Yes but those who come up with ideas against popular already accepted without truth ideas get crucified....................
Yes its happened to me but scientists in the end proved me right it took them ten years but they got there ;D
Printable View
Yes but those who come up with ideas against popular already accepted without truth ideas get crucified....................
Yes its happened to me but scientists in the end proved me right it took them ten years but they got there ;D
They get crucified because they refuse to use the same measing stick. The ones with the stick feel threatened because they think its their precious time and energy and your a threat to all the time they have learnt or discovered a certain thought line.
Goes back to emotions then and whos a grown up boy and who isnt.
Evolution/ religion. I reconize both things for what they are. living things evolve into better equiped things so that can deal with crap better the next time around ,physically ,mentally and maybe it spils over into spirituality.Like in disease ,which is dis- ease,that to me is real evolution and growth in our time.
Both can be over emotionalized and used as stand points for people who want to be on one side or another, there is actually (some )truth in both.But if you choose to stand on the furtherest out post of either of those stand points you will never see even the smallest truth in the other.
Balanced people see it ,the ones who are on one side or the other are the same as the ones still locked into the them and us syndrome of having to be right in everything so they can never see the other side cause they are too far away from others by choice.
Who cares ,basically one is measurments by humans and the other is language by humans attempting to relate to others what they cant yet see. IT is a way of expressing what you see ,its only a way of relating something to others.
IT fails when the 'relating fails' and emotions come into it because someone has found a new measuring device that makes you think a different way.
It shouldnt be a war of who is right and who is wrong.
Judgment of others viewpoints keeps you seperate from half of yourself too.
How many people here actually know any scientists?!?! I know a few and some ARE ....... Christian!!!!! :o :o :oQuote:
Originally Posted by Bilbo
Why do people think that believing in evolution means you can't believe in god?!?!? So timelines might not be exactly as people have interpreted but that really doesn't have to change much about how you live as a Christian or whether or not you think a god might be behind creation. Seriously I think even if the big bang theory is correct it doesn't mean a higher power wasn't behind it!
The longer and the more complex the history of life the more extraordinary it is and the MORE you'd have a reason to celebrate whatever higher power might be responsible!
Poetry in motion, a new expanse dawns, ccQuote:
Originally Posted by Sharla
It sounds very nice and harmonious what you say but I don't disbelieve in evolution because of religious faith I disbelieve in it because of the complete and total lack of empirical evidence to support it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sharla
Regardless of wheter or not I believed in God I would still not believe in macro evolution as an explanation for explaining how life came to be simply because it is bad science, in fact it is not science at all.
There are so many mistruths and blatent lies regarding evolution that are put on there in the media on a daily basis.
We are always told that the fossil record is reliable evidence for evolution.........it is not.
We are told that we share a common ancestor with apes and have all seen the charts and diagrams showing a simple mokey or pgymy shrew on the extreme left side of the chart, with apes gradually getting bigger, more upright and less hairy as they go along until it culminates with man at the extreme right.
This chart is ficticious, none of the links in between have been found, yet we are led to believe that Homo Erectus, Homo Neanderthalis, Australapithicene Africanas and Aferinis etc are all genuine missing links when in fact they are all either entirely human, (homo erectus) or entirely ape (Australapithicenes).
Molecular biology has all but disproven evolution as we now know that any change in an organism has to occur at the cellular level, in an organisms DNA. For even the simplest instruction thousands of lines of DNA instruction are needed and without this information nothing can happen to an organism. For new changes to occur in an organism new information has to be added and this simply cannot happen.
A dog will never grow wings for example as it's DNA does not contain the information to build them and there is no way and random genetic mutation has been proven time and again to only damage an organism not enhance it.
Imagine if Microsoft announced their new version of Windows would be created by giving a team of three year olds access to the current code to have a play for 5 years and then we'll see enhancements what their random button presses bring in terms of new features? Sound insane? Then why believe that the far more complex genetic code can be created and improved upon in this way?
A molecular biologist by the name of Michael Behe wrote a very interesting book called Darwins Black Box which should be mainstream reading in every school. A highly qualified scientist, an expert in the field of molecualr biology his book is a damning indictment of current evolutionary theory.
What makes his case all the more compelling is that he's not a Christian and had no religious axe to grind. Unfortunately as you can imagine, the Christian Right were all too happy to make liberal use of his work and so he got ostracized from mainstream science as a result.
His book is an excellent primer though for how evolution fails at the molecular level, the most basic level of all.
Don't always assume that becuase someone disbelieves in evolution that they are operating in blind faith and against reason. I came to my conclusions only after literally years of immersing myself in the literature.
Bilbo I am a biological scientist with a background in molecular biology and Botany and i disagree with you. Molecular biology supports the theory of evolution. DNA changes naturally and easily by a number of processes including crossing over and recombination. They are always involved in any sexual reproduction.
It's not only the absence or presence of a gene that dictates a trait but it's level of expression. A little growth hormone = a little growth - a lot = a lot. This can be altered by changing just one base pair in the activation site of a transcription factor. Small changes in DNA can have huge effects.
All you have to see to know that is the difference between parents and their children. Variation is natural. It'd be weird to be the exact clone of your parent because that never happens.
Not all changes to DNA are beneficial of course and I'm sure that the larger nose I have than my mother will not help me pass my genes onto the next generation. thus not all changes in the DNA code are improvements or continue to be inherited but they don't all have to be.
The random part is taken out by a selection pressure which will deem a trait an advantage or disadvantage according to whether or not the gene carrier will have to opportunity to procreate.
I honestly belive that we are from a higher source not directly from God but decendants of others/ourselves through God.
We are on an extremly dense experience into matter.
We are extrmemly dense into what doesnt matter as well. :-)
Yeah I agree Andre. Regardless of whether or not you believe in a specific timeline of events I don't see how it has to change whether or not you believe in a god or how morally resposible you are. So why is it always brought into these discussions as if it changes anything?
Stuck on the pointy bit of a point of view and cant get off.
The kind of changes you are talking about however are not evolution on a macro scale. I completely agree with the validity of natural selection as identified by Darwin but I am totally unconvinced in his claim that natural selection can lead to evolution.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sharla
As a biologist you will be able to correct me if I'm wrong but my understanding is that whatever changes happen in any organism, be it a dog, a plant or somebody's daughter the genetic information must be already present within the DNA of the organism in question.
So a dog can through selective breeding, or through enviromental pressures undergo considerable change in size, colour, behaviour etc as certain traits are isolated and encouraged. So for example birds on a remote island may lose the ability to fly over time as survival favours those who are unable to get lost at sea, or a species of cave fish might lose its sight over time as it becomes unneccessary, or some species in a remote location may shrink in size to cope with lack of food etc.
But none of this is macro evolution in the molecules to man sense. All of the information necessary to make these changes was always present in the species and it's just a case of jiggling lines of code so to speak rather than creating new information.
Experiments of zapping fruit flies with high levels of radiation produced a series of bizarre flies some with many pairs of wings, extra legs, different sizes etc. However life expectancy was reduced in all cases and as soon as the treatment was stopped the flies returned to a normal state in just a few generations suggesting that organisms resist change rather than respond to it.
It seems to me that scientist make exactly the same kind of leap of faith that religious believers do, in that through an act of faith they believe in spite of a total lack of evidence that these little changes brought about by natural selection can be a catalyst for macro evolution on a molecule to man scale.
cc though for an interesting discussion, it's nice to meet someone who works within the molecular sciences, I find the whole subject of creation vs evolution a fascinating one and it's rare to meet someone who has an extensive knowledge :)
Sorry but no it does not have to be present already. Recombination and crossing over alters the genetic code but not in discrete bundles of whole genes. It can split 2 genes and recombine them to make a new one. This is not always going to create a huge change because it might split regions of DNA that are non-coding - IE. are not transcribed into RNA and the RNA is not translated into protein.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bilbo
Then if this changes something it might change the promoter region of a gene and alter it's expression by increasing it or decreasing it or switching it off. Even then whether or not you switch off or alter a gene making it different there may be other genes which will substitute for it. Multiple genes coding for similar proteins which will do the same job.
On the rare occasion a gene is altered and remains functional it may lead to the production of a new protein which changes something about the organism that did not exist in either of it's parents.
In some cases a change in the DNA might not become noticeable for several generations either. especially if the altered gene is recessive.
Genetic engineering by scientists is known to be unstable in inheritance and out of one transformation aimed at a large number of cells only a few of those will be successfully changed.
Some will though. there are plants such as a bald root barley which is basically the same as it's non mutant parent except that it does not have root hairs. It can survive but not as easily in stressful conditions such as low phosphorus etc. This mutation has been stably inherited and plants are available to study - used to see what function the root hairs have - not for commercial release.
There are a lot of similar examples in science. If you alter a gene that interferes with something vital to survival though it will die and that is widely accepted in the scientific community.
We're not talking about what humans do here though. Human methods for genetic engineering are not anywhere near that of nature itself. We are not god.
I guess whether or not you believe macro evolution exists depends on what timeline you believe it has to work over.
I watched plate of the apes the other night and i thought - I CAN see the resemblance of Mat Damon to the apes. I don't mean to insult him there coz I think he's a hottie but I don't believe we're that far different. A bit of extra hair, that large forehead, big shoulders, more muscle........
I'm not saying we came from the apes - last I heard people were saying we have a common ancestor. I do think macroevolution is possible though because I look around me and i think the earth is old.
I think that makes it more special though. I see something wonderful in the fact that it's not just a flash in the pan but something with a long history that goes on longer than humans are likely to be around and in my opinion was here long before us. It makes us less of a big deal in the grand scheme of things which I think is good because it's kind of humbling and makes us appreciate the fact that there IS something bigger than us at work.
Hey I owe you another cc in 24 it's great to talk to someone who actually knows about this stuff!Quote:
Originally Posted by Sharla
Everything you say I agreed with I just don't agree with these small changes within an organism leading to the big changes of one organism changing into something entirely different.
It is interesting that even for yourself as a trained biologist you only say that macroevolution is possible rather than a proven fact of science.
It is ultimately a faith based belief, we do indeed share a visual resemblance to apes and that can lead to the belief that we could be descended although no firm evidence has ever turned up.
The missing links are still missing, not only between man and ape but between every animal and plant kind as far as I am aware.
I know very little about plants but I do know that many that exisited in prehistoric times before even the dinosaurs were around are still alive and unchanged today, the Wallami pine and the Ginkgo tree being two examples I can think off of the top of my head.
The animal kingdom itself is replete with creatures that are more ancient than the dinosaurs but that are still here and unchanged today.
Now we are talking sence becuase we are not just into the extremes of one thing or another.
Im with you here ,to stricly say evolution was the only way is nuts.
To say it had nothing to do with the process is also a stuck way of thinking.
To not belive in any-thing or to say something doesnt exist becuase you cannot physically see or feel it,is like saying that mind has no effect on the physical. Emotion has no effect on physics.
Am I right in thinking that some molecular physists have reached the stage that in some infinte mathmatical sums they have found feelings or expectation can interfere with outcomes?
I know some electrons disapear and appear again out of sight ,have they reached any conclusions in regards that stuff?
I'd love to comment on the mathematical and physical sciences but I'm a biologist so I'm afraid i can't help there. The ideas are interesting though :)
Hey Andre, finally we are in agreement. Yes you are indeed correct about that which is startling really, it's virtual proof positive of the link between the physical and the spiritual plane.Quote:
Originally Posted by Andre
Regarding evolution, most people are confused between natural selection or adaptation with species and true macro evolution.
Natural selection is a proven fact documented a million times over, and is able to be tested under scientific conditions. Macro evolution (molecules to man) is not proven and there is not a single piece of evidence to support it.
There is no evidence of it ever having occured in the past (no transitional fossils have ever been found for a single species), it's not happening in the present and has never been observed (some scientists are actually arguing that evolution has stopped) and it supposedly takes millions and millions of years to happen so nobody will ever see it happening in the future.
Now I have no problem with people believing in macro evolution, but to suggest that it is anything more than a belief system is just dishonest.