[Serious] Literal and Not Literal

[John 6IX Breezy]

No, the style as meant here for the gene is extremely concrete, and doesn’t care about the observer or the mind.

The style refers to a collection of very similar genes amongst a population which strongly tends to manifest the same phenotypical trait.  Think of it as a collection of shirts of same color, cut and ornamentation to the one on your back, but not THE shirt on your back.

That's not concrete still. The style is not directly observable, it is an inference made by us from multiple observations. Is there another word you can use besides style? Its a very awkward and unclear word to use.

---

Different strains is enough to get ecological competition started. Which strain will be the most reproductively successful? The one that is best at eliminating its competition. It's not more puzzling than coyotes vs. wolves, but it's a little more puzzling than coyotes vs. rabbits.

If one strain of e. coli emits something toxic to other strains of e. coli, and that results in greater reproductive success, the trait will be retained. The genes don't want anything, it's just that genes that confer a reproductive advantage are conserved.

Natural selection is a conservative phenomenon. It doesn't create anything, it acts on what is already present, either culling what is disadvantageous to reproduction or preserving what is advantageous. Mutations are random changes within the limits of what is possible for DNA/RNA and how they affect reproductive success, if at all, determines whether and how natural selection acts on them.

Well yes and no; the toxins do create competition, or a warfare, between strains. But to be clear, the bacteria has to burst for the toxins to be released. So I think its ok to talk about reproductive success, just not directly. Once an e. coli kills itself to kill the others it no longer has direct fitness, so this type of interaction is classified as "spiteful" as opposed to "selfish."

I brought up this example to argue how abstract the concept of sharing genes can be. Strains of e. coli are still e. coli; they are siblings and share a lot of their genetic makeup with each other. But a difference in the type of bacteriocin they produce is all it takes for them to stop being siblings and start being enemies. But I agree the overall concept of natural selection still applies, only that the competition is occurring within a species rather than between species.

[Anomalocaris]

Of course it is directly observable.  All bees share a style of gene that manifest different in different bees but all serve to perpetuate this style of genes.    This style of genes causes the female bees To developed their reproductive organs, becomes fertile, a particular subset of their behavioral genes manifest and the become queen bees,  if they fed a particular type of honey called royal jelly during their larva stage. When female bee larvae are fed normally they do not develop their reproductive organs, but instead turn on a different set of behavioral genes and become worker bees.    Queen bees reproduce.  Worker bees do not.   Worker’s own gene line therefore always dies with the worker.    Yet workers work to serve and protect the queen, to the degree where they will sacrifice themselves by stinging intruders, which invariably kills the bee as well.   Why do they sacrifice themselves for the queen?  Because the queen share their style of genes.

You can observe how all bees share this style of genes by randomly selecting bee larvae form different colonies to feed with royal jelly, and sure enough, the which turn in queens has nothing to do with their ancestry.   It is perfectly correlated with the diet they are fed.

[John 6IX Breezy]

Of course it is directly observable.  All bees share a style of gene that manifest different in different bees but all serve to perpetuate this style of genes.    This style of genes causes the female bees To developed their reproductive organs, becomes fertile, a particular subset of their behavioral genes manifest and the become queen bees,  if they fed a particular type of honey called royal jelly during their larva stage. When female bee larvae are fed normally they do not develop their reproductive organs, but instead turn on a different set of behavioral genes and become worker bees.    Queen bees reproduce.  Worker bees do not.   Worker’s own gene line therefore always dies with the worker.    Yet workers work to serve and protect the queen, to the degree where they will sacrifice themselves by stinging intruders, which invariably kills the bee as well.   Why do they sacrifice themselves for the queen?  Because the queen share their style of genes.

You can observe how all bees share this style of genes by randomly selecting bee larvae form different colonies to feed with royal jelly, and sure enough, the which turn in queens has nothing to do with their ancestry.   It is perfectly correlated with the diet they are fed.

So two observations:

1. The word "share" brings with it the abstractness I want to remove. Like my earlier Bob analogy, sharing something implies that instances of it can be summed up to produce a whole. So in what sense are genes being shared in your example?

2. When you answer your question of why bees sacrifice themselves by saying they share genes with the queen, are you certain you have exhausted all other possibilities? In the same way the phenotypic difference in these bees is caused by the royal jelly, not a direct genes, can't their behavior also have non-genetic reasons?

As a test, we can agree that bees within a colony share the same gene pool. I don't know to what extent you consider bees between colonies as sharing genes, but assuming it's less by any given percentage, would introducing a larva from one colony to another reduce the likelyhood of it sacrificing itself for the unrelated queen later in life?

[Anomalocaris]

It’s irrelevant whether the behavior has any nongenetic basis.  Few behavior has no nongenetic basis whatsoever.   But no behavior can have no genetic basis whatsoever.    The behavior is at least allowed and made possible by their genes, whatever other factors come into play to manifest that behavior.  Genes dictate behavior by both allowing it, and  not just by mandating it.  This is again something shallow reading of evolution and behavioral genetics overlook. 

  If the behavior is really against the survival of the genome that allows it, than the gene that allows it will tend to be weeded out of the overall gene pool over the long run,  while genes which deter this behavior will take hold.  

So regardless of whether any behavior has non genetic basis, all behavior must ultimately have genetic basis.

We have plenty of evidence social insects with organization similar to bees have prospered for a long time.  Probably 100 million years at least, possibly as long as 400 million years. So there is very good basis to say the behavior like those of worker bees is allowed because it favors the survival of the gene pool to which the worker bee belongs.

[John 6IX Breezy]

It’s irrelevant whether the behavior has any nongenetic basis.   The behavior is allowedby their genes, whatever other factors come into play to manifest that behavior.  Genes dictate behavior by both allowing it, and by mandating it, not just by mandating it.  This is again something shallow reading of evolution and behavioral genetics overlook. 

  If the behavior is really against the survival of the genome that allows it, that genome will be weeded out of the overall gene pool.  Gradually genes which prevents this behavior will gain ascendency, or the entire gene pool will disappear.

So regardless of whether any behavior has non genetic basis, all behavior must have genetic basis.

Right, I agree. I didn't mean to ask if the behavior has a nongenetic basis, but whether it has a genetic goal. In other words, are they sacrificing themselves for the queen or the queen's genes? If we switch larva between unrelated colonies, and the worker still sacrifices itself, then we know the goal of the behavior is not to save the shared genes.

[Anomalocaris]

that’s Because when the gene detector was evolving, there wasn’t yet sex dolls, so just like you might fool a lie detector with a device that sends in artificially programmed fake biometric signals, you can build a sex doll to fool gene detector.

Come on, are you really that obtuse?

Sex dolls aren’t doing any type of fooling, people recognize them for what they are.

They understand that they’re attracted or aroused by things that look a certain way, and sex dolls fit that description.  They can also recognize that the things they are aroused and attracted to, are the result of a variety of biological, and environmental factors that shape our sexual desires.

You are not all together a creature of the conceit of conscious reasoning.   A visual and tactile signal sufficiently resembling that of a pussy often overwhelm tendencies to indulgences in the wishful high mindedness of make belief meaning.

[Mister Agenda]

Do you think that if, among several explanations, you pick the one that best fits the available data as most likely to be closest to what's actually true, that it is an example of what most people mean by 'cherry-picking'?

If they’re several explanations of the same available data, how do I decide which one fits better? What exactly does fit mean?

Let’s take Bart historicist explanations of Jesus vs Richard Carriers ahistoricist explanations, how do I decide which explanation fits the data better?

If there are several explanations that fit the data equally, then you can't rationally select one as being the best explanation.

I lean slightly towards historical Jesus, but I don't know. And if I agree with Ehrman's conclusion, it might be that I arrived at my inexpert conclusion by different reasoning. I'm okay with leaving it an open question pending new evidence.
;

[Drich]

such as?

Such all of Jesus’s parables, that confused even his disciples.

I would argue the opposite, in that the parables while sometimes misunderstood, where a way of Christ talking a seriously complex kingdom principle like loving your neighbor when the society you grew up in was 100% xenophobic and racist to the point where all other races where looked down on, to take them to a new idea that even the lowliest breed or race of people saw and or worked with the idea that made everyone neighbors.

Or how to explain why God will not forgive sins when you do not forgive sins, or even why real souls beyond death can not come back and warn their family. why evil people live among God's people here in this world. Why God seems to bless the wicked.

I think you are confusing Jesus teaching with parables and Jesus straight up main line teaching. As parables where often explained in detail drawing from a relatable story or principal and connecting the dots to a more complex kingdom teaching.

Where Jesus' teaching seem to confuse the most would be when He took the filters of the parables off and used kingdom descriptions to plot and drive a lesson. Perfect example would be the teaching/session Jesus had with the pharisee nicodemus.

3 There was a man named Nicodemus, one of the Pharisees. He was an important Jewish leader. 2 One night he came to Jesus and said, “Teacher, we know that you are a teacher sent from God. No one can do these miraculous signs that you do unless they have God’s help.”
3 Jesus answered, “I assure you, everyone must be born again. Anyone who is not born again cannot be in God’s kingdom.”
4 Nicodemus said, “How can a man who is already old be born again? Can he go back into his mother’s womb and be born a second time?”
5 Jesus answered, “Believe me when I say that everyone must be born from water and the Spirit. Anyone who is not born from water and the Spirit cannot enter God’s kingdom. 6 The only life people get from their human parents is physical. But the new life that the Spirit gives a person is spiritual. 7 Don’t be surprised that I told you, ‘You must be born again.’8 The wind blows wherever it wants to. You hear it, but you don’t know where it is coming from or where it is going. It is the same with everyone who is born from the Spirit.”
9 Nicodemus asked, “How is all this possible?”
10 Jesus said, “You are an important teacher of Israel, and you still don’t understand these things? 11 The truth is, we talk about what we know. We tell about what we have seen. But you people don’t accept what we tell you. 12 I have told you about things here on earth, but you do not believe me. So I’m sure you will not believe me if I tell you about heavenly things! 13 The only one who has ever gone up to heaven is the one who came down from heaven—the Son of Man.
14 “Moses lifted up the snake in the desert.[a] It is the same with the Son of Man. He must be lifted up too. 15 Then everyone who believes in him can have eternal life.”[b]
16 Yes, God loved the world so much that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him would not be lost but have eternal life.17 God sent his Son into the world. He did not send him to judge the world guilty, but to save the world through him. 18 People who believe in God’s Son are not judged guilty. But people who do not believe are already judged, because they have not believed in God’s only Son.19 They are judged by this fact: The light[c] has come into the world. But they did not want light. They wanted darkness, because they were doing evil things. 20 Everyone who does evil hates the light. They will not come to the light, because the light will show all the bad things they have done. 21 But anyone who follows the true way comes to the light. Then the light will show that whatever they have done was done through God.

If you think the parables confused or mislead then I ask which ones and why.

[Acrobat]

If they’re several explanations of the same available data, how do I decide which one fits better? What exactly does fit mean?

Let’s take Bart historicist explanations of Jesus vs Richard Carriers ahistoricist explanations, how do I decide which explanation fits the data better?

If there are several explanations that fit the data equally, then you can't rationally select one as being the best explanation.

I lean slightly towards historical Jesus, but I don't know. And if I agree with Ehrman's conclusion, it might be that I arrived at my inexpert conclusion by different reasoning. I'm okay with leaving it an open question pending new evidence.  
;

But what does it mean to "equally" fit? What does "equally" mean, because it doesn't mean an explanations that just incorporate them in some way or the other? 

We have XYZ evidence. Person A can use all three pieces of evidence in his explanation, person B takes all three pieces and uses them in his conspiracy based explanation. How I do tell one used XYZ in a more fitting way than person B? Both prosecution and defense, can offer explanations for each other's evidence. But how do I tell which explanation fits the evidence better?

[The Grand Nudger]

The choice isn’t between one explanation and one conspiracy theory. It’s between two explanations.

If we can’t winnow it down to -that- point, then it’s unlikely that any process advice specific to choosing between explanations will help us