Author
|
Topic: Cool Comic Booklets. (Read 75516 times)
|
Novus
Enlightened
 Offline
Gender: 
Posts: 1938
Fot or not?
|
You know... they have more in common... these objects have all been created by humans! So life must also be created by humans! Zounds! Humans have been time travelling and seeding life!
If you accept causal loops, that's actually a rather good hypothesis. Unfortunately, temporal mechanics is a field that's even worse off than biology, making it hard to say anything about the matter, really.
In fact, this hypothesis resolves one of the problems of the typical ID approach: "Who designed the designer?". In the time-travel case, the designer designed himself. I have no idea whether this has anything to do with reality. A more traditional ID approach would be to say that the designer has always existed (having him spontaneously appear would undermine the whole idea and making him designed just adds another step to the reasoning).
To further muddy the waters, I'd like to point out Shermer's Last Law: "Any sufficiently advanced ETI [extra-terrestrial intelligence] is indistinguishable from God.". Basically, given our limited observational capabilities, we are unable to distinguish an omnipotent being from one capable of e.g. manipulating all our sensory input or our thoughts but lacking full omnipotence. I find this reasoning supports a strong agnostic position (in fact, you could even justify various forms of solipsism, such as that of Descartes, using similar arguments, but I'm a bit too emotionally attached to all you hallucinations out there to go that way).
Another similar argument going in the other direction would be: "Any sufficiently sneaky omnipotent being is indistinguishable from a force of nature.".
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
RTyp06
*Smell* controller
Offline
Posts: 491
|
From Draxas' link to "Were bacteria the first forms of life on earth?" we get a telling passage in the last paragraph:
http://www.actionbioscience.org/newfrontiers/jeffares_poole.html
"Once upon a time, we'd probably have been in danger of being burnt at the stake for such heretical stuff, but nowadays biologists no longer view the evolution of life as a progression from simple to complex with humans as the pinnacle of evolutionary achievement. Here's to your molecular fossils!
If you even reflect upon this for a moment, it may invoke images of Copernicus or Galilao who suggested *gasp* The earth revolves around the sun. They were branded heretics by the roman catholic church. Skip ahead a few centuries and you have Alaxander Graham Bell's telephone that the Britsih brighest scientific minds called a toy, and that Britian had "enough young messenger boys". Or you have scientists at such notable "prestigious" (and I use that term loosely) institutions as "Scientific American" who ridiculed Wilbur and Orvile wright because it was "proven" that heavier than air vehicles couldn't fly. How dare they think outside the box! Just look at the Big Bang theory's history...etc.
Luki hinted at the majority which I disagree with. Just because the majority thinks somthing is fact, doesn't make it fact. The majority of americans think Jesus Christ is coming to save them. For centuries the majority thought the world was flat simply because it was the leading paradigm of the day. Today the leading paradigm is evolution. I would never want them to take the theory of evolution out of schools, just show kids that it isn't as cut and dry fact as they make it out to be. In fact I personally think it's highly extrapolated from very flimsy evidence. I wouldn't even call it a theory, a hypothisis or philosophy might be a better term. But that is my opinion.
I'm not trying to prove ID, I could never do that. Nor can anyone prove evolution. This all started with Novus calling ID a bunch of crap. The ID people have some good, sound, scientific arguments for ID and sound scientific objections to darwinism that need to be explained. Also not all ID people are a bunch of religious rubes. I honestly don't see why people are so scared of the possibility of design. Is it an ego thing, the chance that we may not be the master of our domain? Do we need to legitimize our own lack of ethics by equating man to nothing more than evolved animals? Is it fear that the iron rule of the church will come back or the toppling of the darwinian empire ? Scientific truth is truth and I don't care where it leads us, that is where I'm going.
Cherry picking and forcing data to fit your predefined paradigm wether you are a religious scientist trying to back your sacred texts or a darwinian scientist throwing away test results because it doesn't fit your tree of life or the age of earth or whatever.. It's BAD science, period.
ID to me has the best fit. It fits with the cambrian explosion, it explains the tough darwinian riddles such as why we don't see transitional fossils, why genomes don't increase in size with complexity (amobea has a trillion base pairs), how whole complex organ systems came to be (what good is a blood cell without veins, arteries, a heart, and lungs or gills), the genetic homology differences (why are two species of frogs seperated by more genetic differences than a bat and a blue whale), why does DNA buck the second law of thermaldynamics (if it evolved, it didn't always have a cell wall thus it was in an OPEN system at some point in time), why does DNA carry around useless baggage (junk DNA) when natural selection supposidly fine tunes things like the bacterial flagellum to perfection. etc.
Anybody that believes DNA and the dividing cell came about by pure chance should also recognize the high improbabilty of it happening anywhere else in the universe. (based on our current scientific understanding of course). Perhaps life evolved on a handfull of planets? What a dull bleak place we live in, no purpose, no design. But if life is a constructed, alien technology the possibilites are endless. Perhaps even the universe itself was constructed for complex life! Thus we should expect to find design and purpose everywhere.
People will interpret scientific data differently and come to different conclusions. And that's OK. But never be afraid to think outside the box..
Happy 4th everyone..
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Novus
Enlightened
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 1938
Fot or not?
|
Luki hinted at the majority which I disagree with. Just because the majority thinks somthing is fact, doesn't make it fact. The majority of americans think Jesus Christ is coming to save them. For centuries the majority thought the world was flat simply because it was the leading paradigm of the day. Today the leading paradigm is evolution. I would never want them to take the theory of evolution out of schools, just show kids that it isn't as cut and dry fact as they make it out to be. In fact I personally think it's highly extrapolated from very flimsy evidence. I wouldn't even call it a theory, a hypothisis or philosophy might be a better term. But that is my opinion.
And, as I've been trying to point out, ID is based on even flimsier evidence (or, specifically, a very specific interpretation of the evidence and flimsy reasoning).
I'm not trying to prove ID, I could never do that. Nor can anyone prove evolution.
Strictly speaking, you can't prove anything that isn't a tautology. Science is, as meep-eep pointed out, firmly based on inductive reasoning based on observation and therefore implicitly assumes an objective universe behaving according to a set of rules. We can guess what those rules are based on observation, but we can't ever be sure about most of them.
This all started with Novus calling ID a bunch of crap.
Actually, that was Halleck. Could you at least check obvious facts before posting?
The ID people have some good, sound, scientific arguments for ID
Not the sources I've critiqued so far.
and sound scientific objections to darwinism that need to be explained.
Sure, the entire bunch-of-inorganic-chemicals-to-us chain hasn't been explained, but that's no reason to reject the parts that have firm evidence to back them up.
Also not all ID people are a bunch of religious rubes. I honestly don't see why people are so scared of the possibility of design. Is it an ego thing, the chance that we may not be the master of our domain?
For crying out loud, I'd like nothing more than to have a convincing explanation for all this, whether it's ID or evolution or noodly appendages. The problem is that, as we've seen in this discussion, the popular ID theories are either too generic to have any observable consequences, internally inconsistent or inconsistent with observations. The later phases of evolution have quite overwhelming evidence and a sound theoretical underpinning, although the exact details of how cells came to appear as still unclear.
Do we need to legitimize our own lack of ethics by equating man to nothing more than evolved animals?
Science doesn't make moral or ethical judgements, and sensible ethics and morals surely don't depend on whether man is designed or evolved, do they?
Is it fear that the iron rule of the church will come back or the toppling of the darwinian empire ?
Considering what the Catholic Church has done to scientists and science in the past, this is hardly an unjustified fear.
Scientific truth is truth and I don't care where it leads us, that is where I'm going.
There is no such thing as "truth" when you start doing observations and making theories based on them, only better approximations (and what is "better" depends on circumstances).
Cherry picking and forcing data to fit your predefined paradigm wether you are a religious scientist trying to back your sacred texts or a darwinian scientist throwing away test results because it doesn't fit your tree of life or the age of earth or whatever.. It's BAD science, period.
Entirely true. However, I still maintain that ID "scientists" have demonstrated that they aren't even bound by logic, let alone unbiased interpretation of data. I'll stick to the guys who actually understand the concept of constructive criticism.
ID to me has the best fit. It fits with the cambrian explosion, it explains the tough darwinian riddles such as why we don't see transitional fossils, why genomes don't increase in size with complexity (amobea has a trillion base pairs), how whole complex organ systems came to be (what good is a blood cell without veins, arteries, a heart, and lungs or gills), the genetic homology differences (why are two species of frogs seperated by more genetic differences than a bat and a blue whale), why does DNA buck the second law of thermaldynamics (if it evolved, it didn't always have a cell wall thus it was in an OPEN system at some point in time), why does DNA carry around useless baggage (junk DNA) when natural selection supposidly fine tunes things like the bacterial flagellum to perfection. etc.
And that's the problem with ID. It explains everything and, in doing so, nothing (including stuff that is inconsistent with our view of the world). The whole point of this discussion has been that evolution explains all this instead of merely allowing it.
Anybody that believes DNA and the dividing cell came about by pure chance should also recognize the high improbabilty of it happening anywhere else in the universe. (based on our current scientific understanding of course). Perhaps life evolved on a handfull of planets?
Hard to extrapolate from current data, but life-bearing planets seem to be the exception, not the rule.
What a dull bleak place we live in, no purpose, no design. But if life is a constructed, alien technology the possibilites are endless. Perhaps even the universe itself was constructed for complex life! Thus we should expect to find design and purpose everywhere.
Or, using the anthropic principle, the only reason we find life is that it had to exist for us to wonder about it. Life is, either way, what we make of it. To me, requiring an intelligent designer in order to have a purpose sounds a bit like dependency on parents on a cosmic scale.
People will interpret scientific data differently and come to different conclusions. And that's OK. But never be afraid to think outside the box..
Actually, I'm inclined to agree with your sentiment. If evidence comes to light that seriously casts doubt on evolution, ID could be a serious alternative; just not the ID you've presented. Similarly, no complete non-ID theory for the origin of life exists either, but we seem to be getting closer all the time.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
RTyp06
*Smell* controller
Offline
Posts: 491
|
And, as I've been trying to point out, ID is based on even flimsier evidence (or, specifically, a very specific interpretation of the evidence and flimsy reasoning).
When we look into a cell and see activities and convieniencies only associated with engineering principles and information theory what are we supposed to think? A genetic code that highly resembles human made code or language. Little micro machines that haul pieces around the cell like miniture trucks on a construction site. Machines that transcript instruction into physical products. Even in the higher levels like growing embryos. Temporary scaffolding structures erected during building then torn down after the job is done or skin cells etched out into the shape of a hand via programmed cell death. Everything being built in the correct sequence, with the correct materials where they are needed, with the correct timing. We find chemical feedback to start and stop proceedures...etc etc.
The only place we see anything of this complexity with a nearly exact part by part real word comparison is on a construction site or factory floor.
Evolution simply extrapolates large scale changes from well known breeding limitations. One would think in 150+ years somthing concrete would have come from it by now. All we get is just so stories and flights of fancy. The best presented "evidence" here so far has been two headed snakes and superficial bone differences in the fossil record. Genetic errors and breeding seem a much more logical explanation to me. Selection pressures can cause change but so far have only demonstrated slight changes to existing code and one point mutaional damage.
Actually, that was Halleck. Could you at least check obvious facts before posting?
Apologies.
Sure, the entire bunch-of-inorganic-chemicals-to-us chain hasn't been explained, but that's no reason to reject the parts that have firm evidence to back them up.
That's just it, there isn't a single piece of firm evidence whatsoever to back up macro evolution. That's why evolution theory itself has evolved so many times. That's also why the latest flavor of evolution is Evo Devo because the other versions faced unsurmountable problems.
The later phases of evolution have quite overwhelming evidence and a sound theoretical underpinning, although the exact details of how cells came to appear as still unclear.
Please, share this overwhelming evidence and we can discuss it in detail if you'd like when I get back next week.. I love discussing these things because this is the most fascinating topic to me.
Science doesn't make moral or ethical judgements, and sensible ethics and morals surely don't depend on whether man is designed or evolved, do they?
No, not nessicarily, but they can have a profound impact on society. I remember a while back I was listening to Howard Stern (I think it was) any way a man got his jollies by deficating in grocery stores. The man had a wife and children! After a while of interview he said somthing to the effect "..what does it matter, we are just animals." I'm paraphrasing and don't recall his exact words.
Considering what the Catholic Church has done to scientists and science in the past, this is hardly an unjustified fear.
It is justified, to a degree, but this is the 21st century, I'm sure we are well beyond that. I don't think theistic doctrine belongs in science anymore than you do. What I fear is darwinian doctrine becoming so dogmatic it shuts out any interpretation outside of it's self built walls. And we are seeing this to a degree.
There is no such thing as "truth" when you start doing observations and making theories based on them, only better approximations (and what is "better" depends on circumstances).
Hey wasn't some of that approximated from "Star Wars, A new Hope" ?.. Ok, fair enough.
Entirely true. However, I still maintain that ID "scientists" have demonstrated that they aren't even bound by logic, let alone unbiased interpretation of data. I'll stick to the guys who actually understand the concept of constructive criticism.
Heh, would Dawkins fit into that category? Look, it is true that ID has a theistic appeal to many. And some are a little overzealous. But there are those that are looking at this from a purely scientific viewpoint. Take a look at the discovery institute of science and culture. http://www.discovery.org/
And that's the problem with ID. It explains everything and, in doing so, nothing (including stuff that is inconsistent with our view of the world). The whole point of this discussion has been that evolution explains all this instead of merely allowing it.
Evolution does indeed "explain" it, but is almost entirely comprised of Just-So stories fit into the darwininian "canon" if you will. without any substantial ,real world evidence to support it.
Here's an example I found over at Scientific American..
SHOCKING CONVERGENCE: Two groups of South American and African electric fish, whose lineages diverged 200 million years ago, independently evolved similar ways to generate electricity, according to a new study. In a paper published online this week by the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, researchers report that both groups converted existing sodium channel proteins used for muscle contraction into sodium channels that can generate electricity. Pictured above are Eigenmannia virescens from the Amazon (top) and Brienomyrus vadamans from Africa.
Found here (scroll down to Shocking Convergance):
http://www.sciam.com/gallery_directory.cfm
The problem I have is that these things are stated as FACT without any hint that there could even remotely be any objections to these claims. Of course I haven't looked at the scientific paper it was derived from yet, but the point still stands.
ID as a theory is still in it's infancy. The scientists involved are trying to make scientific predictions with it and coming up with detection methods that appeal to what we do know about designed machines.
Or, using the anthropic principle, the only reason we find life is that it had to exist for us to wonder about it. Life is, either way, what we make of it. To me, requiring an intelligent designer in order to have a purpose sounds a bit like dependency on parents on a cosmic scale.
One thing that puzzles me is that unlike all other life on earth we humans have this ability to exchange ideas, make scientific discovery, build complex machines, grasp highly intellectual principles, yet none of this is esential for our basic survival. And the one place in our solar system without an opaque but life sustaining atmosphere there are observers to study the universe. We also have a rather large moon just the right size and just the right distance to provide scientific study of the sun's cornosphere and aspects of the theory of realitivitiy during a solar eclipse. Perhaps we are just very lucky.
Actually, I'm inclined to agree with your sentiment. If evidence comes to light that seriously casts doubt on evolution, ID could be a serious alternative; just not the ID you've presented. Similarly, no complete non-ID theory for the origin of life exists either, but we seem to be getting closer all the time.
Seem to be is the key.. Are we? Has evolution really solved anything other than providing convienient, largely unsubstanciated explanations for things we see in nature? We may be able to trace evolution back beyond RNA with just so stories but I'm certain the question of design will always be present.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Novus
Enlightened
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 1938
Fot or not?
|
The only place we see anything of this complexity with a nearly exact part by part real word comparison is on a construction site or factory floor.
You really like that "appeal to obvious organisation" argument, don't you?
Evolution simply extrapolates large scale changes from well known breeding limitations. One would think in 150+ years somthing concrete would have come from it by now. All we get is just so stories and flights of fancy. The best presented "evidence" here so far has been two headed snakes and superficial bone differences in the fossil record. Genetic errors and breeding seem a much more logical explanation to me. Selection pressures can cause change but so far have only demonstrated slight changes to existing code and one point mutaional damage.
I disagree about the alleged lack of evidence. See below.
The later phases of evolution have quite overwhelming evidence and a sound theoretical underpinning, although the exact details of how cells came to appear as still unclear.
Please, share this overwhelming evidence and we can discuss it in detail if you'd like when I get back next week.. I love discussing these things because this is the most fascinating topic to me.
No, not nessicarily, but they can have a profound impact on society. I remember a while back I was listening to Howard Stern (I think it was) any way a man got his jollies by deficating in grocery stores. The man had a wife and children! After a while of interview he said somthing to the effect "..what does it matter, we are just animals." I'm paraphrasing and don't recall his exact words.
The occasional nutcase always seems to crop up, and they always have an excuse to fit their day and age.
What I fear is darwinian doctrine becoming so dogmatic it shuts out any interpretation outside of it's self built walls. And we are seeing this to a degree.
There is some truth to this; in the current climate, it would be hard to get even novel and solid work on the origin of life published if it is based on an ID viewpoint. Some other subjects, e.g. global warming, have become politicised to the point where everybody just looks for results that support what their funding agency wants to hear. The origin of life issue has (at least in the US) been turned into a political circus by people who want to drive a wedge between scientists and believers. The resulting hostility is likely to cause people to, unfortunately, become more entrenched in their beliefs rather than take the opportunity to examine them critically.
Heh, would Dawkins fit into that category? Look, it is true that ID has a theistic appeal to many. And some are a little overzealous. But there are those that are looking at this from a purely scientific viewpoint. Take a look at the discovery institute of science and culture. http://www.discovery.org/
Evolution does indeed "explain" it, but is almost entirely comprised of Just-So stories fit into the darwininian "canon" if you will. without any substantial ,real world evidence to support it.
Here's an example I found over at Scientific American..
Considering that you're referring to a caption in an image gallery, I'm not surprised that it contains little in the way of reasoning. The full article is quite technical, but you may be able to glean something from it.
One thing that puzzles me is that unlike all other life on earth we humans have this ability to exchange ideas, make scientific discovery, build complex machines, grasp highly intellectual principles, yet none of this is esential for our basic survival. And the one place in our solar system without an opaque but life sustaining atmosphere there are observers to study the universe. We also have a rather large moon just the right size and just the right distance to provide scientific study of the sun's cornosphere and aspects of the theory of realitivitiy during a solar eclipse. Perhaps we are just very lucky.
Necessary for basic survival? Probably not. Useful in some way? Probably; we seem to be doing quite well.
The apparent size of the Moon compared to the Sun is an interesting coincidence (or is it?).
Seem to be is the key.. Are we? Has evolution really solved anything other than providing convienient, largely unsubstanciated explanations for things we see in nature? We may be able to trace evolution back beyond RNA with just so stories but I'm certain the question of design will always be present.
One thing I'm certain of is that we will won't run out of hard-core evolutionists (or ID supporters, for that matter) for several decades at least (barring severe unrest throughout civilisation). Both sides will be working on their pet theories. While, in my judgement, evolution seems more sensible right now, this may change in the future.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Lance_Vader
Frungy champion
Offline
Posts: 74
|
Hehe, I've always wanted creationists to answer that little question. Is not a god irreducibly complex or whatever?
"Mainstream" creationists will tell you that God was not created, and that's what sets him apart from everything. I will tell you that God was designed much the same way we were designed. Once that is clear, the next question will, of course, be "Well who is the ultimate designer?" And, to me, the obvious answer would be either:
A) We don't have a frikkin' clue, nor is it likely mortal mind can ever know
OR
B) There is no beginning, just like there is no end.
A) is sort of a cop-out, and B) is unacceptable to lots of people. Fortunately, I'm not lots of people.
but I'm a bit too emotionally attached to all you hallucinations out there to go that way. The voices thank you.
Another similar argument going in the other direction would be: "Any sufficiently sneaky omnipotent being is indistinguishable from a force of nature.". I would argue that this is how such a being could achieve omnipotence. By manipulating existing law, not by decreeing new ones. I think there are laws that even omnipotent beings have to obey. It's just that obedience to these laws grants them such great power, that they become omnipotent not by defiance, but by compliance. Thus, the being becomes an executor of natural law, and why it's so difficult to distinguish between the two.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Deus Siddis
Enlightened
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 1387
|
I will tell you that God was designed much the same way we were designed. Once that is clear, the next question will, of course, be "Well who is the ultimate designer?" And, to me, the obvious answer would be either:A) We don't have a frikkin' clue, nor is it likely mortal mind can ever know
B) There is no beginning, just like there is no end.
A) is sort of a cop-out, and B) is unacceptable to lots of people. Fortunately, I'm not lots of people.
So who designed god's creator? Who designed the designer of god, and who designed it, and who designed it. . .etc. All of these beings should be about the same complexity, so I don't see how simply having more generations of gods answers any questions.
Also, if B is true, you could simply say the same thing about the god who created us, us ourselves, and/or the other known forms of life-- that we have always existed, whether or not we (lifeforms) evolve over time.
I would argue that this is how such a being could achieve omnipotence. By manipulating existing law, not by decreeing new ones. I think there are laws that even omnipotent beings have to obey. It's just that obedience to these laws grants them such great power, that they become omnipotent not by defiance, but by compliance. Thus, the being becomes an executor of natural law, and why it's so difficult to distinguish between the two.
If such were the case, the question would be if people could achieve this non-supernatural omnipotience, as well.
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: July 01, 2006, 05:57:57 am by Deus_Siddis »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Cronos
*Many bubbles*
Offline
Posts: 170
Shofixti Scoutmaster
|
Has anyone considered for a moment that the genetic code is not in fact a blueprint for anything at all?
You cant, so far as I know, take the genes for an elephants trunk and implant them in a giraffe and get a giraffe with an elephants trunk.
Nor does every gene code for some arbritrary capillary in the brain.
What genes do is Chemistry. And it is that chemistry that underlies the overall fractal pattern that creates the organism, be it human, cell, or plant.
Now, consider that genes code for the underlying fractal pattern that manufactures an organism. Fractal patterns are literally everwhere. Clouds, weather patterns, solar activity, the stock market, you get the general picture.
We are chemical reactions and nothing more. Vastly complex, lovable, hateful, spiteful stubborn stupid and utterly befuddling chemical reactions to say the least, but chemical reactions nonetheless.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Novus
Enlightened
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 1938
Fot or not?
|
Has anyone considered for a moment that the genetic code is not in fact a blueprint for anything at all?
You cant, so far as I know, take the genes for an elephants trunk and implant them in a giraffe and get a giraffe with an elephants trunk. Although I personally believe it is a designed set of building blocks, DNA does seem to be a blueprint of sorts. Google glow in the dark mice and plants (good ol' jellyfish genes). Which is of course a false perception. The gene that codes for the specific chemical or sets of chemicals that allow Bioluminescence to assert itself is simply spliced from one species to another.
The fact that the mechanism by why DNA "does its stuff" is chemical is not in dispute here. The question of whether e.g. humans can be more accurately described as an emergent structure resulting from a long-running planet-wide natural process or as a designed organism is, however, heavily disputed here.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Lance_Vader
Frungy champion
Offline
Posts: 74
|
So who designed god's creator? Who designed the designer of god, and who designed it, and who designed it. . .etc. All of these beings should be about the same complexity, so I don't see how simply having more generations of gods answers any questions. And I don't think there's many other possible answers. Who designed the designer? Being the design, I don't think we can understand a whole lot about our designer's designer, unless we compare him to our designer. How can we know our designer? Perhaps that is a better question for us right now. It might be better to learn more about what we know than dive right in to what we don't know.
Also, if B is true, you could simply say the same thing about the god who created us, us ourselves, and/or the other known forms of life-- that we have always existed, whether or not we (lifeforms) evolve over time.
Yes. That is true.
If such were the case, the question would be if people could achieve this non-supernatural omnipotience, as well.
I think it would take much longer than a lifetime to do so, but yes, shouldn't this be possible? This would change our state from mere beasts or creations to that of gods in embryo, which is a relative newcomer to our theology.
Do I have any real evidence I can show you? Nope. Nor, do I think, does anyone else.
As for DNA, it sounds like it might be better called a "recipe" than a "blueprint." Just a thought.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Culture20
Enlightened
Offline
Posts: 917
Thraddash Flower Child
|
Has anyone considered for a moment that the genetic code is not in fact a blueprint for anything at all?
You cant, so far as I know, take the genes for an elephants trunk and implant them in a giraffe and get a giraffe with an elephants trunk. Although I personally believe it is a designed set of building blocks, DNA does seem to be a blueprint of sorts. Google glow in the dark mice and plants (good ol' jellyfish genes). Which is of course a false perception. The gene that codes for the specific chemical or sets of chemicals that allow Bioluminescence to assert itself is simply spliced from one species to another. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Lukipela
Enlightened
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 3619
The Ancient One
|
If you even reflect upon this for a moment, it may invoke images of Copernicus or Galilao who suggested *gasp* The earth revolves around the sun. They were branded heretics by the roman catholic church. Skip ahead a few centuries and you have Alaxander Graham Bell's telephone that the Britsih brighest scientific minds called a toy, and that Britian had "enough young messenger boys". Or you have scientists at such notable "prestigious" (and I use that term loosely) institutions as "Scientific American" who ridiculed Wilbur and Orvile wright because it was "proven" that heavier than air vehicles couldn't fly. How dare they think outside the box! Just look at the Big Bang theory's history...etc.
I notice how you fail to include anyone who thought outside the box and was terribly wrong. People trying to turn urine into gold and whatnot were certainly trying to think outside the box. However, they turned out to be wrong. Keep that in mind. It might apply to anyone currently atttempting the same. Er, thinking outside the box that is. Not producing gold.
Luki hinted at the majority which I disagree with. Just because the majority thinks somthing is fact, doesn't make it fact.
You miss my point fairly completely. I was not saying that something is a fact unless the majority agrees with it. I was saying that you cannot present something as a fact if it is not already accepted, and assume that everyone will agree. Nanuk may consider it rock solid fact that Argarak punishes the unrepentant. He may even be right. But in a civil court, this will not hold up well because the rest of the world doesn't believe in Argarak. Similarily, if you made the case for a "gonne" being used in Nanuks home city, the'd laugh at you. You'd be right, but you'd be unable to prove it.
For example, your fact of "irreducible complexity" has been countered numerous times, with numerous theories. They might be just as right as you are, but in the absence of any actual evidence that both parties can agree upon, neither of you will change your minds.
I would never want them to take the theory of evolution out of schools, just show kids that it isn't as cut and dry fact as they make it out to be.
Funny, I'd think the "Theory" part in "Theory of Evolution" here would point ot that. And I don't know what school you went to, but we were taught that "this is the way it is believed to have happened", not "this is how it happened". That was saved for Religion class.
In fact I personally think it's highly extrapolated from very flimsy evidence. I wouldn't even call it a theory, a hypothisis or philosophy might be a better term. But that is my opinion.
Indeed. And others feel the same way about your theory of Intelligent Design. Yet you are obviously right and they are wrong? For that to be true, you need more evidence than they have.
I'm not trying to prove ID, I could never do that. Nor can anyone prove evolution.
The difference is that evolution may one day be provable. And evolution as a theory can change depending on new discoveries. ID however, cannot. It cannot be proven, and it cannot be changed. It is a static belief, rather than an adaptable theory. Which makes them different.
This is what Halleck was pointing out earlier. I fail to see how:
"For a hypothesis to be considered theory in the scientific community it must be "consistent, parsimonious, useful, empirically testable and falsifiable, based upon multiple observations, correctable and dynamic, progressive, and provisional"
is calling ID a bunch of crap. He follows up with showing that these paramters do not hold true in ID, defining it as a nonscientific theory. Instead of simplifying his words and attacking the simplification, perhaps you should answer the question his essay raises?
The ID people have some good, sound, scientific arguments for ID and sound scientific objections to darwinism that need to be explained.
I've yet to see any very scientific argument for ID. What you've posted still seems to boil down to. "It's complex, it must be designed". Or "It looks like a machine, it must be designed". Those are certainly possbilities, but they're not exactly scientific arguments. As for the scientific objections to darwinism, that's why it's a theory. You can object and voice dissent, and come up with improvments. Those objections aren't only placed by ID defenders, but by others in the scientific community as well.
Also not all ID people are a bunch of religious rubes. I honestly don't see why people are so scared of the possibility of design. Is it an ego thing, the chance that we may not be the master of our domain? Do we need to legitimize our own lack of ethics by equating man to nothing more than evolved animals? Is it fear that the iron rule of the church will come back or the toppling of the darwinian empire ? Scientific truth is truth and I don't care where it leads us, that is where I'm going.
I find it offensive to my religous beliefs. Nonetheless, I do consider it a possibility. I just don't consider it a scientifically backed one. Try to understand that us arguing against you doesn't necessarily mean we don't think ID is possible. It just means we don't think it can be called a scientific theory.
Besides, you could argue the Earth was designed the same way. Biggest moon in the solar system that stabilises our orbit, just the right orbit from the sun, just the right type of sun, a molten core that creates a magnetic field that protects us from radiation and gives us tectonics. And so on and so forth. Remove any one parameter, and life probably isn't possible. That's irreducibly complex, and thus it must be designed?
Anybody that believes DNA and the dividing cell came about by pure chance should also recognize the high improbabilty of it happening anywhere else in the universe.
And anyone who believes that it was designed should expect to see a lot more life on our neighbouring planets? After all, we're designed for this world, just as the martians ought to be to theirs.
People will interpret scientific data differently and come to different conclusions. And that's OK. But never be afraid to think outside the box..
That applies to both sides 
Happy 4th everyone..
Happy Will Smith day!
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: July 04, 2006, 08:28:13 am by Lukipela »
|
Logged
|
What's up doc?
|
|
|
|
