Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Biological evolution- why is the starting point such a big deal?
John Paul
Inactive Member


Message 1 of 33 (1528)
01-03-2002 5:33 PM


OK, here it is. What difference does it make at what organism, population of organisms or populations of organisms, life (as we today classify it) started and evolution began?
I get to go first
Looking at this evolution v Creation (and to a lesser extent ID) debate I see one of the main differences is the starting point for evolution. Also it is not whether or not evolution, as in the change in allele frequency over time, occurs or not, but to what extent can an organism, a population of organisms or populations of organisms evolve.
That said, does knowing something's origins, aid in any way, someone's ability to understand its function, deduce its (a) purpose and conduct proper maintenance on it?
Absolutely NOT. All that is accomplished by searching for that 'thing's' origins is to satisfy a curiousity. Human's have a 'need-to-know' complex, which isn't a bad thing but it isn't always a good thing. Sometimes that complex just gets in the way, clouds the real issues, cause some interesting debates and needlessly put peoples against each other.
So which is more important? Knowing something's origins? Or knowing how it functions so you may attempt to maintain it (as required)? I'll go with the latter. (And I do understand it could be more better
to have both) And if forced to choose that is where I would pour my resources- function & maintenance.
What would change in our way of maintaining life if it were proven that we are here by Divine intervention (i.e. Common Creator) pretty much like the Bible says? Ya know, bacteria will always be bacteria, have always been bacteria and will continue to be bacteria. Or that life on Earth is a direct result of alien (back then, at least at first, they would have been
) seeding and colonization. (both of these scenarios would put the current ToE in the crapper)
I'll tell you what I think would change- we would know an organism (or population if you prefer) was confined. In knowing that I believe we could better figure out how bacteria and viruses evolve and therefore be more able to counteract that ability. How so? Predictability will be increased due to the limit we would have knowledge of. Computer simulations could be made showing all possible viable mutations (and combinations of mutations) an organism could handle and what mutation (combination) caused what effect. (I wonder if anyone has done that with amino acid sequences. Load one in a computer, allow it point mutations and see when it breaks down) And then how to alter that effect if it is detrimental. (But that will only work if there is a limit and we know what it is.)
------------------
John Paul

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by John Paul, posted 01-04-2002 7:56 AM John Paul has replied
 Message 5 by nator, posted 01-09-2002 12:51 PM John Paul has replied

John Paul
Inactive Member


Message 2 of 33 (1543)
01-04-2002 7:56 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by John Paul
01-03-2002 5:33 PM


To further the point, is it also necessary to know something about the designer in order to understand his/ her design? True I know the guy who designed the CPU that is used in the system I debug/ analyze. But even if I didn't I would still be able to debug it and it would not affect my fault analysis. Therfore I conclude it is not? a necessary component to know the designer in order to determine the function and therefore hopefully maintain what it is that he/ she designed.
Also it is not necessary to know the designer to deduce that something is designed. Stonehenge is a classic case. We don't know who or what 'designed' Stonehenge but we have deduced that it is in fact designed.
Although it might help to know the designer in order to deduce a purpose for that design, it is not necessary. However without input from the designer we may deduce a purpose but it may not be the one that was intended.
------------------
John Paul

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by John Paul, posted 01-03-2002 5:33 PM John Paul has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by John Paul, posted 01-07-2002 1:17 PM John Paul has replied

John Paul
Inactive Member


Message 3 of 33 (1644)
01-07-2002 1:17 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by John Paul
01-04-2002 7:56 AM


If it doesn't make a difference then why are evolutionists so adamant about keeping ID and the Creation model out of public schools (in the USA)?
------------------
John Paul

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by John Paul, posted 01-04-2002 7:56 AM John Paul has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by John Paul, posted 01-09-2002 6:53 AM John Paul has not replied

John Paul
Inactive Member


Message 4 of 33 (1737)
01-09-2002 6:53 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by John Paul
01-07-2002 1:17 PM


So why are we having this debate if all that matters is functionality and maintenance which are unaffected by the starting point of evolution?
Seems to me searching for the (alleged) starting point is a waste of time and resources that could be better used figuring out the functionality and maintenance. Sure it would be great to satisfy our curiosity but if the materialistic naturalism PoV is not indicative of reality, what good is it? (yes the same can be said of any PoV)
------------------
John Paul

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by John Paul, posted 01-07-2002 1:17 PM John Paul has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 5 of 33 (1766)
01-09-2002 12:51 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by John Paul
01-03-2002 5:33 PM


quote:
That said, does knowing something's origins, aid in any way, someone's ability to understand its function, deduce its (a) purpose and conduct proper maintenance on it?
Absolutely NOT.
Actually, knowing the origin of an organism is quite important to understanding it's function.
For example,humans and other primates are very closely related, therefore we can conduct medical tests upon our evolutionary relatives and be quite confident that the results will apply to humans.
Understanding function is knitted together with understanding origins in many cases. The more one understands function, the more one sees the obvious interrelatedness of organisms. There's no getting around it.
quote:
All that is accomplished by searching for that 'thing's' origins is to satisfy a curiousity. Human's have a 'need-to-know' complex, which isn't a bad thing but it isn't always a good thing. Sometimes that complex just gets in the way, clouds the real issues, cause some interesting debates and needlessly put peoples against each other.
There is no debate within the legitimate, professional scientific community about the fact of evolution. (There is, however, debate about the *mechanism* of exactly how evolution occurs.)
The only people who have a problem with the ToE do so due to religious reasons. Are you saying that, because a certain small minority of Protestant Christian fundamentalists object to the ToE, we shouldn't persue the study of the origin of species any longer? Why should this minority have any influence over the ideas Biologists persue?
quote:
Ya know, bacteria will always be bacteria, have always been bacteria and will continue to be bacteria.
I wonder if you know that you are stating things rather too simply when you say the above. Here is why:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-intro-to-biology.html
"The common ancestor of all life probably used RNA as its genetic material. This ancestor gave rise to three major lineages of life. These are: the prokaryotes ("ordinary" bacteria), archaebacteria (thermophilic, methanogenic and halophilic bacteria) and eukaryotes. Eukaryotes include protists (single celled organisms like amoebas and diatoms and a few multicellular forms such as kelp), fungi (including mushrooms and yeast), plants and animals. Eukaryotes and archaebacteria are the two most closely related of the three. The process of translation (making protein from the instructions on a messenger RNA template) is similar in these lineages, but the organization of the genome and transcription (making messenger RNA from a DNA template) is very different in prokaryotes than in eukaryotes and archaebacteria. Scientists interpret this to mean that the common ancestor was RNA based; it gave rise to two lineages that independently formed a DNA genome and hence independently evolved mechanisms to transcribe DNA into RNA.
The first cells must have been anaerobic because there was no oxygen in the atmosphere. In addition, they were probably thermophilic ("heat-loving") and fermentative. Rocks as old as 3.5 billion years old have yielded prokaryotic fossils. Specifically, some rocks from Australia called the Warrawoona series give evidence of bacterial communities organized into structures called stromatolites. Fossils like these have subsequently been found all over the world. These mats of bacteria still form today in a few locales (for example, Shark Bay Australia). Bacteria are the only life forms found in the rocks for
a long, long time --eukaryotes (protists) appear about 1.5 billion years ago and fungi-like things appear about 900 million years ago (0.9 billion years ago)."
quote:
I'll tell you what I think would change- we would know an organism (or population if you prefer) was confined.
Why and how would we know this, particularly since we have observed no mechanism which limits the occurence of evolution?
quote:
In knowing that I believe we could better figure out how bacteria and viruses evolve and therefore be more able to counteract that ability. How so? Predictability will be increased due to the limit we would have knowledge of. Computer simulations could be made showing all possible viable mutations (and combinations of mutations) an organism could handle and what mutation (combination) caused what effect. (I wonder if anyone has done that with amino acid sequences. Load one in a computer, allow it point mutations and see when it breaks down) And then how to alter that effect if it is detrimental. (But that will only work if there is a limit and we know what it is.)
But evolution is ALREADY limited by natural law.
It is not productive to indulge in wishful thinking about how much easier things would be if what we know about natural systems and the physical forces that govern the universe were somehow different in a way that satisfied your religious feelings.
Remember, back in science's early years, religious folks DID put these kinds of arbitrary limits into the mix, and look where it got us; Scientists imprisioned and prosecuted for going against Church doctrine. Scientific discovery slowed down by people looking for evidence in nature of Biblical events instead of looking at nature FIRST, then trying to figure out what happened without the constant filter of a religious book.
As soon as science cut itself loose from religious influence which stifled inquiry, discovery expanded at an exponential rate.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by John Paul, posted 01-03-2002 5:33 PM John Paul has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by John Paul, posted 01-09-2002 1:14 PM nator has replied

John Paul
Inactive Member


Message 6 of 33 (1769)
01-09-2002 1:14 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by nator
01-09-2002 12:51 PM


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That said, does knowing something's origins, aid in any way, someone's ability to understand its function, deduce its (a) purpose and conduct proper maintenance on it?
Absolutely NOT.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
schraf:
Actually, knowing the origin of an organism is quite important to understanding it's function.
John Paul:
No, not at all. All we need to do is study that organism now to gain an understanding of its function and the function of its components.
schraf:
For example,humans and other primates are very closely related, therefore we can conduct medical tests upon our evolutionary relatives and be quite confident that the results will apply to humans.
John Paul:
But closely related how? Common Creator or common descent? And why would it matter?
schraf:
Understanding function is knitted together with understanding origins in many cases. The more one understands function, the more one sees the obvious interrelatedness of organisms. There's no getting around it.
John Paul:
Considering we don't know squat about the origins of life and yet appear to understand at least some of life's functions, that is demonstratably incorrect. And again is the 'obvious interrelatedness of organisms' due to a Common Creator or common descent? That's like saying I must not be able to debug computer systems unless I knew of ENIAC.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All that is accomplished by searching for that 'thing's' origins is to satisfy a curiousity. Human's have a 'need-to-know' complex, which isn't a bad thing but it isn't always a good thing. Sometimes that complex just gets in the way, clouds the real issues, cause some interesting debates and needlessly put peoples against each other.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
scraf:
There is no debate within the legitimate, professional scientific community about the fact of evolution. (There is, however, debate about the *mechanism* of exactly how evolution occurs.)
John Paul:
Did you read my original post or not? What part of
"Looking at this evolution v Creation (and to a lesser extent ID) debate I see one of the main differences is the starting point for evolution. Also it is not whether or not evolution, as in the change in allele frequency over time, occurs or not, but to what extent can an organism, a population of organisms or populations of organisms evolve."
don't you understand?
schraf:
The only people who have a problem with the ToE do so due to religious reasons.
John Paul:
That would be a lie. I have a problem due to the lack of compelling evidence.
schraf:
Are you saying that, because a certain small minority of Protestant Christian fundamentalists object to the ToE, we shouldn't persue the study of the origin of species any longer?
John Paul:
That's another lie. I am a Muslim and many of my Catholic friends (and wife) are also Creationists. Besides it appears that Creationists are hardly a minority. That is if you believe Gallup.
schraf:
Why should this minority have any influence over the ideas Biologists persue?
John Paul:
Truth be told it is the people who believe God had nothing to do with it that are very much the minority.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ya know, bacteria will always be bacteria, have always been bacteria and will continue to be bacteria.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
schraf:
I wonder if you know that you are stating things rather too simply when you say the above.
John Paul:
OK then show me (don't assume) that bacteria can evolve into something other than bacteria. Hasn't happened yet even after millions (or billions) of generations.
schraf:
Here is why:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-intro-to-biology.html
"The common ancestor of all life probably used RNA as its genetic material. This ancestor gave rise to three major lineages of life. These are: the prokaryotes ("ordinary" bacteria), archaebacteria (thermophilic, methanogenic and halophilic bacteria) and eukaryotes. Eukaryotes include protists (single celled organisms like amoebas and diatoms and a few multicellular forms such as kelp), fungi (including mushrooms and yeast), plants and animals. Eukaryotes and archaebacteria are the two most closely related of the three. The process of translation (making protein from the instructions on a messenger RNA template) is similar in these lineages, but the organization of the genome and transcription (making messenger RNA from a DNA template) is very different in prokaryotes than in eukaryotes and archaebacteria. Scientists interpret this to mean that the common ancestor was RNA based; it gave rise to two lineages that independently formed a DNA genome and hence independently evolved mechanisms to transcribe DNA into RNA.
The first cells must have been anaerobic because there was no oxygen in the atmosphere. In addition, they were probably thermophilic ("heat-loving") and fermentative. Rocks as old as 3.5 billion years old have yielded prokaryotic fossils. Specifically, some rocks from Australia called the Warrawoona series give evidence of bacterial communities organized into structures called stromatolites. Fossils like these have subsequently been found all over the world. These mats of bacteria still form today in a few locales (for example, Shark Bay Australia). Bacteria are the only life forms found in the rocks for
a long, long time --eukaryotes (protists) appear about 1.5 billion years ago and fungi-like things appear about 900 million years ago (0.9 billion years ago)."
John Paul:
Thanks. Just what I need, another 'just-so' story. If there were no oxygen in the early atmosphere (something that has no supporting evidence) UV would kill anything that tried to live. Even in the most favorable experiments all we have 'created' is some amino acids and quite a bit of toxic muck.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'll tell you what I think would change- we would know an organism (or population if you prefer) was confined.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
schraf:
Why and how would we know this, particularly since we have observed no mechanism which limits the occurence of evolution?
John Paul:
Then explain why bacteria always remain bacteria and a virus always remains a virus? Both even after billions of generations?
schraf:
Remember, back in science's early years, religious folks DID put these kinds of arbitrary limits into the mix, and look where it got us; Scientists imprisioned and prosecuted for going against Church doctrine. Scientific discovery slowed down by people looking for evidence in nature of Biblical events instead of looking at nature FIRST, then trying to figure out what happened without the constant filter of a religious book.
John Paul:
I guess you are talking about Creationists like Newton, Kepler, Pasteur, Mendell, Pascal et al. who were so blinded by Scripture thay made no contributions to science. LOL!
------------------
John Paul

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by nator, posted 01-09-2002 12:51 PM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by John Paul, posted 01-09-2002 1:31 PM John Paul has not replied
 Message 8 by joz, posted 01-09-2002 1:46 PM John Paul has replied
 Message 14 by nator, posted 01-09-2002 5:07 PM John Paul has not replied

John Paul
Inactive Member


Message 7 of 33 (1772)
01-09-2002 1:31 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by John Paul
01-09-2002 1:14 PM


To further this point- sure we can 'guess' at something's origins but it is not required to understand its function. Cases in point- vision, the blood clotting cascade, reproduction and the bacterial flagellum.
------------------
John Paul

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by John Paul, posted 01-09-2002 1:14 PM John Paul has not replied

joz
Inactive Member


Message 8 of 33 (1773)
01-09-2002 1:46 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by John Paul
01-09-2002 1:14 PM


quote:
Originally posted by John Paul:
I guess you are talking about Creationists like Newton, Kepler, Pasteur, Mendell, Pascal et al. who were so blinded by Scripture they made no contributions to science. LOL!

Strange you mentioned Newton and Kepler but not Copernicus and Galileo could that be because of the treatment these got at the hands of the church?
Schraf was saying that If the church is involved it tends to repress any findings it doesnt like...
Not that religious people are incapable of good science... It does however require that any preconceptions (i.e. God made everything, there was a global flood etc) are not allowed to influence the study....

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by John Paul, posted 01-09-2002 1:14 PM John Paul has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by John Paul, posted 01-09-2002 1:59 PM joz has replied

John Paul
Inactive Member


Message 9 of 33 (1775)
01-09-2002 1:59 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by joz
01-09-2002 1:46 PM


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by John Paul:
I guess you are talking about Creationists like Newton, Kepler, Pasteur, Mendell, Pascal et al. who were so blinded by Scripture they made no contributions to science. LOL!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
joz:
Strange you mentioned Newton and Kepler but not Copernicus and Galileo could that be because of the treatment these got at the hands of the church?
John Paul:
Do you know what et al. means? As if I have time to list all the Creationists who helped with the advance of science. Did you know that Galileo was opposed by the Aristotelians at the universities? It was their influence that did in Galileo & Copernicus.
joz:
Schraf was saying that If the church is involved it tends to repress any findings it doesnt like...
John Paul:
schraf can say whatever she wants to. It doesn't make it so.
joz:
Not that religious people are incapable of good science... It does however require that any preconceptions (i.e. God made everything, there was a global flood etc) are not allowed to influence the study....
John Paul:
That didn't stop the likes of Newton or Kepler (and I am sure countless others) who attributed what they observed to the Lord our God. Does your premise also apply to materialistic naturalism? Somehow I get the feeling it doesn't.
------------------
John Paul

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by joz, posted 01-09-2002 1:46 PM joz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by joz, posted 01-09-2002 3:10 PM John Paul has not replied
 Message 13 by joz, posted 01-09-2002 3:31 PM John Paul has not replied

schalldampfer
Inactive Member


Message 10 of 33 (1776)
01-09-2002 2:08 PM


Kepler? I take it youve never been to this interesting site .
Why is knowing something origins a necessity in understanding functionality?
Development tends to show this kind of thing. It allows us also to have a model for prediction of future changes. I can understand how it works now, but unless I understand how something worked then, I will not understand how to make something better.
Oh, and the comment about alien seeding?
That really doesn't throw ToE into the crapper, as you stated. So aliens seeded life at some point in the billion year ago range. How the hell does that destroy the whole changing and evolving of life from that point? It changes origin only--which is important only in undertanding how something works, and how it will work in the future.

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by John Paul, posted 01-09-2002 2:56 PM schalldampfer has not replied

John Paul
Inactive Member


Message 11 of 33 (1777)
01-09-2002 2:56 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by schalldampfer
01-09-2002 2:08 PM


schalldampfer:
Kepler? I take it youve never been to this interesting site .
John Paul:
Please link to a specific site on that page where it discusses Kepler.
schalldampfer:
Why is knowing something origins a necessity in understanding functionality?
Development tends to show this kind of thing. It allows us also to have a model for prediction of future changes. I can understand how it works now, but unless I understand how something worked then, I will not understand how to make something better.
John Paul:
That is demonstatably false. You don't need to know how the car worked at the turn of the 20th century in order to make it better in the 21st. All you need is an understanding of how it works now in order to improve upon it. That is what drove me to engineering. I can't tell you the number of products I have 'improved' without knowing their origins.
schalldampfer:
Oh, and the comment about alien seeding?
That really doesn't throw ToE into the crapper, as you stated.
John Paul:
OK I should have been more specific. My bad. If the alien seeding was done in such a way as to give rise to many different types (kinds) of organisms it would throw the common descent from one single population of unknown single-celled organisms in the crapper.
schalldampfer:
So aliens seeded life at some point in the billion year ago range. How the hell does that destroy the whole changing and evolving of life from that point?
John Paul:
Creationists (IDists also) do not question whether or not evolution occurs. See my opening post.
schalldampfer:
It changes origin only--which is important only in undertanding how something works, and how it will work in the future.
John Paul:
Funny we aren't sure how the blood clotting cascade originated but we understand it and know how to maintain it. Seeing that we can't predict what will be selected for at any point in time how can we know how it will function in the future? Nope, I can understand how something works without knowing its origins. Maybe I'm just special.
------------------
John Paul

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by schalldampfer, posted 01-09-2002 2:08 PM schalldampfer has not replied

joz
Inactive Member


Message 12 of 33 (1778)
01-09-2002 3:10 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by John Paul
01-09-2002 1:59 PM


Yeah but the thing is their science was good because they took observations of the world created a model that worked with those observations, they may have held religious views but these were expressed more as *the thing I observed works this way, hmm maybe God is involved in this way...*
Its interesting that Keplers idea that God IS the sun (not based on observation) has fallen out of favor whereas his laws of planetary motion (based on detailed observations) are still taught today...
The important point is that the good science based on observation is survived, the attempt to twist this to suit a system of beliefs didnt....
Oh and I think the bit about Kepler is at the bottom of the article on his mentor Tycho Brahe....

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by John Paul, posted 01-09-2002 1:59 PM John Paul has not replied

joz
Inactive Member


Message 13 of 33 (1779)
01-09-2002 3:31 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by John Paul
01-09-2002 1:59 PM


JP:
Do you know what et al. means?
Joz:
Yep. I just found it interesting that you didnt explicitly mention the ones who suffered at the hands of the church...
JP:
As if I have time to list all the Creationists who helped with the advance of science.
Joz:
That some people who believe in a Godly creation have enriched the scientific understanding of the world is not the issue. The problem is when religious beliefs constrain the set of possible solutions considered....
JP:
Did you know that Galileo was opposed by the Aristotelians at the universities? It was their influence that did in Galileo & Copernicus.
Joz:
I thought it was Ptolemaic...
"Greek astronomer and mathematician. He worked principally in Alexandria. It is often difficult to determine which findings in his great astronomical book, the Almagest, are Ptolemy's and which Hipparchus's. The sun, moon, planets, and stars, he believed, were attached to crystalline spheres, centered on the earth, which turned to create the cycles of day and night, the lunar month, and so on. In order to explain retrograde motion of the planets, he refined a complex geometrical model of cycles within cycles that was highly successful at predicting the planets' position in the sky. The earth-centered Ptolemaic system became dogmatically asserted in Western Christendom until the sun-centered Copernican system replaced it. His Geography contained an estimate of the size of the earth, a description of its surface, and a list of places located by latitude and longitude. Ptolemy also dabbled in mechanics, optics, and music theory. "

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by John Paul, posted 01-09-2002 1:59 PM John Paul has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 14 of 33 (1785)
01-09-2002 5:07 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by John Paul
01-09-2002 1:14 PM


quote:
Schrafinator:The only people who have a problem with the ToE do so due to religious reasons.
John Paul:That would be a lie. I have a problem due to the lack of compelling evidence.
Schrafinator:Are you saying that, because a certain small minority of Protestant Christian fundamentalists object to the ToE, we shouldn't persue the study of the origin of species any longer?
John Paul: That's another lie. I am a Muslim and many of my Catholic friends (and wife) are also Creationists. Besides it appears that
Creationists are hardly a minority. That is if you believe Gallup.
OK, you are right. Religious objectors to the ToE aren't the only ones. People ignorant of science and Biology are in that group, too, and that would include a large majority of Americans.
Here is the full gallup poll, which includes scientists opinions:
http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_publi.htm
Among those with a college education, 25% believe in a young Earth and special human creation by God, while 65% of those without a high school diploma believe in this version. Interesting that the less education a person receives, the more likely that young Earth, special creation is believed. Could it be that these people believe because they have never been exposed to the basics of Biology?
More people believe in evolution or theistic evolution (a combined 49%) than in a young Earth and special human creation (47%).
"Belief in creation science seems to be largely a U.S. phenomenon. A British survey of 103 Roman Catholic priests, Anglican bishops and Protestant ministers/pastors showed that:
97% do not believe the world was created in six days.
80% do not believe in the existence of Adam and Eve."
"According to Newsweek in 1987, "By one count there are some 700 scientists with respectable academic credentials (out of a total of 480,000 U.S. earth and life scientists) who give credence to creation-science..." That would make the support for creation science among those branches of science who deal with the earth and its life
forms at about 0.14%"
Everyone used to think that the Earth was flat, you know.
Just because a lot of people believe something doesn't make it true.
Lastly, the Catholic church officially states that Evolution is well-documented and the evidence is strongly in it's favor. I was raised Catholic and I was NEVER required to accept a literal interpretation of the Bible, nor was I ever discouraged from accepting science.
quote:
schraf: Why should this minority have any influence over the ideas Biologists persue?
John Paul:Truth be told it is the people who believe God had nothing to do with it that are very much the minority.
You didn't answer my question. Why should non-scientists with ojections to certain scientific lines of inquiry have influence over the ideas that scientists persue?
Let me be clear. 40% of scientists believe in Theistic Evolution. This means that a significant minority of scientists believe that God had "something to do with it."
quote:
Ya know, bacteria will always be bacteria, have always been bacteria and will continue to be bacteria.
schraf:I wonder if you know that you are stating things rather too simply when you say the above.
John Paul: OK then show me (don't assume) that bacteria can evolve into something other than bacteria. Hasn't happened yet even after
millions (or billions) of generations.
The ToE DOESN'T PREDICT that bacteria would necessarily evolve into something other than a bacteria, so I don't know why you require it of the theory.
However, the mitochondria (which is very similar to the Typhus bacteria) inside the cells of plants and animals and chloroplasts (which are basically cyanobacteria) inside the cells of plants, have bacterial DNA, so this is evidence that bacteria have evolved into something else.
quote:
schraf: Here is why:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-intro-to-biology.html
"The common ancestor of all life probably used RNA as its genetic material. This ancestor gave rise to three major lineages of
life. These are: the prokaryotes ("ordinary" bacteria), archaebacteria (thermophilic, methanogenic and halophilic bacteria) and
eukaryotes. Eukaryotes include protists (single celled organisms like amoebas and diatoms and a few multicellular forms such as kelp), fungi (including mushrooms and yeast), plants and animals. Eukaryotes and archaebacteria are the two most closely related of the three. The process of translation (making protein from the instructions on a messenger RNA template) is similar in these lineages, but the organization of the genome and transcription (making messenger RNA from a DNA template) is very different in prokaryotes than in eukaryotes and archaebacteria. Scientists interpret this to mean that the common ancestor was RNA based; it gave rise to two lineages that independently formed a DNA genome and hence independently evolved
mechanisms to transcribe DNA into RNA.
The first cells must have been anaerobic because there was no oxygen in the atmosphere. In addition, they were probably thermophilic ("heat-loving") and fermentative. Rocks as old as 3.5 billion years old have yielded prokaryotic fossils. Specifically, some rocks from Australia called the Warrawoona series give evidence of bacterial communities organized into structures called stromatolites. Fossils like these have subsequently been found all over the world. These mats of bacteria still form today in a few locales (for example, Shark Bay Australia). Bacteria are the only life forms found in the rocks for
a long, long time --eukaryotes (protists) appear about 1.5 billion years ago and fungi-like things appear about 900 million years ago (0.9 billion years ago)."
John Paul: Thanks. Just what I need, another 'just-so' story. If there were no oxygen in the early atmosphere (something that has no supporting evidence)
Yes, there is evidence.
http://volcano.und.nodak.edu/vwdocs/Gases/origin.html
"Perhaps the best geologic evidence for the composition of the early atmosphere is the presence and abundance of Banded Iron Formations. These rocks are made of layers of sulfide minerals (evidence for a reducing environment) and chert or fine-grained quartz. These rocks are not present in rocks younger than 1.8 - 2.5 billions of years ago, when oxygen starting becoming more abundant."
quote:
UV would kill anything that tried to live.
The first life probably developed under water near volcanic vents. UV rays do not penetrate water very well, so they would not have been an issue.
quote:
Even in the most favorable experiments all we have 'created' is some amino acids and quite a bit of toxic muck.
Why are you bringing this abiogenesis stuff up? I'm talking about BACTERIA.
Look, you missed the point, and I'm not sure you even read and/or understood the science that I quoted.
You started on with that "a bacteria is always a bacteria" stuff, and I simply pointed out that bacteria were more comlicated than that. In fact, there are three main sorts of bacteria, two of which have one kind of DNA replication, and one which has a completely different way of replicating DNA.
[This message has been edited by schrafinator, 01-09-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by John Paul, posted 01-09-2002 1:14 PM John Paul has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by mark24, posted 01-09-2002 8:19 PM nator has not replied
 Message 16 by Minnemooseus, posted 01-09-2002 8:47 PM nator has not replied

mark24
Member (Idle past 5194 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 15 of 33 (1790)
01-09-2002 8:19 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by nator
01-09-2002 5:07 PM


In support of Schrafinator, there are bacterial species that exhibit colonial behaviour. That is, under certain conditions, they form specialist cells within a colony. To the point where there are reproductive cells. Now this is asexual reproduction, so there are no gametes. But the ONLY reason they are not a separate multicellular species is that individual cells can still exist outside of the colonies.
Mark
------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by nator, posted 01-09-2002 5:07 PM nator has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024