Evolution

using the word DNA almost automatically elicits the whole "so much of DNA is junk" argument... which is funny since we now know that's really not so true... but i figured explaining the significance of RNA vs DNA might make a point. ya never know.

 

Excerpts from Time Magazine:

 

I find Collin's book and ideas utterly laughable. He needs to learn about the origins of the Bible... written by man. God did not create man in his own image... man created the idea of God in his image.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Alric @ Sep 22 2006, 08:43 AM) [snapback]323397[/snapback]</div>

However there's a little more involved than a book title. Darwin's work, while seminal, is hardly the last word.
You might find this interesting.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Alric @ Sep 22 2006, 08:43 AM) [snapback]323397[/snapback]</div>

My point was that if there are some organisms hiding somewhere that originated in a separate origin-of-life event, it does not undermine the evidence for historical or present, ongoing evolution.

"The Origin of Species" refers to the process by which new species arise from old ones. It does not address the question of the origin of life. I.e., "origin of life" and "origin of species" are two different questions.

For a fascinating look into present knowledge and theory about the origins of life, check out "The Origins of Life" from The Teaching Company, taught by Robert M. Hazen of George Mason University. This discipline has come a very long ways since those ideas about "the primordial ooze" that we were taught when I was in school. It is still not known how the first living thing arose. There is not even a universally-accepted definition of what would constitute the first life. But a great deal is known, and more pieces are being added to the puzzle constantly.

And I repeat that Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection does not require that there was only one, unique origin event. Genetic evidence suggests a common origin of all life, but the theory of natural selection does not require it.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(jared2 @ Sep 22 2006, 07:16 AM) [snapback]323341[/snapback]</div>

Could be ... there's no faster way to lose your arboreal components than digging around in the dirt. And birthin' all those babies (even if the first two did fight a lot).

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(IsrAmeriPrius @ Sep 22 2006, 04:38 PM) [snapback]323649[/snapback]</div>

Thanks ... I ordered his book from Amazon.com tonight, along with another he is associated with ("Coming to Peace With Science: Bridging the Worlds Between Faith and Biology" written with a biologist named Falk.)

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Mirza @ Sep 22 2006, 06:18 PM) [snapback]323695[/snapback]</div>

I did not post this information because I necessarily agree with his ideas. My religious heritage is as different from his as night is different from day. I posted it to show that there are deeply religious evangelical Christians who do believe, in his words, that "the evidence in favor of evolution is utterly compelling."

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(jared2 @ Sep 21 2006, 01:35 PM) [snapback]322958[/snapback]</div>

Or perhaps it was the large contingent of black baptists and orthodox jews who are biblical literalists but vote democrat en mass.

Nice ironical touch, mocking one conspiracy myth but plumbing for another.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ Sep 22 2006, 11:23 AM) [snapback]323379[/snapback]</div>

That last one would be me. I do believe in God, but am not sure how the planet came to be, or how we came to be. I am just sure I don't buy the whole evolution thing. To me, it's just as simple to say we are here, and that's all that matters. I am not sure why it's important to know how we got here.

Well, I think other creatures have descendants. If that fits evolution to you, then that's fine.

Well, that I can agree to. When things change, on a global scale, then it does seem to take forever.

Is it possible to you, that fossils are just that: Fossils of other creatures, and perhaps have nothing to do with the human race? Is it possible, that a race of human like creatures once roamed the earth, and died off, just like the dinosaurs? Is that a possibility?

To me, I like to study both. I love ancient cultures. I love ancient Egypt. I don't find religious mythology any more 'artificial' then Atlantis. I ask you, to look into Christ. Not the Bible Christ, but Christ the Man. There is proof, outside of the Bible, that a man named Jesus Christ lived, and was executed for being a heretic. There is proof that this man influenced millions to this day. Forget religion, or God. Just examine this man, and what He had to say, about Peace and Love and Harmony. If you want others, me in this case, to take your side into consideration, then to blankly ignore what I believe in, without looking into it, well, that seems to be less then scientific.
John Lennon once said, 'God is a concept, in which we measure our pain'. Later, this man would become a man who changed his mind. If John Lennon can learn to respect God, how hard is it to respect Him for you?

'There are no atheists in foxholes' ~ Col. Henry Potter, on M*A*S*H. It's a great line.


Look, here is the deal with me: It's cool if you don't believe in God; I believe He believes in you.

If you and I were sharing a table, drinking some beers, you and I could talk about this for hours. I would never change your mind, and I suspect you would not change mine. But at least we would be talking and not fighting about it. In the end, you may be right, I may be right...I guess time will tell. However, time is an illusion, and lunchtime doubly so.

 

Another nerdy point - I voted that I "believe in" evolution but the part about everyone coming from a common ancestor is dubious.

If you consider even cells dividing (like your skin's doing right now) "birth" and "ancestry," then I'm with you on it - but otherwise I don't think we technically came from one ancestor (whereas say Adam and Eve types do), I think first cells divided and occasionally mutated as they did, probably running on RNA alone, then something got DNA going on, then later a lot of chimp-human looking things mutated - probably more than one pair there as well - and from all those mutants, you had something pretty close to us. Because, you can have thousands of mutants from another species all interbreed and end up at roughly the same point if the environmental pressures on all of them are the same.

As a silly example, a genetic study showed that the first white-skinned people evolved to let more Vitamin D into their skin in colder climates with less sunlight and less exposed skin. That environmental pressure probably caused all sorts of dark-skinned families to have increasingly whiter children in those northern climates, but it doesn't mean 1 or 2 white kids were suddenly born and became the common ancestors to every white person on the planet.

 

I voted No! I do not believe in Evolution. There is just too much contradictions about it to really rely on it as a fact. Science is about examining what is here now such as gravity. I believe it is truly beyond the scope of science to state with any type of certainty what the origin of the Universe, Species and Mankind are (because it is a one time event that will never be repeated again), unless they can go back in a time machine. So the very best that the Scientists can do is guess. And where I believe that they began to error is to start to believe that science can speak with certainty in this matter when truly it can not.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Alric @ Sep 23 2006, 12:25 PM) [snapback]323900[/snapback]</div>

But cann't there be different ways to interpret the same information. Another words the fact the all living things on earth share the same DNA couldn't it be because the designer may have chosen it that way. In other words, if I was was good with my hands and created birds, animals and mankind all out of wood does that make it scientific for future generations who know nothing about me and the fact that I made it to conclude that the smallest wood that I made evolved into the next size that I made and so on because it is all made with the same type of material and there for proof that it evolved. I do not think so.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Alric @ Sep 23 2006, 01:10 PM) [snapback]323921[/snapback]</div>

When I look at DNA and all the information in it, I just do not believe the Evolutionist explaination is the best. There is a growing amount of scientists who are questioning the theory of Evolution simply because it is very weak in explaining how all the information got into a single cell DNA.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TJandGENESIS @ Sep 23 2006, 12:54 AM) [snapback]323817[/snapback]</div>

Fossils are the record of animals that lived in the past. A single isolated fossil is a snapshot and by itself is, as you suggest, nothing more than an animal that once lived. But if you flip through a whole stack of snapshots you can make a movie. And if you examine enough fossils you get a moving picture of a process of gradual change from one species to another. Most hominids (human-like creatures) died off, as you say. But one ancestral line remained and led to us. Note that the family tree of Life, like the family tree of a human family, is like a tree, not a ladder. There are multiple forks and branches, some leading to dead ends. The section of the family tree of life which represents the hominids has only one living branch: us. But the broader section representing the anthropoids has a number of branches, of which we are one. And the section representing the vertibrates, has more branches than you can shake a stick at. Etc. The fossil record is surprisingly well filled-in, showing clear lineages from species to species. There are still many gaps, but the overall picture of evolution is clear.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TJandGENESIS @ Sep 23 2006, 12:54 AM) [snapback]323817[/snapback]</div>

The man you refer to was not named Jesus Christ. His name was Jesus, sometimes refered to as Jesus of Nazareth. "Christ" is a title bestowed upon him by people who believe that he was the Christ (savior) who some Jews thought would come along to be their king. The man Jesus probably was a real person, and in many respects a very progressive and enlightened chap. If Christians based their behavior on his teachings, rather than just "accepting" him as their "savior," while ignoring everything he said, the U.S. and the world would be a better place. But since Christianity was spread over the globe principally by violence, war, and torture, I suppose nobody reading this would be a Christian today if Christianity had never abandoned the teachings of Jesus.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TJandGENESIS @ Sep 23 2006, 12:54 AM) [snapback]323817[/snapback]</div>

Now there I'll disagree with you again: lunchtime is as real and as solid as a concert grand piano. I eat, therefore I am. Were it not for lunchtime, I would not exist. I think I'll have a baked squash for lunch today. Has to be started an hour and a half ahead of time, but is easy and yummy: just cut it in half (be sure to use a real knife, not an illusory one, and handle it with care) and bake it at 375 F for 90 minutes.