genetics – TheCommonAtheist

Defending Unbelief by Dogmatic Bias

Are you protective of your atheism?

Bias that we attribute to religious belief can be just as applicable to science if you are not open minded to evidence. Sometimes assumptions are the exact opposite of discovery but we are too dogmatic to see it.

“Richard Dawkins position is very much like a religious position. It’s got the following characteristics—he’s dogmatic and not open to being wrong (neither are his followers) and 2nd, he got the fantastic notion of original sin—we are born selfish, arisen from genes characterized as such”. —Denis Noble

There is a third wave of evolution being discovered top-down, that is, the organism derives the genes, not the other way around, such as, changing the gene does not cure the ailments as hypothesized, and cloning does not create copies.

Dawkins has admitted that since the “Selfish Gene”(1976) very little has been done to correct or falsify his claims, very little work has been done—in other words, “the selfish gene is a dogma, accepted by scientific skeptics as a final answer, as if to question it is an affront to the package deal of selfish genes, a purposeless universe, and atheistic bias.

New (and old) research is showing us different, and all the promises of genetic cures have proven impossible, that the organism as a whole is a top-down process, not a bottom-up emergent property.

The higher level of organization constrains what the molecular level does. Those constraints, the boundary conditions, determine what this molecules can do— not the other way around.

Purpose does not define ilfe to some sort of cartesian dualism—there is no ghost in the mashing. The ghost is the machine. The process has no outside cause—the process and the cause are one. Neo Darwinisms attachment to anti-causation is blinding the central dogma. The assumptions that support this are wrong.

Source article and video HERE

Race of Biology

Things are not at all what they appear to be—a fact of biology

It is a basic misunderstanding of genetics and generally inaccurate to use racial labels for DNA lineages that cut across supposed racial groups. DNA identifies us by lineage and not by race—a very distinct difference. The default mistake that most of us make, is assume that common racial characteristics will link us closer in the DNA lineage. That’s just the society we’ve grown up to “think racially”. But DNA has the best reputation in racial thinking.

Using mitochondrial DNA (tracing the mothers, mothers, mothers) “we find in every classroom that some of the students’closest maternal relatives belong to a different race than they do. These lineages do not follow common racial categories—but in fact our mitochondrial lineage tells a different story that race is not a biological reality”—Thomas Murphy, PhD. Anthropology, Bioanthropolgy, Edmonds College

Our racial concepts are biased. They are based on our politics—our ways of excluding and discriminating against each other are ways that are not supported by biology. Yet we take superficial appearances and then dump people into categories based upon those when our biology is much more complex than that.

Race is a social construct, not supported by a close look at human biology. Our physical features such as skin color, facial structure, or hair texture, typically associated with race, are inherited independently and cut across populations just like DNA lineage.

When we actually look at the biology of skin color, it has nothing to do with arguments on morality, goodness, or evil. Us and them are ridiculous in a world of DNA. Skin color evolves in response to the environment and to assume skin color is even a separate race is a social construct. Biology is clear—we are all one race. We are all one people. The habit of breaking things into categories is as destructive as it is useful.

We are Monkeys

Out of the trees and into the flats—we are still monkeys

Not only do we share the same social structures and traits like empathy, grief, and altruism, and moral codes, but we share the same muscle configuration, brain structure, rows of teeth, hair, fingerprints, and DNA. A 98.8% match. We are closer to the chimpanzee and gibbon than they are to the gorilla.

Evangelicals will accept that a tiger and a lion are related. True they are both cats, but the tiger and lion DNA is farther separated than chimp and human. Where and why do they draw the line? We are their kinfolk no doubt about it.

If tigers and lions are linked by evolution, man is as much a monkey as a tiger is a lion. We have most of their traits and share the same social structures. That is one possible reason patriarchal religion is so powerful—it’s rooted in evolution.

DNA Paternity tests use a dumb-down version of the advanced version (and even that it is admissible in court) so at what point do evangelicals draw the line with evolution?

On another note, if evangélicas can accept a paternity test as accurate, by all accounts the more advanced methods of testing should be a shoe-in. Why all the resistance? Does it spoil your adoption into the tribe of god, or does it not? Remember, your adopted in through faith. You’re more related to a monkey than to a god.

We like to think we’re more advanced than that, somehow special. But reality dictates these are our people. We are their monkeys, as evidenced also by the patriarchal order of church and government. To survive we’re going to have to transcend those limitations.

Dissuading Consciousness

How the primer of life is sick and it’s showing.

Faith has no bearing on if we endure as a species, but it does have an impact on if we don’t. Belief is an arrogant default, distorted, misdirected void of reality, deceptive and skewed observations in favor of overreaching abundance and waste—this latest brand of hominids imagine great and unprovable things.

Somewhere in our past a neuron misaligned or is being used in an untoward affect—a synesthesia or other genetic misfortune hooked to ego and fear, then egotistic salvation and false-worth bred complacency—no one is coming to rescue us.

Unless a change is made the earth will one day be void of the chatter of men, void of human beauty and love—millennia’s of blank pages to be rediscovered in our fossil record by the next batch to rise aboriginal in the resilient and resurgent pools of DNA—life.

Consciousness transudes (1) from the living earth and directs DNA to build hospitable, organic environments driven by various levels of its potential—each one mapping out a resemblance to its capacity. Once an entity is no longer hospitable, the consciousness must leave the organism and death of that body occurs (this is easily observed). Equilibrium and the collage of consciousness recycles itself again and again, often shelved for myriads of time, dissipated into the atmosphere and elements—stored until conditions for organic life are met. Genetic epidemics like autism, cancer, and diabetes bear this out when skewed conscious determination maps a new life into forming with polluted potential.

Now the earth is overflowing with inhabitants struggling over a fixed amount of consciousness, with the dominant energies depleting the earth of its nature—not in its danger, but inflicting ourselves within this delicate, yet massive earth that will once again absorb its most acumen (2) nature shortly after our own bodies are no longer a suitable host to carry its potential—as we change our environment to become inhospitable to life, it will take millions of years to restore the balance for the rise of the next species.

While searching for the meaning of life outside of ourselves has been futile for thousands of years (and worth abandoning) through every rise and fall of hominids, one thing observable is true—the physical earth perpetuates and nurtures lifecycles—but only within a specific balance. We are sickly and getting worse. Is that any wonder?

Phylogeny tells us many lines have existed before. Human-like remains from the late Miocene period and the Pliocene era (7.5 and 5.3 million years ago) are not likely our ancestors, but different lines of hominid civilizations that appeared and disappeared, materializing at different places and times all over the globe—then gone. We too will be fossilized then followed by a resurgent, autonomic force that eminates from this unique speck in the galaxy. With some care we can make this ride last as long as we want—or not. Sapiens 2.0 may get the opportunity sooner than later.

(1) Transudes—to pass through a membrane or permeable substance

(2) Acumen—ability to reason, keenness, depth of perception, discernment, or discrimination especially in practical matters.

How We Evolved to Belief—

How in our evolution did we become so trusting while raised in societies of liars.

Hard to dispute that belief is a common thread of war, contention, oppression, division, and hate, but I’d have to take two minutes to prove it. Seein’s I only get a minute here, ~~god~~speed is of the essence. To scrutinize and thoroughly plow-over any belief based faith is a noble and quite moral thing to do—and easy…

There are those that claim to have found god in their dreams, visions, NDEs, traumas, addictions, and so forth. He’s also been found in G-force testing, neurological studies, chemical enhancements, CO poisoning, anesthesia, seizures, end-zones, and outright lies. This spectral evidence (except for the lying, of course) is the root of all faith, and beliefs based on such evidence are totally unreliable and 100% subjective. To believe them has caused pain and suffering and outright murderous genicide throughout religions storied past. Putting all religion into past-tense would actually be wise—based on its performance…its own demonstrable evidence.

Humanity’s beauty is our obligatory nature to our fellows in-kind, basically feeling compelled to believe when presented nearly anything—to be compliant, agreeable, simply because we are asked to merely believe and trust. Belief is about the stupidest trait mankind has somehow maximally developed in a society of liars.

To believe based on another’s belief statement, who also heard it from another, who never witnessed anything— is not only foolish, but irresponsible.

Where in our evolution and why, did we become so believing, so trusting, yet raised in a predominantly dishonest society of liars? Raised in deception like it’s a running joke of some kind, how this serves our survival—I just don’t know.

In a nutshell—“if the existence of God is up for debate, he doesn’t exist. Belief/faith in something is not necessary if that something actually exists”—Ben

Religious Competition and Evolution

How religion has outlived its evolutionary usefulness.

Which religion will best serve the evolution of our species? At this point in time I would say atheism (no religion). According to anthropologists, religion served a useful purpose increasing genetic copies through cooperation, gathering, multiplying, creating security to advance the almighty gene. Moving civilization from small groups, to large, insulated groups with multiple failsafes. Religion, through its ruthless hard-copy mandate, also regulated those numbers to maintain ecological balances by widespread culling and killing haplotypes it deemed inferior, only leaving behind those most cooperative, submissive traits to build its kingdom. It is a over-superb success story now on the verge of backfire.

How do we turn it off? The watchful eye-in-the-sky has proven vastly a effective ploy. The gene has put in the mind of the man a gullible and behaviorally superstitious trait that is easily duplicated study after study. It is so effective that it makes many question their very sanity to ignore it. Those not blessed with the gene have also benefitted from its ability to create copies, surrounding the unbeliever with billions of replicas that, against all common sense now continue to replicate.

Shut. It. Down! Slow it down! The Darwin Award may just very well go to…all of us, if we can’t figure out a way to stop the continued onslaught. Remember the Sorcerers Apprentice—Mickey cuts the broom into a million pieces? Slowly the replicas came to life and grabbed water buckets and flooded the house. The pool is now full. Religion had its day. Shut it down. The one thing religions have in common?—too many copies. Enough is enough!

HERE is an interesting read.

The Ark—Written For Our Time? A Prophecy

How the least amount of truth, may turn out to be the most accurate statement in all of scripture.

The story of Noah’s Ark, thoroughly debunked as fable from days past is now considered a parable. A myth written to our time? A lesson to be learned? A prophecy? Possibly. If it is from god, there are two choices (maybe more) about the significance of the story. What is the lesson to be learned?

All flesh had become corrupt. But Noah was perfect in his generations. (his genealogy was not corrupt) Genesis-6 Genetic engineering of plants and people could possibly change the world as we know it. All flesh has the potential to become corrupted, but who will resist it? Genetic modifications outside of natural selection is an unknown consequence waiting to happen. Alleviating human suffering may just cause the greatest suffering ever told. Who will remain perfect in their generations through natural selection?

The earth had been corrupted. Boy isn’t this the truth? Why is it the very people that believe these scriptures hold the most contempt for our planet and it’s limited resources?

All the animals needed saving from extinction. Species are dying off at an unprecedented rate since recorded history. Disregard for the sanctity of all life is a religious problem, not a people problem

Global flooding was immanent. Climate deniers wake up. Even if just a metaphorical sense of the story of Noah is true, the flooding is future, not past. The story of Noah is prophecy, because we know it’s not history.

The two choices; continue the way we are headed, or stop this nonsense. Interesting turn of events; Now it is the Humanist and scientist calling out the warnings, while the religious right fights for destruction of our world as an inherent right. In the end, the story that had the least amount of truth, may turn out to be the most accurate in all of scripture.

Sanguinivorous Bats and Leeches—A Common Ancestry

How genetics map a unique common ancestry

Vampire bats from the family Phyllostomidae, comprised of three known species and blood sucking leeches (sanguinivores) from four subspecies (Hirudo medicinalis) tested all share common genes.

The vampire bat is a unique evolutionary specimen. The only mammals that survive on blood alone (obligate sanguivory) the 93% protein diet requires specialized kidney function and unique microbiome (gut bacteria) along with an enhanced immune system required for an all blood diet. Interestingly, 87% of the bat salivary proteins are common across the tree of life. 13% was unique, but common to both species.

That leeches and vampire bats share a common ancestry of 4 million years was no huge surprise to geneticists. However, the 13% unique protein genome is also found in a majority population of pastors, priests, and bishops. The remarkable gene has spawned a niche in humanity surpassing the mythical vampire. The preacher—impervious to contradiction through enhanced immunity while addicted to the blood of another is a remarkable connection even I didn’t foresee.

Sucking the life out of humanity without contributing anything. Talk about unprofitable servants! Isn’t that a scripture?