Evolution and Religion

[felizitation]

Originally posted by sleuth i m going to desex arvest for this thread lol

Ok, I'm warning his mother that her son became a girl.

[Anonymouse]

Originally posted by loseyourname Extend the timeframe and Gould's punk-eek looks exactly the same as Darwin's original notes. No one less than the staunchly Christian Norman Miller pointed this out.

Darwin stated,""Why, if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms? Why is not all nature in confusion instead of the species being, as we see them, well defined?" and stated that the lack of transitional forms was,"the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory."

Darwin, along with all of evolutionary science up until Gould and Eldridge, believed that change was incremental and gradual over time, in other words there should have been alot of intermediate forms. Well since this was an embarrasment for Darwinism, after the silly attempts at trying to bring forth "intermediates" such as "gemules", "bathybius", and "eozoon", punctuated equilibria seemed appealing since it once and for all answered the question for the missing fossils ( not proven ), it was simply a philosophical assumption. We found fossil A then we found fossil B. Fossil B is somewhat similar yet different from fossil A so therefore it MUST have evolved. How is that proving? Well, it's not. It's just stating it.

Stating that there are within species variation is one thing, to then assume that species jump to other species, well, that is a blanket assertion that lacks verification. It is simply asserted in the scientific world and believed. Evolution is a like class of faith yet evolutionists will coldly deny this. Arguing this point is pointless as it is. You argue that evolution is already proven without proving it and arguing a negative. When was it established and proven that species change into more complex species and this was because of hapahazard random mutations? Mind you that most mutations that do occur in organisms are harmful. It is mathematically improbable for species to have evolved by mutations. Murray Eden of MIT brilliantly proved this at the Wistar Institute Conference in 1966.

So if evolution could not take place with randomness, then all you have left is design, which would require a creator with intelligent design and purpose. In fact, the mathematicians found that mathematically evolution could never have begun nor continued through randomness.

Murray Eden showed that it would be impossible for even a single ordered pair of genes to be produced by DNA mutations in the bacteria, E. coli,—with 5 billion years in which to produce it! His estimate was based on 5 trillion tons of the bacteria covering the planet to a depth of nearly an inch during that 5 billion years. He then explained that the genes of E. coli contain over a trillion (10^12) bits of data. That is the number 10 followed by 12 zeros. *Eden then showed the mathematical impossibility of protein forming by chance. He also reported on his extensive investigations into genetic data on hemoglobin (red blood cells).

Hemoglobin has two chains, called alpha and beta. A minimum of 120 mutations would be required to convert alpha to beta. At least 34 of those changes require changeovers in 2 or 3 nucleotides. Yet, *Eden pointed out that, if a single nucleotide change occurs through mutation, the result ruins the blood and kills the organism!

*George Wald stood up and explained that he had done extensive research on hemoglobin also,—and discovered that if just ONE mutational change of any kind was made in it, the hemoglobin would not function properly. For example, the change of one amino acid out of 287 in hemoglobin causes sickle-cell anemia. A glutamic acid unit has been changed to a valine unit—and, as a result, 25% of those suffering with this anemia die.

A seed is a collection of information such as DNA, that describes processes that when carried out produce an end result. That end result could be a bird, a human being, plant, a planet or even a universe. When you look at the outline of a cloud, the branches of a tree, the path of a river, or the veins in your arms, you are looking at fractal geometry. 11, 22, and 33 are precise numbers. They are also multiples of 11. These numbers are encoded within our DNA. This is only the result of intelligent thought.

We have 33 vertebrae and they are grouped under the names cervical, thoracic, lumbar, sacral, and coccygeal. Why is 33 one of the most sacred numbers in Freemasonry that a Mason can attain to? Why is the 33rd parallel such an important place on our planet and why have most major events taken place along the 33rd parallel?

http://www.daywilliams.com/masons_mystery_33rd_parallel.html

Our skull has 22 bones. Our ribs have 11 bones. This is surely not a result of randomness, or is it?

[sleuth]

Our skull has 22 bones. Our ribs have 11 bones. This is surely not a result of randomness, or is it?

anon personally i tend to belive in creation ,simply because everyday when i see nature( trees,leavs,earth,clouds.....)in harmony,balanced..and they silently glorify creation..its not random.it cant be random ..then again we see examples of anti-biotic resistant bacteria, Galapagos finches and peppered moths changing, and many other observable examples of "evolution" happening even today.

[Anonymouse]

Originally posted by sleuth anon personally i tend to belive in creation ,simply because everyday when i see nature( trees,leavs,earth,clouds.....)in harmony,balanced..and they silently glorify creation..its not random.it cant be random ..then again we see examples of anti-biotic resistant bacteria, Galapagos finches and peppered moths changing, and many other observable examples of "evolution" happening even today.

No one denies moths and finches changing, it's properly referred to as adaptation. The finch doesn't turn into anything else, doesn't mutate into some new creature.

[sleuth]

HOW's my driving?

you drive very well!!! BRAVO ( opladismenti xexexexexe :PPP)

[Arvestaked]

Re: Re: Evolution and religion....

xxxx. I am gone for a weekend and I have to read 65 posts when I come back. I could have sworn all of this would have been ignored. Anyway, I will respond to this post before I devote my life to reading the rest of the thread...

Originally posted by Anonymouse Only human arrogance would assume that humans have solved the riddle.

Of course, I can sit here and puncture holes in evolution and you will argue till your death to defend it, which is a like class of faith. Evolution is nothing but faith.

One wonders how this fallible theory has been made infallible, whether it was the supposed intermediate "evidence" the early Darwinists brought forth, such as "gemules", "bathybius" and "eozoon", or the militant attitude of evolutionists and their everlasting intolerance, which you display, towards anything dissenting. Thus you, like evolutionists, have made up your mind, and will attack anyone to defend it. I've encountered a few scientists within biology that have questioned the validity of the said theory, only to be smeared.

Other silly things such as "Nebraska Man" are but ancient history and rarely mentioned. The fact that Darwin spoke of a gradual change over time, and since intermediate fossils could not be found to accomodate it, then the theory was further rewritten to remain immutable by Stephen J. Gould, and Niles Eldridge, and this time in the form of "punctuated equilibria". Since intermediate fossils could not have been found to validate Darwins "gradual" evolution, now all of a sudden, species didn't change gradually, but rather rapidly, it was a rapid jump from species to species. Thus the problem for the lack of intermediate forms was solved. Very unscientific. The evolutionists are more imaginitive and more faithful than your average Bible Thumper.

Of course evolution is mathematically improbable as Murray Eden of MIT has already showed at the Wistar Institute. And besides, most mutations are harmful anyway. So the probability is very marginal.

While a case can be made for "microevolution", since I doubt you will find anyone who will dispute within species variation, I find it very hard to accept the "evidence" for "macroevolution", and for the establishment to prove their case on "macro evolution". It is only assumed that species eventually jump.

Funny since now that Gould has asserted species make a drastic rapid jump to another species, they won't need to linger on the problem posed by missing fossils. But since some of us are quick to jump to nice theories which claim to have answers for everything, we all of a sudden forget to question it.

Have you observed species making a jump to another species?

You said it yourself. Science hasn't answered it, because it cannot. Science only deals with the physical and material realm. Only with how things react and behave, not how they got here. You can pin science on everything in the material world, yet how it got there, science is no more of a guess with faith, than God.

That is actually exactly what I wanted to see as a response. It is true the mechanism for evolution is not known and that natural selection and mutations are, most likely not responsible. But I feel it is illogical and arrogant to have the "right until proven wrong" attitude that the godfearers tend to have. Between vestigial structures, the increasing complexity of genetics, and the fact that fossils of all species cannot be found from any given period is enough to feel that evolution is something that exists. Just because we do not know why does not mean it is wrong. There were many things just 100 years ago that were not unknown and attributed to God that are now answered and obvious. The only reason that people feel the need to attribute the origin of species to God is because they are used to the idea and put the pressure on themselves to prove he exists (and by prove I mean point out what science yet has not). If the idea of God was never invented by man, the lack of evidence for the mechanism by which evolution occurs would not have brought it about. Some feel the need to be faithful when it comes to Darwinism and neo-Darwinism. However, them aside, remember, technology works, so do not judge science as a whole because of a certain few. The ones that argue against the said mechanisms claim that adherence to either of those theories is unscientific.

[EvrLstngDaze]

Science hasn't answered it, because it cannot. Science only deals with the physical and material realm. Only with how things react and behave, not how they got here. You can pin science on everything in the material world, yet how it got there, science is no more of a guess with faith, than God.

Science is a method in which we humans try to understand, and explain the phenomena that's going around in the world. Sure it hasn't explained everything, but you can't yet assume that it cannot. It's a process that tries to get answers, it's not a definitive doctrine. In my opinion, science is the best tool we've got. You can't really get to answers with only philosophy, it is supplementary to science, but neither one can progress by themselves.

judging from the number of replies this thred has got, I'm surprised why many of you are not scientists (in training at least)!...or are you?

[Arvestaked]

Originally posted by Anonymouse But where is the evidence to suggest that? Of course it's just stated. That's just it. You state it is a fact, that so and so happened. Well? What empirical suggests that species jump to another species? I only ask because I am naturally looking for evidence, much like your quest in evidence for God, or what have you. If I see that I cannot find evidence to support evolution, I will simply deny it as an explanation, nevermind its mathematical improbability. You can't argue against mathematics can you?

The mathematical improbability is only in reference to mutations being responsible for evolution. Not evolution itself.

[Arvestaked]

Originally posted by loseyourname the observed effects of point mutations and natural selection, is extremely high, as close to 1 as a scientific theory can get.

I believe this is not true. It is said that experiments regarding mutation show that it is impossible for there to be enough positive mutations for a species to change into another. And, as for natural selection, it is understood that it can only contribute to the creation of subspecies (microevolution). That is why the movement of neo-Darwinism came about to propose the idea of mutations as the cause of macroevolution and natural selection being the mechanism of refinement amongst the mutated populations.

[Arvestaked]

Originally posted by sleuth The fact is that evolutionists believe in evolution because they want to. It is their desire at all costs to explain the origin of everything without a Creator.

Yes that is true for a good reason that I mentioned a few posts prior to this one. The desire to point to a creator as the responsible party for the origin of species is only that way because people had come up with the idea of a creator prior, and for that reason, the observing eyes are biased. Science seeks answers by observation; accepting the idea of a creator would be unscientific and useless. The idea of a creator is for those who are uncomfortable not having all of the answers.