I must add that my beef is not with the idea that animals' DNA can mutate and change its offspring , but that natural selection alone can cause this to result in the life forms we have on earth today.
How we Know that Evolution is a Fact
by JanH 68 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
Abaddon
Marvin; sorry, you misuderstood me. I can see why, as I should have been clearer.
I quoted your statement "science has proved life can beget life but has not proved the inanimate can beget life". By stating afterwards that you haven't proved it either, I meant that you (or, to be fair, theists) had not proved that the inanimate can beget life.
What I should have said in addition was "just 'cause god DOESN'T have a pulse (i.e. biological activity) or mass (i.e. is not comprised of matter) doesn't mean you can just assume he can pop out of nowhere. To assume that is equivalent to assuming the inanimate can beget life."
So [b]you[b/] are ALSO saying that 'life' (in this sense a spirit being) CAN come from nothing, without proof. That is why I find your arguement unsatisfiying, as you demand from 'me' (evolutionists) what you cannot give yourself either.
Your arguements in favour of this being unanswerable (the mirror thing, the old greek logical quandries) do not actually explain where god comes from, or provide a logical reason why there is no answer, they just give the semblance of an answer.
God must come from somewhere. To answer he is eternal and originless is no answer. I am very pleased you are happy to say your belief comes from a spiritual source!
Of course, the question of WHY we have to discuss whether or not god exists, when logically it should be self-evident if it were so, is VERY interesting. Are you game?
D wiltshire; Again, sloppy phrasing on my part, no ill intent. Have you looked up Prions yet? Thet are actaully a little scarey, not as in you Trevor Poole "Whoo! Demons!!" scarey, but as in your 'it's life Jim, but not as we know it' scarey. If you really want, I can pull some other stuff this week at some point, but try that avenue first.
sleepy; Argueing that junk DNA is there as left-overs of the creative act is ingenious but TOTALLY lacking proof! It's a typical response (see my earlier post on this thread). The development of the human brain started long before we were anything NEAR human. Natural selection is fact. Think of erosion, compare it to evolution, and give me your thoughts...
People living in glass paradigms shouldn't throw stones...
-
sleepy
Abbandon
I was saying that I believe the DNA is the left overs but that drawing the conclusion that this fact only fits evolution is wrong.
It is based on presupposing what a God or creator would be like and stating what he would or wouldn't do or be capable of.I now that the Brain would have existed in simpler form long before humans , but the human Brain is vastly different to that of other animals.
Evidence for such things as writing for example don't streach back more than thousands of years yet the ability to write is very complex.I carnt see how natural selection accomplished this and other things in such a short time unless a big jump was made or there is some unknown catalyst, which if true puts doubts on many evolutionary ideas.
-
rem
Sleepy,
Your argument presupposes a creator, in which there is no evidence. Why would you go down a road supposing a theory that requires an unknown creator? If there were evidence for a creator, then your theory might have some merit. Otherwise the reasoning is circular: The DNA suggest a creator because if there were a creator then it could have left the DNA in the state that we see it today.
There are a lot of "could be" scenarios, but there are only so many that have evidence backing them. Occam's razor - don't go adding extraneous variables - especially ones without evidence - that only complicate the theory and make it more likely to be wrong.
Also, I'm not so sure that the human brain is so much qualitively different than other animals. It's more quantitively different - especially from higher apes. To me, this suggests that the speed of human brain evolution is not so much of a problem since new features were not necessarily being introduced - existing features were being enhanced.
rem
"We all do no end of feeling, and we mistake it for thinking." - Mark Twain
-
sf
Jan,
Have you visited "evolution is fact" yahoo voice chatroom? FYI.
sKally
-
sf
Someone is on mic now and here is a taste of the text:
You are in "Evolution *IS* a Fact:1" ( http://www.seanet.com/~alexs/ascorbate/197x/stone-i-orthomol_psych-1972-v1-n2-3-p82.htm )
wturls joined the room
bosefasaurus joined the room
thatsright_webaduhhuh joined the room
rendermaster: <--- admittedly only familiar with the basics of cosmology and theoretical physicssKally
-
Mindchild
Hi Sleepy,
I thought I would jump in this fun discussion as well and make a few comments...
You said in your post above:
A few comments, the human brain is clearly an evolutionary progression of animal brains. We have the same essential parts including the Reptilian Brain, the Limbic System, and the Neurocortex as other mammals do. The primary difference in human encephalons is the difference in the size of the neurocrotex or outer layer of the brain. This rather thin and recent addition to the brain is primarly what makes us human but other animals have a cerebral or neurocortex as well, and can think, talk, plan ahead, have emotions, and do many of the things we once thought only humans can do. Maybe some posters on this site can attest that some animals can do some of these things better than some posters...haha (not counting you in this description)I now that the Brain would have existed in simpler form long before humans , but the human Brain is vastly different to that of other animals.
Evidence for such things as writing for example don't streach back more than thousands of years yet the ability to write is very complex.
I carnt see how natural selection accomplished this and other things in such a short time unless a big jump was made or there is some unknown catalyst, which if true puts doubts on many evolutionary ideas.
As far as the age of our neurocortex, there is a lot of evidence that it is much older than a few thousand years. There are several seminal books that explore the evidence for this but I don't know if this is a major point for you so I will just leave this at that for now.
There are evidence of big jumps in the fossil and evolutionary records. As I mentioned in my earlier posts in this thread, jumping genes and retro viruses have been modifying a multitude of animal species for millions of years. HIV for instance is an example of a retrovirus that jumps species. This did not come from some secret germ warfare lab but likely from another species. We know that other animals have their own versions of HIV and often it mutates in a species to become harmless but it has transfered other genes from different species into the new host. The so called junk DNA, which has these viral hitch hikers and genetic hostages, are sometimes expressed in the right enviornmental circumstances.
I did a scientific paper and published it about the mutation and genetic adaptation of bacteria to antibiotics when exposed to magnetospheric radiation. In my study, I showed how the magnetic field of the earth can stimulate bacterial DNA to express new combinations to defeat dangerous enviornmental conditions (for bacteria a antiobiotic is a poison or dangerous threat) by adopting new defense mechanisms. So, what does this mean? It means that bacteria learned to grow and thrive in something that would have normally killed them because their DNA got stimulated by external radiation from Earth's magnetosphere. If bacteria DNA can be influenced by it, it is feasible that other species can likewise be effected and express new combinations that respond to say enviornmental shifts, etc.
You might be amazed Sleepy at the incredible variation in humans. Most people have heard of what we call "birth defects" but this is just politically correct ways of saying mutations. There are thousands of types of mutations that happen to humans and other animal species. I remember reading one book once that explored all the different locations that human breasts appeared on the body. They are not always where they should be!!! (I actually just put that part in here to perk up Jan haha) but more seriously, there are hundreds of cataloged gross variations of humans that would stun most people. We see these genetic changes coming from exposure to chemicals, radiation, all kinds of factors. You would have to be literally blind not to see the amazing amount of rapid mutations happening (rapid in the sense of evolution) in different species.
I hope this has been some value in helping you see that evolution doesn't need outside help in order to stand on its own.
Skipper
-
sleepy
REM
No ,no ,no ,no no,
I don't presuppose a creator.
I have no idea whether there is one or not.
I dont believe Error in DNA is evidence of a creator.
What I was saying was that just because there are errors and souch things does not initself prove there was no outside interference regarding life on earth. -
Abaddon
The brain thing; the great apes, especially the chimps, are SO our cousins. I suggest sleepy, you read some behavioural studies.
They also communicate. I saw one instance where a chimp had been taught to communicate using a board with buttons, over 100 of them, each with a unrelated symbol to the meaning (so 'aplle' was some combination of symbols, not an apple.
The chimp could talk quite well about stuff you'd expect a chimp to talk about. In one instance I saw on the program the chimp took a call from a researcher who it had worked with some time previously.
In previous instances of using the 'phone, the chimp hadn't conversed with the person on the 'phone. It has looked around to see where the person was, but not reacted to what they were saying. On this occasion, the chimp happened to hit a button relevent to what the person on the 'phone was asking it. They responded. You could almost see the chimp get it; it realised that although the person wasn't there, they could still talk to it.
They asked for a ball and some M&M's when they next saw them.
When the researcher arrived a fortnight later, the chimp ran up, and using its board, asked for a ball and some M&M's.
Not rocket science, but chimps communicate and perform in cognitive tasks as well as many toddlers, if you can understand them and they can understand you.
Another thing I heard recently was that a group of researchers who had been trying to teach gorillas sign-language, realised that the gorillas actaully were already using a sign languge with at least 80 distinct 'words'. The reason that they had done so poorly in learning human sign-language was that they have their own agenda, and learning another language when they could already say what they wanted was not something they saw as important. They probably thought we were weird for not being able to talk to them properly!
Birds share the convoluted outer cortex that higher mammals have. I saw a Discovery program about parrots last night. Careful scientific research has shown that they can not only imitate language, but use it. One parrot sould answer questions based on flash-cards it was shown.
All these experiments are done in full knowledge of the way many animals can be trained to respond to non-verbal language whilst seeming to respond to verbal language, and carried out in ways that eliminated or avoided this.
Of course, they are not that smart; chimps in a game where they are offered two handfuls of sweets, and are given the large handfull of sweets when they choose the small one ALWAYS choose the large handfull. If you replace the handfulls of sweets with numbers (chimps are quite good up to eight I think), giving the most sweets to the chimp that selects the lower number, they will 'get' the game, and choose the lower number to get the most sweets.
Just some examples... we are just clever monkies, with opposable thumbs, moon rockets, Bach and genocide. Wonderful and terrifying.
People living in glass paradigms shouldn't throw stones...
-