Chance or Design?

[alainbryden]

And may just highlights the fact that it is a theory and not a fact. No one is trying to pull the wool over your eyes. It is merely the most reasonable explanation that exists. No one ever pretended that it is fact, because unlike religion, they science is not trying to brainwash you into believing their every word. They only pose the most moddern ideas. Just because science says "may" to be honest about their uncertainty, and religion says "it is so", it does not make their naive certainty truth. Religion does, afterall, target individuals like you, who are not looking for the most factual idea, just the person who best sells it to you.

[QreepyBORIS]

Studies have shown that religious Christian zealots and sheep evolved from the same one-celled organism.

Evolution, because it makes alot of things make sense.

[DonCasablanca]

Read Genome, by Matt Ridley, or any genetics textbook, and understand the incredibly straightforward mechanism by which evolution happens. I would have hoped that most of the folks here would insist on taking this beyond this ridiculous, 4th grade textbook understanding of evolution.

For God's sake (sorry), it seems like some of us distrust the very idea of science: but how on earth should we define "facts" other than theories with excellent evidence? Look at the fossil record, look at genetics, and see that the theory of evolution is undeniable fact.

OBVIOUSLY: as humanity pursues science, as we "clear the forests of ignorance" around us, we only discover how infinitely vast those forests are.

OF COURSE: we don't have all the answers, as Aquinas put simply in his five proofs -- if all things have a cause, there must be an original cause. At that point -- the first cause -- as an Episcopalian, I look to God.

Can we religious folk please try to understand God as something meaningful?! As a human idea, as an expression of what makes life worth living -- of love, beauty, and yes, even reason, even science? Please, believe at least in the idea of science. Also, recognize that if a whole lot of very bright, well-informed people take evolution as fact, you probably don't know enough about it to deride it as ridiculous (PICK UP A TEXTBOOK -- THIS "IT'S TOO UNLIKELY" ARGUMENT IS WAY BESIDE THE POINT).

Please, just get on living your life in God's love. Appreciate the gift of reason, and then, please exercise it.

[Eridor]

Also, recognize that if a whole lot of very bright, well-informed people take evolution as fact, you probably don't know enough about it to deride it as ridiculous

I think that may be a bit too harsh. I, personally, have spent a lot of time researching the evidence and principles for both sides. If you read some of my other posts, you'll note that (except for the last one or two where I was replying to topics based on the Bible) I have stuck to pure scientific reason. Thus far, I have "dug up" some very compelling evidence for intelligent design (see other posts). Not only that, but there is an equal amount of very bright, well-informed people that support intelligent design, Johnathon Sarfati for instance. (If you're not sure who he is, look him up. He is a very interesting character.)

What I have not done is say that I just refuse to believe in evolution because it goes against all of my other beliefs. Instead, I have given evidence that contrasts with evolution.

No one ever pretended that it is fact, because unlike religion, they science is not trying to brainwash you into believing their every word.

If this is true, then why do so many people have a problem with intelligent design being taught in the classroom setting? Like you said, evolution is only a theory, not undeniable fact, so it shouldn't be taught as the only alternative in today's society.

Also, I need not remind you that this is not yet another discussion about whether the bible is to be interpreted literally or even trusted as much as a science fiction novel.

Thank you. This is exactly what I was saying when I started this topic.

[DonCasablanca]

I, personally, have spent a lot of time researching the evidence and principles for both sides. If you read some of my other posts, you'll note that (except for the last one or two where I was replying to topics based on the Bible) I have stuck to pure scientific reason. Thus far, I have "dug up" some very compelling evidence for intelligent design (see other posts).

Eridor, in your particular case:

Sorry, this thread is the victim of its first reply (from Chromer), which set a tone (adopted by both sides of the argument) that I projected (perhaps unfairly) onto your posts (one more parenthetical for good measure). But still, while you may have "stuck to pure scientific reason", you haven't applied that reason to nearly enough evidence -- what's more, you're applied it to evidence that is factually incorrect.

In regard to this: The Darwin's finches theory has been discarded as an example of evolution because the Galapagos finches are not a different species from the mainland finches. The Galapagos finches apparently were forced to adapt to their environment when the only food to be found was nuts. This caused them to have larger beaks so that they could crack the nuts open, while the mainland finches, whose diet consisted of insects and berries, didn't have a need for that particular feature.

Ummmm ... I don't know how to say this ...

You're right, Darwin's Galapagos finches were not a different species from the mainland finches.

They were 13 different species of finch, descended from their mainland ancestor: Geospiza magnitrostis, G. fortis, G. fuliginosa, G. difficilis ... the list continues. And I have no idea how your brief description of forces of selection (above) lends to your argument.

As for your other vague "very compelling argument" about microevolution being unable to explain macroevolution, you (as I said in my last) need to read a genetics textbook. There is a huge variety of mutational forces at work on our DNA, and exponentially more in less and less complex creatures. These are not just replication errors, not just "old DNA being shuffled around". Go to the NCBI website and search for "mechanisms of mutation" under "books" (they have free textbooks online) and find out how frequently. For starters, mammalian cells have to try to repair several varieties of spontaneous mutations (let alone those caused by transposons, or UV light, or carcinogens) in about 10,000 bases of their DNA in a 20-hour cell-generation period at 37 degrees celsius. Remember that 3 bases codes for a single amino acid.

Read more about this, get your facts straight, and make some more compelling arguments. Sorry to be inflamatory, but I'm up to my elbows in a genetics course right now, and this is very much on my mind.

[Chromer]

I never "victimized" anything. I stated my opinions and thus stand by them. Simple as that.

[ayanepuck]

I never "victimized" anything. I stated my opinions and thus stand by them. Simple as that.

And I respect you for that...but we are doing the same. That is why I think this thread is pointless...how many people are going to change their minds?

[DonCasablanca]

Chromer, ayanepuck,

Why on earth would you bother with this if you are only willing to "stand by your opinions"? For the useful contributors here, this is a discussion, where ideas are presented and defended. If you have no explanation as to why you stand by your opinions/beliefs, or are just unwilling to defend them, this forum isn't for you. I hope.

People may well change their minds if an argument is reasonably refuted. For instance, for those of you who don't believe in the capacity for genetic material to mutate enough to explain natural selection, I've suggested strong evidence to the contrary. Again, that is the idea of discussion.

[Eridor]

I'm up to my elbows in a genetics course right now, and this is very much on my mind.

You see, I am also "up to my elbows" in a genetics course right now, so I already know what you are talking about. By "shuffling around" what I mean is that mutations are caused by an amino acid in the polypeptide chain being damaged by an external source which causes it to either be removed from the code or replaced by another amino acid. The DNA then replicates and (if the mutation is not corrected) creates more mutated DNA. This would be considered "shuffling" since there isn't any new information being produced. The old information has just been changed slightly.

My point with the finches was that (and I probably should have used genus instead of species) they are still birds. If they had evolved separately, they should be completely different from each other, and yet they have only external differences. Their DNA is the same (by this I mean the same way all human DNA is the same with slight variation).

There is a huge variety of mutational forces at work on our DNA, and exponentially more in less and less complex creatures.

This is hugely contradictory. Evolution states that at some point, bacteria were dominant and that they evolved into more and more "complex" creatures. However, being bigger and having more organs does not make something more complex. Recent research shows that bacteria are some of the most complex organisms on the planet! This is especially evident with flagella. I think this point was made earlier on, but the way a bacterium's flagellum is designed lets it stop, start, or make a ninety degree turn on a dime. Not only is it more efficient than many of the motors that we have designed, it is also a fraction of the size of the smallest motor that we have designed. Scientists are presently studying the internal workings of the flagella and have found that:

"Like an electrical motor, the flagellum contains a rod (drive shaft), a hook (universal joint), L and P rings (bushings/bearings), S and M rings (rotor), and a C ring and stud (stator). The flagellar filament (propeller) is attached to the flagellar motor via the hook. To function completely, the flagellum requires over 40 different proteins. The electrical power for driving the motor is supplied by the voltage difference developed across the cell (plasma) membrane."

All of this is made out of protein. I don't see what is simple about that.

[DonCasablanca]

Eridor,

What sort of genetics course are you taking? I think you're trying to get by with a vague understanding from an intro Bio course. Mutations caused by ... damage to proteins themselves? I hope that was just unelegantly phrased. I'm sorry, but I don't have anything like the patience required to explain this to you. Please, please, go to www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov (if you were taking a genetics course, you would already be very familiar with GENBANK) and read at least the first chapter of Modern Genetic Analysis.

At least concede your several other logical slips: the genetic code is like any other language (although with only four letters, which form only 20 three-letter words, plus some punctuation). You have to understand that if letters spontaneously change, and quite often, some vqry dityeremt wpdrs are formed. If you did this to the Bible (and again, believe me, there are a lot more interesting mechanisms of drastic mutation than the point mutations you may or may not understand), you could eventually get Tolstoy. That is, in fact, new information by any definition.

As for your rebuttal on the finches, you defeat your own argument. You specifically refer to how little DNA has to mutate to differentiate human beings (and birds) from one another -- perhaps you don't understand taxonomy; these different species of finch can't produce fertile offspring when cross-bred. They are about as different from one another as human beings are different from chimpanzees -- we "have only external differences" as you say. But I think you'll agree that they're significant differences, unless you intend to do some terrible things with chimps (which, I'll warn you, are felonies I think).

As for your last point ... wow. Definitely aren't learning much in your genetics course -- you know that bacterial genomes only have about 100,000 base-pairs of DNA, while human beings' have 100 million? That sounds a lot less complex to me. Speaking of flagella, ever seen pictures of sperm? Our genomes make those just fine. For God's sake, our genomes assemble trillions of cells into undeniably the most complex creatures on earth, while most bacterial genomes, even with their flagella, assemble a single cell with a 30-minute life-cycle.

There are just too many ways to express how ridiculous your last "point" is. I give up.

You've made your arguments a lot less compelling, I'm afraid.

[DonCasablanca]

Already discussed?