Evolution is a Fact #1 - Protein Functional Redundancy
Clambake you wrote:
I really don’t think people should take copy and paste evolutionary biologists with much seriousness. Their interest in science really doesn’t go beyond arguing with theists.
Copypasta is delicious. I usually have it with a nice tomato cream sauce.
Now the article Cofty wrote does not seem like copypasta because he's writing in a conversational style. So its from what he has read and researched and he's opinion is just as valid as the theist threads that pop up on here from time to time.
Clambake - "I really don’t think people should take copy-and-paste evolutionary biologists with much seriousness."
Can't say as I've ever met one.
I've run into a lot of copy-and-paste creationists, though.
Clambake - "Their interest in science really doesn’t go beyond arguing with theists."
How many do you know?
"It always disturbed me though, as to where any matter came from to begin with. [the human idea that something doesn't come from nothing]"
That is understandable. Our intuitive perception of what is possible is based on our everyday life experiences at the macro-scale. But scientific observations show that what takes place at the quantum scale is very counter-intuitive. This is why common sense cannot be applied to the subject of the origin of matter and the universe. We have to apply unbiased Math and Physics - "exotic sense", if you will. When applied, Mathematically and Scientifically feasible explanations for the origin of life emerge, without the need for any gods.
Also think about this: if the origin of matter seems like an insurmountable incongruity, what about the origin of god? Which is more incongruous - the spontaneous origin of simple finite particles at the quantum level; or the notion of a complex ever-existing God without beginning or end? To me, using an unbeginning, ever-existing god to explain the incongruity of the universe's origin is comparable to someone borrowing 1 million dollars to pay off a 1 hundred dollar debt.
Here's something to ponder on to help you appreciate why you cannot use common sense to dismiss science that seems counter-intuitive. There are/were people living in remote jungle locations having no access to or knowledge of modern technology and science. When they are first contacted by people from the outside modern world, they are perplexed by things we take for granted. Their "common sense" is completely ignorant of modern science so the marvels of modern technology is invariably interpreted by them as magic and as a result they may even briefly think of their modern visitors as being gods.
The lesson in this is that we cannot put our own sense of what is possible or impossible above what scientific research and experimentation reveals. Our own sense of possibility is limited by our ignorance. Thus we cannot use common sense to guide us in understanding the exotic things that do not comprise everyday happenings. We cannot use common sense to determine the best explanation for the origin of the universe and life. We have to use science. If we limit ourselves to common sense, then in ignorance, we will find ourselves, like the scientifically primitive jungle dwellers, resorting to fallacious explanations that involve magic and gods.
Hi there Island Man,
But scientific observations show that what takes place at the quantum scale is very counter-intuitive.
Footnote: The events of particles coming into existence out of seemingly nothing (I'm assuming that is what you are referring to) are always causal which means there are tangible observable events that precede these counter-intuitive events.
My only gripe is that I thought that there was 21 protein amino acids found in the Eukaryote domain - Saintbertholdt
Thank you for that. I learned something new today.
Sowhatnow - I'm struggling to get a handle on your question. It seems like a lot of different questions mixed up together. How the universe began is a question for cosmology. How life began is a problem for biochemistry. This series of threads is about presenting the evidence that all living things evolved from a common ancestor. The implications of that for JWs is that there was no first humans who fell from perfection. Thank you for taking the time to read the OP.
Clambake - I don't copy-paste. I have no patience with copy-paste posters. If you or any other evolution denier would like to discuss the content of the OP that would be interesting.
Evolution may be a fact, but facts can change: vitalism, phlogiston, spontaneous generation.
Common sense and evidence can work together... 400,000 years of ice core data supports/disproves a global flood 4500 years ago.
Yes, all available evidence points to evolution being a fact, i.e. it happened.
Scientists often argue over the details. They argue over how evolution happened, not whether it happened ...
Looking forward to Facts#2, 3, 4 ...
Watch these videos and you will see Cofty has no idea of what he speaks about.
If you believe in evolution after watching these videos please give your brain to Cofty because you are not using it and Cofty needs one.
Read apostate lies about Kent Hovind here: