An Argument
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
25-04-2011, 12:28 AM (This post was last modified: 25-04-2011 01:21 AM by DeepThought.)
RE: An Argument
(24-04-2011 11:15 PM)BlackEyedGhost Wrote:  
(21-04-2011 02:53 PM)BnW Wrote:  For example, 10 signs of evolution in modern man

I find it interesting that those show signs of devolution more than just evolution. Also, I find it interesting that they attribute the tail-bone to evolution from having a tail while also stating the many functions it has currently.

What you said here and earlier are addressed in the videos I linked. I'm not going to waste time trying to educate you. The resources are there. Go educate yourself.

Funny that our ancestors from which we 'devolved' couldn't build a computer, and didn't have access to medicine and modern farming methods...




Skepticism isn't the easiest way out. It requires thinking, research and an ongoing willingness to keep learning things. It is good to understand the underlying concepts behind things and how they work. It can take years of effort sometimes before you get to a reasonable level of understanding with some topics.
Understanding these things is it's own reward.

The 'God done it' approach is a little too blunt and anti thought for my liking. For some people thinking is too much effort and it's easier to listen to Kent Hovind & co and just believe that...
Not that any of that stuff would make the case for their particular brand of religion. Muslims make the same arguments.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-04-2011, 06:18 AM
RE: An Argument
Quote:@Kikko the fact that we haven't successfully created one using intelligence implies a great deal of unlikeliness that it could have come about by chance.
I've googled for artificial/synthetic replicating molecules for quite a while, but the most interestingly titled articles seem to be unavaiable or cost money, like ''Artificial molecule evolves in lab'' http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16...e-lab.html and ''Synthetic self-replicating molecules'' http://www.sciamdigital.com/index.cfm?fa...3299C4F299
Synthetic Self-replicating Molecules Wrote:Imagine a molecule that likes its own shape: finding a copy of itself, it will fit neatly with its twin, forming for a while a complete entity. If the original molecule is presented with the component parts of itself, it will assemble these into additional replicas. The process will continue as long as the supply of components lasts.

My colleagues and I at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology have designed such self-assembling molecules and crafted them in the laboratory. Our efforts are intended to illuminate the ways in which life might have arisen. Probably it began when molecules came into existence that were capable of reproducing themselves. Our organic molecules, although they operate outside of living systems, help to elucidate some of the essential principles of self-replication
There's also this: http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/cen-v070n008.p021 but I think that requires somekind of payment too (why the fudge aren't these avaiable for free?).
Quote:Chemists at Massachusetts Institute of Technology who have been delving into synthetic organic molecules that can replicate themselves, now say they have taken "the next step toward artificially living systems." They have shown that these remarkable molecules can compete and cooperate with each other, and even mutate into better replicators. These lab-made molecules are much simpler than the replicating nucleic acids found in biological organisms. Yet they seem to model biologic evolution at the molecular level, says team leader Julius Rebek Jr., an organic chemistry professor at MIT.
Btw, I don't think chemistry works by chance.
Quote: Also, a virus isn't self-replicating. It requires a cell to take the data and reproduce it.
That's why it was a 'btw'. I just wanted to point out that artificial life has been created.
Quote:Your next argument is fairly nihilistic in that it destroys meaning, so I'll just ignore it.
Perhaps I just presented the thought in the wrong way. I'll try again with an example: a molecule might react in incredibly complex ways, but nature doesn't care that it seems complex to us, the molecule reacts as natural laws make it react.
It's true that complexity exists, and there's usually simplicity before complexity, but nature doesn't care. The world is incredibly complex to us, but still the world works.
Quote: As for who created God, He has always existed.
From what observation do you know that?

Correct me when I'm wrong.
Accept me or go to hell.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-04-2011, 11:58 AM
RE: An Argument
(24-04-2011 11:15 PM)BlackEyedGhost Wrote:  
(21-04-2011 02:53 PM)BnW Wrote:  For example, 10 signs of evolution in modern man

I find it interesting that those show signs of devolution

Offhanded comment, no basis.

Please explain why you think that these are signs of "devolution" rather than evolution.

"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: