tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post1202752727962234385..comments2023-12-01T18:05:24.875-05:00Comments on Debunking Christianity: Adam and Eve Didn't Exist -- The Molecules Tell Us WhyUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger81125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-31969885181132200452009-11-03T23:07:10.286-05:002009-11-03T23:07:10.286-05:00Just a small mistake: monkeys are like apes in tha...Just a small mistake: monkeys are like apes in that they cannot make ascorbic acid (vitamin C). The wet-nosed primates, which can make the ascorbic acid, are the lemurs and lorisesMartin Hansonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00423182472546653997noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-57502636911396693972008-08-05T15:24:00.000-04:002008-08-05T15:24:00.000-04:00I don't want to waste tons of time on this, but I ...I don't want to waste tons of time on this, but I want to tell anyone out there reading that Jennifer is wrong, wrong, wrong on pretty much ALL of the biology she is claiming to know, including cells needing a "perfect" environment (you can boil some bacteria spores without killing them), your immune system clearing out all mutant cells (untrue...look all humans have mutated genomes, which would be impossible if jennifer was right about the supposed efficiency of our immune system to root out mutation), the inheritability of the eye-spot (the probability of an eye-spot mutant passing on the mutation to one of it's offspring is almost 1, as it was a single-celled organism that reproduced by fission), just to name a few. No, natural selection is not intelligent, but it does have a "goal"...it selects for mutations that are better able to reproduce in the environment, and this selection leads to directional changes, not random ones. The errors continue, and I don't have time to list or correct them all, but take what she says with a shaker full of salt.Shygetzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12587529149916263563noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-65916026400297591192008-08-01T09:11:00.000-04:002008-08-01T09:11:00.000-04:00The point I was trying to make is that if anything...The point I was trying to make is that if anything is irreducibly complex it would be god. And if irreducibly complex is an indication of design, then god would have to have been designed by someone else.<BR/><BR/>the old who created the creator argument.<BR/><BR/>and anyway, if god created adam and eve the way the bible says, where do they fit in history?<BR/>Cain left and built a city. Cities started getting built between 4000 - 3500 bc. That puts adam and eve back between 5000 - 4000 granting them a 900 year lifespan. There were estimated 15 million people on the earth at that time and none of them seemed to have lived much over 30.<BR/><BR/>So don't lose sight of the forest. There's a lot of trees out there that need to be accounted for to place adam and eve in history.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17353286859864448748noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-43596632548789594462008-08-01T00:19:00.000-04:002008-08-01T00:19:00.000-04:00Look,it is simple, If it is a sound principle that...Look,<BR/>it is simple, <BR/>If it is a sound principle that <BR/>if "the world is too complex to have arisen on its own then it must have been designed"<BR/>we can restate it like this<BR/>" 'x' is too complex to have arisen on its own then it must have been designed"<BR/>and replace x with "a watch"<BR/>it is true,<BR/>and replace x with "a car"<BR/>it is true<BR/>and replace x with "a god"<BR/>and it should be true.<BR/><BR/>simple, elegant, succinct.<BR/><BR/>for it not to be true is called "special pleading". Special pleading can be shown to be non-fallacious with a valid reason. Wheres the reason?<BR/><BR/>I'll bet the only 'reason' will be circular. They can't help but be circular because there is no evidence, only assertion from the bible. The bible is the only evidence, but it is one of a few competing hypotheses for revelation about god and origins. Thers has yet to be shown any compelling reason to consider the bible version authoritative over any other version.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17353286859864448748noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-67492151598572986912008-07-31T21:17:00.000-04:002008-07-31T21:17:00.000-04:00"There is no question in my mind that there is an ..."There is no question in my mind that there is an intelligent designer. We all know a well put together machine when we see one and we don't question that it was indeed put together."<BR/>And THIS supposition that things are just too complicated to have evolved is ridiculous to the point of absurdity. People who lack understanding of processes are so fond of spouting it yet it just does not wash. Have you ever been involved in designing something from scratch? Something designed by an intelligent being rarely works the first time, be it software or a machine. Some little detail is not worked out correctly, it is built, and the error is found, and the error is fixed. It is through the process of post-design, post-built. post-testing adjusting that something intelligently designed finally works. The process of evolution is the same. Things change. If they work, they persist. If they cost more than they are worth, they fade away. If they are worth more than they cost, they are passed on to offspring, who pass them on. Sometimes they stop being a benefit and if the cost is not too great, mthey persist. Like the cigarette lighter in a car being the port for charging cell phones. What a silly way to plug in a tiny device with a giant plug. Designed by an intelligent being, but over increments, so it is really kinda defective by now. The process of natural design by mutation and selection is pretty much the same as design by intelligence. Oh, you might claim your perfect god could design perfectly the first time, but tell me why we have appendix and lots of other 'defects' or useless baggage. The idea that something designed intelligently is more or less complex and works more or less effectively than something designed by mutation and selection over time is wrong. If we were designed by an intelligent being, we would not be able to function ass effectively as we do with our defects. That life functions as it does with its 'imperfect designs' shows what the defects have been smoothed out over time.goprairiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00532311590000341237noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-49841133786373028502008-07-31T17:47:00.000-04:002008-07-31T17:47:00.000-04:00"This whole article talks of natural selection as ..."This whole article talks of natural selection as if it is intelligent. It isn't! Random processes are random. If one animal had a light sensitive spot on it's skin that gave it some advantage, the chances of passing the genetic material on to one of it's offspring, depending on which animal it may have been and how many offsrping it could produce per generation, would be very slim because it was a mutation. Of course mutations can be passed on and they are all the time, but life is engineered in such a way as to keep mutations from happening. <BR/>Each one of us has an immune system that is on guard 100% of the time, but hampered by stress and other factors. We can potentially and plausibly have cancer cells develping right now that our immune system is killing off and we'll never know we have a mutation underway unless our immune system can't win."<BR/><BR/>Clearly you are not operating under the same rules of science as the rest of the world. A mutation, as in a genetic mutation, occurs when the egg/sperm production or combination process and it is this mutation that is expressed in the organism, and since it then makes egg or sperm with the mutation, the mutation can and often is passed on. the immune sytem has nothing whatsoever to do with mutations. and mutations can and do lead to incredibly complex things and generations and generations of great numbers of individual combinations and splittings of genetic material occurs in sexual reproduction. the human mind can almost not comprehend the hugeness of numbers of these combinations multiplied by geological time. <BR/>i don't have the time to pick at the other scientific errors in your comment and it seems to be a cold thread now anyway.goprairiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00532311590000341237noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-77962369306285935292008-07-30T13:52:00.000-04:002008-07-30T13:52:00.000-04:00This comment has been removed by the author.Johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18342042981695750691noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-71337718213570601882008-07-30T08:21:00.000-04:002008-07-30T08:21:00.000-04:00References:J. R. Hernstein, et al, “A Geometric Di...References:<BR/>J. R. Hernstein, et al, “A Geometric Distance to the Galaxy NGC4258 from Orbital Motions in a Nuclear Gas Disk,” Nature, 400 (1999), 539-41. <BR/>D. C. Homan and J. F. C. Wardle, “Direct Distance Measurements to Superluminal Radio Sources,” Astrophysical Journal, 535 (2000), 575-85.Johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18342042981695750691noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-78082954578604242862008-07-30T07:50:00.000-04:002008-07-30T07:50:00.000-04:00"I am not arguing for a young earth, although none..."I am not arguing for a young earth, although none of us can unequivocally prove it is not."<BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>Jennifer,<BR/><BR/> Recent studies have calculated the vast distances to astronomical sources based upon geometry. The calculation of distances using triangulation REQUIRE NO ASSUMPTIONS, but are based purely upon mathematical principles.<BR/> <BR/>Geometric measurements of quasar 3C 279 now establish that the universe is at least 5.9 billion light years across. Since light cannot travel faster than the speed of light, the light from that quasar must have been traveling for 5.9 billion years. The young earth explanation is that God created the light in transit. However, we know that quasars existed only during the beginning of the universe, since none are seen closer to us than billions of light years. If God created light in transit, He would have created the light in transit from a quasar that does not now exist. Likewise, we have observed supernova explosions in galaxies millions of light years away. If God created light in transit from these objects, He would have made the light from an object that does not now exist, since it appeared to have blown up millions of years before the universe was actually created.<BR/><BR/>THE UNIVERSE IS OLD!!!!Johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18342042981695750691noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-2764996566562284822008-07-30T03:44:00.000-04:002008-07-30T03:44:00.000-04:00Well, I can see that once again the point has been...Well, I can see that once again the point has been lost. I'll be very clear:<BR/><BR/><B>I am not arguing for a young earth, although none of us can unequivocally prove it is not.<BR/><BR/>Behe is an ID proponent from the theistic evolution camp, so we are not even arguing if evolution is true or not.</B><BR/><BR/><B>This is about whether or not a Creator could have created a man and woman as is loosely described in the Bible.</B><BR/><BR/>If I were a scientist I would not be leading people into a following by claiming I have all the answers. Science should be a humble undertaking with the understanding that a scientist is only a person who develops hypotheses, tests them and presents findings, which should be neutral.<BR/><BR/>But the findings are not neutral are they? Evolution is given a personality in place of God. Just looking on Talk Origins and Talk Design is enough to demonstrate how people are looking for direction wherever they can find it. "Evolution is cleverer than you are." ???? Really? Evolution is clever now? Even if it is only<BR/>tongue in cheek, the language of personality and direction is prevelant in the articles.<BR/><BR/>You say I can't see and I say you can't see. We are all little people in a huge continuum of time and learning from the past we can see that at times scientists thought they were absolutely right; hands down. They found out they were wrong sometimes.<BR/><BR/>Can you see how silly the argument from Miller is in <A HREF="http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/7819_part_07_dr_michael_behe_dr_10_31_2002.asp" REL="nofollow"> this exchange</A> between Behe and Miller? I do and I am <I>sure</I> others will. Posturing and ridicule only work on the sheep among us.<BR/><BR/>Behe is right and I really can't imagine how frustrating it must be to only be able to give such short answers. I'd like to see a debate which is spread out over several days so each party can have the time to make an in depth rebuttal. <BR/><BR/>Goprarie,<BR/>I think I can already guess what you are referring to and I am not convinced by the simple diagrams because I have watched cells under a microscope and have studied the intricate chain of chemical processes that occur within a cell. Maybe you have too, but we come to different conclusions.<BR/>Plants are even more fascinating.<BR/><BR/>Here is one example of what I think you are suggesting:<BR/><A HREF="http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/01/1/l_011_01.html" REL="nofollow">Evolution of the Eye</A><BR/><BR/>Some scientists believe, believe - they do not have proof, that eyes may have developed in several animals during the "Cambrian Explosion", and if there is no intelligent design, it would seem to be the only way to account for any animals having eyes at all.<BR/><BR/>This whole article talks of natural selection as if it is intelligent. It isn't! Random processes are random. If one animal had a light sensitive spot on it's skin that gave it some advantage, the chances of passing the genetic material on to one of it's offspring, depending on which animal it may have been and how many offsrping it could produce per generation, would be very slim because it was a <I>mutation</I>. Of course mutations can be passed on and they are all the time, but life is <I>engineered</I> in such a way as to keep mutations from happening. <BR/>Each one of us has an immune system that is on guard 100% of the time, but hampered by stress and other factors. We can potentially and plausibly have cancer cells develping right now that our immune system is killing off and we'll never know we have a mutation underway unless our immune system can't win.<BR/><BR/>The article says: <I>"eyes corresponding to every stage in this sequence have been found in existing living species. The existence of this range of less complex light-sensitive structures supports scientists' hypotheses about how complex eyes like ours could evolve."</I><BR/><BR/>Really? If you're a skeptic like me, you might wonder if those eyes are the result of lost genetic material. If we say each eye is a stage in the evolution of the eye as we know it, we are implying engineering, or design. Those eyes are somehow incomplete because they are not as "advanced" as more complex eyes. We have passed a value judgment for random processes. <BR/><BR/>There is no question in my mind that there is an intelligent designer. We all know a well put together machine when we see one and we don't question that it was indeed put together. <BR/><BR/>If evolution is purely random there is no desireable outcome. Random processes do not make value judgements, yet we do. We have an idea of what "perfect" means and are working hard to attain to it! <BR/><BR/>Anyway, I'm getting way off topic. One of Evan's points is that Adam and Eve cannot be true because humans are descended from non-human ancestors. Well, if the first human was fashioned from the earth, there were plenty of lower life forms to build from in one inch of soil. Genesis does not record whether the plants and animals came from the same "seed" as man, but it may very well have been. God is not a magician, He is the ultimate naturalist.<BR/><BR/>His reason Genesis cannot be accepted even metaphorically is based upon a value judgment about dominion. I think it's obvious that we DO have dominion over the earth. We weed our gardens, manage the forests, protect wild game from poachers, care for the water and the air, and we make value judgements based upon our sense of worth. None of us would give the dog our last piece of meat if one of our children were in need of it, even if we felt bad for the dog - which we would.<BR/>For that matter, we MUST have dominion over the dog, or the dog will dominate us...the Alpha.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-9922297050631174002008-07-30T03:10:00.000-04:002008-07-30T03:10:00.000-04:00This whole blog is pointless as the bible accounts...This whole blog is pointless as the bible accounts shows us that we cannot take the Genesis account the way you have.<BR/><BR/>For more see my blog,<BR/><BR/>christianityversusatheism.blogspot.comReverend Phillip Brownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11066146652758132098noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-33668426045345383832008-07-30T00:43:00.000-04:002008-07-30T00:43:00.000-04:00You say "but I understand what I read. What I read...You say "but I understand what I read. What I read points to irreducible complexity on some levels." Try this: Instead of looking for things you and others think are irreducibly complex, try looking for the explanations of why they are NOT. there are explanations right here onthe internet for every sincle one of them, written clearly and simply. start with the eye and you will find light sensing cells that have usefullness to the animal and you will se the progression from there to eyeball in eye socket, all steps explained. look for the scientific explanation of where the parts of the 'motor flagellan' come from and you will see the step that lead to it. it is all reducible and it all evolved. and it is easy to find the information on it if you are open minded to it.goprairiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00532311590000341237noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-42388443739265431852008-07-29T22:57:00.000-04:002008-07-29T22:57:00.000-04:00Evan,you are doing a great, great, job.my complime...Evan,<BR/>you are doing a great, great, job.<BR/>my compliments!<BR/>I'm going to reference this article in one of my series.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17353286859864448748noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-61610964000224442262008-07-29T18:13:00.000-04:002008-07-29T18:13:00.000-04:00Jennifer,Here's the thing. You are full of what-if...Jennifer,<BR/><BR/>Here's the thing. You are full of what-if's and maybes, so you make a very nebulous point and I don't quite see how it's anything but a way of rescuing your belief in God from data that clearly shows that he doesn't exist.<BR/><BR/>Man is NOT made from earth. Man is made eggs and sperm. Those eggs and sperm were originally in mammals who were not man by our definition. This is the OPPOSITE of God fashioning man in his own image. It is the ecology of Africa forming man from prosimians.<BR/><BR/>As to irreducible complexity -- we still have no test for it so it's a fancy way of saying, "I can't imagine it evolved." You say as much in the above.<BR/><BR/>And yes, if the Bible were accurate history or even if it were metaphorically true in some sense it would not have God specially creating the kinds of animals and plants because that is not what happened. It would also not have God giving man "dominion" over the earth but would instead talk about his brotherhood with his fellow creatures.<BR/><BR/>Finally, it would not have placed the origin of man in Mesopotamia, which is where civilization originated, but in Africa, where humans originated.<BR/><BR/>Nothing in the Genesis account gibes with what we know to be true, even if you personally are unable to face the facts.<BR/><BR/>Thanks also for your end of the conversation :)Evanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14299188458940897810noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-33792070418384029972008-07-29T18:03:00.000-04:002008-07-29T18:03:00.000-04:00but the book of Genesis at no point says that Adam...<I>but the book of Genesis at no point says that Adam and Eve are related to the birds of the air and the beasts of the field.</I><BR/><BR/>And does it need to? Adam was made from the ground. If man (male and female) were made from the ground and all other life was made before man, it makes sense that we all come from the same stuff! Even mitochondrially related! Why not? Why don't you think it works?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-67412243943014933732008-07-29T17:59:00.000-04:002008-07-29T17:59:00.000-04:00Evan,I looked at the video and my points for Behe ...Evan,<BR/>I looked at the video and my points for Behe would be:<BR/><BR/>1)Comedy Central is not the place to have a detailed discussion about the physiology of a cell. Of course the audience laughed, they were there to be entertained.<BR/><BR/>2)Dr. Behe did a good job of explaining the intelligence behind the design. <BR/><BR/>3)I am not arguing against common descent and neither is Dr. Behe, he seems to agree with it and I don't know enough about genetics to comment intelligently on the subject.<BR/><BR/>4)I do have a good knowledge of the cell, as complete as it is now. Metabolism is something that is still not understood completely, and please don't pretend that it is because I can give a long list of "peer reviewed" studies which will show otherwise. A cell is extremely complex and while it may have "back-up" systems, the fact remains that in order to work correctly there must be a perfect environment.<BR/>The less stable and fine tuned the environment is, the faster degeneration processes take place. <BR/><BR/>5)We are organisms so when studying the individual cell and it's role in the living body, we can't separate the cell from the organism. It's like my garden; it is an organism. If I have a healthy ecosystem developing and I neglect one factor, such as nitrogen fixation, my garden will not remain healthy. It will still produce for a few years, but then it will end up a desert full of weeds until an intelligent being (me) comes along. (This is what is attractive about bio-dynamics. It considers the whole organism while recognizing it's individual parts and how the health of each ingredient is what the whole organism's health is dependent upon. It works very well even if it does rely to some degree on more esoteric methods.)<BR/>Even mothers-to-be are told that in order to have the best chances for a healthy baby, they must eat the perfect diet, get enough sleep, exercise moderately etc.. for at least a year prior to carrying a child. They are preparing the "soil" and it makes a difference! This implies that although we have a great diversity of chemical processes that can cover some poor ones, there is a <I>best</I> case scenario and we all reach for the paradise lost.<BR/><BR/>6)According to Genesis, God was with Adam and Eve even after their expulsion from the perfect environment. Cain talked with God and was grieved to leave God's presence. Whether metaphorical or actual, the concept of God helping the first people to get along in a more hostile world (which would not have been very hostile at all given the climate and vegetation in the rest of the region), fits well with the creation account and the stubborn independence man continues to display. Between the Catholic and Jewish views of Genesis I think it can be metaphorically interpreted, but I won't make a committment to a young or old earth. I'll keep my options open! <BR/> <BR/>I am not a scientist, I'm just a mom with a background in some medical science toward a nursing degree, but I understand what I read. What I read points to irreducible complexity on some levels.<BR/><BR/>Thanks for the conversation. :)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-25027465287066673222008-07-29T14:22:00.000-04:002008-07-29T14:22:00.000-04:00You can watch the interview with Behe at Comedy Ce...You can watch the interview with Behe at Comedy Central's website or <A HREF="http://www.videosift.com/video/Colbert-Questions-Behe-On-Intelligent-Design" REL="nofollow">here</A>.<BR/><BR/>You can determine for yourself if Behe argued his case persuasively.<BR/><BR/>As for Von Willebrand's disease I know a bit about that. In fact large numbers of people with genetic markers for VWF have no clotting problems whatsoever, a phenomenon known as <A HREF="http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/bsc/bjh/2001/00000115/00000003/art00030;jsessionid=8so5g6q32476f.alexandra?format=print&crawler=true" REL="nofollow">incomplete penetrance</A>. <BR/><BR/>Additionally, there are numbers of clotting factors that are redundant and deficiencies of them <A HREF="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8844208" REL="nofollow">do not yield disease</A>.<BR/><BR/>Dr. Behe is simply wrong. His biases are obvious and I see you have given me no test other than personal incredulity to determine what is irreducibly complex.<BR/><BR/>Therefore, by any reasonable standard, you should accept (at a minimum) common descent, which throws out the Genesis account both literally and metaphorically. If you wish to believe that 3.5 to 4 billion years ago a man in the sky made a cell that later evolved, you have no conclusive proof at the moment that that did not take place, but the story of life after that point is well-understood in its broad outlines.<BR/><BR/>Those outlines demolish the Genesis text in a literal or figurative interpretation.Evanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14299188458940897810noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-54473437557548936632008-07-29T12:48:00.000-04:002008-07-29T12:48:00.000-04:00Shygetz,One interesting question is, since the gen...Shygetz,<BR/><BR/><I>One interesting question is, since the genetic component (DNA or RNA) and the catalytic component (proteins) are separate, how did evolution occur since life requires both the ability to store information (genetic code) and the ability to catalyse replication of the information?</I><BR/><BR/>This is what I was actually asking so thank you for being more specific.<BR/><BR/>I thought you were a psychiatrist so I must be getting everybody mixed up. <BR/>I'm not familiar with Behe being embarassed, ridiculed or unanimously proven wrong by peer review, or is that peer pressure? I am not swayed by majority opinion. Nikola Tesla had a hard go of it, but he was right.<BR/><BR/>Anyway, on Talk Origin I noticed blood clotting was listed as not being irriducibly complex. I've not learned what "cascading" is, but Von Willebrand's disease and hemophillia are two undeniable realities and each is only missing one clotting factor. Whether there is a hypothetical or technical explanation for blood clotting not being IC, neither condition is able to support life without modern technology and careful attention to injury. Especially in the case of Von Willebrand's in women.<BR/><BR/><BR/>Evan,<BR/><BR/>I actually don't think the mouse trap is laughable. If you take apart a strand of RNA or DNA, the individual amino acids are in the same position unless they have the <I>precise</I> conditions in which to combine, or something like a virus can occur which is not life as we know it. How did Behe respond to the laughter, what was said next? Or maybe he didn't pick that battle.<BR/><BR/>Behe's point was that the mouse trap won't work for it's inteneded purpose if one component is missing and the trap must be <I>assembled</I> by intelligence so we're back to the watchmaker in a sense. From your telling, Colbert was making a case for ID.<BR/>Or maybe I don't see why it's funny and you could explain more in depth.<BR/><BR/>I believe in God for several reasons and science is not a threat to that belief. I enjoy learning about how things work and the intricacies of nature, but I do not agree with you that the gaps are getting smaller. <BR/><BR/>We are the ones who subscribe words such as "supernatural" to God. It's exciting to learn more and more because I think it is leading us closer to understanding the magnitude of God. Believing that the Bible is "inerrant" doesn't mean it must be scientifically accurate in every detail by today's standards. <A HREF="http://helives.blogspot.com/2008/06/science-and-faith-at-war-god-is-not-god.html" REL="nofollow">This</A> is a short post which shows what I would not communicate as well.<BR/><BR/>It is my perspective, and that of otheres as well, that until we know all there is to know (and how will we know that?), we can only guess at conclusions. I am as certain that God exists as I am that I am touching this keyboard, but I don't pretend to know everything there is to know about God. I have a lot of questions, but it's OK for the answers to be a long time in coming or maybe not to come at all in my lifetime. I think there will be a marriage of the study of creation and the study of God at some point, but I probably won't live to see it. <BR/><BR/>That's probably a weak perspective in your opinion, but it doesn't stop me from wanting and being excited over new knowledge and application within moral limits and I think my life is richer for it.<BR/><BR/>Best,<BR/>JenniferAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-58779378994332931522008-07-29T11:35:00.000-04:002008-07-29T11:35:00.000-04:00Jennifer,I'm glad to see you accept common descent...Jennifer,<BR/><BR/>I'm glad to see you accept common descent, and I hope you see the implications of it. Specifically it means that Genesis is wrong and we are not specially created either metaphorically or actually.<BR/><BR/>As to abiogenesis, I've posted a couple of times before a perfectly plausible if unproven sequence of events that could lead to it, but this is still an area of active research and everything is still unproven. However, the sequence currently hypothesized requires no divine intervention and uses normally occurring molecules and structures that would have existed on earth 3.5-4 billion years ago.<BR/><BR/>Remember, a hundred million years is a long time. A hundred MYA there were dinosaurs on earth.<BR/><BR/>Finally to irreducible complexity there are two main objections. First is the one Stephen Colbert brought up when he was interviewing Behe. Behe suggests the mousetrap is irreducibly complex. Colbert replied that after you take apart a mouse trap, all you have is wood, a piece of metal and a spring, and those are useless, nobody could ever do anything with those. The crowd laughed and I hope you see why.<BR/><BR/>The second, and much bigger problem is that irreducible complexity as a concept lacks any rigor. There are no tests for it. It amounts to a gigantic argument from personal incredulity.<BR/><BR/>"I can't believe this evolved, therefore it must be irreducibly complex."<BR/><BR/>There has been no technique put forward for determining if something is actually irreducibly complex.<BR/><BR/>And to back up Shygetz, there simply is no example of an "irreducibly complex" structure that hasn't been howitzered to pieces by either pre-existing or subsequent research.<BR/><BR/>So I am sure we can agree that if you can come up with a test for irreducible complexity that reliably determines all objects that are designed by intelligences and separates them from evolved structures, that will help us determine whether the theory has any validity. In addition, if you can find an irreducibly complex structure that actually is irreducibly complex and could not have evolved, that would discredit some part of evolutionary theory.<BR/><BR/>But common descent is as proven as a thing can be. Hardly anyone on this thread is disputing it (with the exception of Lvka who is choosing not to argue that point but holding out that it might be incorrect).<BR/><BR/>And common descent is all you need to realize that Genesis is a fiction BOTH historically and metaphorically. We ARE NOT shaped by God, but are shaped by our history and our genes.Evanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14299188458940897810noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-37673269946795310352008-07-29T10:38:00.000-04:002008-07-29T10:38:00.000-04:00Keep in mind, you asked a scientific question...if...Keep in mind, you asked a scientific question...if you were expecting a short answer, you are a fool. Even so, this answer has been significantly shortened...if you want details, attend your friendly local neighborhood university.<BR/><BR/><I>What is your answer for irriducible complexity? You are a physician so you know cellular anatomy and physiology. Which hypothesis for the evolution of the cell do you find adequate?</I><BR/><BR/>I am a biochemist, so I may be in a better position than a physician to answer this question. <BR/><BR/>The answer to irreducible complexity is simple...we have not yet found a system that is irreducibly complex. If an system was found that was truly irreducible and was sufficiently complex to disallow evolution by chance, then evolution would be disproven as a mechanism for it's arisal. Such a system has never been found. There have been systems that Behe has CLAIMED are irreducibly complex, but he always conveniently forgets to look at alternate functions, duplication and co-option, and scaffolding, which are known occurances in evolution. Every time Behe comes up with an example, scientists quickly find (or often have already found) functional intermediates (real-world, not hypothetical) that allow evolution to work just fine (first the flagellum, then the eye, then the immune system; I'm not sure what he's touting now, or if he's given up). There have been multiple entire peer-reviewed articles debunking Behe's crap, his entire department has publically disowned him on their website, he was terribly embarassed in court in Dover by the MOUNTAINS of peer-reviewed research on the evolution of the immune system that he just never bothered to read (seriously, if he had been a grad student unaware of that much literature on his supposed topic of expertise, I would have failed him), and yet creationists still cite him as a credible scholar to confuse their followers who are uneducated in evolutionary biology. The only possible explanation is that the creationists aren't interested in truth, they are looking for propaganda.<BR/><BR/><I>I haven't heard a plausible explanation for the extremely intricate "factory" which is a cell.</I><BR/><BR/>The problem that most people have when they think of irreducible complexity, whether it is a flagellum or a whole cell, is they look at the end product and think that it had to pop up as is somehow and be able to compete in the modern environment. This simply isn't true. All an organism would have to do is evolve one trait that wrapped it in a lipid bilayer consisting on one type of lipid. Being able to protect its genetic material from outside forces would be an inherent advantage to the faithful transfer of genetic material to later generations. The rest of the complexity would be added on top of that gradually to give you the finished product. The difficult question for evolutionary biology isn't "How is there a cell"--the basic structure of the cell is just a bilayer of lipid, a very common organic molecule; it's "Why is the cell structure of different organisms so fundamentally different" given that cell evolution seemed to occur so early.<BR/><BR/>Abiogenesis is an active field, and there is currently no hypothesis that has been sufficiently tested to be presented as fact. I, for one, favor the co-evolutionary framework posited by Carl Woese, where the evolution of the cell occurred concommitant with the split between archae and other life, and was part-and-parcel of the evolution of translation and the conversion from RNA-world to proteinaceous biology. In the absence of cells, horizontal gene transfer would play a much larger role, allowing evolutionary advantage to rapidly be passed along between organisms, in addition to the traditional Darwinian lineage (and yes, we know horizontal gene transfer is real--it's one way antibiotic resistance spreads among bacteria; it's just relatively rare because the cell membrane/wall gets in the way). So, the proto-machinery for organizing a membrane would be widespread, and the evolutionary step towards actual lipid biogenesis would be small for all organisms; however, differences in how this step was made would cause the different lineages we see. Once cellular biology was widespread, it by itself would greatly slow or stop horizontal gene transfer, allowing the two major lineages to evolve separately with little genetic cross-talk.<BR/><BR/>If you wish to confine your God to the spaces currently left unexplained by science, feel free. But, when you are older, be sure to write a book entitled "The Amazing Shrinking God" and dedicate it to me, because those spaces are getting smaller and smaller every day.<BR/><BR/><I>How did RNA, or DNA, come into existence without a nucleus and how did a nucleus come to exist without organized amino acids? Amino acids...that's another topic.</I><BR/><BR/>The VAST majority of organisms on the planet have DNA and RNA, but no nucleus. So, we know perfectly well how that happened--a nucleus is not at ALL required for DNA and RNA, and is a relative latecomer to Earth. Nuclei also came after amino acids. Amino acids can easily occur by solution-phase chemistry, and were certainly present on pre-biotic Earth (as demonstrated by Miller-Urey and later related studies under different conditions, and supported by atmospheric science)--indeed, ancient genomes are enriched for codons encoding for amino acids that are easier to generate by solution phase chemistry, strongly suggesting that the original amino acid complement was smaller than the current one. <BR/><BR/>One interesting question is, since the genetic component (DNA or RNA) and the catalytic component (proteins) are separate, how did evolution occur since life requires both the ability to store information (genetic code) and the ability to catalyse replication of the information? Either proteins would have to be capable of self-replication of their own information, or nucleic acids would have to be capable of catalysis, or evolution as a force in abiogenesis is stuck. Turns out, RNA is a catalyst for a wide variety of reactions. It's not as versatile a catalyst as proteins (which is why it was eventually replaced with proteins), but it works well enough for evolution to be possible.Shygetzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12587529149916263563noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-46290576072732285202008-07-29T09:46:00.000-04:002008-07-29T09:46:00.000-04:00Something else Evan failed to mention is that, eve...Something else Evan failed to mention is that, every time humans moved to a new environment, they would have to find sources of vitamin C. How did they do that? Trial and error...eat stuff and see if people get scurvy. So, every time humans spread to a new locale (including when they left the Garden of Eden), they would have to suffer through generations until they found the plants/animals that prevented scurvy. (Eskimos found it in uncooked organ meat and the skin of the Beluga whale, and camel milk is high in Vitamin C, since that seems to concern lvka). No other migratory animal species has to deal with this deficiency, but your all-loving God decided that His chosen people should suffer and die every time they traveled to a new environment, like He forced them to do when He expelled them from the Garden.Shygetzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12587529149916263563noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-36356242290844219392008-07-29T00:37:00.000-04:002008-07-29T00:37:00.000-04:00Evan, I respect Your convictions; I just see no po...Evan, <BR/><BR/>I respect Your convictions; I just see no point to them, that's all. What is so strange in eating food that has vitamin C in it? And how do You explain (away) the very existence of...eskimos and beduins?<BR/><BR/>Our job isn't to "create" either food or water or air "on our own": God made us an *integrant part* of Mother Nature; the Jewish and Christian God is a *Creator* God; not the God of Gnosticism. And the Christian God is *Trinitarian*, as opposed to being either *monistic* or *individualistic*. :-| <BR/><BR/>How can You even <B>think</B> of us as isolated, self-subsisting entities in need of nothing else than ourselves!? :-\ :-O What kind of a bizarre and convoluted logic is that!? :-/The Blogger Formerly Known As Lvkahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09663692507774640889noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-43885799815283428382008-07-29T00:24:00.000-04:002008-07-29T00:24:00.000-04:00Evan,What is your answer for irriducible complexit...Evan,<BR/>What is your answer for irriducible complexity? You are a physician so you know cellular anatomy and physiology. Which hypothesis for the evolution of the cell do you find adequate? <BR/><BR/>How did RNA, or DNA, come into existence without a nucleus and how did a nucleus come to exist without organized amino acids? Amino acids...that's another topic. <BR/><BR/>Ed,<BR/>Has Behe changed his view on irriducible complexity? From what I remember he doesn't have an issue with common descent, but does have a problem with the cell. That's where I am as well. I haven't heard a plausible explanation for the extremely intricate "factory" which is a cell.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-38747980780085586632008-07-28T23:36:00.000-04:002008-07-28T23:36:00.000-04:00the genetic 'defect' is more easily explained by e...the genetic 'defect' is more easily explained by evolution than by 'god creating'. it is more likely that it happened by a genetic defect that was not fatal or that was even linked to another improvement than that it happened by accident or on purpose by god. as is the case in ALL THINGS attributed to god if you really look. the natural explanation makes more sense and is therefore more likely than the god one.goprairiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00532311590000341237noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-25882696245247929862008-07-28T21:12:00.000-04:002008-07-28T21:12:00.000-04:00Jennifer,I don't know enough about the specific bi...Jennifer,<BR/><BR/><I>I don't know enough about the specific biology of primates and humans to be able to argue anything from that perspective, but one is going to criticize God for not providing Vit. C, it's a poor argument.</I><BR/><BR/>The primary point of the post is to show that we descend from prosimians. It sounds like you don't want to criticize that and that's intelligent of you because any criticism will be defeated easily. So you are glomming on to Lvka's point that somehow it's OK for God to uniquely single out humans and prosimians as the only primates that can't make ascorbic acid as if that makes it unexceptional.<BR/><BR/>Except of course that in times of famine, disease, or travel uncounted millions of humans in history have DIED from scurvy!<BR/><BR/>Does God say in Genesis, "From the garden I have given ye shall ye never depart, nay for if thou eatest not of fruits high in vitamin C verily shalt thou die."<BR/><BR/>Nope, he doesn't. It took British sailors to figure out what to do about it in the modern era. Before then huge numbers of soldiers, pilgrims, travellers and other humans died of this eminently preventable disease. All because they can't make their own vitamin C. <BR/><BR/>I don't believe in God, so I don't believe it is an argument that God is evil because something that doesn't exist can't be evil.<BR/><BR/>But IF you believe in God, you must explain his choice to predestine so many humans to die of scurvy when he could easily have given them a functioning gene for gulonolactone oxidase.Evanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14299188458940897810noreply@blogger.com