Do you beleave in God(Poll)

[Byzantine Prince]

A number of revered, and esteemed astrophysicists have shown that these laws are so finely-tuned (should they be in the slightest bit different, this wouldn't be here), that it cannot be random, and that there must be/have been a Creator.

Ah yes, and why does it have to be a creator?

Why are these astrophysicists so arogant as to think they figured everything out and everything is in perfect order?

[Duke Malcolm]

Which part are you unsure of?

When you say that the Earth is tiny. I nkow that, everyone know that. But it may just be one small part of the whole. One small part of God's plan.

That's not what I meant. I meant, all molecules do collide randomly. Elements collide randomly.

Firstly, molecules are not elements. But nevertheless, they do not collide randomly. They may appear to collide randomly, but they follow the laws of science.

What do you mean by multiverse? You have a large number of mass or elements. It's random.

Sorry, perhaps I should have explained earlier. The theoretical multiverse is another sort of univers, which theoretically contains an infinite number on universes (or a very very very very very very large number of them, anyway), and each universed therein has different laws of science (e.g. here, we have Potential energy = Mass * Gravity * squared Height, whereas another universe in the multiverse may have PE = M/2 * H * square root of gravity)

Sorry, that's already a mistake. Evolution and survival of the fittest are sound principles. We are the greatest proof to this, we already own the earth!

Can you tell me what the "Selfish Gene" is saying in short?

It is similar to survival of the fittest, and survival of the most well adapted. It is still evolution, but not the more Darwinian one of survival of the fittest. Basically, it says that everybodies genes (down to the allele) try to have themselves continued on. The weaker genes do bad things, such as kill the host, the person, or stop them having children so that the gene doesn't continue (which is one of the reasons sodomy couldn't be genetic). The stronger gene continues on down the chain. But the bad genes keep on developing over time in mutations, or in recessive genes. It is not a case of one animal has wings, so it can get off the ground and fly to escape predators, and the other doesn't, so that it gets killed and becomes extinct as is in survival of the most well adapted. It is a case of survival of a gene within its own species ; if the gene isn't flawed, it will continue on in babies,
but the baby may not have the trait, because the gene may be recessive.

In the end it says that everyone is selfish, but that is besides the point. The book is hard to explain, but when you read it it is much clearer, and it begins to look like survival of the most well adapted.

[Duke Malcolm]

Ah yes, and why does it have to be a creator?

Why are these astrophysicists so arogant as to think they figured everything out and everything is in perfect order?

I don't know. I just know that these is one of their reasonings. It seemed silly to me at first, too.

[Big_John]

I don't know. I just know that these is one of their reasonings. It seemed silly to me at first, too.

that's because it is silly. obviously these revered, esteemed astrophysicists can't look at simple probabilities without getting all starry eyed.

[Duke Malcolm]

They have their arguments, but to me, there is as much reason to suggest that there is a Creator as there is to suggest that there is not a Creator, so Agnosticism is the chosen path for me.

[ah_dut]

Ah yes, and why does it have to be a creator?

Why are these astrophysicists so arogant as to think they figured everything out and everything is in perfect order?

Why not I ask? Things in science are goverened by rules are they not?

Evolution is not totally random, neither is anything else...they are governed by the rules of physics or some other rule. Therefore, can not the universe be governed by rules? Our lives are governed by things like the laws of motion and perhaps in the future Quantum Mechanics...I don't presume to understand such laws but they do exist and it is proven...thus is there not order?

Perfect order is in the eye of the beholder...it depends whether you can see the strands in seemingly meaningless data...all the things I learn by reading AS papers and A level papers in physics before GCSE level...nothing

[Mikeus Caesar]

Haha!!!

Non-believers - 44
Believers - 33

I don't believe in God because it doesn't seem logical.

[Byzantine Prince]

Why not I ask? Things in science are goverened by rules are they not?

Evolution is not totally random, neither is anything else...they are governed by the rules of physics or some other rule.

Just because there are rules doesn't make them have order. Evolution is completely random. Just because we think that we have figured out some rules and things that hapen often doesn't mean these rules were made by someone neither does it mean we cannot bend these rules. Just like the man flying. Gravity would have you think it's impossible but there you have it.

[Don Corleone]

Just because there are rules doesn't make them have order. Evolution is completely random. Just because we think that we have figured out some rules and things that hapen often doesn't mean these rules were made by someone neither does it mean we cannot bend these rules. Just like the man flying. Gravity would have you think it's impossible but there you have it.

And it was another set of rules, referred to collectively as 'Bernouli's princple' that made flight possible. What's your point?

The defintion of random, according to my friend Mr. Webster, is 'lacking aim or method, purposeless, haphazard". Defintion 2 "Not unform, of different sizes". Definition 3 "from statistics, of, pertaining to, or characterizing a set of items every member of which has an equal chance of occurring or of occurring with a particular frequency".

Clearly, definition 3 would be the most appropriate in this case, and it does not define evolution. All outcomes are not equally likely, and there are some clearly observable patterns that impact the outcome, such as weather. Just because the outcome is not deterministic doesn't mean it's random.

You guys on the "No God" side need to be careful not to hinge all of your arguments on the "universe is chaotic & random". You certainly should see that the arguments that around an ordered universe and around the existence of God are two independent considerations. I can think of working models for any of the four possible combinations (ordered universe/chaotic & God/no God).

[Byzantine Prince]

Hehe, ok Corleone, I'll bite your argument. Even though I don't agree with it I can see why you are posing it. I guess I didn't make myself clear enough.

Rules are not the same as order. Rules can be bent by other rules that we don't yet know. What we don't know is infinite. Every rule is bendable.

Does that make sense? I think it does.

God has not created rules. There's no indication for that. God's existence is the eyes of most believers comes from some sort of prophet who does a couple of crazy tricks (Jesus turning water into wine etc...) , NOT science.

So we are winning again. May it be that one day God's believers will be extinct and us rational human beings(liberals ) inherit the earth.

[Don Corleone]

After the rapture, when we're all brought home, you're welcome to it. Based on what I've read, you might want to find someplace else to vacate to, however. (And before every jumps me up, that's a joke, I personally don't believe in an 'End of Days'. I take it as an allegory for the end of YOUR days).

You completely missed my point BP. I wasn't offering the argument on the ordered vs. disordered universe as any kind of statement on the existence of God. Quite the contrary, I have several times, including in that post, allowed as how any answer to either question is congrous to any answer to the other.

[LittleGrizzly]

I can think of working models for any of the four possible combinations (ordered universe/chaotic & God/no God).

I agree i don't see why whether the universe is choatic or not has a bearing on whether theres a god ?

[Don Corleone]

Thank you Griz. Holy crap! I think that's the first time you've ever agreed with anything I've had to say. God, I must be catching that Socialist bug! EEEEEEWWWWWW That, or you're catching the 'Conservative' bug, muhahahaha.

[AggonyKing]

*looks at Biochemistry degree* *clicks NO*

[Husar]

Hehe, ok Corleone, I'll bite your argument. Even though I don't agree with it I can see why you are posing it. I guess I didn't make myself clear enough.

Rules are not the same as order. Rules can be bent by other rules that we don't yet know. What we don't know is infinite. Every rule is bendable.

Does that make sense? I think it does.

God has not created rules. There's no indication for that. God's existence is the eyes of most believers comes from some sort of prophet who does a couple of crazy tricks (Jesus turning water into wine etc...) , NOT science.

So we are winning again. May it be that one day God's believers will be extinct and us rational human beings(liberals ) inherit the earth.

Sorry, but you´re not winning anywhere.

You say that believers just follow someone who did some crazy tricks.
And you follow scientists who work with rules, but you said yourself that every rule is bendable. If rules are bendable and scientists work with them, how can you say that science can be believed, maybe all the rules they use are wrong?

You say that religion is based on thoughts or stories that cannot be proven, but the theory about the big bang has not been proven yet as well, that´s why it´s called a theory.
there have been a lot of scientific "proofs" that were later found to be wrong, so how can you say that today´s scientists are right?
You cannot see science as the ultimate source of wisdom.

Don´t get me wrong, I like physics very much, and I´m not saying it´s all wrong, but there are topics where even scientists can only guess and have no proof for what´s going on.


An example from our physics-lessons:

If you have a screen to display positions of incoming photons and then you send single photons through a single hole, one after the other, you will see on the screen that they arrive just as if you would spray paint through that hole.
Now if you send these single photons through two holes, you will get an interference-figure on your screen, even though you sent all photons alone.

Can anyone tell me how a single photon can know if there is just one hole and it can do what it wants or if there are two holes and it has to create the interference-figure?
Well our teacher said that physicians have no explanation for this other than micro-tiles having their own rules we can´t understand.

[Byzantine Prince]

Sorry, but you´re not winning anywhere.

You say that believers just follow someone who did some crazy tricks.
And you follow scientists who work with rules, but you said yourself that every rule is bendable. If rules are bendable and scientists work with them, how can you say that science can be believed, maybe all the rules they use are wrong?

I never said what people should or should not do. What right do you have to judge me on things I didn't say?

You say that religion is based on thoughts or stories that cannot be proven, but the theory about the big bang has not been proven yet as well, that´s why it´s called a theory.

Did I mention any theories such as big bang? NO! I was talking about things like attraction and thermodynamics, not the far out stuff. Again you have no right to judge me on this.

there have been a lot of scientific "proofs" that were later found to be wrong, so how can you say that today´s scientists are right?

I didn't!

You cannot see science as the ultimate source of wisdom.

I don't!

You might not realize this but I don't give a crap about science. I trust philosophy more then any physics. I was simply responding to Don Corleone's silly argument that the world has rules that are now accepted and that therefore god must exist.

Of course like the coward he is he then backed off saying that there was no relation and that he wasn't trying to make any point at all. BS! He was trying to prove exactly that and he failed.

[Husar]

I didn´t want to judge you, although the thought of that is quite attractive.

I didn't!

Yes, you didn´t, you just made the impression on me, but then again the later parts of my post were omnidirectional, not only aimed at you.

If you were never talking about the big bang, but trust philosophy(which to me is like trusting The Holy Bible or Quran), what does philosophy say about how life started/was created/popped up?

[Byzantine Prince]

Yes, you didn´t, you just made the impression on me,

Don't you have better ways to waste your useless energy then correct things that aren't even crooked?

I trust trust modern philosophy which you probably never heard of, but if you want take the ones on my sig as you start into consideration.

Philosophers don't bother with the technicalities like physics because that would make them scientists wouldn't it? They look at the big picture in terms of the human perspective although they never ignore physics when it comes to the possibility of being contradicted by it.

[Don Corleone]

BP, look man, not for nothing, but your insane ramblings mean very, very little to me. If you want to call me a coward, or any other name you can think of, have it. I'll even help you come up with some original ones because you seem to have this lack of ability to form your own thoughts, though you do parrot what you read quite well, I'll give you that.

Before you start though, you do realize of course, that other people have followed what I've been saying through the course of the thread and recognize that at no point was I arguing that an ordered (or a disordered for that matter) universe offers an iota of a clue to the existence of God. If it were a priori knowledge that said God exists, it would offer insight into his nature, but as I said, physical phenomenon can not be used in an argument to prove or disprove God's existence.

Now, where were we... ah yes, you were calling me a coward and misrepresenting my argument. Unfortunately, as usual when you do your own thinking, you weren't doing a very good job. Let me help...

You could call me: chicken, weakling, yellow, lilly-livered, sissy, jellyfish, mouse, poltroon (that's what Khafir meant, good to know) the ever classic 'fraidy-cat' , or punk. That's about all I can come up with that are still politcially correct. But, just to make sure you get your point across, and again, as you're not copying this out of a book, you'll probably need some help with original thoughts at first, maybe you should add North Carolina residents, Christians and cowards to your death list when you become generalissimo. Is that the title you've taken for yourself, or should we refer to you in another form? Grand Poobah perhaps?

[Byzantine Prince]

So basically you have no point you are trying to make. Well thanks for making that as unclear as possible.

Anyways atheists win! Hooray!

[Don Corleone]

Well, I'm glad you finally got around to asking me what I actually meant, even if in a roundabout way.

You had said that the "law" of gravity was trumped when man learned how to fly, thus proving that there was no order tot he universe. I answered that the Bernouli principle, a very orderly, defined principle, explains the phenomenon of flight to a "T". My most sincere apologies if you confused that explanation for evangalism.

[Quietus]

When you say that the Earth is tiny. I nkow that, everyone know that. But it may just be one small part of the whole. One small part of God's plan.

Tiny as in insignificant and isolated. How many other lifeforms do you see?

Firstly, molecules are not elements. But nevertheless, they do not collide randomly. They may appear to collide randomly, but they follow the laws of science.

You are mixing up collision and bonding. Two different things. Collisions are all naturally random.

Sorry, perhaps I should have explained earlier. The theoretical multiverse is another sort of univers, which theoretically contains an infinite number on universes (or a very very very very very very large number of them, anyway), and each universed therein has different laws of science (e.g. here, we have Potential energy = Mass * Gravity * squared Height, whereas another universe in the multiverse may have PE = M/2 * H * square root of gravity)

~:confused

It is similar to survival of the fittest, and survival of the most well adapted. It is still evolution, but not the more Darwinian one of survival of the fittest. Basically, it says that everybodies genes (down to the allele) try to have themselves continued on.

Genes do no have choices. Mutation is random.

The weaker genes do bad things, such as kill the host, the person, or stop them having children so that the gene doesn't continue (which is one of the reasons sodomy couldn't be genetic). The stronger gene continues on down the chain.

Good and bad is relative to the situation. (See my example of insects below).

Genes are passed along equally to the progeny with the same probability of distribution. It's called "Equal Segregation". Nothing is partial in the genetic level. The selection occurs when the genes are phenotypically expressed as a physical trait.

But the bad genes keep on developing over time in mutations, or in recessive genes. It is not a case of one animal has wings, so it can get off the ground and fly to escape predators, and the other doesn't, so that it gets killed and becomes extinct as is in survival of the most well adapted. It is a case of survival of a gene within its own species ; if the gene isn't flawed, it will continue on in babies,
but the baby may not have the trait, because the gene may be recessive.

Oh no. There no good or bad genes per se. The multitude of genes make up an entire organism. It's not just one trait, it's a combination of all traits.

Whatever is phenotypically useful in traits are generally selected for, especially is smaller animals. Here's a popular example:

Two insects: One brown, black but the same specie. Trees in the surrounding area are brown. The brown insects due expression of the genes will survive because it can hide in the trees with the same brown color. The black ones are picked off by birds because they are visible. Now, do you call that good or bad? It's just a selective process which is random.

Now the insects DO NOT pick where they should be brown or black. The surviving browns will thrive more because more of the 'brown color gene' will be present in the population.

In the end it says that everyone is selfish, but that is besides the point. The book is hard to explain, but when you read it it is much clearer, and it begins to look like survival of the most well adapted.

Guy, you have understand that mutation is random. When the pigment gene mutates to express another color, it happens randomly and by chance.

Well, if you find an example or excerpt of what you're trying to say from the book, just post it.

[Papewaio]

An example from our physics-lessons:

If you have a screen to display positions of incoming photons and then you send single photons through a single hole, one after the other, you will see on the screen that they arrive just as if you would spray paint through that hole.
Now if you send these single photons through two holes, you will get an interference-figure on your screen, even though you sent all photons alone.

Can anyone tell me how a single photon can know if there is just one hole and it can do what it wants or if there are two holes and it has to create the interference-figure?
Well our teacher said that physicians have no explanation for this other than micro-tiles having their own rules we can´t understand.

Your 'physics' teacher is a Moron!

wave-particle duality
The inherent contradiction in the way energy behaves. At the turn of the 20th century, it was believed that light was electromagnetic waves and electrons were particles. By the 1930s, it was determined that light behaves as if it were made up of particles (photons) as well as waves, and electrons also behave like waves. This has driven scientists to drink and is one of the most puzzling phenomena in the universe

He should not be teaching physics if he hasn't heard of quantum physics, photoelectric effect, Uncertainty Principle, Schrodingers Equation.

PS Physicians may or may not understand that there is a model called wave-particle duality but Physicists should.

[Physicians = A person licensed to practice medicine; a medical doctor.]

[Husar]

Maybe I should have mentioned that or I explained it the wrong way, but he knows that, and so do I.
If a photon is in flight, it behaves like a wave, if it interferes with matter it behaves like a particle, but what is it now? How can it be a wave and a particle at the same time? when moving through two holes, it behaves like a wave and you get interference, but a wave would probably not make a single dot on the screen.
And please don´t insult my physics teacher just because I can´t explain.

[Duke Malcolm]

Tiny as in insignificant and isolated. How many other lifeforms do you see?

I don't know what you are trying to say here...

You are mixing up collision and bonding. Two different things. Collisions are all naturally random.

We can predict collisions, you know, hence they cannot be random

Genes do no have choices. Mutation is random.

I don't mean that they have choices, I mean that their attributes, be they physical or some such other thing, shall cause something to happen to the host. Say, if a gene has a trait which causes cancer, the host shall die, so the gene does not continue. If a gene prevents cancer, then the chances the host will die of cancer are less, so the gene can continue on. More-or-less it means that the genes are only concerned with their own existence, and that the gene can continue on. It is survival of the gene, the individual, as opposed to survival of the most well adapted.

Good and bad is relative to the situation. (See my example of insects below).

I know, I didn't say that it wasn't. In your example, the brown gene would be good, and the blue gene the bad gene.

Genes are passed along equally to the progeny with the same probability of distribution. It's called "Equal Segregation". Nothing is partial in the genetic level. The selection occurs when the genes are phenotypically expressed as a physical trait.

I know, but the genes which do bad things would die off, because the hosts would die off.

Now the insects DO NOT pick where they should be brown or black. The surviving browns will thrive more because more of the 'brown color gene' will be present in the population.

Guy, you have understand that mutation is random. When the pigment gene mutates to express another color, it happens randomly and by chance.

Rarely is it that they happen randomly and by chance. Oft there is a change in the environment which causes the change. This has been proven. Who knows, this change could be caused by God...
Also, in your example, the blue gene may only be recessive, and so while there may be more brown insects, blue insects would continually pop up, contrary to the principle survival of the most well adapted.

Well, if you find an example or excerpt of what you're trying to say from the book, just post it.

I'm sure I would, if it wasn't so long. What I said sums up a few chapters, especially since the author goes off at the occassional tangent. Also, it would be breach of copy-right laws.

[doc_bean]

I voted yes, I do believe in a god, or a 'purpose' or 'design' to creation, of course I cannot prove this, but my reasoning is pretty similar to the astrophysicists; why is the universe the way it is if it was created completely random, where do the laws of physics come from ? Personally I find the idea that the universe just *was*, and the laws of physics just *are* what they are, without a reason, to be an equally ridiculous assumption as that there is a God that designed it all.

I also highly doubt that evolution, as it is viewed today, could really lead to as many different and advanced species as it did. Even biologist admit that there have been some 'leaps' in evolution, that can't really be explained.
I'm sure one day they can be explained, but isn't it a terrible coincidence that the mechanism that causes them even exists ?
It's also a fallacy to assume that being an atheist somehow makes you more intelligent than a believer. I know blue collar atheists that can barely read, yet Einstein (and a whole lot of other great scientists) believe(d) there was a God.

I don't follow any religion though, for various reasons I'm not going into here.

[Drisos]

That's a fine line we're walking here, Drisos. Some members call some of my ideas absurd and they have every right to do so. I have the same right with regard to other peoples' ideas. I have every right to state that some religious notions look to me like aviation experiments that have long been overtaken by social and scientific progress.

On the other hand, I stated above that I take religion seriously because so many other people on this earth do. And I do. I have many times defended my view that the Bible, the Quran and other 'holy' books are worth reading and respecting in their own right, even though I do not regard them as sources of revealed truths. I have shown that I am more than superficially interested in Christian theology and in Christian writers, from Mauriac through Lewis, and I have made it clear in a seemingly endless series of 'Pope threads' that I don't share the common anti-Church view on Aids prevention in Africa.

But I' m not a Christian and I have a right to say and demonstrate why and in what ways Christianity looks absurd to me. Christians have the right to say (as a friend of mine once did) that my world view reminds them of an ant colony that reproduces itself without an apparent higher motive or aim. It made me smile, and it made me understand him a little bit more. That's the upside to such discussions. We should be able to write such things about each other, mostly in jest, and thereby reveal ourselves and get a better understanding.

That's why you'll always find me on your side in a 'Christianity sux' thread.

Wise post.
-------------------------
In fact, I don't have christian parents, and I've not grown up with christianity.

I believe in some kind of god, in a way that looks the most like the catholics do. But I think in all religions there are some mistakes. God has been misunderstood many times in my eyes, that's why I don't follow any religion entirely.



EDIT: sorry for the insult that was in this post earlier people, though it wasn't meant in the way it looked like, I deleted it now.

[Ser Clegane]

Inflammatory remarks are uncalled for

[Quietus]

I don't know what you are trying to say here...

We can predict collisions, you know, hence they cannot be random

Why do you insist that collisions is not random? Can anyone predict lottery numbers? The numbers are random too.

I don't mean that they have choices, I mean that their attributes, be they physical or some such other thing, shall cause something to happen to the host. Say, if a gene has a trait which causes cancer, the host shall die, so the gene does not continue. If a gene prevents cancer, then the chances the host will die of cancer are less, so the gene can continue on. More-or-less it means that the genes are only concerned with their own existence, and that the gene can continue on. It is survival of the gene, the individual, as opposed to survival of the most well adapted.

A gene is a chunk of dna that codes for proteins (dna -> rna -> proteins). Genes have specific funtions. If a gene mutates, chances are the protein that it now codes is no longer functional, because the coding is now different due to the mutation.

I know, but the genes which do bad things would die off, because the hosts would die off.

Please don't use the word 'hosts'. You are your genes. What your genes are is you. Genes code for proteins that are produced by your body. Your dna is you. Eversince from birth, all the proteins in your body is synthesized from dna coding which are called genes.

Genes also do not do bad things, but they can be damaged. Our dna has an automatic repair mechanisms that fixes these. A damaged gene may be one obstacle removed from a pathway to cancer. However, our body has several layers of defense that prevents this from happening. It's more complicated than you think.

Cancer is not inherited. Probability can be higher than usual, but it's never ever a certainty it will occur.

Rarely is it that they happen randomly and by chance. Oft there is a change in the environment which causes the change. This has been proven. Who knows, this change could be caused by God...

Rarely? No, no, that's a basic principle of genetics. You cannot refute that. The cause doesn't really matter, because the mutation itself is random. Mutation occurs in the coding of the dna. If any of the original code changes, it's called mutation.

Also, in your example, the blue gene may only be recessive, and so while there may be more brown insects, blue insects would continually pop up, contrary to the principle survival of the most well adapted.

We're talking about number of alleles in a gene pool. If you only have brown insects mating, then only brown insects will be produced.

I'm sure I would, if it wasn't so long. What I said sums up a few chapters, especially since the author goes off at the occassional tangent. Also, it would be breach of copy-right laws.

Feel free to summarize any permutation of the argument if you want to.

[Duke Malcolm]

Why do you insist that collisions is not random? Can anyone predict lottery numbers? The numbers are random too.

Collisions are not like the lottery numbers. And, hypothetically, if you knew the exact temperature of the room, weight of the balls, time between balls releasing and balls selecting, and God knows what else, one could predict the lottery numbers. Collisions can be predicted, they are not like the lottery numbers.

A gene is a chunk of dna that codes for proteins (dna -> rna -> proteins). Genes have specific funtions. If a gene mutates, chances are the protein that it now codes is no longer functional, because the coding is now different due to the mutation.

Yeah, I don't know what this means.

Please don't use the word 'hosts'. You are your genes. What your genes are is you. Genes code for proteins that are produced by your body. Your dna is you. Eversince from birth, all the proteins in your body is synthesized from dna coding which are called genes.

Genes also do not do bad things, but they can be damaged. Our dna has an automatic repair mechanisms that fixes these. A damaged gene may be one obstacle removed from a pathway to cancer. However, our body has several layers of defense that prevents this from happening. It's more complicated than you think.

Cancer is not inherited. Probability can be higher than usual, but it's never ever a certainty it will occur.

Increase the risk of cancer, then.

When I say host, I only mean the living thing to which the genes are a part, possibly like a symbiot (sp) and host, one cannot exist without the other.

The concept of a "good" gene and a "bad" gene is defined in the book, and takes about half a chapter to define, so I shall leave it to you to read.

Rarely? No, no, that's a basic principle of genetics. You cannot refute that. The cause doesn't really matter, because the mutation itself is random. Mutation occurs in the coding of the dna. If any of the original code changes, it's called mutation.

Sorry, I meant that mutation in beings, as in survival of the most well adapted. This mutation is not random. I know that genetic mutation is random

We're talking about number of alleles in a gene pool. If you only have brown insects mating, then only brown insects will be produced.

No, that's definitely wrong. If the blue-colour gene is recessive, and two brown-coloured insects both have the blue-colour gene, then their offspring has a chanc of being blue

Feel free to summarize any permutation of the argument if you want to.

I did. I would begin quoting little bitties from the book should it not be sitting on the shelf of Blackness Library.

Just out of interest, might I ask of how you are so knowledgeable in the way of genetics?