[Serious] Literal and Not Literal

[John 6IX Breezy]

Which isn't far fetched either. I think there are bacteria that produce toxins against members of their own kind, a genetic free for all.

Just wanted to provide a reference for my above statement since I just got home and can finally do so.

Reference: Riley, M. A., and J. E. Wertz. 2002. Bacteriocins: Evolution, ecology, and application. Annual Review of Microbiology 56: 117–137.

[EgoDeath]

So, can someone explain to me how we interpret whether or not the creation story in Genesis is literal or not? Then, how do we interpret whether or not Jesus was actually born of a virgin? How do we know that part's not a metaphor?

[Belacqua]

"Animal femurs
ascribed to saints who never
existed, are still

more holy than portraits
of conquerors who,
unfortunately, did."

-- W.H. Auden

[GrandizerII]

Heard of kin selection?

Of course, that's why I'm saying the continuity of it doesn't make sense. You have to enter an abstract realm where, say, sequence ATT is considered "my gene" regardless of where and why in the universe it appears. Otherwise there's no continuity between my genes and my sister surviving; they may as well be competing against each other.

I keep rereading this comment to try to understand what exactly you're saying about the whole abstract realm bit, but I'm just not getting it, so I'll address the last sentence of this quote and hope this addresses the first sentences.

There's no continuity between your genes and your sister's, but there is some continuity between your genes and your parents' genes, which also happen to be somewhat continuous with your sister's genes.

I won't pretend to know the exact mechanisms that come with kin selection. There are experts instead you can ask about that.

My clone isn't me, in other words, and for all I know he may be trying to kill me, or take my girlfriend.

Yes, that's possible, but kin selection need not completely and constantly overrule the individual need for survival. It all depends on the various factors at play, what instructions your particular gene-set has encoded (in terms of structure and function).

Which isn't far fetched either. I think there are bacteria that produce toxins against members of their own kind, a genetic free for all.

Well, it is known that bacteria share genes with one another "horizontally" (via plasmids).

[Acrobat]

v
So, can someone explain to me how we interpret whether or not the creation story in Genesis is literal or not

Because it’s fairly implausible that the writer/s of the story intended it to be literal. If he did, it probably would have started off with how he miraculously acquired knowledge of beginnings of creation.

Then, how do we interpret whether or not Jesus was actually born of a virgin? How do we know that part's not a metaphor?

The virgin birth is only two of the gospels accounts, and Matthew ties it to prophecy in Isaiah, that he might have misinterpreted as indicating the messiah would be born of a virgin.

Judging that he tied it to a prophecy of the messiah, it does appear that he expected his readers to take it literally, as a fulfillment of the prophecy.

[Anomalocaris]

"Animal femurs
ascribed to saints who never
existed, are still

more holy than portraits
of conquerors who,
unfortunately, did."

-- W.H. Auden

Only to fools who think having something other than man to hold up as holy makes them less of small men.

[LastPoet]

Which isn't far fetched either. I think there are bacteria that produce toxins against members of their own kind, a genetic free for all.

Just wanted to provide a reference for my above statement since I just got home and can finally do so.

Reference: Riley, M. A., and J. E. Wertz. 2002. Bacteriocins: Evolution, ecology, and application. Annual Review of Microbiology 56: 117–137.

Any person that has produced wine knows this. When you put the grapes with juice and depending if you want to make red or white put in the engaço (sorry if not the english word for it). After that, sift the juice that has lactobateria in in into wood barrels and voila, wine that depending on the temperature gives you more or less alcohol. Why? In anaerobic conditions, those bacteria produce poo to them as what we call alcohol, until they get into so much squalor (the alcohol) that they die off and fermentation ends.

Then you bottle it up and sell at restaurants.

For further education google aerobic and anaerobit fermentations, you might find why you get sore after not exercising for a long time.

[John 6IX Breezy]

Any person that has produced wine knows this. When you put the grapes with juice and depending if you want to make red or white put in the engaço (sorry if not the english word for it). After that, sift the juice that has lactobateria in in into wood barrels and voila, wine that depending on the temperature gives you more or less alcohol. Why? In anaerobic conditions, those bacteria produce poo to them as what we call alcohol, until they get into so much squalor (the alcohol) that they die off and fermentation ends...

I'm aware, but, its not the same thing. Fermentation and respiration are part of the organism's metabolism whereas bacteriocins are produced specifically to kill other bacteria. I haven't had the pleasure of producing wine, but I did take an elective course on microbiology.

Reference: Madigan, M. T., Martinko, J. M., Bender, K. S., Buckley, D. H., & Stahl, D. A. (2015). Biology of Microorganisms. Boston: Pearson.

[John 6IX Breezy]

I keep rereading this comment to try to understand what exactly you're saying about the whole abstract realm bit, but I'm just not getting it, so I'll address the last sentence of this quote and hope this addresses the first sentences.

There's no continuity between your genes and your sister's, but there is some continuity between your genes and your parents' genes, which also happen to be somewhat continuous with your sister's genes.

I won't pretend to know the exact mechanisms that come with kin selection. There are experts instead you can ask about that.

The issue I'm highlighting is one of identity. The genes in my body are different from the genes in your body, even if they are the same sequence, say if we're twins. If I die, my genes do not benefit from your survival in the same way that I as a person do not benefit from your survival. My genes and I will both decompose on the ground.

However, genes are treated as if their identity transcended across all the members of the population in which the sequence exists. This mindset probably stems from population genetics in which the individuals are invisible, and all you have left is a gene pool.

If you and I are twins, and are both named Bob, people still treat us as separate people with separate identities. But now, let's say for the sake of example that codon sequence GGA is now the gene named Bob. If we both have sequence GGA in our genome, it's treated as if Bob exists in both of us simultaneously. Or as if Bob exists somewhere out in the philosophical ether, and merely has its tentacles in us. We're sharing Bob's existence. Kin selection works because if I die to save you, Bob only loses me as a tentacle but continues living in you. Bob didn't die with me, he's still alive and benefited from the altruism.

It's an identity and continuity issue because at the microscopic level genes are treated as transcending across the population, but at the macroscopic level entire genomes are treated as distinct individuals. My genome and I don't continue existing in my twin brother if I die and he survives.

[Mister Agenda]

Any person that has produced wine knows this. When you put the grapes with juice and depending if you want to make red or white put in the engaço (sorry if not the english word for it). After that, sift the juice that has lactobateria in in into wood barrels and voila, wine that depending on the temperature gives you more or less alcohol. Why? In anaerobic conditions, those bacteria produce poo to them as what we call alcohol, until they get into so much squalor (the alcohol) that they die off and fermentation ends...

I'm aware, but, its not the same thing. Fermentation and respiration are part of the organism's metabolism whereas bacteriocins are produced specifically to kill other bacteria. I haven't had the pleasure of producing wine, but I did take an elective course on microbiology.

Reference: Madigan, M. T., Martinko, J. M., Bender, K. S., Buckley, D. H., & Stahl, D. A. (2015). Biology of Microorganisms. Boston: Pearson.

There are many, many species of bacteria. Unless you're talking about a strain of bacteria that emits toxins that act specifically against its own species, there's no biological mystery to solve here. Emitting toxins to kill other strains of bacteria is just eliminating the competition and would obviously be selected for if it was more dangerous to other species of bacteria than it's own. .

---

Our of curiosity, how do people in here determine which evolutionary explanation of how features like sacrificing our lives for others developed, is the correct one? We clearly can't repeat the process, and have no video tape of how it all took place?

So what determines whether one explanation is more likely to be true than another? Is it just a matter of cherry picking the one we like the best?

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'?