Im taking a look at your conference and its speakers
Dr. Geoff Barnard - immunologist/immunochemist,
The evolutionary concepts of Darwinism demand the total plasticity of chromosomal architecture. There can be random gene duplications, chromosomal inversions, deletions, fusions and fissions along with the addition of new biological information as one species transforms itself into another. This is the fantasy land of evolution which is now regarded as a fact in the scientific community. The cell, on the other hand, goes out of its way and expends vast amounts of biological energy to maintain the integrity of its chromosomal structures. There is a good reason for this. Effective sexual reproduction requires the existence of a complimentary male and female reproductive system which is both physically and biochemically compatible as well as the successful formation of effective gametes. Furthermore, the production of sperm and egg involves the complex process of meiosis which is initiated by the total and accurate alignment of homologous chromosomes prior to cross-over and recombination. This is the very antithesis of chromosomal plasticity. It is the opinion of the speaker that the maintenance of fertility is the biggest biological challenge to Darwinism. The tautology is not the survival of the fittest but it is the survival of the fertile.
This are the basics of what he said
my answers 1: the procedure does not matter fact is in offspring of organisms be it of creatures that reproduce sexually or asexually are not perfect copies of their parents 2: It does not matter if you are fertile if you cant get a mate, survive to sexual maturity
Prof. Chris Shaw - Professor of Neurology
Science makes some spectacular claims about the substance and origins of the Universe and of Life but how many of these are based upon a belief system and how many are based upon actual “so-called” scientific facts. As all science is effectively provisional, does science provide humanity with certainty or confusion?
All scientific claims called SCIENTIFIC THEORIES are based on scientific facts if they are not or a FACT does not fit THE THEORY CHANGES.
Science provides humanity with certainty while religion provides confusion remember the dark ages no science no understanding of anything religion rules, witches are burned, you pray to get well when you are sick, people get locked up if they say things like the sun does not revolve around the earth, or the earth is not the center of the universe, no TV, no electricity, the horse is the fastest vehicle around runs on hay and water ....
Dr. Jay Wesley Richards - analytic philosopher
The more scientists have learned about the needs for life, the more they have come to appreciate how many things must go right to have even one “habitable planet” where complex life must exist. The list of ingredients seems to grow every year. But does that mean that we earthlings are just the lucky recipients of a vast cosmic lottery? Or does this evidence point to purpose and intelligent design? In The Privileged Planet, Guillermo Gonzalez and Jay Richards have argued for “conspiracy” rather than mere coincidence. It turns out how that the rare places where life can exist in the universe are also the best places overall for doing science. This suggests that the universe is not only designed for life, but is designed for scientific discovery as well.
Thing is we really dont know what life needs to exist, apart from an energy source and "space".
Life thrives in the most "inhospitable" places like in
in the cold of the Arctic and Antarctic in volcanic vents on land in very dry places - Dry and hot, dry and cold in hot volcanic vents of the deep ocean in rock, deep inside the Earth - in severe chemical environments harmful to most life-forms - acid, alkali and salt in high-radiation environments, such as on the control rods of nuclear powerplants
Christianity, One woman's lie about an affair that got seriously out of hand
You're right - my personal incredulity doesn't mean that it didn't happen. That is why I argue my case and I hope over time (and in this forum) to argue my case persuasively.
My first argument is against the title of 'Naturalism' to explain a process that has little of anything to do with Nature. Nature does not develop life through accident - an egg is fertilised by a sperm and implants itself in the wall of the uterus where a complex process kicks in to develop the baby. The system is in place before the egg is fertilised. The baby is the result of the system - without a system there is no baby. If the idea of a system is too 'religious' for you, no problem. Like I said: for some the birth of a child is evidence of God, for others it's the wonder of Nature. Both sides are satisfied - I truly believe (and I hope to show) that there is an alternative explanation for the evolution that will be as credulous and wondrous as the birth of a baby. And does not require commitment to any religion.
PS: You say mutation is not arbitrary, but that is the very definition of 'mutation' - accidents in DNA.
Kind regards Vanessa
Edited by Vanessa, : I forgot a few words that were necessary to understand my point
My first argument is against the title of 'Naturalism' to explain a process that has little of anything to do with Nature. Nature does not develop life through accident - an egg is fertilised by a sperm and implants itself in the wall of the uterus where a complex process kicks in to develop the baby.
And nature also incorporates phenomena such as mutation, recombination, natural selection, sexual selection, lateral gene transfer, etc. These are natural. Supernatural things are not natural. God doing magic is not natural, natural selection is. Hence the name.
Now, in the scientific method, when one has a theory based on known mechanisms that explains the phenomena, and the only alternate hypothesis is magical, then you (provisionally) conclude that the theory is correct. When you're reduced to saying: "Either the patient has measles, or invisible fairies are painting spots on his skin with tiny invisible brushes, ahahahaha", this is as much to say --- the patient has measles.
My first argument is against the title of 'Naturalism' to explain a process that has little of anything to do with Nature. Nature does not develop life through accident - an egg is fertilised by a sperm and implants itself in the wall of the uterus where a complex process kicks in to develop the baby. The system is in place before the egg is fertilised. The baby is the result of the system - without a system there is no baby.
No argument here. I've certainly never claimed that life is anything more or less than an extremely complex series of interdependent self-sustaining chemical and physical reactions.
Are you claiming, then, that the simple existence of ordered systems, like the laws of physics, is evidence supporting an Intelligent Designer?
Both sides are satisfied - I truly believe (and I hope to show) that the evolution of life will be as credulous as the birth of a baby. And does not require commitment to any religion.
I don;t quite understand what you're saying here. How can "the evolution of life be as credulous as the birth of a baby?" Credulity is irrelevant. The demonstrable accuracy of a given hypothesis in comparison to alternative hypotheses is all that matters.
PS: You say mutation is not arbitrary, but that is the very definition of 'mutation' - accidents in DNA.
Yet mutations obey the very constrained and predictable laws of chemistry, and so are not entirely random. To describe mutations as purely arbitrary events is to describe them inaccurately.
Put another way - rolling dice may be somewhat random, but the result will always predictably be an integer between one and six. And the laws of probability are themselves consistent, as well.
The human understanding when it has once adopted an opinion (either as being the received opinion or as being agreeable to itself) draws all things else to support and agree with it. - Francis Bacon
"There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs." - John Rogers
A world that can be explained even with bad reasons is a familiar world. But, on the other hand, in a universe suddenly divested of illusions and lights, man feels an alien, a stranger. His exile is without remedy since he is deprived of the memory of a lost home or the hope of a promised land. This divorce between man and his life, the actor and his setting, is properly the feeling of absurdity. Albert Camus
"...the pious hope that by combining numerous little turds of variously tainted data, one can obtain a valuable result; but in fact, the outcome is merely a larger than average pile of shit." Barash, David 1995.
ID proponents call their opposition Naturalism and this is their first mistake.
No, nor is it their biggest.
If ID is to succeeds it must lay claim Nature.
The failure of ID is not down to its lack of spin, but to its lack of substance. When I'm reading their worthless arguments, I don't think: "They may have compounded gross factual errors with gormless errors of reasoning, but if only they hadn't described evolutionary biology as Naturalism I'd find their argument perfectly convincing."
Another thing you could add about Professor Barnard's comments is that he doesn't seem to understand that what he's calling "chromosomal plasticity" is incredibly slow. He doesn't seem to understand that mutations, the ultimate source of his "chromosomal plasticity," occur at a rate of around 10-8 per nucleotide per generation. That means that on average only one nucleotide out of a hundred million has been affected by mutation in each newly born organism. This is why relatively long-lived species like reptiles, birds and mammals take at least 10's of thousands of years to form new species, while short-lived species like bacteria that reproduce several times per hour can form new species in very short periods of time, certainly within a human lifetime.
This is why relatively long-lived species like reptiles, birds and mammals take at least 10's of thousands of years to form new species, while short-lived species like bacteria that reproduce several times per hour can form new species in very short periods of time,
You can't really meaningfully compare the two, a bacterial species is defined completely differently to what the Biological Species Concept would lead us to consider a species.
I'd also question your contention that long lived metazoans require 10s of thousands of years to produce new species because they have long generation times. Post-zygotic reproductive isolation can be established by changes in only 1 or 2 genes so there is no reason why it would take more than a few mutations to establish the necessary genetic variation for reproductive isolation. I'd suggest that the relevant issue is not so much generation time as population size, gene flow and genetic recombination/reassortment as a result of sexual reproduction.
So I disagree both on the time scale and the purported explanation for it.
I'm sorry but I cannot imagine or find any possible way that belief in a god or gods would not be a religion. If Vanessa has some way of showing that belief in a god is not a religion then it is up to Vanessa to provide the reasoning why belief in a god or gods is NOT a religion.
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!