Hen walks to her eggs and sitting on them!

[Smellyoldgit]

Isn't it strange how our resident chicken shitter, who struggles stringing more than a few words of coherent English together, can suddenly manage something resembling a 'real' paragraph! I wonder if Mr Google can help us find where this irritating pea-brained dolt lifted his latest dose of keyboard generated bullshit from?

[Hobotronic2037]

AtomJack wrote

I have seen some literature referring to this. Don't remember where; it's been awhile. Something to do with differences in the brain (not necessarily meaning a bad difference). I do recall seeing where people were made to "feel god" when a part of their brain was stimulated (electro)magnetically.

OK, this may be one-

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/sc...t-1641022.html

Richard Dawkins says "No god effect noted". Quelle fucking surprise. Maybe a new thread for this, so that ahoba can incubate it's eggs in peace? BTW, I'm not convinced that religious belief is a survival trait, as posited in the article, given the current state of affairs in the world.

Interesting thoughts. Thanks for the feedback. I wonder (and by wonder, I don't have a strong opinion, I'm just wondering) if religious beliefs, specifically the belief in "something bigger and an afterlife" somehow were more of a survival trait in prehistoric or more tribal times -- in the same way that overeating provided advantages in a time where feast or famine dominated.

[Sinfidel]

Why did Dog program chickens to stop growing teeth?

http://www.livescience.com/7051-surp...om-livescience

[Hobotronic2037]

ahoba wrote

First of all, I am not here to fight but to know how you think. I have not yet understood how can something created in perfect form without someone? It is same as computer program.

No. Genetic encoding is not the same thing as a computer program. For obvious reasons. And genetic forms are not perfect. As I have pointed out ad nauseum.

Sorry you don't get it. I tried my best to explain.

[Sinfidel]

Ahoba wrote:

Why do all chickens sit on the eggs?

They don't.

http://www.citygirlchickens.com/non_..._chickens.html

[Hobotronic2037]

ahoba wrote

Okay! Existing creator is also possible theoretically, however, existing creator more logical!
It is God phobia leading you to say something not logical. What is the problem if you say ‘There is a creator but I do not believe it is God. I will not follow any religion because all religions are human made” and then relax!

But I didn't say there is a creator. Nor did I say one was theoretically possible. You did. So if you're not here to fight, put up or shut up. Please lay out for me scientifically, since that's what you've been demanding of us, your more logical theory of a creator.

PS. I am totally relaxed as I await your theory in its full glory. Please do not disappoint.

[AtomJack]

Hobotronic2037 wrote

Interesting thoughts. Thanks for the feedback. I wonder (and by wonder, I don't have a strong opinion, I'm just wondering) if religious beliefs, specifically the belief in "something bigger and an afterlife" somehow were more of a survival trait in prehistoric or more tribal times -- in the same way that overeating provided advantages in a time where feast or famine dominated.

Personally, I'd like to think that logical thought would be the predominant factor. But then, there seems to be a predilection towards woo in the population around the world, preying on ignorance. I think (just my opinion, no way to prove it) that persons of potentially larger influence (for whatever reason) were able to manifest the woo over the populace. Case in point is a TV show I watched many years ago, where the (whatever religion) "priests" had had a machine made (Egyptian times, CA 1000 BCE, as a guess) that would give answers to the "commoners" questions when a coin was dropped in. It turns out that a "holy man" of some sort was in control of the thing, and would supply the answer. Shysters from the get-go. I feel quite cheated by my parents for complicity in the charade, though to be fair, they were subjected to the same woo. Though I will point out that my dad did get atheistic in some of his statements, but would cave in if busted in the chops about it. I and my three sons are atheists. I'm working on breaking the news to my ostensibly still Catholic wife (despite the fact that we haven't been in a church in about 6 years). I've made a commitment to a scientific organization for disposition of my sorry dead carcass and return to my family afterwards after I die.

[AtomJack]

Hobotronic2037 wrote

Interesting thoughts. Thanks for the feedback. I wonder (and by wonder, I don't have a strong opinion, I'm just wondering) if religious beliefs, specifically the belief in "something bigger and an afterlife" somehow were more of a survival trait in prehistoric or more tribal times -- in the same way that overeating provided advantages in a time where feast or famine dominated.

Also on this topic- I have recently taken up wood carving as a hobby since I retired. A lot of the work revolves around religious iconology. I think that the human mind looks to a "higher power", and makes a concerted effort when presented with the challenge to that "higher power". I do not think that that "higher power" exists, but by the same token, like to carve wood with artistic effect.

[Sinfidel]

[ahoba]

Hobotronic2037 wrote

No. Genetic encoding is not the same thing as a computer program. For obvious reasons. And genetic forms are not perfect. As I have pointed out ad nauseum.

Sorry you don't get it. I tried my best to explain.

I will not go deeply into DNA is it a code or not because in both cases there is a same issue.
But I have to add this link for just information http://www.biologycorner.com/bio2/ge...notes_DNA.html

You said that the instinct is encoded genetically. The strange here is how the instinct behavior come out? How can DNA lead chicken to go to the eggs and sit on?

You says:
“With the advent of warm blooded egg laying species such as birds, the warmth would add another force multiplying benefit to sitting on eggs, that of thermal incubation.”
So by many tries the nature catch the useful way. Good!
How many failure tries are?
Why do not we observe them although we have more than one million species?
Why do all chicken have same instinct? do you mean there is actually one instinct that is useful?
Why have the natural processes not made some changes on egg incubation process itself over millions year like what happen with living organisms?
Why has the nature still not yet found a solution for living organisms going to be failure? In other word, why did the nature not find a solution for tortoise with a short neck as simple example? This will make a problem with Natural Selection process itself!

Regards,

[ahoba]

Continue …

You said:
“Genetics is not software. It's analogous in some ways and semantically, but it's a different type of coding developed passively over millions of years by natural processes of exclusion of non beneficial behaviors due to their inability to provide for the survival and passing on of those traits”

This is the important paragraph I should quote in previous post. Other than that, it does not add any benefit as the discussion is about the instinct not else. So, I would like to remind you this:
“Even though natural processes happened over millions or billions of years, it doesn’t matter, the natural processes will not stop doing the same. Based on your view, the evolving from x to y should be observed around us. Have you seen the non-beneficial behaviors?”


Regards,

[Sinfidel]

Based on your view, the evolving from x to y should be observed around us.

[ahoba]

Sinfidel wrote

Why did Dog program chickens to stop growing teeth?

http://www.livescience.com/7051-surp...om-livescience

I really thank you regarding this link. This video is amazing.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SO1WccH2_YM

[Hobotronic2037]

ahoba wrote

Continue …

You said:
“Genetics is not software. It's analogous in some ways and semantically, but it's a different type of coding developed passively over millions of years by natural processes of exclusion of non beneficial behaviors due to their inability to provide for the survival and passing on of those traits”

This is the important paragraph I should quote in previous post. Other than that, it does not add any benefit as the discussion is about the instinct not else. So, I would like to remind you this:
“Even though natural processes happened over millions or billions of years, it doesn’t matter, the natural processes will not stop doing the same. Based on your view, the evolving from x to y should be observed around us. Have you seen the non-beneficial behaviors?”


Regards,

Still waiting on YOUR theory.

[ahoba]

Okay but which theory?