Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[HeyJude18]

I've stayed rather mute in this topic, but with the new discussion of evolution and religion I find intriguing.  One of my focuses in school is in evolutionary studies and I was a cradle Catholic.  Since I was about 16 I refuted all religion and came to the conclusion that if there's a god, it would want humans to live loving one another, nature, and the planet.  A little while around that I had lost a couple of close friends and couldn't find a good reason for an "all loving god" to do this.

So where does the evolution aspect come into this?  Evolution happens, there is as Darwin and Wallace put it a "struggle for existence" where only the "fit" survive.  Fit meaning those best adapted to their environment, and survive meaning survival to reproduction to pass on their genes to the next generation (although both Darwin and Wallace only had parts of what was/is going on).  Sure, this might all be part of my education talking but I am a firm believer that everything on this earth has evolved (there is evidence to support this through phylogenetic evidence, etc.), and evolution continues to happen (why do you think that there's a new flu virus every year - it's mutated and evolved from the previous strain).

A topic we discussed in my philosophy of biology class earlier this term was if there was creationism, where does god come into the picture.  There was one theory that suggested that god set up everything at the beginning and has to interject every time there's a slight variation in the animal, plant, bacteria, what-have-you.  The other theory that we suggested was that god set up the system knowing that there was an evolution to take place and just sat back and let nature take its course (this one more of the intelligent design theory).  The intelligent design makes a little more sense when you're comparing the two, but when looking at fossil evidence one sees that things just happened to pop in and out of existence at whatever time.  The problem with these theories however comes in the extinction aspect - neither of them account for it and cannot find a good reason why god would let an entire species die.

Also on the topic of creationism, we discussed in my philosophy of science class (off topic: yeah, I'm doing a philosophy minor with my biology major) about what could be considered science, and it has been discussed by philosophers of science, theologists and scientists alike that creationism or "creation science" is not actually a science and couldn't be discussed along with evolutionary theories because it's as much of a pseudo-science as is astrology or numerology.

Just as an FYI - many of these things are just what has been presented to me through my education and through some conclusions (at the beginning there) that I have come to myself.  I actually encourage everyone to do their own research on it and not to take my word for things, I'm just an undergrad, I don't have everything figured out for myself yet.

[Joost]

i do hope you're kidding there joost. intelligent design is for those that cannot do the math. and you will notice that it's the religious right types that push this warped fairy tale.  

I accept evolution as fact, I just don't think it's proof of there not being a god. That's all I'm saying. Nothing "religious right" about that.

Not caring for your tone at all, by the way.

[nyfan(41)]

four or five years ago i was converted from evolution to intelligent design
-
the problem is that many -- i guess religious right bible literalists have adopted it as their 'proof'
-
i saw a pbs documentary on it though- it made me realize people were throwing out the baby with the bathwater re. intelligent design . .

-
what really convinced me to question 'evolution' (defined as one string on life that mutated from species to more complex species by means of natural selection i.e. less favorable survival triats not procreating and being weeded out of the gene pool...) was:

the bacterial flagellum

it's an incredibly complex geared motor/sensor computer.... attached to the simplest form of life
in other words- > what did it evolve FROM

Questioning evolution theory THIS IS INCREDIBLE

and the bacterial flagellum doesnt just "run" like a windup toy..... those bacteria start, stop, change direction speed up, slow down etc
-
 . . in addtion, the other documentary i saw went on to propose that there really isn't TIME for a fish to change into a monkey . .  by process of generational dna adaptation . . .
it would take impossibley longer than you can imagine - if it's even possible . .
(and please no one tell me how old the earth is.... this documentary broke it down - and it wasnt the religious right speaking)
-
darwin formed his theory when?.... and he really hit the nail on the head? - microscopes just weren't strong enough in the 1800's

now a days -> professional scientists and their community have an agenda like anyone. it involves grants .... and hubris !
-
we're from the generation where if you didn't believe in evolution= that meant you were 'dumb' and believed in adam and eve . .
so now, i guess i believe in adaptation within a species..... i think !?!? - i don't know
but the bacterial flagellum makes me wonder about all the ufo stories - more than it does the bible
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-

(just my one opinion - here's a rebuttal video on the bacterial flagellum concept - didn't really do much for me  )

Ken Miller on Bacterial Flagellum

[7 of 13]

  instant fail  

errr....that's nonsense nyfan(41). surely you must realize that you are rejecting evolutionary theory, for which exists a mountain of proof, because biologists don't understand every step of how the Evolution of flagella occurred.

from : The Flagellum Unspun The Collapse of "Irreducible Complexity"
There is, to be sure, nothing new or novel in an anti-evolutionist pointing to a complex or intricate natural structure, and professing skepticism that it could have been produced by the "random" processes of mutation and natural selection. Nonetheless, the "argument from personal incredulity," as such sentiment has been appropriately described, has been a weapon of little value in the anti-evolution movement. Anyone can state at any time that they cannot imagine how evolutionary mechanisms might have produced a certain species, organ, structure. Such statements, obviously, are personal – and they say more about the limitations of those who make them than they do about the limitations of Darwinian mechanisms.

The hallmark of the intelligent design movement, however, is that it purports to rise above the level of personal skepticism. It claims to have found a reason why evolution could not have produced a structure like the bacterial flagellum, a reason based on sound, solid scientific evidence.

Why does the intelligent design movement regard the flagellum as unevolvable? Because it is said to possesses a quality known as "irreducible complexity." Irreducibly complex structures, we are told, could not have been produced by evolution, or, for that matter, by any natural process. They do exist, however, and therefore they must have been produced by something. That something could only be an outside intelligent agency operating beyond the laws of nature – an intelligent designer. That, simply stated, is the core of the new argument from design, and the intellectual basis of the intelligent design movement...

scientists also use supercomputers to crack the human genome.

intelligent design is a fashionable pseudo-science, plain and simple.

[7 of 13]

I've always felt that cogent arguments are more convincing than disparaging remarks.

that was a cogent argument, intelligent design is a ridiculous scam, usually pushed by religious right types, whom seek to "debunk" evolutionary theory.  irreducible complexity is an incredibly odd buzzword/term and is borrowed from mathematics, computational theory and game theory, and "intelligent design" is just a cheap substitute for Young Earth Creationism.

from : irreducible complexity
The entire ID argument boils in large part down to an argument from incredulity – “I cannot conceive that God didn’t do it, therefore evolution is wrong & God did it!”  
When presented with explanations via evolution for what we observe, they essentially deny the evidence & rationalize it away.

from : Irreducible Complexity
Irreducible complexity (IC) is an argument by proponents of intelligent design that certain biological systems are too complex to have evolved from simpler, or "less complete" predecessors, through natural selection acting upon a series of advantageous naturally-occurring, chance mutations.[1] The argument is central to intelligent design, and is rejected by the scientific community,[2] which overwhelmingly regards intelligent design as pseudoscience.[3]

The Bacterial Flagellum

[7 of 13]

I accept evolution as fact, I just don't think it's proof of there not being a god. That's all I'm saying. Nothing "religious right" about that.

Not caring for your tone at all, by the way.

i would love to hear your worldview about how the pseudo-science known as "intelligent design" makes more sense that atheism. 

[nyfan(41)]

7/13
i'm not  (to quote your posted quote) - 'incredulous'  . . . . . . .  i'm open minded
-
and as far as 'it' being nonsense- which it? because i posted a video from each side of the argument
-
-
-
see, i believe in ufo's and more and more people have reported experiencing them - from all backgrounds and going back in history -
-
and what many with retrieved memories report is all the same similar story,,,,
-
people being abducted.... 'tagged' for repeat abduction if u will . . having the memory often blocked.... ( like the book communion )
--
and aliens that look like versions of us who do experiments with an emphasis on reproduction - where egg and sperm samples are taken
-
so that implies to me we may be some kind of an alien ant farm = = . . . .  or the aliens are us in the future . .

because i can't explain away the volume of abduction stories that are out there.... for that matter -nor the volume of paranormal stories i.e. spirits and souls and energies that basically time travel . .
-
i'm very happy in my concrete belief that i have no idea what the true answer is
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-

-
-
by the way, if you read the quote you posted it's just alot of self righteous high handed namecalling and doesn't even give an argument for the flagellum having evolved....... unlike the ken miller rebuttal video i posted

instant fail 

errr....that's nonsense nyfan(41). surely you must realize that you are rejecting evolutionary theory, for which exists a mountain of proof, because biologists don't understand every step of how the Evolution of flagella occurred.

from : The Flagellum Unspun The Collapse of "Irreducible Complexity"
There is, to be sure, nothing new or novel in an anti-evolutionist pointing to a complex or intricate natural structure, and professing skepticism that it could have been produced by the "random" processes of mutation and natural selection. Nonetheless, the "argument from personal incredulity," as such sentiment has been appropriately described, has been a weapon of little value in the anti-evolution movement. Anyone can state at any time that they cannot imagine how evolutionary mechanisms might have produced a certain species, organ, structure. Such statements, obviously, are personal – and they say more about the limitations of those who make them than they do about the limitations of Darwinian mechanisms.

The hallmark of the intelligent design movement, however, is that it purports to rise above the level of personal skepticism. It claims to have found a reason why evolution could not have produced a structure like the bacterial flagellum, a reason based on sound, solid scientific evidence.

Why does the intelligent design movement regard the flagellum as unevolvable? Because it is said to possesses a quality known as "irreducible complexity." Irreducibly complex structures, we are told, could not have been produced by evolution, or, for that matter, by any natural process. They do exist, however, and therefore they must have been produced by something. That something could only be an outside intelligent agency operating beyond the laws of nature – an intelligent designer. That, simply stated, is the core of the new argument from design, and the intellectual basis of the intelligent design movement...

scientists also use supercomputers to crack the human genome.

intelligent design is a fashionable pseudo-science, plain and simple.

[7 of 13]

one more time... "intelligent design" theory implies an intelligent designer, which is just another name/codeword for god and creationism. really unbelievable.

[Joost]

i would love to hear your worldview about how the pseudo-science known as "intelligent design" makes more sense that atheism.  

Jeez... What exactly is so hard to understand? I accept evolution as fact and I'm not an atheist. That's all.

Religious nuts and convinced atheists, they're the exact same thing to me. They both think they have ultimate wisdom about something that we really are not able to understand, and if you're not with them they'll consider you a fool.  

But if not being an atheist means that I "cannot do the math" and believe in a "warped fairytale" (which is odd, since I don't believe in anything, I just don't exclude anything either), then I don't see the point in continuing this conversation. I'm not into this offensive type of discussion anymore.

[Hello Goodbye]

one more time... "intelligent design" theroy implies an intelligent designer, which is just another name/codeword for god and creationism. really unbelievable.

Fine.  Say it just like that and spare us the deprecating and condescending remarks.  

[HeyJude18]

(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.

[Hello Goodbye]

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).

1953 to be precise.  And where did you hear that bit of nonsense about LSD?

[HeyJude18]

1953 to be precise.  And where did you hear that bit of nonsense about LSD?

Shoot, I knew it was the 50s!  Why'd I say the 60s lol.  Actually my second year biochem prof... actually both of them said that.  Apparently it was only mentioned in like one book/article.

[Hello Goodbye]

Do a little research on the subject, then, and correct your biochemistry professor.

[nyfan(41)]

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 

[7 of 13]

Jeez... What exactly is so hard to understand? I accept evolution as fact and I'm not an atheist. That's all.

hi joost... errr, nothing, you said that "intelligent design" pseudo-science made more sense than atheism, which implies a rejection of a divine supernatural omnipotent being aka god, and accepting evolutionary theory at face value. you appear unable to defend these rather outrageous statements, and in fact, instead seem to prefer to hide behind ridiculous strawmen and the twisting of simple statements.

intelligent design is a heap of rubbish, i don't see how anyone could want to add to this.

[HeyJude18]

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?

As for my opinions:
UFOs in evolution - I kinda doubt that they have anything to do with evolution.  I think there might be some out there, just don't know where.
god - don't believe in any sort of god deity anymore, for reasons above with the friends.  Therefore, I don't think that there's any chance that any sort of deity could have been involved in evolution...
Spirits - um, well, I don't think others would share my opinions, but the way I see it, humans are just balls of energy (spiritual and the fact that we're made up of sugars, yady yada), and there's a law of energies that says basically: energy can neither be created nor destroyed.  Because of that and that alone I think that there's still an afterlife, I'm not sure if it's a sort of heaven or if it's a reincarnation type deal.
Just my opinions.

[7 of 13]

you have put "intelligent design" as the opposite of atheism...

uhhmmm. excuse me.. i have done no such thing, stop making things up and distorting simple statements.   intelligent design is garbarge, plain and simple. natural selection is itself a very complex process and in fact is observable in the laboratory.

[Hello Goodbye]

7 0f 13, I'll leave you to proselytize to yourself.

[Joost]

7 0f 13, I'll leave you to proselytize to yourself.

Seconded.