oh, and on a side note, what's with all the darwin references? is this text fixation a by product of using the bible to explain everything in your lives? wallace came up with many of the same ideas independently of darwin--and both of them over a century ago. if you wanted to learn about astronomy would you look to copernicus' writings? perhaps if you were interested in the history of astronomy. but when criticizing the current state of ideas, you'd be wise to look to the current research.
Genetics and evolution
- Thread starter KillVols
- Start date
blackumbrella said:
And just where are YOU and COBamaFan getting YOURS? Sometimes a person has to have something besides what they know in their heads to back up their statements. Plus people like you are always yelling, "GIVE ME A LINK", so then when they give you a link, you complain about that too. Geeeezzzzz!!!!!
You - umbrella - used to do nothing but cut and paste when you first came to this forum. Remember?
:biggrin:
blackumbrella said:
I figure Becca is short for Rebecca - hardly a man's name, and by some of the comments you and COBamaFan have made along the way, I presume you're both men. But I apologize Ms. Umbrella for thinking you're a guy - lol!
:biggrin:
blackumbrella said:
Our side hasnt. Yours has: Becca
Okay, so let’s expand the discussion to include evolution as a concept, not merely limiting it to Darwin’s theory. That way we won’t limit ourselves to a discussion just on natural selection (which I don’t contest as a means for variation and minor speciation within a family). The concept of evolution after all, was around long before Darwin. After clearing up the misconception that the quotations didn’t mean anything, do you deny that the concept of evolution shows a connection to the origin of life? You do concede that the concept of evolution encompasses many theories and hypotheses, don't you? What about chemical evolution? Would that fall under the concept of evolution?
You may find this site interesting.
http://www.grisda.org/origins/03009.htm
The following is an excerpt from the paper located on this site which was written by an Associate Professor of Biochemistry and a Senior, in the Department of Chemistry. The title of the paper is “Chemical Evolutionâ€Â
The chemical investigations that have developed from efforts to support the ideas set forth in Darwin's The Origin of Species (1) have given rise to a biochemical hypothesis which attempts to explain the origin of life as an evolutionary progression from simple prebiotic molecules to the complex and integrate biomolecules of today's living organisms. Whether these organisms are as complex as man or as simple as an amoeba, the biochemical evolutionist assumes that both ultimately arose by the transformation of simple molecules into an exceedingly intricate living system.
Such efforts are based on the assumption that life emerged spontaneously on the surface of the primitive earth after normal chemical processes had brought carbon-containing molecules to a stage of complexity that would make a living organism possible.
These excerpts not only point to the connection between Darwin’s theory and the origins of life, but also to the fact that biochemical evolutionists make assumptions based on their biases.
I’m sure that you would love to just ignore my statements. That would certainly make things a lot easier for you.
There is another post where it is pointed out that evolution didnt start with Darwin. AGAIN, if you had read the thread you would know.
blackumbrella said:
Im not saying they are Zombies.
Starting out with the assumption of evolution before testing taints the results.. If the results do not fit this assumption it is considered corrupt sample or what have you. COB will have you believe that they do not do this but facts are just the opposite. Some things are up for debate, this is not one of them. This happens almost every time. That's why I don't think he is being intellectually honest.. That's the point I was trying to make.
Indoctrination may have been to strong of a word to use.. I was trying to make the point about the Christian community.
Many "educated people" in history wouldn't be so educated if came through a time machine to 2005. I suspect there will continue to be a gap. My point is starting this thread was to show how new information in the last 5 to 10 years has really put the old theory of evolution under fire. As our knowledge continues to grow at this rapid rate this topic will be more and more troublesome to the non-believers. The people that must not let that "Devine foot in the door"
In the 80's in was more of a faith thing... Now it's different... a more compleling scientific case can be made for a different point of view.
BTW- There are a lot of "educated people" that totaly disagree.
blackumbrella said:
It is actually left wing nut naturalist appreciation week in Waco
Come on down, we are serving some really good BBQ.
blackumbrella said:
COBamaFan is actually the one who insists on sticking to Darwin’s particular theory. I have tried to expand the topic to encompass the evolution of life as an overall idea with the basis being that all living things started out in a simple form and increased in complexity over time.
COBamaFan said:
Regarding objectivity, I don’t mean to imply that all scientists are purposefully being deceitful and slanted in regards to the data. I think it would be safe to say that most scientists working in evolutionary sciences (pertaining to the evolution of life as a whole) are working from a naturalistic, materialistic standpoint. Even those that believe that God kicked everything off, evidently believe that everything after life began occurred naturalistically. So it’s not necessarily an overt attempt at deception, it’s simply the way they think. This is where the assumption comes in. By definition, naturalism is a theory that denies that an event or object has a supernatural significance; specifically : the doctrine that scientific laws are adequate to account for all phenomena (Merriam-Webster), materialism is a theory that physical matter is the only or fundamental reality and that all being and processes and phenomena can be explained as manifestations or results of matter. Thereby denying God’s involvement and starting with the assumption of no involvement from God. They may not even realize that they are starting with an assumption.
COBamaFan said:
You mean the best NATURALISTIC explanation.
COBamaFan said:
How about the flaggelum as evidence for creation and against evolution? It is an amazingly complex appendage attached to a cells surface that propels the cell. It is attached to and rotated by a motor made up of 40 different proteins.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4192msc1-10-2000.asp
Surely you don’t think this cell could have increased in complexity, step by step over a long period of time. In fact, it wouldn’t function if any of the parts were missing. I really didn’t hear much about irreducible complexity from your side of the fence.
I don’t think the information “rant†as COB so kindly put it has been shown to be wrong. This person refuting the information argument in the post we were linked to was simply ignoring the definition we gave for information. Information is defined as a complexity of a sequence – not depending on the matter of the sequence (i.e the photons, electrons and neutrons themselves) but the nucleotides, amino acids that they combine together to make. For the purposes of our discussion, the complexity of the sequence of a DNA strand.
bamabake said:
there you go fixating on darwin again. i'll read the article, but for now let me just comment on it with three words: "Loma Linda University". notice that their mission statement is 'integrating science and faith.' talk about starting from an assumption. and if you'd read my post, you'd see i never claimed scientists don't make assumptions, but that
bamabake said:
AGAIN, i have read the thread. maybe you should do the same, bc AGAIN, i never said it did start with darwin. anyone with highschool bio knows his pawpaw, erasmus, was an evolutionist as well. were you absent that day?
BeccaBama said:
yes, i think that's accurate. but of course, nonnaturalistic explanations are also nonscientific bc they're untestable. to say "X created the universe as we know it" is valid explanation, but of course, you can plug in just about anything for X, and it will still be valid; X=god, X=aliens, X=omnipotent woolyboogers. in fact, as long as X is characterized as omnipotent of beyond our understanding, the proposition is still valid.
these folks do flagellum not irreducibly complex
and i've seen
the irreducible complexity of the eye argument similarly shattered.that line of discussion seems interesting, but extremely vague. you've replaced the vague term 'information' with two more vague terms 'complexity' (where do you draw the line btwn complex and simple?) and 'sequence' (are two of something a sequence?). please clarify.
blackumbrella said:
You goober. GO back and read the text from my last post. You copied words from Becca that I reposted to show that we are not fixated on Darwin. Maybe you speed read these things.
blackumbrella said:
Isn’t the Big Bang a Scientific theory on how the universe came to be? Is that testable? If not, how can it be scientific?
blackumbrella said:
I don’t know if I would say shattered. Evolution still relies on some undetermined extensive amount of time, chance mutation, and natural selection to account for all of these incredibly complex supposed stages.
blackumbrella said:
More specifically, we would be talking about specified complexity as a key feature of life.
This is the general idea behind specified complexity, without getting into the intricacies of DNA strands.
here's whereBeccaBama said:
NASA is testing it.
yep that's the idea.
this isn't helping much. the letter analogy is esp troubling, language being a sign system whose meaning--which i guess is what's meant by 'inofrmation'-- is largely culturally dependant, whereas genetic 'information' is well understood as a physical process. maybe you could link me to the quote.
It seems like you’re putting a lot of faith in the idea that a lot of time and chance mutation could produce the conditions necessary for natural selection to take effect to produce theses complex stages over and over. Aren’t mutations generally harmful? Mistakes really? Of course, they are not always harmful, but I think that is the general rule. So not only does a mutation have to occur by chance, but it would also need to be beneficial to produce such a level of complexity. The mathematical odds of that happening over and over to produce the complexity and variety of life as we know it today are astronomical, even if you do assume you had billions of years for it to occur.
The difference between Creationism and Evolution is that we put our faith in the Holy Bible, God’s Word. You put your faith in time and chance mutation.
You say that my explanation of specified complexity is troubling because it was referring to language, but DNA actually is a language, a code that communicates information to a cell. Here’s a link that can clarify all of this for you.
http://www.origins.org/articles/thaxton_dnadesign.html
The difference between Creationism and Evolution is that we put our faith in the Holy Bible, God’s Word. You put your faith in time and chance mutation.
You say that my explanation of specified complexity is troubling because it was referring to language, but DNA actually is a language, a code that communicates information to a cell. Here’s a link that can clarify all of this for you.
http://www.origins.org/articles/thaxton_dnadesign.html
BeccaBama said:
actuqlly, you put your faith in there being a god and the bible being its word. i put mine in a system of investigation and that the agility of that system to self-correct actually constitutes improvement.
the interpretation of dna as a language is crucial to the argument of the paper insofar as language displays intentionality--if language displays intentionality, and dna is a language, then dna displays intentionality, and thus entails an intelligent source--but this is exactly where the paper fails. dna, its self-replication, the synthesis of proteins that follow from its arrangement of nucleotides: all are understood in terms of physical processes. written language is a symbolic description of spoken language, both od which are arbitrary systems of convention. so the grapheme 'g' that stands for the phoneme /g/, or in other contexts, other phonemes such as in lau'g'h or ou'g'ht, could just as well have been the grapheme 'l' or '8' or '$'--it's completely arbitrary. in dna, the physical characteristics of the 'letters' are what determine the processes that follow. so the dna=language analogy is grossly oversimplified by the author. furthermore, information is not the same as meaning. i can understand seeing dna as genetic information, but intentionality, meaning, don't follow from it. the famous demonstration of this comes from philosopher john searle's chinese room argument--if a guy who doesn't speak chinese is in a room with two slots, an 'in' and an 'out', and receives messages written in chinese through the 'in' slot, then looks up the ideographs in a book and, according to instructions, copies down other ideographs and passes them through the 'out' slot, then the guy has effectively communicated information in chinese, without ever understanting the meaning. so the author's necessary equation of information with intention is also fallacious.
A system that is currently investigating a theory that is based largely on the faith that time and chance mutation can create complex scenarios that would allow natural selection to take effect.
Generally, when speaking about DNA, language is an analogy that is commonly used.
You say: in dna, the physical characteristics of the 'letters' are what determine the processes that follow
Genetics 101 says: The order, or sequence, of these bases determines the information available for building and maintaining an organism, similar to the way in which letters of the alphabet appear in a certain order to form words and sentences.
http://www.mydna.com/genes/genetics/genetics101/genetics_dnagene.html
I don’t think it was implied that DNA understood the message, being that it isn’t a living being, therefore not capable of understanding. It is simply the code that transmits the message. This brings us directly to the question in point. Where did the code come from? Did a code as complex as DNA arise over a whole bunch of time because of a bunch of chance mutations?
Generally, when speaking about DNA, language is an analogy that is commonly used.
You say: in dna, the physical characteristics of the 'letters' are what determine the processes that follow
Genetics 101 says: The order, or sequence, of these bases determines the information available for building and maintaining an organism, similar to the way in which letters of the alphabet appear in a certain order to form words and sentences.
http://www.mydna.com/genes/genetics/genetics101/genetics_dnagene.html
I don’t think it was implied that DNA understood the message, being that it isn’t a living being, therefore not capable of understanding. It is simply the code that transmits the message. This brings us directly to the question in point. Where did the code come from? Did a code as complex as DNA arise over a whole bunch of time because of a bunch of chance mutations?
Now for a little common sense absurdity… hehe
Ah the good old time and chance… I wonder what we will evolve into next? Maybe flying brains? I sure could have used an extra pair of arms and hands, no telling what I could do with that! Come to think of it an extra eye in the back of my head would have been useful. An eye that has a little more protection around it could help. Kind of easy to go blind… so fragile.
I also find that having to breathe in and out is awful cumbersome and not nearly effective as being able to simply absorb oxygen like the first creature did before lungs developed.
Why develop a system where I can easily suffocate if my piehole is obstructed in some way. Why two of everything?? Three would be a big advantage don’t you think? Three eyes, ears, nostrils, arms and legs. I wonder why one wasn’t enough and three was too many. But one was enough for the heart but not the lungs. This is kind of fun. If I had two dorks I could pass on twice as many offspring twice as fast! We would have been much better served with wings. I also don’t understand why we lost all that hair, staying warm is very important to survival. I know the missing link did not have a fur coat to put on for all of those years.
I wonder why no other animal has yet developed the ability to even know it’s going to die one day. Just us humans.
One would think we would have come out quite different if we were here as a result of time, chance and natural selection.. There are so many selections that seem to make more sense and certainly be an advantage to survival. So many keep coming to mind… like at what point did was it not a good thing to be 15 feet tall and extremely strong. At some point we had to stop growing in this direction. When and why was there a day where the weak, short, hairless ape was better fit for survival in the ape community? It would seem the taller, stronger, warmer type would have continued on…
I guess if we were made by design it would be easier to understand why we are how we are.
This may also be why there is such a dogmatic attempt not to mix the origin of life with our evolution and natural selection.. Or even talk about those early creatures that first crawled their way out of the primordial goo as a starting point to this discussion. I would not want to either if I were on the other side of the fence. Hard case to make from any point in time but seems more absurd when you start at the beginning. :biggrin2:
Ah the good old time and chance… I wonder what we will evolve into next? Maybe flying brains? I sure could have used an extra pair of arms and hands, no telling what I could do with that! Come to think of it an extra eye in the back of my head would have been useful. An eye that has a little more protection around it could help. Kind of easy to go blind… so fragile.
I also find that having to breathe in and out is awful cumbersome and not nearly effective as being able to simply absorb oxygen like the first creature did before lungs developed.
Why develop a system where I can easily suffocate if my piehole is obstructed in some way. Why two of everything?? Three would be a big advantage don’t you think? Three eyes, ears, nostrils, arms and legs. I wonder why one wasn’t enough and three was too many. But one was enough for the heart but not the lungs. This is kind of fun. If I had two dorks I could pass on twice as many offspring twice as fast! We would have been much better served with wings. I also don’t understand why we lost all that hair, staying warm is very important to survival. I know the missing link did not have a fur coat to put on for all of those years.
I wonder why no other animal has yet developed the ability to even know it’s going to die one day. Just us humans.
One would think we would have come out quite different if we were here as a result of time, chance and natural selection.. There are so many selections that seem to make more sense and certainly be an advantage to survival. So many keep coming to mind… like at what point did was it not a good thing to be 15 feet tall and extremely strong. At some point we had to stop growing in this direction. When and why was there a day where the weak, short, hairless ape was better fit for survival in the ape community? It would seem the taller, stronger, warmer type would have continued on…
I guess if we were made by design it would be easier to understand why we are how we are.
This may also be why there is such a dogmatic attempt not to mix the origin of life with our evolution and natural selection.. Or even talk about those early creatures that first crawled their way out of the primordial goo as a starting point to this discussion. I would not want to either if I were on the other side of the fence. Hard case to make from any point in time but seems more absurd when you start at the beginning. :biggrin2:
KillVols said:
I would not want to either if I were on the other side of the fence. Hard case to make from any point in time but seems more absurd when you start at the beginning. :biggrin2:[/QUOTE
It is like argday. Just us humans.
One would think we would have come out quite different if we were here as a result of time, chance and natural selection.. There are so many selections that seem to make more sense and certainly be an advantage to survival. So many keep coming to mind… like at what point did was it not a good thing to be 15 feet tall and extremely strong. At some point we had to stop growing in this direction. When and why was there a day where the weak, short, hairless ape was better fit for survival in the ape community? It would seem the taller, stronger, warmer type would have continued on…
I guess if we were made by design it would be easier to understand why we are how we are.
This may also be why there is such a dogmatic attempt not to mix the origin of life with our evolution and natural selection.. Or even talk about those early creatures that first crawled their way out of the primordial goo as a starting point to this discussion. I would not want to either if I were on the other side of the fence. Hard case to make from any point in time but seems more absurd when you start at the beginning. :biggrin2:[/QUOTE]
I would not want to either if I were on the other side of the fence. Hard case to make from any point in time but seems more absurd when you start at the beginning. :biggrin2:[/QUOTE
It is like arguing with the abortion lovers out there. Most of them cant admit that life begins at conception. At the BEGINNING. They want to talk about it either sometime after or not at all. If they allowed themselves to follow the logic of it all backwards they would be forced to admit some things they currently ignore. Evolutionist face the same challenge.
KVs what about all of the "other" animals out there currently that missed out on things like going to the opera, developing vaccines.. If a donkey knew he was a donkey he would die of bordom. Hard to believe after all of the eons and all that we are the only ones that "made it". I feel so lucky today. The few, the proud, the self aware.
Last edited:
I looked in the mirror this morning in hopes there would be a couple of nubs on my back so that I know some day my offspring would have a good set of wings to get around with... the traffic jams are getting to be a pain and we wont be able to survive if we can't get to work on time. Of course this usless growing of nubs won't be ready to do something until they fully form a few million years from now.
Thank you very much for playing, have a good day!
Thank you very much for playing, have a good day!
Hehehehe - y'all are soooooo funnnneeeeee.
Hey - I KNOW why we don't have a nice fur coat to keep us warm. If we'd been born with "clothes" on already, why what would Wal*Mart and K-Mart, and other places have done?
Also, I sure could have used at least two more arms when my children were babies and toddlers - every mother needs more arms. As for eyes - sure don't we all need one in the back of our heads to see what or who is gaining on us? I'm tired of breathing too - uh well - I mean - uh - I'm not ready to die yet, but it would be nice if we could get oxygen by osmosis - or something - and of course an extra heart (just on reserve) would have been nice. Then we wouldn't have to wait for some poor jerk to die to get THEIR heart.
And last, but not least, I'd LOVE to have wings.
BTW, I guess y'all are aware that among the abortion lovers, there's a discussion as to exactly WHEN the spirit/soul comes into the body. They like to think it's at the moment of birth. I'm sure that's so to ease their conscience so that they won't feel guilty when they abort a baby right before he/she is born. Ohhhhh but that's for a different thread.
Hey - I KNOW why we don't have a nice fur coat to keep us warm. If we'd been born with "clothes" on already, why what would Wal*Mart and K-Mart, and other places have done?
Also, I sure could have used at least two more arms when my children were babies and toddlers - every mother needs more arms. As for eyes - sure don't we all need one in the back of our heads to see what or who is gaining on us? I'm tired of breathing too - uh well - I mean - uh - I'm not ready to die yet, but it would be nice if we could get oxygen by osmosis - or something - and of course an extra heart (just on reserve) would have been nice. Then we wouldn't have to wait for some poor jerk to die to get THEIR heart.And last, but not least, I'd LOVE to have wings.
BTW, I guess y'all are aware that among the abortion lovers, there's a discussion as to exactly WHEN the spirit/soul comes into the body. They like to think it's at the moment of birth. I'm sure that's so to ease their conscience so that they won't feel guilty when they abort a baby right before he/she is born. Ohhhhh but that's for a different thread.
Trending content
Latest threads
-
ESPN: Gophers QB Lindsey arrested for fake ID, alcohol- Started by TideFans Reporter
- Replies: 0
-
-
-
ESPN: Western Michigan, Toledo, Miami aim to be MACtion ...
- Started by TideFans Reporter
- Replies: 0
-
No. 24 Alabama Friday Matchup with Vanderbilt Moved to 12:30 p.m. CT First Pitch- Started by Diamond Tide
- Replies: 8
-
Lemm Provides Walk-Off Homer in No. 24 Alabama’s 5-4 Win over Vanderbilt
- Started by Diamond Tide
- Replies: 2