Why do you think

Tin-Man · May 31, 2023, 4:51am

Really wish I could help you, Random, but I’m just as lost as you are. W.A.Y. has gone well out of his way to dodge, deflect, ignore, reword, and deny every reasonable response presented to him. Moreover, I’m pretty sure he has used just about every apologetics excuse available, along with a few self-fabricated additions. Admittedly, it was mildly entertaining at first. As per usual, however, that bit of fun has finally become tedious in its monotony. Par for course.

(Edit for the sake of predictability.)

Sid · May 31, 2023, 10:44am

You have no proof ( the atheists favorite fall back position ) that consciousness is emergent rather than fundamental , ZERO .

Sid · May 31, 2023, 10:48am

You’ll be here for a long long time with that one . All the atheists answers so far are total BS and grasping at Theists straws to try explain it away

Randomhero1982 · May 31, 2023, 11:13am

I’ve seen your posts and you’ve offered absolutely nothing of substance.

I’ve asked before and I’ll ask again, what is your best piece of evidence to support the claim made by theism?

Sheldon · May 31, 2023, 11:58am

Ah the dishonest misrepresentation of you having no objective evidence whatsoever, or any rational argument to support the existence of your imaginary deity, as “a lack of proof”. ( the religious apologist’s favourite fall back lie).

Ah the theistic penchant for reeling off unevidenced superstitious claims, while dishonestly framing it as a contrary claim atheism requires, using an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy. Atheism no more needs to answer anything, then not believing in Mermaids does, and for the same reason. Your argument is irrational, and has been from the start.

Atheism no more needs answers, than not believing in mermaids or unicorns needs answers, and the fact you are relentlessly peddling this argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy speaks for itself, you know you’re holding an empty bag, hence the dishonesty, irrational use of fallacies, and the cowardly hit and run posting. I am dubious he is even a theist tbh, his posts don’t suggest any commitment to defending theism at all, and before he claims he just doesn’t care, why would he come here if that were so, let alone keep coming back. Something is rotten in Denmark…

Well there you go, and you’re not the first to cut him the maximum amount of slack to defend his superstitious beliefs, but all has is the endless repetition of an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy, that an unevidenced deity somehow did it all, using inexplicable magic, and no one can prove otherwise. Though of course he can’t prove it wasn’t one of the thousands of other deities humans have created in their imagination, that he doesn’t believe in. That’s the problem with fallacious reasoning, it simply doesn’t hold up to even cursory scrutiny.

What’s worse is his posts don’t exhibit enough courage or integrity to even try, What does that tell you.

Calilasseia · May 31, 2023, 12:02pm

Oh look, the in tray is once again filled with the usual bullshit and lies to be shredded. I’m going to enjoy this.

Let’s take a look at this shall we?

I’ll start by mentioning that I’ve a little surprise to unveil while I feed this latest steamng pile into the composting machine, but I’ll ask the regulars to be patient - it’’ be worth the wait.

Once again, do learn the elementary distinctions at work here. Namely, the distinction between individual human beings deciding for themselves what “meaning” or “purpose” their lives may have, and the blind assertion that “meaning” and “purpose” are purportedly an intrinsic part of the fabric of the universe. The evidence for the former is overwhelming; the evidence for the latter is zero. You keep pushing this bullshit conflation of the two, for the usual dishonest apologetic purposes, and those of us who paid attention in class can see through your tissue of lies with ease.

See above. Your conflation of two entirely different assertions about “meaning” or “purpose” is not only fatuously wrong, but duplicitous.

Ahem, the chemicals in my brin facilitate my ability to engage in data processing. Which is basically what thought is from an abstract standpoint.

Furthermore, scientists have demonstrated for decades, that we don’t need any magic “god sauce” to perform data procesing tasks, including advanced ones, because computers have been performing these tasks for that period of time. Indeed, no less a person that Alan Turing, in his seminal paper On Computable Numbers taught us this lesson, when he invented the Turing machine. Indeed, in that paper, he demonstrated that there exists a universal Turing machine, that can perform any task performed by any “lesser” Turing machine dedicated to one task. Its the reason modern computers are so powerful - they are direct physical embodiments of that idea.

Just becausse you’re too stupid to understand how testable natural processes can achieve the end result, doesn’t mean we need a superfluous and imaginary cartoon magic man from a goat herder mythology to explain that end result. Indeed, neurons have been demonstrated to perform the same functions as logic gates. But there’s an even bigger surprise waiting in the wings on this issue, which I’ll come to in due course.

The only one lying here is you, mythology fanboy.

Ah, more duplicitous apologetics.

Once again, we have evidence that human beings make the requisite decisions about what “meaning” or “purpose” their lives have. The reason this process comes under the heading of “subjective”, is because each human being makes a different decision in this regard. That they make the decision is an objective fact; what decision they make, being their own unique choice, is what falls under the heading of “subjective”.

Do you really need baby steps this simple?

Obviously, you and all the other mythology fanboys.

Complete and utter bollocks. The Genesis creation myth never happened. The fantasy “global flood” never happened. Exodus never happened.

Plus, your sad little goat herder mythology is littered with fatuous and absurd assertions about the natural world, that no genuinely existing god type entity would allow itself to be associated with. Such as that garbage about genetics being purportedly controlled by coloured sticks.

Bullshit. “Intelligent design” is a deceitful attempt to push creationism into science classes where it doesn’t belong, by sneaking in wearing a stolen lab coat.

Indeed, as an invertebrate zoologist, I’m aware of a hilarious example that blows this drivel out of the water with a nuclear depth charge. Courtesy of the fact that there exist Carabid beetles with fully functional wings, but which will never be able to use them, because their elytra are fused shut. This is practically a canonical example of stupid design.

But of course we have the evidence from the IDists themselves, that ID is basically an act of deceit, courtesy of the Wedge Strategy document.

As usual, you’re talking out of your arse.

Poppycock. Those 100,000 plus peer reviewed scientific papers from the prebiotic chemistry literature, destroy this feculent assertion wholesale.

Oh look, the mythology fanboy has resurrected Canard #10 from my Grand List of Creationist Canards. Ha ha ha ha ha ha.

Read that list, and while doing so, learn what scientists actually mean when they use the word “random”. Hint: the rigorous meaning thereof bears NO relation to your creationist canard version.

Now let’s move on to the rest of the bullshit …

Sit tight, Looby Loo, you’re in for a surprise.

Those lies of yours keep coming thick and fast. Oh wait, hwo many peer reviewed scientific papers have you presented to support any of your assertions? None.

And now, boys and girls, it’s time for a special surprise.

I was recently pointed to this scientific paper:

The Neuronal Gene Arc Encodes A Repurposed Retrotransposon Gag Protein That Mediates Intercellular RNA Transfer by Elissa D. Pastuzyn, Cameron E. Day, Rachel B. Kearns, Madeleine Kyrke-Smith, Andrew V. Taibi, John McCormick, Nathan Yoder, David M. Belnap, Simon Erlendsson, Dustin R. Morado, John A.G. Briggs, Cédric Feschotte, and Jason D. Shepherd, Cell, 172: 275-288 (11th January 2018) [Full paper downloadable from here]

For those who want to gain some background before I delve into this paper, a non-technical account can be read here.

From that paper:

Pastuzyn et al (2018):

SUMMARY

The neuronal gene Arc is essential for long-lasting information storage in the mammalian brain, mediates various forms of synaptic plasticity, and has been implicated in neurodevelopmental disorders. However, little is known about Arc’s molecular function and evolutionary origins. [b]Here, we show that Arc self-assembles into virus-like capsids that encapsulate RNA. Endogenous Arc protein is released from neurons in extracellular vesicles that mediate the transfer of Arc mRNA into new target cells, where it can undergo activity-dependent translation. Purified Arc capsids are endocytosed and are able to transfer Arc mRNA into the cytoplasm of neurons. These results show that Arc exhibits similar molecular properties to retroviral Gag proteins. Evolutionary analysis indicates that Arc is derived from a vertebrate lineage of Ty3/gypsy retrotransposons, which are also ancestors to retroviruses. These findings suggest that Gag retroelements have been repurposed during evolution to mediate intercellular communication in the nervous system.

Basically, what this paper is telling us, is that a central part of brain chemistry responsible for the connectivity of neurons, and transmission of persistent memory data between neurons, began life as a retrovial insertion in the deep evolutionary past of vertebrates.

The authors open with:

Pastuzyn et al (2018):

INTRODUCTION

Brains have evolved to process and store information from the outside world through synaptic connections between interconnected networks of neurons. Despite the fundamental importance of information storage in the brain, we still lack a detailed molecular and cellular understanding of the processes involved and their evolutionary origins. Eukaryotic genomes are littered with DNA of viral or transposon origin, which compose about half of most mammalian genomes (Smit, 1999). A growing body of evidence indicates the sequences encoded by these elements can provide raw material for the emergence of new functions and regulatory elements (Chuong et al., 2017). In vertebrates, these include dozens of protein-coding genes derived from sequences previously encoded by transposons (Feschotte and Pritham, 2007) or retroviruses (Kaneko-Ishino and Ishino, 2012). Interestingly, many of these transposon-derived genes are expressed in the brain, but their molecular functions remain to be elucidated.

The neuronal gene Arc contains structural elements foundwithin viral Group-specific antigen (Gag) polyproteins that may have originated from the Ty3/gypsy retrotransposon family (Campillos et al., 2006; Shepherd, 2017; Zhang et al., 2015), although the role these Gag elements play in Arc function has not been explored. Arc is a master regulator of synaptic plasticity in mammals and is required for protein synthesis-dependent forms of long-term potentiation (LTP) and depression (LTD) (Bramham et al., 2010; Shepherd and Bear, 2011). Arc can regulate synaptic plasticity through the trafficking of AMPA-type glutamate receptors (AMPARs) via the endocytic machinery (Chowdhury et al., 2006). This endocytic pathway maintains levels of surface AMPARs in response to chronic changes in neuronal activity through synaptic scaling, thus contributing to neuronal homeostasis (Shepherd et al., 2006). Arc’s expression in the brain is highly dynamic; its transcription is tightly coupled to encoding of information in neuronal circuits in vivo (Guzowski et al., 1999). Arc mRNA is transported to dendrites and becomes enriched at sites of local synaptic activity where it is locally translated into protein (Steward et al., 1998; Waung et al., 2008). Intriguingly, aspects of Arc mRNA regulation resemble some viral RNAs, as Arc contains an internal ribosomal entry site (IRES) that allows cap-independent translation (Pinkstaff et al., 2001). Arc is required in vivo to transduce experience into long-lasting changes in visual cortex plasticity (McCurry et al., 2010) and for long-term memory (Guzowski et al., 2000; Plath et al., 2006). In addition, Arc has been implicated in various neurological disorders that include Alzheimer’s disease (AD) (Wu et al., 2011), neurodevelopmental disorders, such as Angelman (Greer et al., 2010; Pastuzyn and Shepherd, 2017) and Fragile X syndrome (Park et al., 2008), and schizophrenia (Fromer et al., 2014; Manago` et al., 2016; Purcell et al., 2014). Thus, precise regulation of Arc expression and activity in the nervous system seems essential for normal cognition.

Despite its importance, little is known about Arc protein biochemistry and molecular function. Here, we uncover a potential role for Arc in mediating intercellular communication via extracellular vesicles (EVs). Synaptic communication is modulated by many other communication pathways that include glia-neuron interactions, and emerging evidence suggests that EVs mediate intercellular signaling in the nervous system (Budnik et al., 2016; Zappulli et al., 2016). EVs can be broadly divided into two groups, microvesicles and exosomes, which are defined both by size and subcellular origin. Microvesicles pinch off from the plasma membrane directly and are usually 100– 300 nm in diameter, whereas exosomes are derived from intraluminal vesicles that originate from multivesicular bodies (MVBs) and are usually <100 nm in size. EVs can transport cargo that do not readily cross the plasma membrane, such as membrane proteins and various forms of RNA. The observation that EVs can function in the intercellular transport of these molecules within the nervous system opens an entirely new perspective on intercellular communication in the brain.

Here, we find that Arc protein self-assembles into oligomers that resemble virus capsids and exhibit several other biochemical properties seen in retroviral Gag proteins such as RNA binding. Moreover, Arc is released from neurons in EVs and is able to transfer its own mRNA into neurons. The Drosophila Arc homolog, dArc1, also forms capsids and mediates intercellular transfer of its own mRNA at the fly neuromuscular junction (Ashley et al., 2018, this issue of Cell), despite originating from a distinct retrotransposon lineage. These data suggest that co-option of retroviral-like Gag elements may have provided an evolutionary pathway for novel mechanisms that mediate intercellular signaling and have been intricately involved in the evolution of synaptic plasticity and animal cognition.

I’ll let everyone read the rest of the paper, as it’s fascinating enough not to let me spoil the juicy parts for you, but the practical upshot of the above work is:

Pastuzyn et al (2018):

DISCUSSION

Here, we show that mammalian Arc protein exhibits many hallmarks of Gag proteins encoded by retroviruses and retrotransposons: self-assembly into capsids, RNA encapsulation, release in EVs, and intercellular transmission of RNA. These data suggest that Arc can mediate intercellular trafficking of mRNA via Arc EVs (which we term ‘‘ACBARs’’ for ‘‘Arc Capsids Bearing Any RNA’’), revealing a novel molecular mechanism by which genetic information may be transferred between neurons.

Arc Functions as a Repurposed Gag Protein

Our data show a remarkable conservation of viral Gag properties in Arc. Since Arc shows structural homology to the Gag CA domain (Zhang et al., 2015), the capability of self-assembly into oligomeric capsids is perhaps not too surprising. However, Arc seems to retain other important biochemical properties of Gag that are not intuitive from its sequence. Despite lacking clear zinc-finger RNA binding domains such as in HIV Gag, Arc encapsulates RNA, and RNA binding seems critical for capsid formation. This is reminiscent of Foamy Virus Gags, which have evolved different RNA-binding motifs to HIV Gag (Hamann and Lindemann, 2016) and also structurally resemble Arc (Taylor et al., 2017). HIV Gag-RNA interactions are complex and involve multiple components of Gag, including the MA domain, and are regulated by host cellular factors (Mailler et al., 2016). Gag MARNA interactions are also critical for virus particle formation at membranes (Kutluay et al., 2014). Moreover, if viral RNA is not present, Gag encapsulates host RNA, and any single-stranded nucleic acid longer than ~20–30 nt can support capsid assembly (Campbell and Rein, 1999), indicating a general propensity to bind abundant RNA. Indeed, precisely how viral RNA is preferentially packaged into Gag capsids in cells remains an intensive area of investigation (Comas-Garcia et al., 2016).

After a few paragraphs covering that Arc reveals a new and hitherto unsuspected signalling pathway in neurons at the molecular level, the authors continue with:

Pastuzyn et al (2018):

Evolution of Synaptic Plasticity and Cognition

Ty3/gypsy retrotransposons are ancient mobile elements that are widely distributed and often abundant in eukaryotic genomes and are considered ancestral to modern retroviruses (Malik et al., 2000). There is evidence that coding sequences derived from Ty3/gypsy and other retroviral-like elements have been repurposed for cellular functions repeatedly during evolution (Feschotte and Gilbert, 2012). For instance, multiple envelope genes of retroviral origins have been co-opted during mammalian evolution to promote cell-cell fusion and syncytiotrophoblast formation in the developing placenta (Cornelis et al., 2015). There are more than one hundred Gag-derived genes in the human genome alone (Campillos et al., 2006), and genetic KOs of their murine orthologs have revealed that some, like Arc, are essential for cognition (Irie et al., 2015). However, the molecular function of these Gag-derived proteins has been poorly characterized, and whether they were co-opted to serve similar cellular processes remains an open question. This study and the accompanying article from Ashley et al. (2018) now reveal that two distantly related Gag-derived genes have been independently co-opted in fly and tetrapod ancestors to participate in a similar process of EV-dependent intercellular trafficking of RNA in the nervous system. Given the plethora of retroelements populating eukaryotic genomes, we speculate that many other Gag proteins have been repurposed for cellular processes that await discovery in a variety of organisms.

Let me encapsulate that for you succinctly. An ancient retroviral insertion into early vertebrate genomes 400 million years ago, was co-opted by those vertebrates for signal transmission between neurons, and as a corollary, forms part of the molecular basis for our cognition.

Our ability to think and reason comes not from a cartoon magic man from a goat herder mythology, but from a 400 million year old viral incursion into Sarcopterygian genomes. Which we inherited after lots of rounds of evolutionary modulation and transformation.

Thought that would make a few eyebrows raise …

Cognostic · May 31, 2023, 12:31pm

Demonstrate a fundamental zero.

Sid · May 31, 2023, 1:42pm

I’ve already given you one - Love - that atheism has no answer for par stealing value from Theist philosophy.
Atheistic Materialism explains Nothing about Meaning and Purpose besides once again stealing from Theist philosophy to try explain it away .
I could go on but those alone suffice and put the burden of proof squarely at the feet of the atheist.

Sid · May 31, 2023, 1:45pm

Hahaha - I guess the Intelligent designer in this little nugget has completely gone over your head , hardly surprising I must say .

Sid · May 31, 2023, 1:46pm

Atheist Philosophy would be a good start

Randomhero1982 · May 31, 2023, 1:54pm

Meaning and purpose are purely subjective unless proven other wise, much like morals.

If you can prove they are objective then you have a foundation to make a case, otherwise your point is moot.

Calilasseia · May 31, 2023, 1:55pm

Except that the Turing machine was constructed specifically to demonstrate applicable principles with respect to the behaviour of data processing systems. A part you missed when peddling your usual tiresome and duplicitous apologetics. It was constructed to demonstrate the principles that apply to all data processing systems, including ones such as the human brain that evolved.

What’s gone over your head, is that the requisite functioning doesn’t need special “god sauce”, but will take place whenever a system is capable of performing reliably repeatable actions. indeed, if a machine can do this, we don’t need a cartoon magic man to explain the working of the human brain, as exemplified in that paper I posted, and which I see you completely ignored.

So, cheap playground ripostes are all you have to offer?

It seems you need reminding again, that the only issue atheism bothers with, is suspicion of unsupported mythology fanboy assertions. Many of which you’ve provided to be justly suspicious of.

By the way, that paper you completely ignored when I presented it … if we need special “god sauce” to explain human cognition, why did your cartoon magic man need a fucking retrovirus inserted into mid-Devonian fish to do the job?

Calilasseia · May 31, 2023, 3:16pm

And as for morality, one of the documents I’ve made available here covers the scientific literature establishing that there is an evolutionary and biological basis for ethical behaviour. Indeed, in that document, I cited two scientific papers covering experimentally observed instances of ethical behaviour in rats, which know nothing about a goat herder mythology written by humans, or the imaginary cartoon magic man asserted to exist therein.

But the usual suspects will, of course, completely ignore all of that evidence, and continue parroting the mantra that we purportedly need their cartoon magic man to function as ethical beings. Despite the evidence that some of the worst atrocities were perpetrated by mythology fanboys who thought they were doing the “work” of their cartoon magic man, by torturing and burning alive anyone who didn’t conform to doctrine.

No doubt I’ll see a duplicitous resurrection of the “atheist genocide” bullshit and lies from at least one of the usual suspects here in response to this. I’ll enjoy the fireworks that will be let off when that happens.

Randomhero1982 · May 31, 2023, 3:37pm

Does not surprise me that this has been discovered in experiments.

Sheldon · May 31, 2023, 4:03pm

How does love remotely evidence any deity? Is it a secret?

Randomhero1982 · May 31, 2023, 5:59pm

At best he could state that science cannot explain ‘love’ (however, I personally don’t think this is the case, but let’s play along!).

As you say Sheldon, it doesn’t therefore infer the existence of a pan dimensional, invisible cosmic wizard.

A typical argument from incredulity.

mr.macabre13 · May 31, 2023, 9:59pm

Okay, one more time, you’re the one making the claim that your god/gods are real. It’s YOUR job to prove it exists, not ours. It’s the same as believing in Bigfoot, we don’t have to prove he doesn’t exist, you need to prove that he does exist. Simple, right?

I can’t believe this thread might hit 1000 responses, damn.

Cognostic · May 31, 2023, 10:56pm

Huh? Atheism does not address love at all. WTF are you on about? Atheism is the lack of belief in a god. Can you tie any of this shit together?

Love is a subjective emotion of attachment that people place on things, places, and other people. Can you demonstrate anything at all, called love, that goes beyond a personal projection?

Love is delusional, binding, blinding, and mind-bending. You do not feel another person’s love. That would be insane. Other people do not feel the love you have for them. People create stories in their minds and tell themselves this or that person loves me. Generally we create these stories based on evicence… (Actions and behaviors.) Sometimes people are gullible and base their love beliefs on words. We call these people stupid, gullible, or in some cases, manipulated and taken advantage of. (One need not necessarily be stupid to be taken advantage of. One probably does need to be in love. (Remember, love creates blindness.)

So, curiously, what is this thing you are calling ‘Love.’ I have heard the bible speak of unconditional love. God loves you unconditionally. But if you are a non-believer, he will torture you forever. The message there is love me, or I will torture you. I’m sorry, but when I look at the ‘actions’ and ‘behavior’ of the god thing. That is not love. I seriously doubt the abusing asshole you call god is loving. This asshole magically asserts that people are born with sinful natures and only through kissing his ass can they be saved. The Catholics won’t even give a baby a decent burial if the magic man representing god on earth has not sprinkled some water its head. How is any of that unconditional? Seriously, what is this ‘LOVE’ shit you are talking about. Please define your concept.

Sheldon · May 31, 2023, 11:14pm

Love is evidence for god, and the reason love is evidence for god is that no god doesn’t explain love, it’s simple enough.

Except of course that love doesn’t evidence a deity at all, this is just an unevidenced claim @Sid keeps reeling off, and when asked to explain why he thinks this, he refuses to answer.

Now not believing in all sorts of things doesn’t explain love either, but the significance of this fact seems entirely lost on @Sid as well.

Oh and even if love were evidence for a deity, he refuses to say which one as well, or why the other deities don’t “explain” love.

I pointed out that the scientific theory of evolution actually can explain love, he nearly threw a shoulder out with the handwaving, nuff said.

Yes but you don’t believe in his deity right, and that can’t explain it right? Then again I don’t believe Bigfoot is real, and that can’t explain it, wouldn’t that make Bigfoot real? No, wait, I must have got it wrong somehow, anyway god is rea; because no god doesn’t explain love, yeah that was it. Although, they do look like identical claims?

The problem is the reason @sid thinks love is evidence for a deity is a secret apparently, and he won’t be persuaded to say one word to explain it, or which deity he thinks it evidences, that must be a secret as well. Who knew theists were so secretive about their “evidence”, no wonder atheists don’t believe there is any.

Cognostic · May 31, 2023, 11:21pm

What in the hell is that? I have been an atheist for … (*Counting… One banana peel, two banana peels, three banana peels…) Banana peels on the floor are like rings on a tree. I’m getting there. (Four banana peels…) [Three hours later.] I have been an atheist for at least 37 years. I have never heard of ‘Atheist Philosophy.’ The only definition I have used in all that time is as follows.

Atheism, in the broadest sense, is an absence of belief in the existence of deities. Less broadly, atheism is a rejection of the belief that any deities exist. (In all my years, I base my rejection of beliefs in deities on a lack of evidence, divine hiddenness, and inane fallacies used by theists to support their claims. Do you see a philosophy in any of this.

Perhaps you are attempting to reference skepticism, or humanism, or naturalism, or some actual philosophy that atheists may be attracted to? I personally like Methodological Naturalism. Are you actually trying to argue against a specific philosophy and simply calling it Atheism out of ignorance? Atheism is not a philosophy.

I suggest you try arguing against humanism. I think there are a few humanists on the site. You might ask each of the atheists if they have a philosophy of life that they like or tend to follow. That might give you a clue as to what to argue, so you don’t keep sounding ignorant. (Just a suggestion.) Good luck to you.