Comments on: Quote notes (#82)

By: neovictorian23

neovictorian23 — Mon, 19 May 2014 19:58:50 +0000

@Fr. VGSir, it brings me great pleasure to see my Deterministic Universe making headway against that disgusting stochastic probabilistic quantum chatter that has been so much about for the last 90 years or so.

By: Fr. VG

Fr. VG — Sat, 17 May 2014 13:15:07 +0000

93!

I should just like to point out the elephant in the room here.
Genetics are really nothing more than chemistry.
Chemistry is a subset of physics.
If we take into account that all things in physics are determined by physical laws.
That is causally determined with one possible out came from and present state, and every present state
is the ONE possible out come from the previous state.

Then the environment is 100% causally determined, and the chemical elements that happen to bump into
each other and form compounds are 100% determined.
Life is merely chemical compounds of a complex nature, but still determined.
So What exactly is the distinction between the physical forces that shape the genetics and biological factors
of one’s birth. And The physical forces that one comes in contact with as an organism after birth?

this is to say what is the difference Nature and Nurture.
These is only one Universe with one causal chain of events, there isn’t even a duality between the constitution of the organism and the forces of the external world. (IT IS ALL ENVIRONMENT, and nothing besides)

By: This Week in Reaction | The Reactivity Place

This Week in Reaction | The Reactivity Place — Fri, 16 May 2014 16:02:22 +0000

[…] Scharlach posts his first one in a while: Discrimination is Natural. Yep. So hey Proggies, pick a story and don’t be too alarmed where it leads. Also, Coyne Won’t Answer Me. (Jerry Coyne… not Aidan.) Perhaps silence is the most honest answer he’s prepared to give. (Land takes notes.) […]

By: Lou

Lou — Fri, 16 May 2014 15:35:13 +0000

If you’re waiting for creationists to scientifically analyze their own beliefs, keep waiting.

By: Peter A. Taylor

Peter A. Taylor — Fri, 16 May 2014 03:12:50 +0000

The way H. L. Mencken put it was something like, we are the way we are either because of how we were born or because of our environment, “which is to say, either by the grace of God, or by the grace of God.”

By: E.Antony Gray (RiverC)

E.Antony Gray (RiverC) — Fri, 16 May 2014 02:57:55 +0000

The question is whether he believes the genes determine behavior rather than influence it. Einstein was a hard determinist and did not believe he made choices but that all he did was a result of his ‘glands’ (his terminology.) I would assume he took into account his interaction with the environment, but that how he responded to the environment was totally determined by his ‘glands’.

By: Michael

Michael — Thu, 15 May 2014 22:10:29 +0000

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/05/15/us-science-skeleton-idUSKBN0DV1UW20140515

By: E. Antony Gray (@RiverC)

E. Antony Gray (@RiverC) — Thu, 15 May 2014 15:35:44 +0000

I don’t see how creationists can get around hbd though, the scriptures themselves affirm that evolution has been copious and regional by claiming we’re all Noah’s descendents.

By: Hurlock

Hurlock — Thu, 15 May 2014 12:58:39 +0000

How does that even make sense, don’t human genes themselves evolve accordingly in response to the environment they are in?

The way I look at it is that “technically” yes, it does all depend on environment, but most of it depends on the environmental circumstances before your birth.
The wikipedia entry on genetic determinism starts with this:

“Genetic determinism is the belief that genes, along with environmental conditions, determine morphological and behavioral phenotypes. The term is sometimes mistakenly applied to the unscientific belief that genes determine, to the exclusion of environmental influence, how an organism turns out.”

Sooo, if he is a genetic determinist in this sense, I don’t see anything wrong with it.
Genetics mutate according to the environment it makes absolutely zero sense to say that environment cannot change anything. It is the distinction between present/future and past environmental circumstances that is important.

By: Scharlach

Scharlach — Thu, 15 May 2014 12:36:56 +0000

Notice my use of “partially” and other modifiers.

I think it was Handle who said that even agreeing to a 50/50 split between gene/environment influence would (or should) lead to a serious curtailing of certain social policies that assume a 0/100 split.