This is fucking depressing! How can anyone think it appropriate to put this on the front page?

vaxx:
i have provide an article to back it up . i just do not make a claim. i study it too. and likewise as u said. i am also a student trying to learn. this article give an insight.

https://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/primer/mutationsanddisorders/genemutation

I agree with the general definition in the link you provided. I am just not sure we understand addition of information in the same way. Mutation simply means alteration of something. Alteration can occur through a combination of several pathways, including addition, subtraction and rearrangement. I acknowledge that addition results in mutation, but in so far as the definition does not preclude that latter two pathways, I don't see where the problem is with Nwa's statement.

nwabekeyi:
that's not a detailed line Sir, I was trying to make a short description in other to try to explain some other things to him but obviously, birds came before primates but it doesn't certainly mean birds evolved directly into primates

I doubt birds evolved into primates, directly or indirectly. As you see in the figure below, they belong to completely different branches of the tetrapod class.

Also, I don't think it is accurate that such a thing as "first human" exists, as you erroneously suggested. As tempting as it might be, it is not at all helpful to think of evolutionary stages as discrete. You'll just fall into all sorts chicken and egg problems that way. For instance, one might ask why the parents of the "first human" aren't human?


Courtesy: Nature

nwabekeyi:
vaxx, evolution is not the addition to genome, it can occur without any addition. I really wish to break this down to you but you are responding like you don't want me or I don't really know what I'm saying.

I get all your points but you don't really understand the intricacies of gene mutation in relationship to evolution.

For example, the first malaria parasite doesn't need to add anything to its genome to be able to resist malaria drugs, all it needs to do is either to slowly modify the genes responsible for the synthesis of some proteins by rearranging some of the nuclear bases then transfer those mutated genes to it's offspring afterwards. Those parasites who were unable to modify these genes will not survive, they will die.

The purpose of this illustration is to tell you that evolution is not dependent on genetic addition, it comes as a result of slight arrangement of a certain gene that could be as a result adapting to an environment or error during genetic replication or repair. To a malaria parasite, it has to adapt to the change in the chemical component of its environment as a result of the addition of a drug hence modifies some certain genes because it senses it as a danger.

Of course addition occurs, but that's mostly in prokaryotes in form of plasmids.

I am ignorant on the subject of evolution, so I may not be able to do this subject any kind of justice. However, since you've asked for my input, I am inclined to support Nwabekiyi's argument. From my own readings and understanding, I am not convinced that information must be added for mutation to occur.

vaxx:
Agentofallah , i saw u viewing this thread can u share your thought..... it been a while bro

Hi Vaxx the diviner. It has been a while. Got super busy with work. How spirit? By the way, have you read 'Children of Blood and Bones'? If not, do. If yes, I wonder what your take is on the portrayal of Yoruba divinity in the book. But let's not derail this thread. We can discuss it some other place.

nwabekeyi:
Overtime and based on need to adapt to the nutrition available, light exposure, positioning, need to walk instead of swimming etc amphibians evolved to reptiles, reptiles to birds, birds to primates and so on till we finally for to where we are. You will agree with me that, we still have most amphibians like some salamanders who still look like fishes, most amphibian offsprings and eggs cannot breath air.

Wait, what? Birds evolved to primates!?

Obviously, the OP is too stupid to realise that the article is satire, so let's help them with the blindingly obvious revelation.

The author of this alert is exquisitely ignorant!

1) They've just thrown out a claim that this species has invaded Lekki. No sort of evidence presented. It's highly unlikely that a shy snake, whose natural habitat is the arid wastelands of Australia, would feel comfortable in such an urbanised area like Lekki. In Australia, Inland Taipans are known to preferentially avoid trouble, and avoid human contact, so why and how would they even attempt to "invade" Lekki? Note that the image in the op was copied from the wiki page, and is not evidence of their so-called invasion. Evidence of their invasion should be provided by the official pest and disease control agency in charge of Lagos area, not a coolFM OAP.

2) The author implores readers to imagine what would happen if they spit in your drinking water. What is implied by that statement is that because their venom from a single attack can incapacitate 100 adult humans, ingesting it should lead to death. This person clearly doesn't know the difference between venom and poison. Venoms are ineffective, in so far as they don't access your blood stream. Drinking snake venom is not the same as being bitten by a snake.

3) As always, be vigilant, but there's no need to become unnecessarily hysterical over fake news. Most snakes are shy creatures who want nothing to do with humans. So don't bother them in their habitats.

J2381:
sarcasm eludes you.

Yup, your brand of sarcasm just glides right over my slippery ọgọ.

shaybebaby:

My man!

My woman

J2381:
actually, it's natural to be naked_ we were born that way.

I'd love to call you Reiterator....so thanks Mr(s) Reiterator!

mhisbliss:
I came across a thread where a guy claimed he discovered his sister is a lesbian, some of the comments on that thread got me annoyed and amused, most of the comments were "She's born that way, its natural" i know that this comment is influenced by the western world but we're not like them, we have norms, culture and a way of life, and we're supposed to be who we are.

Theres no evidence anywhere to prove that homosexuality is natural, it cannot be genetically or biologically defined, theres no gene responsible for homosexuality, and nothing about the human anatomy suggests homosexuality is natural, if you examine the male and female sex organ you'd know that it is designed to complement each other, and to reproduce, both needs to work together, therefore by design, we're supposed to be heterosexual not homosexual,

Our culture frowns at it, it is clearly unafrican, abnormal and every religion frowns at it, including christianity
Romans 1:26–27 follows this same reasoning. Paul says that men abandoned the natural sexual function of women and engaged in unnatural sex with men. His words make it clear that homosexual behavior is unnatural because it is a rejection of God’s design for sex. Homosexual desire, then, would also be unnatural for the same reason: it drives people to abandon the natural design and function of human sexuality.

No one is born gay, its a psychological and societal problem and it needs to be curtailed as soon as it is discovered.

I can only assume the OP walks about naked because it's unnatural to be dressed! No one was born that way, after all.

TheEminentLaity said everything that I would have said in different words. As it turns out, I have both an engineering and physics background, so I can provide an objective assessment of both.

It is true that engineering equips you with the skills to become factory/industry oriented, so if that's all you want in life, then you can change courses to an engineering degree, stop reading here, and be confident that you've made the right choice. That's it!!

BUT!

Why limit yourself so much? Physics is a portal to limitless potential. You lack ambition if Nigeria is all you're thinking about. In every single developed country, physicists are among the most respected individuals, both in industry and academia. With a good physics degree and demonstrated academic excellence, many international institutions will be willing to sponsor you to a full scholarship to pursue your post-grad degree(s).
Also, as long as we live in a physical world, you will be equipped with the knowledge to innovate, having acquired an understanding of the working principles of the physical universe.

The world is vastly bigger than Nigeria. That Nigeria doesn't appreciate physics degrees doesn't mean you will not find places in the world where your knowledge will prove useful. Dream BIG and don't be so pessimistic about your potential.

Whatever you choose, spare some time to learn programming too! Needless to say, computers are now an indispensable part of human existence, so knowing how to code will automatically give you a competitive edge over those without such knowledge; and in a very useful way.

Good luck!

DeepSight:


I mostly agree.

I posted it for you because of your remarks a long time ago regarding what astonishing possibilities may be... such as our universe even being a mere atom or cell in the body of another being.

I liked that thought because it is one i have had and generally speaking the idea that we live in a simulated universe is one i strongly relate to.

Having said that, i agree, the evidence is unremarkable.

Thanks for posting it. I figured it was that answer of mine that got you to post it; and I actually do love conspiracy theories a lot. They allow me explore the possibilities in alternate universes without having to invest much thinking, myself. I guess I would have enjoyed it more, if they hadn't tried so hard to legitimise it.

DeepSight:

AgentofAllah

This is for you.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F7klJ1IpfRI

Thanks for the tag Deepsight. Finally finished watching it..phwww!

It was a loaded 76 mins material that promised to provide "an in-depth look at the bizarre evidence that the universe could be a computer simulation". Unfortunately, with the exception of its general "bizarreness", it failed to live up to that promise.

In the whole 76 mins, the narrator was very authoritative in her delivery, but was not able to provide a single verifiable evidence that supported her claims. Instead, she was excessively dependent on the anecdotal accounts of other people. It's a bit suspicious that none of these abductees/intercosmos voyagers thought: "Wait a minute, people will be skeptical of my claim, so to strengthen it, let me pocket one small alien device that is unlikely to have been created by an earthly human."? I find that all too convenient! If there's anything I've learned in my short existence, it is that humans are capable of fantastic imaginings; and someone claiming something to be true doesn't make it so.

In addition, all the aliens were inexplicably anthropomorphic, what with their humanoid fingers and feet, sometimes, being even capable of communicating with humans directly; and making suspiciously earthly remarks that could only make sense if it were said by an earthly human. I guess such a scenario is not entirely inconceivable, but it is just too coincidental that the universe is without reason, anthropocentric!

Then the bit that really got me wondering was when one of the voyagers claimed he saw the whole universe on support rods, and it had stopped growing...hmmm okay...I dunno, but sounds very much unlike the universe I know. Again, it is conceivable that this may happen in some distant future, but it's just too speculative at the moment to accord any sort of consideration. A static universe, as far as the current laws of physics are concerned, is the most unlikely outcome of all the possible ends to our universe.

To be honest, I've been disappointed by the misuse of the word "evidence", and the promoters of this material really should take that old admonition, "never promise too much", very seriously. However, it's not all disappointment! This material was not at all lacking in the creativity department. Stories like those that featured, particularly the intercosmos voyager one, if properly executed, can definitely become a Hollywood blockbuster worth paying for.

Such a beautiful gem!

Jesus! In 2018 we're still talking about flogging and punishing kids in schools. What the hell is wrong with this country?

By forcing kids to conform to your notion of respect, discipline and what have you, you unwittingly participate in the dumbification of our collective consciousness.

STOP FLOGGING KIDS YOU SADISTIC IDIOTS! NO EXCUSE FOR IT, JUST STOP!!!

KhadyM:


Video evidence?

I don't have any.

zoba88:
A Nigerian prophet has been trending after photos emerged that he practises both Islam and Christianity.The Kogi state prophet from Igala land ministers to both Muslims and Christians in his church.This is the first of Nigeria's ChrisIslam Prophet.

This claim is a bloody lie! I don't know why some Nigerian journalists make claims without due diligence.

There's been at least one Chrislam movement which I believe started in Lagos since the 1970s.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yoruba_religion#Chrislam

Dimples129:


What's the alternative

The alternative is to not believe until tangible evidence, not presumptions, surface.

I was an atheist for a few years and I have to admit that I fell ill because my soul wouldn't align with the idea that All of this is meaningless. That I am limited by my body, mind, and emotions. That didn't sit well with me, and somehow I knew better. I couldn't stay in that 'box' so the journey continued and through experience it became clear that Allah is the truth.

I'm sorry to hear that you fell ill while you were an atheist. However, I do not accept that atheism suggests 'meaninglessness' in any way. I just find it more honest to admit that I don't know the meaning of all this, if at all one exists. I'm equally as comfortable for meaning not to exist as I am for it to, so I'm eager, but not desperate to find one. I'm ignorant and very much at peace with my ignorance.

Muslims lied to me by preaching that Allah is outside of me and that Love (Allah) is conditional on me being a certain way. I went step further and realised I and everything in my world are connected to Allah like the waves are connected to the ocean. Then came the final understanding (this is where I am right now) that infact if I silence my mind, I could experience being one with Allah.

What you've written up there is a mystical reinterpretation of modern physics. I happen to know that, in fact, every single thing in the universe is connected exactly as the ripples of waves on an ocean are. Not believing in god does not diminish the beautiful mystery that is this universe, which is why I study Physics! So it is not very clear to me why I need god to appreciate its awesomeness. And if to you, Allah is just another synonym for Love, then so be it. However, I find no use for a synonym, myself.

So my journey was a 360 turn with benefits. Benefits being; I'm not a Muslim but I believe in Allah.

Good for you, in so far as you're happy.

I absolutely agree with you that no 2 definitions of God are the same. I think that's because God is US and everything 'living' is God, therefore, God can't be 'described' from one perspective. Because God is an energy or a force and God is in partial. Good and bad have no real meaning... We need to break away from religions image of God. And go on our own search even if we find nothing at the end of it all.

God is bacteria, mosquito, maggot, rat? Well, if as you say, god cannot be defined in a way that is collectively discernable, I'm sorry to say, but the concept of god is entirely meaningless. I already know everything, living and nonliving, is a unique expression of a universal energy. I find no need to invoke a special entity to appreciate that.

Also, If you can only understand 'God' through the lens of religions then you will be stuck with that vision and idea of God.

The problem isn't through what lens I understand god, the problem is I don't understand god at all!

Dimples129:

I get the rejection of religion, I am with you there but what about Allah?... Or do you think religion 'invented' the idea of a God.

Ignorance invented the idea of god. Then, in collusion with arrogance, it also invented religion. Man perceives himself the most creative force of nature; but the pervasive presence of natural entities far greater than anything man could ever create shatters this perception. Rather than concede that there might exist natural creative forces greater than himself, man, in his ignorance, reconciles this incongruence by inventing a supernatural entity greater than himself. This entity, he calls god. The fact that the only extant characteristic which connects every single conjecture about god is that god is vastly more powerful than man, buttresses this deduction. Otherwise, no two definition of god is the same.

I don't believe in religion and it's definitions of God but I believe that a God exists. A higher being, a consious being.

Why do you believe that?

Dimples129:


I'm really interested in your story... what faith did you grow up in? Would you share your thought process and experience in regards to religion and what led to you being an atheist. Only if you don't mind otherwise, it's ok

Sorry for late reply. I'm super preoccupied with work!

I was raised a Muslim. I cannot pinpoint any one thing in particular that led me to being an atheist. I just recall that I had many suppressed doubts which festered slowly, until I could no longer deny the obvious inconsistencies in religion. And then it hit me that religion was a monumental leap of faith which never attempted to answer the very question at the root of its existence: 'Who/what is god?'. Suddenly, it became too clear that there was no foundation supporting the imposing structure of religion; and then I saw the sand castle for what it really is!

Dimples129:


Wow! My brother, firstly, thank you for taking the time out to explain this to me ever so clearly, may I add

Now... the irony isn't lost on me: Moniker +atheist agnostic

My understanding: You went through The Journey from Islam? Agnostic and finally Atheist.

Op on the other hand went from religion to agnostic and back to theist... (opposite of an atheist but still not 100% sure. In fact I could relate with her because it sounds like she'sfound her higher being, her personal God, Herself)

You on this hand are an atheist, you seem to dance around it

This is only my humble opinion, of course

You're welcome! To be sure, I am a bona fide atheist, and unapologetic about it...there's no dancing around. I just wanted to clarify that agnosticism and atheism are not mutually exclusive. The former has to do with state of one's knowledge (or lack thereof), and the other, state of one's believe (or lack thereof).

Dimples129:
I have never been more confused by a thread before.

I have! But this ranks up there among the more confusing ones I've seen.

I don't understand why 'ism' is added to atheist and agnostic, as if they are a group activity or a following of some kind.

You're right, it shouldn't be 'ism'-ized'! But I guess the question isn't so much about whether these are group activities as it is about whether they are ideologies. On the one hand, 'ism' is a suffix that nominalises ideological positions, and on the other hand, a person who supposedly has no ideological stance regarding the existence of god is called an 'atheist', not necessarily as a commentary on their lack of ideological stance, but as a counterproposition to the litany of other ideological positions out there (e.g. Christian, Muslim, religionist, deist, Buddhist e.t.c.); and thus, itself, an ideological position. One then readily sees that this kind of characterisation automatically demands that it be suffixed with an 'ism' when being described. In my opinion, it helps to see the word 'atheist' in light of its definition as "a non believer in a god". Now, since by definition, it is not affirming anything, it doesn't make any more sense to 'ism'-ize it than it does to name the state of not caring for iPhones 'aniPhonism'. Unfortunately, to communicate effectively, I find that I have to replace my quixotic take on things, logical as they may seem, with the freewheeling whims of colloquialism, so here we are!

How can you Not know if there is a God but also deny a God. Agnostic/atheist

Or not know if there is a God but believe in it anyway agnostic/theist

I cannot speak for the agnostic theist, as I find it an unnatural position, but as an agnostic atheist, I can say I am atheist precisely because of my agnosticism. As stated earlier, an atheist is a non-believer in god, that is, someone who lacks belief, not one who denies god's existence. If I were to expand the term: 'agnostic atheist', it would be something like: "I don't know if a god exists because I have yet to find any evidence that suggests its existence {agnostic}, as such, I have no reason to believe in a god {atheist}".

This is too much for my pretty lil head

You aren't giving your head all the credit that it deserves!

KanwuliaExtra:

I have answered all these questions and my answers are not acceptable by you.

You do not owe me any answers, so I am in no position to adjudge your answers as acceptable or otherwise. I'm just really curious about your posture, that's all. Having said that, I don't think you have fully answered my questions, and if you have, then your answers have only left me more confused, which is why I ask more questions.

I already explained that I believe in possibilities ACCEPTABLE BY ME.

As is your entitlement.

If you can describe the nature of any “God” as “nebulous”, is that not a form of characterization?

I don't think so. Something "nebulous", by definition, lack characteristics. How do you 'characterise' something without 'characteristics'?

How can I define something that is unknown to me?
You exist I presume, but DO I KNOW YOU?

This wasn't really my question. Put in different words, my question was: why are you a theist, when you admit that your god is unknown and undefined? That is, how do you believe in something you don't know exists?
Going back to your example, however, it is conceded that you cannot fully define me, but you can infer some of my characteristics from our interactions. For example, you know that I am probably human because I have thus far, sustained a coherent conversation with you, you know that I am probably an agnostic atheist from an earlier comment of mine, you also know that I am excessively curious because I keep pestering you with silly questions. So you can, in fact, partially define me. Is there any single thing that makes you believe that this god of yours exists for you to believe in it?

I am not in the “converting” business.
No need for “cyclical” arguments.
You are entitled to your opinions, and cannot ? them.

Yes, this is true for us both!

In summary:
Everyone chooses what to believe.
Life is all about choice.
Have a great day.

I wholeheartedly agree, and if there's been any misapprehensions about my intent, then I should state clearly that I do not intend to impose any sort of belief on you. I'm just a terribly curious person; but, as I mentioned earlier, you don't owe me any answers. I should also mention that there is always a non-trivial probability that someone will pick interest in the things you post on public fora, so I hope my curiosity doesn't irritate you.

KanwuliaExtra:

God is not a synonym for ignorance. That is your opinion.

Haha...it's not my opinion. I asked the question, and you affirmed, so it's actually your opinion.

The nature/s of “ALL GODS” are unknown. Even if or where they exist, they remain unknown.

The best anyone can do is ATTEMPT to characterize them.

I don't get why anyone should characterise something which they are unsure of its existence. Shouldn't the first step be ascertaining its existence?

That is what pastors, prophets and imams try to do and FAIL WOEFULLY as they deceive and mislead the gullible followers.

Yeah, and there's a reason they all fail woefully: Despite their tenacious posturing, they don't know that god(s) exist(s), do they?

What I don't get is this; why do you consider yourself a theist, given the nebulous nature of this personal god. You don't even have a definition for it, but you believe in it. Don't you think that's absurd?

KanwuliaExtra:


Yes, from an Agnostic-Theist’s view point.
Unknown - Ignorance.
I DO NOT KNOW!

https://www.google.com/search?q=ignorance+definition&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en-us&client=safari

Yeah, my meaning was the former.

So in any case, if 'god' is basically just a synonym for 'ignorance', why do you call yourself a theist? What has ignorance got to do with theism?

KanwuliaExtra:


Life and the existence of “God” ends with DEATH.
There is no life or the concept of “God” or spirituality after death. My opinion.

The purpose of an unknown “God” is to fill a void of of intellectual/spiritual curiosity. Like trying to solve a challenging puzzle about the world I live in. Just a choice.

Okay. So it appears then, that "god" is synonymous with "ignorance". Is that so?

KanwuliaExtra:


Oh yes. I believe I have a personal “God”.
The nature/s of the so-called “existing Gods” remains/remain enigmatic.

No 2 persons have the same “God”.
The reason I don’t believe in “fellowships”.

Ah, I see. Thanks for the clarification. Out of curiosity, could you speculate on what happens to each personal god when death strikes the host/believer? Also, if the god is unknown or unknowable, what practical purpose does it serve for you?

sino:


Many thanks for your explanation, so in essence, you are saying a quantum vaccum is something buzzing with particles having energy, hence it is a folly to claim that a quantum vaccum is nothing?

Yes, vacuum is a vibrant place "buzzing" with virtual particles.

KanwuliaExtra:


I agree. I guess I am an agonistic-theist then.

To be clear, is it your meaning that while you have no knowledge of the existence of any god per se, you believe that one exists? That's how I would interpret the posture of an agnostic-theist.

Thanks for the clarification.

Anytime!

KanwuliaExtra:
Yes.

Atheism is NOT Agnosticism!
They are 2 different things.
Please, educate YOURSELF.
Thanks in advance.

To be continued.

Granted, both aren't the same, but they are also not mutually exclusive. I'm an agnostic atheist for example. As a matter of fact, I'm an atheist precisely because of my agnosticism.

sino:


Can you please enlighten me on how a quantum vacuum is nothing because it has zero energy?!

Quantum vacuum is not nothing, nor does it have zero energy. You're missing a word between zero and energy; point. Zero point energy is not zero energy, it is just the lowest possible energy state of a system. In the case of vacuum, it is the smallest energy by which virtual particles pop in and out of existence.

And please also elucidate,as a physicist (I am assuming you are one), is it possible to say a vacuum is nothing?!

Vacuum is by no means nothing. In fact, it may very well be everything! Conceptually speaking, everything that exists is just a unique flavour of energertic expressions (waves, basically) smeared out in all of space and time. Think about this for a second! There is a non-zero probability that an extension of you, your wave function, is occupying that thing in space which we refer to as vacuum. This is aside from the other particles that pop in and out of existence at will. So what then is the definition of nothing?