Charles Darwin

Forum

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
I cannot believe that nobody has commented on Darwin yet. I have read a few of his major works, including his autobiography. One aspect of his character that I enjoy a great deal is how down to earth he seemed. He wasn't pretentious at all, but rather, just very focused on his work and meticulous in his observation. It isn't necessarily so that Darwin posessed an intellect that could match Einstein per se, but he definately was a good scientist, building a major theory on fact after fact after fact. He wasn't an abstract thinker, but alwasy based his reasons on that which was observed. His speculation was always noted as such and usually turned out to be correct if not insightful.

>>By Hume Ungus   (Tuesday, 11 Jan 2005 12:50)



don carlos naturalista..a wayward man of the world, and what a cult for the schools..prestigious mud

>>By LINZ OF ASTRA   (Tuesday, 11 Jan 2005 13:06)



Some prefer solid evidence while yet others prefer fanciful wonders. But only one is really wonderful.

>>By Hume Ungus   (Tuesday, 11 Jan 2005 23:20)



the wonderful fancies of relativtivity, quatum mechanics and the uncertainty theory

>>By LINZ OF ASTRA   (Wednesday, 12 Jan 2005 12:48)



Okay, if you can show any understanding of relativity or quantum mechanics, I'll listen. Heisenberg's uncertainty principle was not meant to, and does not, suggest that whatever you feel happy believing is the truth.

>>By Just Jon   (Thursday, 13 Jan 2005 05:12)



i dont have an affinity with a science, neither am I attatched to any empericist or theory..devotion to a thesis would be sentiment and i have none as the discipline is only a means..timid telos towards a more intrinsic, when i habour on the wonderful, its merely in the shape of aesthetics- the idle science of perceiving..this is not carried out with the intent of axiom, im appalled @ how discussion folk in this room range on devotion

>>By LINZ OF ASTRA   (Thursday, 13 Jan 2005 12:31)



Ill grant that science isn't necessarily a means to abslute truths...However, in a world that demands practical knowledge, it is clear which of our two approaches will be of higher value.

>>By Hume Ungus   (Tuesday, 1 Feb 2005 15:43)



Darwins whole THEORY has now been blown out of the water!!!DNA has rendered his works useless. DNA proves intelligent design. Sorry Charlie...
Lisa

>>By beanieweenie   (Friday, 1 Apr 2005 23:49)



DNA proves intelligent design...Really? How?

>>By Just Jon   (Saturday, 2 Apr 2005 08:36)



That's completely rediculous. I can't stand the assertions made by Intelligent Design advocates. Stick to speculative philosophy and stay away from science. You cannot posit a scientific theory based merely on an opinion of statistical analysis. Though statistical data is curcial for most theories, it can never be the one and only basis for reasoning. this idea of fine-tuning by a designer is interesting, no doubt, but way out of of the realm of science. Can an intelligent designer be falsified? If not, then scrap is as a scientific theory.

Im curious to know why you think DNA is proof of intelligent design? Is it its awesome complexity? If so, I should recommend a different line of thinking. To understand the power of cummulative evolution, you have to first understand time in a new way. Couple that with natural selection and a necessary pool of variety, and you will indeed arrive at things more complex than DNA.

>>By Hume Ungus   (Tuesday, 5 Apr 2005 15:47)



One of the first struggles Darwin had to overcome was the notion of Time in his age. The prevailing belief in his day was still the biblical history, stating that the earth was somewhere around 6,000 years old. Can this conclusively be denied? The honest answer is no. The practical and accepted answer to the question of whether the Earth is older than 6,000 years old is a definite yes. Darwin was a geologist first, and was keenly aware of the fact that geological processes were timely events. Couple that with the discovery of fossils in strange and unexpected places, such as fish fossils on mountaintops, and the picture becomes a bit more clear. Additionally, the curious fossils and living species that were similar if not ancestrally related appeared across oceans. Again, this was used and evidence to first establish that the Earth's history dated back well beyond the biblical hypothesis. This does not in itself demonstrate evolution or natural selection. It is part and not parcel of the theory. I believe that this was a crucial line of argumentation that had to be dealt with prior to any further theory of evolution. Obviously, for evolution to change the morphology of early replicating molecules into the species we see today, an incredible amount of time is required. Time is essential to the argument, and continues throughout the theory to be a vital factor for a deep and accurate conception of evolution.

>>By Hume Ungus   (Thursday, 14 Apr 2005 23:35)



and many had long held that evolution was an exclusively local thesis that doesn't fit into the grand scientific and metaphysical schema, but extrapolations can be made on a cosmological scale preceeding

>>By LINZ OF ASTRA   (Friday, 15 Apr 2005 19:33)



If we are looking at a universe with some uniformity (materially and fundamentally) then it seems likely, though not yet falsifiable, that biological evolution occurs throughout in various locations. It would be foolish to assume this blindly, of course, and foolish to assume that other planets harbor carbon-based life. Other complex protein molecules form from silicates as well, and could perhaps begin to self-replicate. What seems universal, if nature is to be believed, is that natural selection follows every time, by strict definition, because nature cannot be avoided at any time. This is not some kind of absolutism, but a scientific point of view, which Linz continually reminds me to reconsider.

I had a professor of Geoscience years ago who was developing a theory of Evolution for the crystallization of this certain mineral. It was a more or less local theory, in the sense that the crystals were fairly isolated and completely dependent on independent factors. In his theory, he first pointed out that some crystals form in layers and that one layer's pattern determined the next layer's, which then appeared nearly identical, save a few variations. As variation is a prerequisite for natural selection, he was able to extend the analogy further. The crystals seemed to produce something like an offspring in the biological sense, in that it passed on its own traits in the form of crystal-pattern arrangement. This pattern was the basis for the offspring crystal. Because some crystals had patterns that were slightly more likely to produce a strong crystal, while others had weaker patterns, the ones with the strongest arrangements tended to last long enough to produce several kid-crystals. They inherited the surviving patterns and youc an see the rest...One of the fun parts of his theory was what happened when a gust of wind picked up a few of these crystals and landed them in a foreign place where other crystals grew. The notion of inter-crystal competition becomes important. If the transported crystals survive the trip and are stronger than the existing crystals in the new spot, they will have a good chance of increasing their numbers quickly. Additionally, the concept of geographic isolation comes up, as the transportation of crystals forces them to survive under new conditions. The seperation from the mother "species" will almost always mean a speciation event is going to happen. Crystals would differ from our typical organisms with DNA when it comes to categorizational methods. The copying error rate for crystallization is higher than that of DNA so variation would be higher for crystals. One species may be short lived for crystals unless we have very broad qualifications for a species. This theory is fun, I think, though flawed in a few ways, primarily when it comes to defining life. Crystals are generally considered abiotic, despite their ability to undergo a process of replication. Perhaps in time we will regard them as something more lifelike?

>>By Hume Ungus   (Monday, 18 Apr 2005 13:14)



141 years ago the Origin of the Secies was written and not a shread of evidence to back up Darwins claims! He plunged into a leap of speculation with his assertions that isolated development applies to the entire planet with all plants and animals deriving from a common single source based upon observations of beak and tail feathers of finches on the Galopagos Islands.

Author James Perloff has an excellent work titled " Tornado in a Junkyard; The relentless myth of Darwinism" that debunks evolution and exposes many hoax's perpetrated by the "scientific community" over the past 125 years. No matter how far back Plaeontolgist dig, a man is still a man, a cow is still a cow...etc. The fossil record just does not exsist. The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as a dirty little secret among paleontologist. Thus it is called a "THEORY" an tenous at best...

The theory of evolution does provide the moral & social justification for modern science & socialism movements in a progressive utopian man/government utimately overthrowing any and all refernces to God or His creation. It tends to sooth mans consience in his rebellion toward God.

Intelligent Design is written all over the fabric of our DNA. The concept of "irreducibly complex" systems supports design rather than chance. Look at blood as just a small example. Computer Scientist David Foster, calculated the immprobabilty of hemoglobin as a chance event. The staggering odds against a chance event are 10 to the 650th power!!!
To put that in perspective, the mumber of stars in the universe are est. to be 10 to the 22nd and the number of protons in the universe is placed at approx. 10 to the 88th...this means that if favorable successive, slight modification occurred each second from the moment life began on Earth, the odds against hemoglobin developing would still be 10 to the 633rd power. If those amazing odds are not enough, the DNA of T4 bacteriophage has the odds of immprobability at 10 to the 78000th power...

Randomness does not exsist in our universe...Nor does evolution. God made it and says every single human being deep down knows it to be true...what more can I say Hume? Apology accepted.
Lisa

>>By beanieweenie   (Thursday, 21 Apr 2005 00:03)



and how would the extinction of species be fathomed

>>By LINZ OF ASTRA   (Thursday, 21 Apr 2005 12:28)



is it to be accounted for as the chantising of unsanctified species defiled in the cause of divinity..or is it a mere shortcoming due to the designated priority of selected species such as your 'Beings'>>> homo sapien sapien

>>By LINZ OF ASTRA   (Thursday, 21 Apr 2005 12:47)



The fossil record demonstrates that man and dinosaurs co exsisted on the earth...I believe the world wide flood is explaination enough for the extinction of certain creatures.

>>By beanieweenie   (Thursday, 21 Apr 2005 17:04)



Linz you sound very hostile...perhaps you have issues with God?

>>By beanieweenie   (Thursday, 21 Apr 2005 17:05)



It seems very often when an evolutionist is persented with immprobable odds there is a cynical backlash on the messenger presenting the odds and a slam regrading God ...very interesting reaction to be sure.

>>By beanieweenie   (Thursday, 21 Apr 2005 17:11)



I think the Ontological referance to God is an interminable way off from being comprehended judging by present standards of the day..and isn't it the ethos of the gospel to have God fighting his own battles..there seems to be a shift in accountability

>>By LINZ OF ASTRA   (Thursday, 21 Apr 2005 19:13)



we cannot be outcome based on our investigations..we end up 'bitting the bullet'

>>By LINZ OF ASTRA   (Thursday, 21 Apr 2005 19:15)



Hey beanie, i don't have issues with God(s) but i do have issues with human beings speaking for her/him/them.

Anyhoo without getting into a discussion about the minutiae of creationism/evolution and for the moment centering on some somewhat contradictory statements in your original 'argument'.

<Thus it is called a "THEORY" at tenous at best...>

Soooo not like the existence of God then. That's proven fact not theory right, requiring no faith whatsoever? Guess thats why they call em 'theologians' huh?
[actually thats something of a bastardisation of the etymological derivation of the word, though interestingly in light of what we`re discussing here Paul Tillic stated in "Systematic Theology," (1951) that "theology moves back and forth between two poles, the eternal truth of its foundations and the temporal situation in which the eternal truth must be received"]

<The theory of evolution does provide the moral & social justification for modern science & socialism movements in a progressive utopian man/government utimately overthrowing any and all refernces to God or His creation. >

Yes it does. Thankyou we're quite proud of that.

<Computer Scientist David Foster, calculated the immprobabilty of hemoglobin as a chance event. The staggering odds against a chance event are 10 to the 650th power!!!>
Forgive me I`m not familiar with his work. Is that as a single event or over the course of the entirety of natural history....Infinite monkeys, infinite typewriters etc.etc
Also, doubtless you're familiar with Dawkin's argument of personal incredulity?

Here's something for you to consider. That, since the dogma of your chosen faith has been communicated to through human beings (and, paradoxically according to that same dogma m MUST therefore have become flawed), perhaps there's room in your faith for the idea that God designed the evolutionary method? Perhaps you should (as a number of other organised religions have) evolve your own teachings and thinkings as our view of the world becomes more complete? Just an idea.

I ordinarily wouldn't comment on someone elses faith or belief system but i object to statements like
<Randomness does not exsist in our universe...Nor does evolution. God made it and says every single human being deep down knows it to be true >

Evolution does not exist? You're a nurse right? Fancy explaining to me (or a dying patient) how we now have certain strains of antibiotic resistant bacteria (not the ones with inherent resistance either) or mutated anti-retroviral resistant HIV (please DO NOT use arguments of arbritration lets keep it friendly). I appreciate these things differ slightly but if something changes over time due to environmental stressors is that not evolution...?
<...every single human being deep down knows it to be true>

I don't know that. And i've looked deep down into myself AND spoken to my god on a number of ocassions and he said not to worry about it anyway cause in the grand and spiritual scheme of things it doesn't mater.
(He also said same sex marriages are ok, so long as two people truly love each other he doesn't care what they do, all war is wrong and not what he had in mind and would people plese stop fighting with each other in his name (But it was noisy at the time and i may have misheard him).

Look forward to hearing your measured, considered responses and not the usual rhetoric that some other creation theorists have, in the past, occasionally, been accused of.

>>By docjay   (Friday, 22 Apr 2005 17:50)



You are here- I am here...God Is...and He would like to meet you personally to introduce Himself. You are a pot challanging a fellow pot to prove there is a potter...sorry I will not be pulled into the futility of such a discussion.

Now on to the next subject...Do mutated bacteria evolve into new species? The answer is of course not! They are still bacteria. Even given long periods of time and mutation a virus or bacteria will remain a virus or a bacteria, not a new species.
Mutation is understood with in the framework of the Law of Repetition. Mutation represents the irregularity in a uniform non-mutation life process. Mutation is the exception and not the rule, therefore discrediting evolution.

The persistance of life is contrary to what one would expect from the evolution model. After 425 million years, clams are still clams. If evolution were the rule...the clam would not exist as it does today.

If some told you a beautiful automobile just came to exist by it self, you would say "How ridiculous!!" Yet you would have me believe that "First there was nothing...then nothing exploded" It flies in the face of all universal law. Laws that were set into motion with peremiters and functions, not at "random"... All of our universal laws ie:gravity relativity etc. have designed properties. How does chance design??? How does chance create set function and laws...Lucy, you gotta lot of splain to do......
Lisa

>>By beanieweenie   (Sunday, 24 Apr 2005 21:11)



In the bacteria example...I didn`t say they had evolved into new soecies (and bear in mind that taxonomy is a human invention:bacteria don't know what they are) but they have evolved.
Therefore evolution exists.

>>By docjay   (Monday, 25 Apr 2005 12:32)



A very lazy reply docjay...somewhat dissappointed that is all you could come up with.
Evolution remains nonexistant...

>>By beanieweenie   (Monday, 25 Apr 2005 13:07)



Beanieweenie,

Don't misinterpret docjay's response as a resignation of the issue.

Chances are he, like myself, is too busy to correct all of your misconceptions about evolution. I've resisted this message board for quite some time because my past experience in these debates is that creationists are so uneducated about the intricacies about evolution, natural selection, etc, that it's impossible to hold an intelligent discussion with them about the topic.

You've already shared a little about what books are in your library. Now do yourself a favor and read some of the books IN FAVOR of evolution. Y'know, that whole open mind thing. You might be surprised by what you find.

And try to remember that evolution is simply change over time. The longer the time, the more potential there is for bigger changes. The fact that certain bacteria become resistant to things like penicillin is evidence of that change on a very small scale. I think that was docjay's point.

Finally, please try to lose the holier-than-thou attitude (no pun intended). Evolution says nothing about the existence of God, so you don't have to protect Him. In fact, docjay even acknowledged that God might use evolution as a mechanism to His own end; a notion you chose not to address in your responses. Nobody called you lazy, if I recall.............

>>By Majorette   (Monday, 25 Apr 2005 14:40)



Majorette, your comments are soooooo emotional. LOL Thanks for the instuction on which books to read. You represent the majority of "enlightened evolutionist" in that you bring nothing to the table but your emotions and little proofs for what you believe. I am a very busy RN and have little time but manage at least to contribute to the discussion some data...you on the other hand have only jumped to the defense of someoone I believe can defend his own position...as far as holier than thou...if being a creationist and believing in God makes me holier than thou in your eyes well so be it, but I have no corner on the holiness market. I didnt call docjay lazy, I said his reply was lazy...read a little better Majorette.
Regards

>>By beanieweenie   (Monday, 25 Apr 2005 15:56)



<<Majorette, your comments are soooooo emotional.>>

Really? Which ones, please?

<<you bring nothing to the table but your emotions and little proofs for what you believe. >>

I thought I'd start basic. That's why I clarified the definition of evolution for you. It's simply change over time. That's why I don't have a problem believing in it. There are many instances of species exhibiting widespread change over time. Bacteria are a common example because they reproduce so quickly. This rapid reproduction makes it easier to witness these changes (such as resistance to antibiotics). There are other examples, too. Certain "ring species" like the herring gull and the lesser black-backed full are textbook examples of two species that have diverged as a result of continuous changes across time and geography.

<<if being a creationist and believing in God makes me holier than thou in your eyes well so be it>>

Actually, it's these comments that gave me the 'holier than thou' impression:

<<Sorry Charlie...>>
<<what more can I say Hume? Apology accepted.>>
<<Linz you sound very hostile...perhaps you have issues with God?>>
<<Lucy, you gotta lot of splain to do......>>
<<A very lazy reply docjay>>

To me, they come across as taunting and arrogant. But perhaps I misinterpreted?

>>By Majorette   (Monday, 25 Apr 2005 17:36)



<<Don't misinterpret docjay's reponse as resignation of the issue>>
Did I say I did? No.

<<like myself, is to busy to correct all of your misconceptions...>>>

First Majorette this implies that my point of view is a misconception...second it implies that you have all the answers. Now that is what I call "Homo Arrogants". You take light hearted phrases and imply "holier than thou ".??? Third Hume wrote me an apology privately, that was my accepting of it...
Your implication that my library is somewhat inadequate is taunting and arogant...
I thought docjay and I were having a discussion, next thing I know I am being attacked by you....Whats up with the attitude? If a Christian Creationist point of view is unwelcome on this board than just come out and say so. But don't chastise my comments and library. We arn't kiddies here. I have not slandered or criticized anyones comments in favor of Evolution merely responded with a creation response. You have said I need to have an open mind...perhaps its you who needs to be a little more open minded.
Regards

>>By beanieweenie   (Monday, 25 Apr 2005 23:22)



It is difficult to approach your alternative suggestion, that God designed our universe. First, it seems odd that on the one hand you make an argument against the mechanism of natural selection and the theory of evolution based on insufficient evidence, while on the other hand, your claim that intelligent design is inferred from the 'irreducibly complex,' dilemma, an hypothesis which cannot be verified by observation. In order to discuss God's proper place in our body of understanding, we must decide if your abstract reasoning can give certain knowledge. How does this reasoning, which I believe has more to do with our general misconception of 'design,' overcome the next important question...If God designed the universe which is irreducibly complex, then must God not also be irreducibly complex? If that is so, shouldn't we infer, as before, that God was designed? Clearly this is a futile discussion, as no reasoning alone can begin to verify such speculation, and should on its own tell us that our presumptions about God's personality are well beyond the grounds of reason.

I think that the problems you posed are very much the kinds of hurdles one must overcome when explaining things like complex adaptations. The awesome physiology and anatomy of any species can impress our best engineers. The question of intelligent design must be answered based on what we know for certain about design. We know that humans design things. We differentiate objects like rocks from watches in a few ways. First, look at the degree of complexity in the object, the relationship of the parts to the whole, and the consequent particular function of the object. This alone does not imply design, because all things can be perceived as complex when you look close enough. What is important is the arrangement of parts, and the fact that an alternate arrangement would not produce an object with the same functions. Second, we apply previously acquired knowledge to the situation. In the case of a watch or a car, as you used, we can verify that it is designed because we have been given evidence of watch making and auto making activity in the past. This is supported by the fact that we understand their purposes. When we look at DNA and infer 'intelligent design,' the second and more important part of differentiation is missing. A logical slight of hand takes place, injecting the fact that humans design things into the conclusion that we were also designed, simply because we too are far too improbable to have occurred by chance, and that we reflect our own designed objects with regard to the relations of the parts to the whole. The analogy contains a fallacy. The organs systems on the macro-scale and the mitochondria on a much smaller scale both display an impressive degree of complexity. However, where is the evidence that we were designed like the watch or car? Where in our experience do we observe it happening? In the case of the watch, you see it happening in the watchmaker's shop. One of us may work at an automotive manufacturing plant. Where can we look in the physical universe for an explanation to our own existence? Is it a shop or a lab or something else?

Your statistical analysis of the situation is crammed with common misconceptions which work to ruin the intelligent design advocate's argument based on the first feature of differentiation. Evolution is not a theory of chance, for starters, and recognizing this forces one to consider the statistics differently. Biologists use the word ‘random’ when referring to mutation, in the sense that mutation has no inherent direction in terms of ‘good’ or ‘bad.’ In the more strict sense, even a mutation is non-random, as it can be shown to have definite physical causes, such as irregular radiation exposure or a copying error during DNA replication. Natural Selection is not random. It is the differential success of the most fit organisms. Selection is not random, but acts blindly, in the sense that it cannot be shown to have motive, simply results.
That said, a new approach is required for the explanation of the complex proteins your mentioned. It is not the suggestion of scientists that protein molecules such as DNA simply formed by chance. A degree of 'chance' is required, but the theory purports that small steps which, on their own are not statistically overly improbable, are the building blocks for complex adaptations. One example of how we misperceive improbability is the following...Say there is a box filled with paper, and each piece of paper has a number on it. There are three-hundred million pieces and the numbers between 1 and three hundred million appear once each, one for their own sheet. You pick one at random. The odds that you get any one number are 1 in three-hundred million. That is somewhat improbable, as there are 299,999 alternatives. But when you do grab a sheet, you have a number, and you do not say to yourself, "this was too improbable so it must not have happened." That would be absurd. Similarly, the earliest replicators must have come about in a like manner. DNA is believed to have a simpler replicating ancestor. The improbability was perhaps large from our ignorant point of view, but not that improbable from a more accurate point of view which understands that in the world of improbability, such protein structures are quite likely.

You mention a book that details the statistical analysis of chance formations. A useful and related metaphor is the 747 jumbo jet scenario. In a junkyard full of all of the necessary parts to construct a jumbo jet, scattered about randomly, a strong wind comes in. What are the chances that the wind will blow the parts into just the right arrangement so as to form the 747? The odds are astronomically improbable, and there is little reason to believe it would happen, as there are disproportionately more ways to be wrong than right. This is how evolution is presented far too often, where the 747 represents an irreducibly complex species or even a hemoglobin molecule, far too improbable to have come about by chance. If the 747 represents a species, and we accept that this could not happen by chance alone, then what else could explain it?

Slow, step-by-step development, or cumulative growth, seems to be a reasonable direction to look. But getting too theoretical right off the bat is dangerous. What does observation tell us? We should all admit that within the human species, there is a great variety of traits, including anatomical and physiological differences, as well as behavioral and psychological differences. Variety is an essential key to cumulative results. Our observation also tells us, and is verifiable over and over again, that many of these traits are heritable. Because variety does exist, and some of the traits we exhibit are heritable, the next question is, in what ways does this variety make our survival experiences different? Are some traits better than others? It all depends on the environment, clearly, and many examples throughout the animal kingdom show this. Does the fastest Cheetah have more hunting success than the slowest? What does it mean to compete and win? What happens when, on average, the fastest cheetahs in a population out compete the slower cheetahs, and then breed twice as often as the slowest? It means that their genes will pass on many more times. The next generation, on average, should be more like the successful cheetahs in the previous generation than the less successful. Using this kind of logic, you don't need make a drastic leap when explaining how complex adaptations could have come about from less complex forms. The observation allows us to correctly understand how the parts in their current relation to each other and the whole weren't all present and arranged the same a long time ago in our ancestors. Modifications over long periods of time, which on their own, do not exceed the drastic improbability of coming about by chance, cumulate, often resulting in more complex forms. You show pretty clearly a resistance and degree of ignorance with regard to speciation. Bacteria are not a species. Within the set of organisms classified as Bacteria, various species exist. The reproduction rate of bacteria is usually fast enough to produce observable results in a relatively short amount of time. Doc J nicely points out that taxonomy is a human prerogative, and bacteria cells aren't aware of their own specie classification. The idea that clams are clams today, and were clams millions of years ago, therefore they haven't evolved, therefore evolution isn't accurate, is a misconception. It primarily goes back to the issue of Time, but includes the fact that speciation events are not constantly happening to every population. Mutation is typically selected against, not for, in nature. When conditions remain stable for a million years, mutations provide no differential benefit, and geographic isolation of a population does not occur, then a species is likely to stop evolving (on a macro evolutionary scale) until something in the system changes, like a weather pattern or geological event. This is the kind of thinking that does the situation justice, not simply saying, willy nilly, that evolution doesn’t happen. Meanwhile, microevolution, which is to say, change in a population that is reversible or not a permanent feature, continues simply as a result of the given facts, that variety exists, some traits which vary are heritable, and traits differ in degree and kind of benefit or detriment to an organism in a given condition. Supporting this entire line of argument is the observational verification that clearly shows the close relationship between an organism's structure/function and the environmental conditions in which it is found.


Replicating strands of molecules, in our case, protein chains and genes, are observably complex and hard to explain because we have to rely on today's evidence for millions of years ago. We can't rightly believe, as you pointed out, that such things as the complex protein strands of today could have come about by mere chance like the 747 in a windstorm the odds are too great for one giant leap like that. If we assume natural selection, then we have to assume, based on the statistics that a more probable and therefore less complex strand was our earliest ancestor. Luckily, the rate of replication for the first, more simple replicators, who's chance existence was presumably much better than randomly forming hemoglobin, was so fast that natural selection pressured them into a speedy bout of evolution. Couple that with thousands of millions of years and a dense early feeding ground. Change, in the general direction of increased complexity, has resulted in the existence of millions of species. It requires all of the factors I explained, which are evident, and a good amount of time. Mutation, which is usually a detriment, as well as the genetic shuffling from sexual reproduction, provides the basis for variety in a system. It is also evident that the environment pressures us at all times. The results are inevitable, like setting up an algorithm and hitting run.

In this theory, each problem that comes up must be explained and verified by extensive observation and experimentation. It offers accurate predictions, though we still have so much more to uncover. It would be wrong of me to state as fact that my description of the early replicators is the truth. That is beyond what we can positively verify. It is admittedly theoretical, as it must be, and will never be verified except within the realm of laboratory experimentation, which should never be mistaken for a true replication of the actual past. That uncertainty seems to scare most people. In this state of some uncertainty, wild explanations are often created. Where in the world is the support for your alternative position? Is it a real argument to simply state what you believe? I think the problem I offered in the first part of my response, concerning the dilemma that God should also be irreducible complex and therefore designed too, is enough to at least throw doubt on popular conceptions of God. The idea of God wanting to know you personally is so presumptuous. This type of faith based believing is not compatible with a system of belief that "stays close to the phenomenon." Even assuming God's existence, which is intellectually dangerous, how can we attain knowledge of God's behavior? We receive messages from the God? Simple communication models show the points where information is subject to modification. What makes us so certain that the message we perceive is faithful to the message that was sent? Why does the common conception of God resemble human qualities? Doesn't history and anthropological fields show over and over again the evolution of religions and the remarkable correlation of religious dogma to cultural tradition and mythology? Just as higher mathematics, so abstract and imaginary, must always be dragged back to earth, which is to say that it is only sound when it applies to something actual and accountable, our reasoning in general should stay close to earthly events. When reason flies off and relates no longer to what we perceive through the senses, it loses its value.
Sadly, I think that the question of God is dominated by theological perspectives which typically rely on the assumption that God does in fact exist. So what is the point of the question? It is disappointing to think that so many people are out there defining God when the reality is that we really have no basis for such speculation. On top of the lazy assumption, which is justified more from the attack on opposing points of views (ridiculous mentioning of Evolution as a "tenuous theory at best") and character than it is on its own merits, some people want to completely leave their critical minds behind and delve into a world of fantastic beliefs. I agree with a prior posting that belief in Evolution does not negate or even examine the possibility of God. Strangely, a common argument against Evolution is based on this major misconception. It is completely arrogant, I think, to say that evolution flies in the face of the truth when the supposed truth is merely rooted in intangible rationalizations. Must everyone weigh evidence in the light of such 'truth?'

>>By Hume Ungus   (Tuesday, 26 Apr 2005 01:49)



Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
The discussion board is currently closed.