shadowind

yea, but girls are ecky

__________________
remember "for mere impulse of appetite is slavery, while obedience to a law which we prescirbe to oursleves is liberty"-rousseau: the concept of the general will "if we can not reconcile all opions, then let us endeavour to unite all hearts."-?"to be is to be perceived"-? "‘We can be as honest as we are ignorant. If we are, when asked what is beyond the horizon of the known, we must say that we do not know’-Robert G. Ingersoll

AB517

Yeah and when he figures it out could he let the rest of us know.

GX

Making them laugh and smile is easy. Figuring them out has been the bane of mankind since the beginning of time. I didnt want to discourage the kid by letting him in on that little tidbit!

GI

>>>of course natural selection is bounded by the rules of physics. natural selection could be said to be a natural law no?

I suppose so, but I think you are missing my/the point; to think that DNA, genetic code, living cells, complex organs and the differences between classes of animals are CREATED by random mutations and natural selection is real absurdity if you really give it great consideration, and there is no evidence for any of that. We know ns and rv can help modify an organism to a degree, but really, that process DOES NOT begin to explain the wider picture of origins of life etc and we should all know that by now instead of being 'brainwashed' otherwise.

Before Darwin, many biologists considered organic forms to be immutable natural forms or types which like inorganic forms such as atoms or crystals are part of a changeless world order and determined by physical law. So, for example, DNA is not a random accident, but a natural structure like an atom or crystal. As cellular biology progresses, we see that more and more Neo-Darwinism looks highly unsatisfactory as an explanation for the origin of species and how the pattern of life emerged. Could it be that the cosmos is uniquely fit for life as it exists on earth and for organisms of design and biology very similar to our own species?? This Darwinian model of evolution is 'FULL of holes' and totally unsatisfactory. Indeed, even the great philosopher Antony Flew, the figurehead for atheists has recently abandoned his atheism by affirming that there is today no satisfactory naturalistic explanation for the first emergence of living from non-living matter, or for the capacity of life to reproduce itself genetically, and observing that there isn’t even any sign of such an explanation on the horizon ‘if indeed there ever could be.’.

Anyway, I'm not really here to discuss that Neo-Darwinian dogma/doctrine atheistic faith that we all seemed to be forced to 'swallow' for some reason, but to discuss the possible 'existence' of something more powerful than man (I know we seem to struggle with that concept that we may not know everything) at the 'centre' of the universe!???? Einstein, Hawkins think/thought so, so did most of the great philosophers and great scientists....it's where the evidence points in all honesty.

There are too many riddles not yet answered by either biology or the Bible, and by asking them honestly, without foregone conclusions, science could take a huge leap forward. If you think the answers are in safe hands among the ranks of evolutionary biologists, think again. No credible scientific theory has answered these dilemmas, and progress is being discouraged, I imagine, thanks to fundamentalist Christians, Muslims and Jews. By hijacking the whole notion of intelligent design, they have tarred genuine scientific issues with the stain of religious prejudice.

It NEVER ceases to amaze me that people tend to view God as that defined by organized religions; either that 'personal father figure' (that messed up his own creation and then punishes us all for it) exists or there is no 'God'!!!? It's an incredibly futile approach to philosophy. I mean, I personally would not take the scriptures literally at all for starters, not even the Jesus story....a lot of (if not all) that has to be myth. I think reading most of the Bible as an allegory is how it should be read, and in that sense it can be likened very much to mystic, pagan, Gnostic religions - cynical and stoical philosophy too. The New Testament is essentially stoicism in Jewish garb. It's just philosophy and deeply profound in that sense, we really do need to let 'the old man' drown and be reborn and reach 'the promised land' for salvation!! Many many allegories have been used for this concept; Jesus story and the Jews exodus are but two!

But WHAT/WHO is God my friends???????? Is it all of us? Are we all one? Is it nature?? Is it just 'good', what is it?? It's certainly NOT Dawkins!! Watch his face contort and go 'sour' with age, not at ease with himself at all and his anti-religious agenda disguised as 'science'.


"Follow the evidence, wherever it leads.” - The principle of Plato’s Socrates.

__________________
The more you know, the more you realize you don't know, the less you know the more you THINK you know.

greywolf90

i don't see how it is absurd to suggest that in a population, if certain traits provide better chances of survival in it's environment (such as being faster), then over a period of time, the frequency of these traits in the population will increase, while the frequency of those without these traits will decrease (and eventually disappear). this has nothing to do with how DNA is created, but it does explain how the DNA of a population is changed and how different speicies are created. now we know that natural selection is not the only mechanism that will cause a population to evolve, but it is safe to say that it is a significant contributer to evolution as long as we live in a world with many environments that are constantly changing.

__________________
"for there is nothing either good or bad but thinking makes it so."- Hamlet

WilliamBlue

What are you basing these hypotheses on? Do you have some hard science links? Things mutate all the time, watch this;

http://www.videosift.com/video/The-T...tion-Made-Easy

If your talking about the Origin of life on the planet, it took about 1.5 billion years before life began, so imagine running an experiment that long on a planet the size of earth.

What is your evidence? Other than 'Einstein, Hawkins think/thought so, so did most of the great philosophers and great scientists'. I'm pretty sure they don't have any proof either(maybe Einstein, since he's dead, but I'm sure he is not telling anyone else).

I am agnostic, if I had evidence I wouldn't be agnostic, geez. I do have a wife that tells me there is a God, but she doesn't have any proof either .

I myself have some thoughts, one of which is 'There is no God.', but I tend to keep most of them to myself, as they aren't ready.

__________________
When you dance with an elephant it's up to you to not get stepped on.
How can we be so arrogant and egotistical to believe that the whole Universe was created just for us?

Om

This is the part of your questioning I find most interesting. You are asking classic age-old questions that agnostics hold to be unanswerable ... yet asking in such a way that it appears it's either

1) out of frustration that we don't have answers, or perhaps

2) in such a way that suggests you believe you do have those answers, but are asking some leading questions in order to get someone to give you the response you're looking for before laying them on us.

Not accusing here, just curious about where you're coming from.

__________________
----

GI

>>Things mutate all the time

So they do, but can you give me an example of where a mutation increased the information content of a genome? And please don't say 'downs syndrome' or anything daft like that. It is impossible for a beneficial random mutation to occur over and over again, many, many times in just the right spot, as to add to a previous generation random mutation that has enhanced the fitness of said animal

>>If your talking about the Origin of life on the planet, it took about 1.5 billion years before life began, so imagine running an experiment that long on a planet the size of earth.

OK, well tell me the theory then, tell me how the living cell evolved, and tell me without making massive leaps and saying it just happened that a membrane formed etc etc etc, tell us how please. I don't care how much time you want for it to happen feasibly, just give us the theory. It's not asking a great deal. Please describe how genetic code (not matter or energy) is evolved by mutations.

>>What is your evidence? Other than 'Einstein, Hawkins think/thought so, so did most of the great philosophers and great scientists'. I'm pretty sure they don't have any proof either(maybe Einstein, since he's dead, but I'm sure he is not telling anyone else).

Evidence for what? Are you reading my post correctly? I prompted discussion, did not declare my beliefs or attempt to prove a thing! I don't have any beliefs as such, I'm a proper agnostic - I know I don't know (and that includes your evolution theory), but merely pointed out that great, brilliant people have never dismissed the concept of some 'God', that's all. I'll tell you what I do believe; I believe that Neo-Darwinism is not a satisfactory explanation of mechanism for origin of life and how DIFFERENT species arise.

I don't believe my post(s) are being understood here, I don't have any answers, I don't have any proof and don't claim to have any! I was merely hoping for debate, if you think there is a God then tell me why, if not, then tell me why, I'm just interested. I’m particularly interested in those that categorically claim there is not one, not that I know there is one but that I would be fascinated to hear their reasons on why there is not one!

__________________
The more you know, the more you realize you don't know, the less you know the more you THINK you know.

greywolf90

sickle cell is a mutation that is deadly when both recessive genes are inherited, but being heterozygous has no personal risk and makes you resistant to malaria. it is true that, for the most part, mutations that occur in we larger organisms are usually not beneficial and can be a hinderance to us. but then again, whether or not a mutation is beneficial depends on our environment. for smaller organisms such as insects, bacteria, and viruses, mutations generally are beneficial. the reason we do not have a cure for cancer or HIV is because they are constantly changing and adapting to their environment. now whether or not the mutation expands the genome of a population depends on if that mutation is passed on to the next generation.

im not sure that i understand this next question. are you asking how a cell changes into an organism, or how DNA is changed by mutation?

what specifically about evolution do you find unsatisfactory? i assume that you would agree that things like mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift can cause a population to change slightly. well over hundreds of generations with hundreds of subtle changes, these organisms would start to look significantly different from what they did hundreds or thousands of years ago. this is how we get different speicies. the basic principle of evolution is the grand canyon did not always look the way it does today, and that what we now see is a result of thousands of years of change.

__________________
"for there is nothing either good or bad but thinking makes it so."- Hamlet

GI

I'm waiting for an example of a mutation or evolutionary process that demonstrates information added to a genome. Are you providing 'sickle cell' as an example? Is that evidence of Darwinism working to produce a new species?

With respect to your second point; yes I agree that things like mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift can cause a population to change slightly, like skin colour, hair, eye colour etc. Darwin observed that finches beaks had altered for survival...does this explain origin of life or a fish becoming an amphibian? I think not. Explain to me how an animal would change into a completely different one with different heart, lungs etc and how these intermediates (never found in the fossil record) would survive half developed. We are told this happened, but evolutionists never explain how exactly (just that it did change into a different animal and accept it!) or the Cambrian explosion etc.

I'm with these guys on this Darwinism lark;

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/vie...d=view&id=2732

http://www.existence-of-god.com/flew...s-atheism.html

__________________
The more you know, the more you realize you don't know, the less you know the more you THINK you know.