i would love to hear your worldview about how the pseudo-science known as "intelligent design" makes more sense that atheism.
just to qualify my statements . .
you have put "intelligent design" as the opposite of atheism - - which i understand.
you are talking about the intelligent design 'movement' . .
which is part of a war between 'bible people' and the 'scientific community'
-
i don't point to the flagellum as an argument for 'god' ---> traditional mythology version or otherwise
but it does make me believe that evolution doesn't know it all - - as i mentioned another documentary (on pbs) convinced me that the years required for the darwin answer dont add up . . or at least made me question it as 100 percent fact beyond scrutiny!
ergo my post first statement about not throwing out the baby with the bathwater and god creationists clinging to the flagellum
-
also, 7/13, ur arguments in reply seem to just quote
what the 'scientific community' accepts or rejects .. as a form of proof
ergo - my next post's mention of ufos and spirits both of which the scientific community presently reject - - so that argument doesn't mean much to me personally
..
......
what does make sense to me is that a scientist from 150 years ago may not have solved the mystery of life on earth down to a 't'
-
he was the first to observe what he observed . . similarities and adaptations (or was he? i don't know)
but his explanation is now in doubt to me for various reasons and i'm ok with that
-
i believe in parts of evolution... within a species . . or certain species being linked . . or we're a ufo alien experiment that evolved but had guidance steering things that we don't know about . .
what about that phrase missing link . . because all while evolution was being touted as 100 percent fact - i kept hearing about an unfound puzzle piece.
-
i believe no one living has the answer - just bits and pieces of it
-
-
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(I meant for this to be three posts above... if it doesn't make sense in what's gone on now)
Can I propose a simple answer for the movement of the bacteria flagella (and it's not just flagella, it's cilia and limeopedia (I think that's how you spell it)): signaling pathways and cytoskelleton. It's basic cell biology now-a-days. For that matter, do we want to discuss how there are now protoza and bacteria that are found with ancient characteristics but have adapted to living in extreme (high acidity, extreme hot or cold) environments? It's the accumulation of positive genetic variances that are heritable.
Plus, Darwin didn't propose ANYTHING requiring microscopes. Both him and Wallace and every evolutionary scientist before relied on the MORPHOLOGICAL characteristics, NOT genetic. Genes weren't really proposed until Mendel, and at that what is now considered Mendellian genetics was NOT what he proposed. Not saying that morphology was the right way, there have been many things that we have seen since the advent of genetic sequencing that are not now considered to be true. Not even to mention that the double-helix that we know and love today wasn't discovered until the 1960s (while Watson and Crick were high on LSD - allegedly - but that's a different story).
I'm sorry if this response offends people, but this is what I study, this is what I love, some people take what they see on tv or youtube or read on the internet as what "biology" is and do not go any further, do not do any research other than what fits their specific needs. If anyone wanted, I would be MORE THAN WILLING to send people lecture notes, journal articles - from peer reviewed sources, whatever supporting my claims. Biology has come a long way in the past 60 years, unfortunately, some people still seem to live in the ... what I lovingly term... the dark ages.
update - thanks hey jude, that was awesome! at last, something i can sink my teeth into
THANKS FOR THE KNOWINGS!
but i like how you say you propose an answer... because if even one small part can't be explained it still falls under the catagory of 'most plausible theory' as of now .... (?)
-
i'm admitedly not studied in these fields - although i find it kind of arrogant -> any scientist or otherwise who claims to know all the answers of the universe
-
anyway, just out of curiosity - not trying to bait - where (if anywhere) do you factor ufos into evolution, god, et al
,,,,,
also - sorry to hear you lost people - i know the feeling
you go on to say that led you from catholicism
just wondering (non religiously) - do you ever think their spirits still exist somewhere?
thanks
-
-
1953 to be precise. And where did you hear that bit of nonsense about LSD?
-
so wait, when she mentioned those letters -
then you choose to show some expertise
- just playing