Forums | MacLife

Actually, have you read some of the biology texts from before that time? They were geared more toward the anatomy aspect. At the beginning of anatomy, the church didn't like it because some of them supposed that the heart was the seat of the mind, not the brain. Do you think that's right? No, but if you went back in time you'd be excommunicated for your views.

We generally agree on this part, if you actually read my EARLIER post, The move for scientists to embrace darwinism (macro-evolution), I believe, was in part a reaction to the authoratian pressure by the Church to control all knowledge, and to be THE body to approve all knowledge. I believe that science has gotten to the point where scientists who state macro-evolution as a fact are trying to build a new narrative, or myth, in rejection of the old one (genesis.) However, IME, science doesn't support this new myth.

<M.C. Hawking>The second law is quite precise about where it applies, only in closed systems must the entropy count rise; the earth's not a closed system, it's powered by the sun</M.C. Hawking>

Or conversely, if you take a random selection of potato chips of a range of sizes and put them into a big jar and shake it up, the small ones will settle to the bottom and the large ones will be at the top. Now, this is more "ordered" than having all sizes evenly distributed, right? But they are settling randomly, which they are presupposed to do. I like to think that chemistry and physics (for anyone who knows this) are presupposed to support life. For example, a 1% difference either way in the charge of an electron, and the reactions that make life happen would be impossible. Creator, maybe. Luck, maybe. We don't know, but it is that way, and the math works.

If you really believe luck was involved, to create a world like this, where we, the products of cosmic gamble, would be sitting debating the hows and whys of orgins, then you definitely have more faith than I do. 

In case you didn't know, we as a species have been using artificial selection to breed dogs, sheep, pigs, cows, cats, mice, and horses for thousands of years. Evolution is no different, except the selection is natural through things like climate change and diseases.

Yes I know this.  Classic micro-evolution breeding.  I don't have an issue with this.  As I have stated in my EARLIER post, my issues are with single celled to complex-celled organisms, and transitional forms.  Micro evolution still happens within its own species. However, nature has very strict "rules" about the animal kingdom in terms of interspecies breeding. If we all came from a common ancestor, would not interbreeding between species be more beneficial to the progeny, instead of impossible. 

Secondly, yes, mutations are bad for animals, but not all evolution is driven by mutations. For example, almost all basketball players are tall. Did God select them to be tall so they could be basketball players? Did they mutate in the womb to become giants? No, the combination of their mother's and father's DNA made them tall and talented in basketball. Sexual reproduction causes changes in species much faster than random mutation because the resulting offspring are almost guaranteed to be at least moderately successful.

I'm afraid you're confusing mutations with natural reproduction.  If my and my GF have a kid, the likelhood that the child would be homo homo sapien would be 100%.  If my child had a naturally occuring RANDOM mutation, (the kind evolutionists hang their hat on to make the TOE workable) my child would be deformed and have congenital defects.  She would not have these new never-been-seen-before traits that point to a new evolutionary stage. ANY and ALL mutations would be harmful if not fatal to the progeny, never mind developing a new species.

As for these mutations, the only way evolutionists can possiblity make their narrative or myth any way believeable is if these randomly, harmful mutations can become beneficial, and consistenly occuring over BILLIONS and BILLIONS of years, which has been of course pure conjecture.  It's definitely logical, but certainly not reasonable.  The amount of time need has always been debated, and research using carbon dating of various natural occuring isotopes have not helped support the evolutionists at all. if we use the results of carbon dating, the earth hasn't not existed long enough to support the evolutionary process. However most in the scientific community would throw out their data anyway, because it doesn't support their presuppositions anway. Groupthink can exist anywhere including the scientific community.

For example, if a wolf has puppies, and those puppies are a range of sizes, speeds, intelligences, and strengths, the one with the best combination, the one that is best suited to survival will persist and breed while the others may not. Over thousands of years, this will cause the best attributes of a species in that environment to come out.

I don't have much of a problem with survival of the fittiest. Darwinism however, doesn't explain very well ARRIVAL of the fittest.

I think the problem that creationists have with evolution is that it happens over such a hugely long period of time and they have trouble with anything over 6000 years.

There are various schools of creationism you know. BTW I don't prescribe myself as a creationist per se. I just don't think macroevolution is tenable

As for the Big Bang theory, quantum mechanics, and particle physics, saying those are wrong is like saying 1+1 does not equal 2. They've been proven with MATH. Yes, we don't know what happened at the very, very beginning of the univerese, but we do know what happened 1x10^-31 seconds after that! No, we haven't seen gluons, but we have equations proving that they MUST exist!

I believe in the big bang theory. In fact I believe it is evidence of a creator. It has always been a fundamental first principle of philosophy and science that "from nothing, nothing comes". Even the atheist philosopher David Hume, who showed that we could not prove with certainty that the causal principle was true, still believed it to be true and thought so with certainty.

"I never asserted so absurd a proposition that anything might arise without a cause. I only maintained that our certainty of the falsehood of the that proposition proceeded neither from institution nor demonstration but from another source."

Obviously it is more reasonable to hold to this premise than to believe that things pop into existence out of nothing and by nothing. Can we reasonably disagree with the atheist Kai Neilson when he writes, "Suppose you suddenly hear a loud bang and you ask me, 'What made that bang?' and I reply 'Nothing, it just happened.' You would not accept that — in fact you would find my reply quite unintelligible."

What I find most disturbing about creationists is that they tell scientists to keep an open mind, but when the holes in they theories are pointed out, they close their minds and just say "You're wrong."

Sucks doesn't it? I hate it when people do that.

BTW, I think my link provides a great article on how subjective and biased science can be.  In the end, I can't see science support the myth of macroevolution.

Interesting post Binky.  I beleive it was all luck.  Out of all the vast, infinite planets capable of sustaining intelligent life - at least one has to create and sustain it.  I believe it as part of the Chaos Theory:  Whatever can happen will happen.  Either that or we where created from spliced alien DNA.  One or the othe, I haven't made up my mind yet. 

Hold on man, why are all mutations bad for an organism?

It's just reality.

THEY ARE RARE>

"Mutations rarely occur. Most genes mutate only once in 100,000 generations or more. Researchers estimate that a human gene may remain stable for 2,500,000 years."—*World Book Encyclopedia, 1966 Edition.

"It is probably fair to estimate the frequency of a majority of mutations, in higher organisms, between one in ten thousand and one in a million per gene per generation."—*Francisco J. Ayala, "Teleological Explanations in Evolutionary Biology," in Philosophy of Science, March 1970, p. 3.

"Although mutations is the ultimate source of all genetic variation, it is a relatively rare event."—F.J. Ayala, "Mechanism of Evolution," Scientific American, September 1978, p. 63.


THEY ARE HARMFUL.

"But mutations are found to be of a random nature, as far as their utility is concerned. Accordingly, the great majority of mutations, certainly well over 99%, are harmful in some way, as is to be expected of the effects of accidental occurrences."—*H.J. Muller, "Radiation Damage to the Genetic Material," in American Scientist, January 1950, p. 35.

"A proportion of favorable mutations of one in a thousand does not sound much, but is probably generous, since so many mutations are lethal, preventing the organism from living at all, and the great majority of the rest throw the machinery slightly out gear."—*Julian Huxley, Evolution in Action, p. 41.

"One would expect that any interference, with such a complicated piece of chemical machinery as the genetic constitution would result in damage. And, in fact, this is so: The great majority of mutant genes are harmful in their effects on the organism."—*Julian Huxley, Evolution in Action, p. 37.

"The mass of evidence shows that all, or almost all, known mutations are unmistakably pathological and the few remaining ones are highly suspect . . All mutations seem to be of the nature of injuries that, to some extent, impair the fertility and viability of the affected organism."—*C.P. Martin, "A Non-Geneticist Looks at Evolution," in American Scientist, 41 (1953), p. 103.

"A majority of mutations, both those arising in laboratories and those stored in natural populations produce deteriorations to the viability, hereditary disease, and monstrosities. Such changes, it would seem, can hardly serve as evolutionary building blocks."—*T. Dobzhansky, Genetics and the Origin of the Species (1955), p. 73.

Also, it is also true that an organism is pretty much useless unless it has all its parts.

"Each mutation occurring alone would be wiped out before it could be combined with the others. They are all interdependent. The doctrine that their coming together was due to a series of blind coincidences is an affront not only to common sense but the basic principles of scientific explanation."—*A. Koestler, The Ghost in the Machine (1975), p. 129.

"Most biological reactions are chain reactions. To interact in a chain, these precisely built molecules must fit together most precisely, as the cog wheels of a Swiss watch do. But if this is so, then how can such a system develop at all? For if any one of the specific cog wheels in these chains is changed, then the whole system must simply become inoperative. Saying it can be improved by random mutation of one link . . [is] like saying you could improve a Swiss watch by dropping it and thus bending one of its wheels or axes. To get a better watch, all the wheels must be changed simultaneously to make a good fit again."—*Albert Szent-Gyorgyi, "Drive in Living Matter to Perfect Itself," Synthesis I, Vol. 1, No. 1, p. 18 (1977) [winner of two Nobel Prizes for scientific research and Director of Research at the Institute for Muscle Research in Massachusetts].


Beneficial mutations are therefore fanciful mythology.  You'll only find in the X-Men comics.  SNNNKKKKT!

Right, a majority. No question. BUT NOT ALL. thats the whole point.

Sorry, missed the last line. What abt sickle cell anemia? Very bad mutation when homozygous. But when hetrozygous, very benificial against malaria. That ain't X Men

It seems like you didn't actually read my whole post with an open mind. You need to reread the quotes.

Maybe you missed the part where he said "over 99%". Now if you apply those odds to anywhere else in life, you wouldn't bet.  Yet you're adamant that that .2% or whatever, hoping to have happen consistenly over billions of years, would produce a world as complex, ordered as harmonious as this? WITHOUT A CREATOR OR DIRECTOR?  If you believe, that well, WELCOME TO THE WORLD OF FAITH!! And believe me.
you have more faith to believe in your creation myth than I do with mine.

As for sickel cell anemia, is it rare? Is it more rare than the malignant kind?  Does it naturally occur on a world-scale?  Has it evolved beyond its sickle cell-anemia class? It's beneficial against malaria, or is that a human value we place on it?  It's certainly bad for the malaria.

whoops! Sorry.  I'll use macroevolution from now on.

I would just suggest reading the latest edition of Cambell. It does a great job explaining evolution.

If you really believe luck was involved, to create a world like this, where we, the products of cosmic gamble, would be sitting debating the hows and whys of orgins, then you definitely have more faith than I do.

No, I'm saying we don't know what was involved. But you can't say "God did it" when we have no evidence either way.

Yes I know this.  Classic micro-evolution breeding.  I don't have an issue with this.  As I have stated in my EARLIER post, my issues are with single celled to complex-celled organisms, and transitional forms.  Micro evolution still happens within its own species. However, nature has very strict "rules" about the animal kingdom in terms of interspecies breeding. If we all came from a common ancestor, would not interbreeding between species be more beneficial to the progeny, instead of impossible.

No, not necessarily. If two populations of species are seperated for a long enough time, their DNA becomes incompatible. For example, the creation of the Great Rift Valley in east Africa caused one population of ape to split into two groups. One was in a similiar habitat, and did not change much over the intervening 10 million years. The other population, which was originally arborial, saw their forest turn into a savanna. In order for the species to survive, they had to make drastic changes in their behavior and biology. They stood upright because the distances between food sources necessitated the use of hands as food carrying appendages. They grew taller because tall bipedal animals are faster than short ones. (Again, survival of the fittest.)

I'm sure that if we continued breeding, say, Dachsundhs (sp?) and German sheperds in closed populations, they would eventually produce different species.

I'm afraid you're confusing mutations with natural reproduction.  If my and my GF have a kid, the likelhood that the child would be homo homo sapien would be 100%.  If my child had a naturally occuring RANDOM mutation, (the kind evolutionists hang their hat on to make the TOE workable) my child would be deformed and have congenital defects.  She would not have these new never-been-seen-before traits that point to a new evolutionary stage. ANY and ALL mutations would be harmful if not fatal to the progeny, never mind developing a new species.

As for these mutations, the only way evolutionists can possiblity make their narrative or myth any way believeable is if these randomly, harmful mutations can become beneficial, and consistenly occuring over BILLIONS and BILLIONS of years, which has been of course pure conjecture.  It's definitely logical, but certainly not reasonable.  The amount of time need has always been debated, and research using carbon dating of various natural occuring isotopes have not helped support the evolutionists at all. if we use the results of carbon dating, the earth hasn't not existed long enough to support the evolutionary process. However most in the scientific community would throw out their data anyway, because it doesn't support their presuppositions anway. Groupthink can exist anywhere including the scientific community.

Link to the data about carbon dating?

Yeah, groupthink is bad, but you're missing my point. I'm not saying that mutations are good. Mutations are bad, but individuals within a species have different abilities. The ones with the abilities that best suit the environment are the ones that survive to breed with others with the best abilities, producing offspring with these abilities. If the environment changes, those abilities may not benefit the being, so the are selected against. You honestly don't think that a domesticated wolf gave birth to a miniature poodle and some cave man thought "People will want these, I have to find another one to breed with it." No, it happened when a person selected the smallest, and fluffiest mutt and bred it with another small, fluffy mutt to produce a smaller, fluffier mutt, which it then bred with another smaller, fluffier mutt... you get the idea.

The same thing happens in nature. When the Great Rift Valley opened, the ancestors to giraffes lived there. As the low-lying foliage gave way to grass, they had to eat from higher-up branches. The foliage continued to thin, and the ones that could reach the branches ate while the others starved. The tall ones bred with other tall ones to make taller ones, who bred with other taller ones... you get the idea, thus producing the giraffes we know and love.

I don't have much of a problem with survival of the fittiest. Darwinism however, doesn't explain very well ARRIVAL of the fittest.

Is your brother shorter than you are? Why is that when you have the same parents? Shouldn't you be the same height? Sexual reproduction is the combination of one half of the chromosomes of two individuals, your parents.

Now if your slower, shorter brother and yourself were being chased by a lion, your brother would eventually get caught, as well as your girlfriend's shorter, slower sister. Therefore, your parents tall, fast genes and your girlfriends tall, fast genes would be passed on in your progeny, which would meet up with someone else with tall, fast genes, making taller, faster people until the species could outrun lions the majority of the time. (Which is why people are pretty darn slow.)

I believe in the big bang theory. In fact I believe it is evidence of a creator. It has always been a fundamental first principle of philosophy and science that "from nothing, nothing comes". Even the atheist philosopher David Hume, who showed that we could not prove with certainty that the causal principle was true, still believed it to be true and thought so with certainty.

"I never asserted so absurd a proposition that anything might arise without a cause. I only maintained that our certainty of the falsehood of the that proposition proceeded neither from institution nor demonstration but from another source."

Obviously it is more reasonable to hold to this premise than to believe that things pop into existence out of nothing and by nothing. Can we reasonably disagree with the atheist Kai Neilson when he writes, "Suppose you suddenly hear a loud bang and you ask me, 'What made that bang?' and I reply 'Nothing, it just happened.' You would not accept that ? in fact you would find my reply quite unintelligible."

The point of science is to figure things like that out. At this point, our math breaks down prior to that 1x10^-31 seconds. When some genius figures out the math that works there, then we'll know more. Eventually, we'll get back to before the Big Bang, maybe. Then we'll know where it came from. Right now, it's a question of faith. All scientists can tell us is that "Here's what it was like 1X10^-31, draw some conclusions."

All of science is based on Occam's Razor. You seem like an intelligent person, so I won't do the whole explanation of it. Natural selection works logically, and on the timescales we're talking about (millions to billions of years) it would work. I mean, heck, it took about 10000 years for people to turn a wolf into a Chihuahua using a limited population. But saying that "Oh God did it" is a cop-out and is increasingly more complex and illogical, and there is no evidence for this except for religious texts, which are neither verifiable nor scientifically gathered.

That's why evolution works.

Intelligent design asks: "How it is possible that we have arrived at this particular situation knowing that the odds are so slim?"

Science asks: "Well, here we are--how did we get here?"