|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,890 Year: 4,147/9,624 Month: 1,018/974 Week: 345/286 Day: 1/65 Hour: 0/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Should we teach both evolution and religion in school? | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
Complexity in any engineering area generally requires a complex design Four things: (1) "generally" does not mean "always" and for your logic to work it has to be "always" :: logical fail, (2) I am a designer by profession, and I KNOW that complex systems can be built by the application of a small number of very simple rules ... and I also KNOW that design willingly borrows ideas from other lines of development, something NOT seen in life on earth as we know it, (3) Complex biological systems have actually been observed evolving from simpler systems, and (4) a math\logic evaluation of the overall pattern of biological life, where any species can evolve to be (a) more complex, (b) remain the same degree of complexity, or (c) become less complex -- run over millions of generations -- and there will be a distribution of different levels of complexity in a skewed pattern (life can't become too simple to live and remain in the picture) and this will predict that most life forms are simple single cell organisms, and that increasingly complex organisms will be increasingly rare. Curiously that is what we see. Taken together, the existence of complexity is not a surprise, rather it is expected. Enjoy.by our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2134 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
Complexity in any engineering area generally requires a complex design. To see a simple organism and knowing what it required for it to "live" would point to more than a "miracle." The following lecture should be of interest to you--if you will even watch it, which I doubt. Making Genetic Networks Operate Robustly: Unintelligent Non-design Suffices, by Professor Garrett Odell (online lecture):
Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge. Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1 "Multiculturalism" does not include the American culture. That is what it is against.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 313 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
As would I, my friend You somehow think that a cell was formed by pure accident, by elements that just so happened to show up from a singularity. How about I tell you what I think, and you concentrate on telling us what you think. That way you'll lie less often.
I would point you to the human genome project for information on the above. Please see for yourself and research the number of dna bases for humans and for chimps or orangatuns. I would hate to "make up" anything Then I have some bad news for you ...
I would hope you could see past my quick typing and see the message behind But, that obviously goes against your agenda. It is obvious you are a brainwashed individual that is not interested in science. You are more interested in making irrational comments. Again I would urge you not to lie to me about what I'm thinking. If moral considerations don't dissuade you from doing so, consider the fact that you are certain to get caught.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 313 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Complexity in any engineering area generally requires a complex design. Whereas complexity in biology apparently doesn't. For example, a sycamore tree is complex, and is produced by two other sycamore trees reproducing: no design takes place, no intelligence is applied.
To see a simple organism and knowing what it required for it to "live" would point to more than a "miracle." This is another of those sentences you might want to have another run at.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
Complexity in any engineering area generally requires a complex design. Here is one problem with your argument. Evolution describes a process within which new complexity can arise and thrive without any intelligent intervention. Your counter examples all involve objects which cannot reproduce, cannot of themselves introduce new complexity, and which have no means of testing and rejecting any unsuccessful designs without human intervention. So one might be hugely skeptical about attempts to extend engineering notions into the realm of biology where life forms and nature do indeed posses exactly those properties and abilities. In fact, your formulation of ID is simply a statement that you do not believe in evolution. That is, your argument is assertion and nothing more.Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn't learn something from him. Galileo Galilei If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mram10 Member (Idle past 3531 days) Posts: 84 Joined: |
(3) Complex biological systems have actually been observed evolving from simpler systems
Please explain. What time frame? How much of a change? Thanks
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 313 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
Well, this, for example. It happens on a short enough scale for us to observe, and involves the production of a new metabolic function by the evolution of a new operon.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ramoss Member (Idle past 640 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
quote: WHy, there were questions about that, and , guess what, those questions were answers. There is evidence of a fusion event where two chromosomes fused to become one chromosome. Chromosome fusion And guess what.. it could happen again!. It has.. there is a man in in china with 44 chromosomes instead of 46 Ask a Geneticist | The Tech Interactive
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
(3) Complex biological systems have actually been observed evolving from simpler systems
Please explain. ... Actual observational science experiments in several cases have shown development of biological systems that were more complex.
... What time frame? ... Irrelevant to the issue, but it was observed to occur over generations.
... How much of a change? ... Also irrelevant to the issue, but you can read the link Dr.A. provided or the one I provided before (Irreducible Complexity, Information Loss and Barry Hall's experiments, where an "IC" system evolved) ... and there are others, nylon eating bacteria for instance (see nylon eating bacteria and ... creationism/ID (failed) responses These are all OLD news ... Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mram10 Member (Idle past 3531 days) Posts: 84 Joined: |
My above question was asking about the chromosome difference as well as the 600 million base pair difference. The difference in base pairs is the big one. I am very interested to hear how that discrepancy has been accounted for.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
My above question was asking about the chromosome difference ... The chromosome difference is fairly well documented on the web (ie in many places). This is actually a test of evolution, that if we had a common ancestor then we should have similar chromosome structures, however chimps have 24 chromosome pairs while humans have 23 pairs. Therefore there should be evidence of this change in the DNA patterns, and there is: when you look at human chromosome 2 there are remnants of telemeres (end sequences) and a second centromere (middle sequence) that has been disabled. If we compare this chromosome to chimp chromosomes 2a and 2b we see that they match. Chromosome 2 - Wikipedia
quote: There are other sources of this information.
... as well as the 600 million base pair difference. Can you provide a source of this tidbit so that we can see what specifically they are talking about (there are a number of different ways that have been used to look at the data). For instanceSandwalk: What's the Difference Between a Human and Chimpanzee? quote: That would correspond to ~150 base pairs. The difference between 150 million and 600 million out of 3 billion is still not a big deal, imho, however creationists have also been known to inflate the numbers by misrepresenting some of the data, so give us your source in order to provide you with a better answer, eh? Enjoy. ps (edit)
Proposed New Topics, Why Did Homo Erectus Not Retain a Tail?, Message 1:
quote: First, note that chimps, orangutans and gorillas are also tailless apes, tail loss occurred well before the human lineage split off the common ancestral branch. Second, evolution doesn't occur just to provide something that would be useful.
I read that it could have been the climate change from forest to desert that could have been the reasoning. This is known as the "Savannah Hypothesis" that was proposed as an environmental change that led to the adaptation for full upright walking, however current evidence points to this bipedal adaptation occurring before this time period, while there were still trees, but in an open woodland ecology. (/edit) Edited by RAZD, : format Edited by RAZD, : added ps Edited by RAZD, : =by our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9199 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.2
|
I am very interested to hear how that discrepancy has been accounted for.
No you're not.Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts "God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 313 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
My above question was asking about the chromosome difference as well as the 600 million base pair difference. The difference in base pairs is the big one. Different species have different genes. Otherwise they'd be the same species. This is caused by a process called "mutation" which you would doubtless have heard of if you had been paying attention in science class.
I am very interested to hear how that discrepancy has been accounted for. You might want to stop using the word "discrepancy" until you find out what it means.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulGL Member (Idle past 3416 days) Posts: 92 Joined: |
I. The Bible is unique
There is no comparison with any other works of mankind. No other books had anywhere near the number of contributors (39+), nor have any been written over such a long span of time (1,600 years). Yet it is profoundly cohesive in all of its contents. II. The Bible is God's word In addition to the infinite profundity of the whole, it contains prophecies of many events that are still future in terms of time. These are given with adequate and specific details to be able to unmistakably predict in advance the events recorded. It is not possible that it is merely human in origin because many of its ramifications are beyond human capabilities. III. Creationism aka 'Intelligent Design' are not scientific disciplines and therefore should not be taught as such in schools. "The scientific view of the Universe is such as to admit only those phenomena that can, in one way or another, be observed in a fashion accessible to all, and to admit those generalizations (which we call laws of nature) that can be induced from those observations." Any explanation of observed phenomena, that invokes to any extent supernatural influence such as divine motivation, is thus inherently self-disqualified from being a scientific discipline. IV. Evolution is valid Evolution, however, is the only valid scientific theory which adequately explains the known data. And it has been verified by the correlation of the relevant data corresponding to its testable conclusions. Dear reader: please lay aside any and all traditional, biased schools of thought within the realm of prideful, puffed-up knowledge. Objectively consider that God may have used evolution to create man. Do not disregard so doing due to bias, dogmatism, or love of argumentation. amessageforethehuman.org
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: |
The Bible is God's word No it isn't. So, where do we go from here?The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer. -Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53 The explain to them any scientific investigation that explains the existence of things qualifies as science and as an explanation-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 286 Does a query (thats a question Stile) that uses this physical reality, to look for an answer to its existence and properties become theoretical, considering its deductive conclusions are based against objective verifiable realities.-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 134
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024