fun sometimes
c_man posted:its not really a bio math book. i know some of those if you want some good ones tho
nah, i meant more the logic around theories in evolutionary biology (not that i know actual math anyway lol). like, i just can't comprehend evolution not being fundamentally based on what goes on at the nucleotide level, but apparently that is the major "beef" most people have with dawkins ?_?
The Oxford Handbook of Religious Diversity
By Chad V. Meister
tpaine posted:sorry for this thread. it's just that periodically i'm pulled from my coccoon of alcohol and right thinking and i'm reminded that a bunch of little fucking retards think certain things and i get offended and wonder how they can live with shemslves
i prefer alcohol and left thinking but hey what can i say different strokes i guess
NoFreeWill posted:most people are raised in the faith. i became atheist around 16/17 when I bet God (something you aren't supposed to do/only one guy in the Bible is allowed to have done) my faith over the Super Bowl and i once told someone that people who were raised atheist/were never religious aren't true atheists haha
that's cool i was a teenage atheist for a while too but then i just pushed the atheism all the way and wound up on the other side again 
tpaine posted:*ASSaults the one man who did more than any other to destroy the one impediment to creating a livable society than* GGGGGGGGGGAAYYYYYYYYYYYY
your hero dick dorkins hasn't done shit to destroy capitalism
c_man posted:you should read stephen jay gould's book on evolution. he goes into a LOT of detail about evolution from much more than just the dawkins-style gene shuffle and its not a math book
The_Boourns_Identity posted:dogmatism can certainly be problematic but faith has great liberating potential for people and communities.
The Oxford Handbook of Religious Diversity
By Chad V. Meister
It turns out religion and ethnic nationalism rule!