Yeah, that's a favorite argument put forth by IDiots. I don't know enough about the issue to address the details, but the biggest problem with this "problem" is that you could apply it to any state of reality. In other words, if the world was completely different - if we had tentacles instead of arms and genitalia in the middle of our foreheads and pigs could fly etc. etc. - you would be making the exact same argument.

I'm glad you acknowledge that.

I sincerely hope you're not fooled.

The probability assumptions are false as they assume a one shot deal rather than stages of development.

Ooh boy! It's the random chance straw man visiting us again. I do so love that one.
Trying to come up with a probability problem that disproves evolutionary theory is about as sound as using the same type of thing to disprove the existence of earth itself. The evidence of evolution is plentiful.  Walk into a natural history museum.  See some of what's been dug up yourself.  

Your calculations depend on point mutations, which makes them an inaccurate (in fact, vastly inaccurate) calculation regarding evolutionary mutation probability.

I swear, I could one day have a program stand in for my posts, I haven't seen an original argument against evolution in about 10 years...

Proteomics and It's Applications For Evolutionary Mechanisms- Indisputable Proof of Evolution and Common Descent

 

If you read this essay from beginning to end, you will realize that there is a complete and thorough expanation of why your calculations are innacurate 

 

I'm deeply sorry, wavefreak.

I meant, Christians never come up with anything original... 

I understand this position very well, mostly because it is extremely simple.  However, it ignores the question posed.  The issue isn't the improbability of our particular set of species evolving, it's that there isn't sufficient time for the necessary mutations of any complex organism to develop.

deludedgod, I've read a few of your posts before and they're usually quite informative.  I especially liked one addressing multiverse theory.  I want to apologize that I haven't read the article you linked to.  Frankly, it's intimidating!  As foolish a question as it surely is, is there a short version anywhere?

Natural selection can only take place after a random mutation.  The probability problem is that there is vastly inadequate time for sufficient mutations to occur such that complex organisms could develop.

Maybe the problem needs to be laid out more plainly?

I see what you're talking about JHenson, but probabilities change exponentially once they become accumulated, reproduction is the most fundamental feature of biological life and so evolution must at least have accumulated probability lending itself to even greater chances for diversity. Evolution is not the roll of one dice with infinite sides to get a sequence out of many rolls, that's the sheer face of the cliff and not worth worrying about. On the other side there is parallel 'dice' rolling together under some external constraint to get accumulated results which combine for even more effective results like sexual reproduction. When you get to there, time is no longer against natural selection, what could take many billions of years will only take a some tens of thousands. 

The whole probability factor isn't the weak point of the evolutionary theory, the way to really render it obsolete is simply by realizing that it is a theory with no evidence backing it up, nothing for the theory of evolution has ever been empirically proven. Not too mention it's in complete contradiction with the second law of thermodynamics which the complete race of humanity takes as fact.

I'm surprised to find that people still seriously argue this point. It struck me as particularly disingenuous when I first encountered it in 9th grade, and I can't imagine what adult would take it seriously.

Hmmmm, how about some common sense from Douglas Adams.  There are an estimated billion stars, around which hundreds of billions of planets are circling.  Of those hundreds of billions of planets we know of one that contains life (ours).  So if we divide the number of planets by the number that are known to contain life the answer is so close to zero that it's reasonable to assume that we don't exist.  It's because we are so statistically improbable.

Yet here you are thus your evolution argument doesn't hold water. 

Yes it is improbable that the set of species we have now would develop, but one set of species had to.

Complex organisms didn't come about from one huge mutation. Instead, they came about from the cumulative selection of small mutations.

Richard Dawkins' Weasel Program demonstrates the power of cumulative selection. The probability that by randomly selecting characters that "Methinks it is like a weasel" is very small. (Assuming valid characters are upper case, lower case, and space it would be 1 to 1904251686165483303166544735375573842653419591761) But yet with cumulative selection it will appear quickly. Link to online version

No, you see, science is only relevant insofar as it helps to support theism. So if some wordplay with the 2^nd law helps one argue against evolution, obviously theism is in line with science. If on the other hand the 1^st  law contradicts theism, obviously it must be ignored.  

Well, I could always just copy and paste the points which are relevant to your question. Your calculations depend on point mutations. Point mutations are small local mutations changing a few base pairs here and there. They are almost always deleterious or nuetral. In fact, when you do the math, you come out with the very impressive number you suggested. Unfortunately, these point mutations have almost nothing to do with evolution, apart from the fact that they sometimes serve as markers to help geneticists run tests on the evolutionary relationship between proteins. Allow me to explain:

Most important are the following:

Duplicative mutation: A genetic mutation where a gene string is accidentally duplicated during mitosis failure. This provides the mutation carrier with superfluous genetic baggage, basically an extra copy of a gene. This copy is free to mutate based solely on random frequency probability.

Homology: A family relationship between two or more genes (or sets of genes) as the result of a duplicative mutation. For instance, the human genome contains seven haemoglobin proteins, all of which are in a gene family called the haemoglobin family. This is part of a larger family called the globin family, under which all oxygen binding proteins are classed like myoglobins.

Paralogy: A relationship between two closely related genes in a single genome as the result of a mutation. These two genes (or sets) are said to be paralogous of each other in the same carrier species. For instance, the seven human haemoglobins are said to be paralogous of each other.

Orthology: A relationship between genes or sets of genes in different species. When two species diverge, the new genetic arm of the phylogenic tree retains much of the genetic code of it's predecessor. Any related batches of genes in two species are said to be orthologous of each other. The seven human haemoglobins are orthologous to the seven chimp ones.

Recombinative mutation: Chunks of genetic information are shuffled around. Bear this in mind for what we talk about below.

...

the protein is built by higher and higher levels of organization. As we shall see, it is shuffling of the higher levels of organization that give us the novel protein combinations that give rise to molecular evolution, and avoid the deletrious nature of changes in the fundamental units of protein organization.

...

Homologous tracking can be distinguished from noise mutations from distinct signature sequences on the protein. For instance, a protein which is common to the whole of life Called Elongation factor-Tu or EF-Tu is a control mechanism for tRNA at the ribosomal junction with the mRNA string for protein synthesis. A critical control mechanism for m/tRNA match, the EF-Tu is a GTPase protein with multiple domains. The EF-Tu holds the tRNA as masked in position for translation via bonding to the mRNA. The hydrolysis of the GTP on the EF-Tu induces a major conformational change, since it has a crucial alpha-helix called the switch helix which can, due to the crucial positions of polar amino acid, switch between two crucial domains. The position of the switch helix depends on the hydrolysis of GTP. When the GTP is bound to EF-Tu, the switch helix is locked in place, which means that the tRNA is still masked. When the GTP is hydrolyzed in GDP, the switch helix opens the domain latch, releasing the tRNA.

In this way we can see how a small conformational change can amplify the signal and induce a major movement change in the conformation of the protein, such is how precise the protein's moving parts are. They are the most well-engineered devices in nature (and much more complex then any of man's devices)

So when we examine the vast swath of EF-Tu domains across the spectrum of life, the switch/latch sequences are almost unchanged, such is the precision of the protein (this effect is also present in catalysts, since the replacing of a single aspartate with a glycine in the binding site of aspartate transcarbamylase is enough to shift the position of the transition inducing carboxylate by the radius of a hydrogen atom, which is enough to decrease the enzymatic activity by a thousand fold).

Therefore, then, even with all the noise mutations, the sig sequences do not change in billions of years. But it is the noise we are concerned with, since the indication from the divergence of the same domains, while retaining the sig domains, clearly indicate that they arose from a single common ancestor. Domain divergence is not possible if we assume design or creation.

It is about duplicative mutations, followed by recombinative mutations, or shuffling mutations. For instance, A protein is not subdivided merely by it’s amino acid. It is grouped into large subunits called polypeptides, regional stretches of protein subunit roughly 100 amino acids long. In this way we can see that massive proteins (>1000 amino acids) are not only defined by their individual, but ultimately, the order of different units created by smaller strings of amino acids within the complex. The protein transforms into it’s secondary structure by folding at the kinks between the subunits. The shape, therefore, of a protein is directly determined by it’s chemical sequence. The folding becomes further intricate during progression to tertiary structure when the folds between individual units take shape. Finally, the protein reaches it’s quaternary structure or it’s native state, with the intricate system of folds.

Many people say that mutations are always destructive or deletrious, or "remove information" or that DNA repair blocks mutation. Nonsense. I've studied DNA repair for a large portion of my career, and I assure you that it is not a limiting factor. THe enzymatic lockstep (it is controlled by ribosomal machines at the site of transcription) is operated on a feedback loop that only detects harmful mutations. Like I said, evolution is mostly about recombinative and shuffling and duplication mutations. DNA repair is a system to fix point mutations, which are mostly harmful, and when harmful, the enzymatic response performs , BER, MMR or NER (Base-excision, Nucleotide excision or mismatch repair) to correct the nucleotide incorrect arrangement (as it will be detected by the ribosomal transcription checkers). This is why nearly all divergences are preceded by duplication (homology)

Repair is designed to respond to two things

-Point mutations that are interrupting the transcription (these are sometimes called Stop codons or nonsense mutations)

-A physical break in the DNA strand

Not the evolution mutation mechanisms, which are recombination, homology, duplication and shuffling. Point mutations are damaging, as they create stop codons, or nonsense mutations, but as we shall soon see, bearing in mind the organization of the proteome, point mutations have little to do with evolutionary mechanisms

there is almost nothing original in the vertebrae genome. It is the result of multiple whole-global duplications throughout evolution. Even in humans, the proteome contains only 7% vertebrae-specific proteins. The only place we really seem to have any originality is in domain shuffling (Im pretty sure that the human tyrpsin can bind to at least 18 domains, while in drosophilia it's only 5). As I said about protein structure, much of the innovation merely comes from rearrangement of subunits, which is beneficial in terms of the shuffling mutation quite often.

An excellent example of how evolutionary mechanisms can create novel protein combinations which can give survival benefits to the carrier organisms is found in a pair of the most critical classes of proteins in the whole of life: Kinases and phosphotases. I would go through exactly what these do, but that will take hours, so instead I will just explain it in short summary, which will sound like jargon, so here goes:

Kinases are protein phosphorylating class of signal transductors which control a large amount of proteins and amplify many, many signals, also acting as signal-integrating proteins by anchoring to the extracellular matrix junction and relaying signals from the membrane to the Endoplasmic reticulum and the nucleus. Instead of a ligand reciprocal/cooperative Allosteric binding site to control the action of the protein in question, a certain side chain (always a threonine, serine or tyrosine) is phosphorylated, which activates or deactivates the protein. The cyclic nature of kinase loop functions is very similar to that of GTPases. The largest superfamily of kinase is a simple monodomainal kinase called the Ras protein. As evolutionary mechanisms took course and organisms became more complex, a wider range of transductors became required, which evolve in lockstep with other evolving functions, a process called coevolution. This has been indicated by the fact that the Ras like domain has since become integrated into totally different proteins, and created entire classes of kinases simply by joining the Ras to many other domains throughout the course of evolution to create novel protein combinations. The branching of various kinase families that results from this is fully consistent with molecular clock tracking of the divergence rate of the amino acids (recall noise mutations). Which means whole families of kinases have been generated at different times in the evolutionary process by duplication and divergence. We now have many, many families of kinases including Cdc7, PDGF receptors, TGF-Beta receptors, Ca2+ dependent kinase, CdK integrators (which include a large range of Cdk including Cdk2 and Cdk3), Src kinases, KSS1, the list goes on and on.

This is just a small example of how evolutionary mechanisms can generate huge numbers of novel proteins simply by recombination and duplication. The lack of originality or "design" in the kinase family, as well as the prescence of Ras in every kinase and the underlying signature sequence is clear evidence for a primordial kinase upon which the whole family was built, simply by the course of time and natural selection.

 

 

 

Mostly. What I do not understand is how anyone can look at the broad selection of species we have (as well as the cosmos) and not summize that it must have come about in what an "orderly" mind would consider to be "chaotic".

Like evolved from chemical elements (and, in case you are unaware, the Venter Institute is attempting to patent the synthetic life it created from chemical elements). This, truly, is simple reality. Single-celled organisms took billions of years to evolve into multi-cellular organisms. Life began in the water (as the land was not yet inhabital - had to wait for veitation to emerge to lower the CO2 content and raise the level of oxygen) Vegitation came to land first, with the animals following it.

 The first fish attempted to come out on land (and shallow water pools) to lay their young in a place safe from predators... they evolved into amphibians... and later into mammals.

As far as this "probability" is concerned... you would be right in saying the probability that our species set here on earth would evolve IDENTICALLY elsewhere... that's rather impossible (as those creatures would have alternative environments to evolve into).

Other than that... evolution isn't asking for any more "faith" than genistation does. Do you challenge the process of genistation because the bible says "god created man"? 

I’m angry for two reasons

-I’ve dealt with this nonsense for 11 years, and I am, as you can imagine, quite sick of it

-You acted as though you knew what you were talking about yet you just admitted that you had done no research! How do you think that make you look? If you know that you don’t know anything about this subject, why comment on it? That’s the height of arrogance.

I’m flattered that you think I actually researched that, but I simply wrote those off the top of my head. That is how easy it is to refute creationism. “Research” is the cutting edge work I do in molecular dynamics, intracellular vesicular traffic and proteomics, what I wrote there is stuff I learned in university.

h

You’ve just refuted yourself with excellent success. If I can refute Pascal’s Wager, then I don’t have to worry! That was the whole point of the wager! To instill enough fear in someone to convert them. So you’ve just invoked Pascal’s Wager, then mentioned that it is irrelevant if I can refute Pascal’s wager. The epistemic circle is large enough to drive my car through.

What a way to save bruised ego. Let’s analyze you step by step”

-You attempted to argue against evolution

-Your arguments got blasted cleanly in two

-You became defensive and threadjacked, instead invoking that you were here to proselytize. At first you invoked an attitude of arrogance (attempting to argue against evolution when you admitted knowing nothing about it, but you were swiftly destroyed) and then, when crushed, switched tactic.

Why don’t you just nurse your bruised ego elsewhere?

Yes. Yes, you will get ridiculed. However, if you want any converts, speaking from a position of Holier-than-thou scorn will get you spat on. Because “faith” is a worthless, conditioned, idiotic, groupthink with iron grip on those who have the tragic inability to think for themselves. So, if you want converts, I would not brag about having more faith, because here “faith” is about as respected as Holocaust denial. So, perhaps, instead, you could present rational or empirical evidence for your beliefs, and then people may side with you. I believe, as Jefferson said:

Shake off all servile prejudices and fears, fix reason firmly in her seat and call her wisdom to every tribunal, for if there was a God, he would surely pay more homage to reason than to blind ignorance

Well, guess what? I’m not taking it down. I despise Islam, of course, but I would be hypocritical if I did not despise the disease of Christianity as well. Both worship the same God, both are professed to follow the tenets of two equally barbaric Bronze Age texts, and both are in perverse agreement that respect for other people of different beliefs is simply not in accordance with their law, its just that Islam has the militant streak as well. Now, Christianity happens to be muzzled under the reason and sanity of secular government of Western nations, but Islam, still being under the iron grip of theocracy, retains its various commandments, such as stoning adulterers and flying 200,000 pound bombs into buildings and burning people alive. I do not consider Islam any worse than Christianity, it just so happens that the more natural form of Islam (barbaric) survived, while the natural form of Christianity (barbaric) was crushed by Enlightenment and separation of Church and State. This does not mean it is still not a dangerous force for insanity and theocracy. And this is why I wish that humanity had never stumbled across the disease of religion as a whole, not just Islam. Hence, I retain my picture.

 

And I’ll be thinking for you, as I always have been, after all, as a faith-head you have successfully surrendered the gift of human reason to blind ignorance.

You're right. We should also stop looking for a cure for cancer. It's been years and we haven't wiped it out.

Yes, I just compared religion to a disease. That's because it is very similar to one.

Your presence here is why we're still fighting. There may be hope for you, although I doubt it. You're young, though, so there may be some hope. Stick around, open your brain, and learn. It's ok. Most of us have been where you are.

Because if everyone had attitudes like yours, we'd still be dancing around campfires praying to the sun so that the crops would get rain and we wouldn't starve to death this winter.

Actually, it's not that we feel we've won. Religion has won a lot of the battles. After all, they're actually debating whether or not to teach that the earth is 6000 years old in school, when 999,999 out of 1,000,000 scientists know for a fact that its billions of years old. Now, scientists are not "battling" religion. They're just doing science. Religion is fighting against science.

No. To help people like you. You don't have to believe this for it to be true.

ummm... you're projecting. Science thrives on the unknown... without it, there's no need for science. We're here to promote reason, and yes, I feel quite proud when someone begins to understand that faith is irrational. I know that I've made the world a little better, and I like that.

You are ignorant.

And yes, we prove that we know science.

And, no, there is nothing more than science when it comes to knowledge.

Happy?

Projection. It's ok. I thought I knew everything when I was sixteen, too. I know it's hard to feel anything but anger when you've been embarrassed, but it's part of the growing up process to learn to admit when you're wrong. Look, this is just a message board. We don't know you personally, and we're not going to laugh at you if you admit that you huffed and puffed and didn't know what you were talking about. It's a sign of maturity. Deludedgod is a scientist, and a very smart one. You could learn from him if you'd just get over yourself.

Everything's in print, kiddo. I've looked at your posts, and they came off as arrogant. You claimed to have researched this, and you haven't. You've just listened to your preachers, and they don't know any more about it than you do. You went one on one with a scientist, and the scientist called you out for your ignorance. Get over it.

You can bluster all you want, but your temper tantrum isn't going to do anything but make you look bad.

 

Yes I see what you're talking about, it's just, I guess I don't see the world exactly how you do. Not to say I don't look at it negatively just from a different viewpoint, I don't think I will ever quite meet with you on a spiritual basis, but I guess it's good to agree to disagree, right?

Again, agree to disagree, but I can kind of understand your viewpoint.

See that's where I feel I diverge with you, and others of course, I feel that my brain is open and that although all this science can disprove the Bible and such, and you can easily disprove God... I just believe, and it wasn't through some divine deification, it's almost as if it's in my nature to believe, and I really don't want to not believe becuase I feel my psychological state is in greatest happiness when I believe, but I don't use that as a fallback of my faith.

=)

That's true (of course), but something has to be true to be true (not trying to be redundant but take into account my position)

It's not that I felt that I knew everything, more like I knew something and at any point in this website I thought I could find a wormhole to fill my information to prove a point, then by all means I would insert it, but obviously I've learned from my mistakes.

I apologize for my arrogance, I by no means meant to come off that way.

That's very true, I didn't mean to have a temper tantrum (if that's what came off) nor was I angry, I was just mildly frustrated as every other human being when they are proved wrong, I'll definitely think before I speak next time.

 

I also greatly appreciate your kindness towards me, and I apologize again for any arrogance or ignorance, I'm just trying to learn I guess, and this time I definitely learned the hardway.

Obviously you don't have an open mind if you choose to continue believing things you admit are not true.

I just smoke cigarettes, and it wasn't through some peer pressure, it's almost as if it's in my nature to smoke, and I really don't want to not smoke becuase I feel my psychological state is in greatest happiness when I smoke, but I don't use that as a fallback of my addiction.

Can you see how senseless (and, to be blunt, pathetic) that sounds?

You need to learn when to stop. You've dug yourself into a hole, and now you're just digging yourself deeper.

You came to this site with the intention of nothing more than prosthletizing. You had no intention of actually discussing or learning, only to try to convert. You tried to act like you knew something that you obviously didn't, and when you were called on it you got upset and resorted to ad hominems. When you were called on that you want to "agree to disagree", explaining that you have no intention to actually participate - only to try and convert people who obviously have no interest in it.

Now you're upset that you weren't welcomed with open arms and a smile? Are you kidding me? You've got a LOT to learn about life, kiddo. This isn't your school or church; you'll start getting respect when you start giving it.

 

See I did do research I just jumped the gun on my claim, I researched one topic and thought it irrefutable and immediatetly posted my claim without really thinking, really stupid now that I think of it, but forgive me I'm learning. And I think I learned quite well this time.

See this I had NO idea about, I thought most atheist's just brush it off becuase it doesn't matter to them, I mean I can honestly say I have never encountered atheist's in a head-on debate outside of High School, and the atheist's in high school are really atheist's just apathetics with the label.

That's another thing, I never look down on other's, and I don't think many Christian's do either, I'm not going to speak for them, although it seem's that the ones that you have encountered have looked down on you. I know you made the assumption I was looking down on you, but as a part of my character (which really doesn't matter) I'm very selfless.

I see what you're saying but I believe scare tactics wouldn't work on anyone here anyways, and I wasn't trying to invoke the Wager in any means, just using as an in-context example to further a point.

Thank you for telling me that now.

Just as a side note I would never resort to telling any atheist these thing's unless called-upon, and even then I wouldn't go into such detailed anaylsis.

Hmmm... Well I'm sorry, I never meant to invoke such raw emotions from a person, I had no idea that I touched such a nerve and will definitely check myself before hand next time.

Ignorance has little if anything to do with logic, and lots if everything to do with education. Ignorance has gained quite a stigma as a major insult, when it's merely a simple descriptive that applies to everyone on this planet regarding some topic or another.

I was fully aware of your point, and my comments (all of them in that post) were meant to put a spotlight on the gaping hole in your logic. How absolute is your truth, really, if it can be shown to be based on falicious thinking? Does god really need you to make excuses to believe in him? If it's true in the most absolute and immutable way that god exists, then why do you have to assume the conclusion for an argument to even make sense to anyone? Why can't the rules that have been carefully developed over thousands of years to reliably reveal truth only disprove god if he exists? If god absolutely exists, why do you have to break every one of those rules to make even the most insignificant reference to him? Why, after 2000 years of very careful and thorough investigation and analysis of all that he's supposedly done, can't anyone come up with any rational basis to even make a plausible case for his existence? All you have is one book that is like many many others before it, and contradicts itself with almost every point it raises, and none of it can be validated.

Theists tend to vehemently ignore these gaps in reasoning because they threaten their faith, so they keep these gaps firmly out of sight and out of mind. What's ironic about that is that theists hold "god" to be the pinnacle of absolute truth. How can it be so absolutely true if so easily proven wrong using the tools that have been proven to reveal truth so reliably? If god existed as your faith suggested, shouldn't it be immune to logical argument? How can logic work for absolutely everything except the one thing that is suppose to be so absolutely and immutably true?

Yes, your faith stands, but only because you choose to ignore facts and refuse to critically examine your own thoughts on the matter. Start from scratch and try to build up to a belief in god and you will find that you can't do so without making many large leaps in logic, ignoring facts, and using circular reasoning.

I would urge you to use the same critical faculties that you would use for any other subject and use it to examine your own beliefs. After all, if it is true, you would surely want to disspell any false notions you might hold, right?








The fact that it's religion doesn't change the fact that what I was responding to was pure rationalization. The fact that you're talking about god does not change the fact that your logic is just as poor as my alteration of your statement. After all, if god is as true as you say/think, you shouldn't need to rationalize it, right? Why can't you put it in logical form that is at least logically plausible if the truth of the matter is so absolute? From the perspective of anyone outside your religion, your rationale holds no water, and is no different than the rationalization that any deluded person uses. Indeed, it does even show you to be stubbornly deluded. The only reason that it makes sense to you and the people that agree with you is because you have already pre-supposed the conclusion. You've decided that the religion is true, and so anything you say that supports that position makes sense to you. The fact is, however, that this is not how one arrives to any kind of truth. Anyone willing to question your comments will not accept them as valid in any way.

I know that as a believer you would think that it doesn't compare to anything else, but that is not an honest way of looking at it. If you applied this reasoning to any other subject, even you would agree that it's ludicrous. Poor logic does not magically become sound when applied to something you hold to be true, even if it is true! You can't expect anyone to just excuse such things by simply saying that god doesn't compare to the counter-example - it's not your pre-supposed conclusion that's in question, it's the piss poor reasoning that you have to resort to to justify it.

Both religion and addictions produce subjective states of mind that can seem profound within a closed system. They may provide answers to a limited number of questions relevant only to the conclusion, but they don't even come near answering any questions about the rest of our universe. While you personally hold religion completely separate and put it up on a pedestal, the fact is that, with or without a god, your experience is reducable to chemical stimulus in the brain which causes certain subjective experiences. Saying that you're going to hold on to that, no-matter-what, and that you're not willing to consider any other point of view on it (because it's "not comparable" to other things), is no different than any addict's rationalization. There are plenty of people that we would all agree are delusional that will say the same things, but we simply know it's a result of what happens when the brain works in unusual ways.

What you need to do to separate yourself from them is to give sound evidence that it can't be explained by much more benign factors. The notion of god is your claim, we just don't find your claim credible, so it's up to you to give at least a rational basis for it, if not proof. The fact is that religious experiences can be reduced to natural, although uncommon, happenings in the brain. These can even be reproduced with certain psychological or physiological tricks/manipulations. People skilled in meditation can sometimes induce these experiences at will, and such people, although very highly spiritual, will sometimes even tell you that what you sense is illusory.