Why As A Biochemist, I CANNOT Believe In Evolution

Submitted by Dr. Georgie Porgie

Click on image to view presentation in PDF

Tags: ,

743 Comments on “Why As A Biochemist, I CANNOT Believe In Evolution”

  1. Micro Mock Engineer January 13, 2010 at 10:44 PM #

    … BT, houses and bricks do not self-reproduce.

    Like

  2. Bush Tea January 13, 2010 at 11:01 PM #

    Answer another question to assist a bushman MME.

    Why after eons of evolution, (32999900 years LOL -during which some of the simplest organisms were able to evolve into some of the most complex systems that we know of), do we continue to have these same basic organisms in existence? Why did these not also ‘evolve’?
    …more importantly, since this suggest that ‘evolution’ moved at different rates why indeed do we not currently see examples of ALL of the various intermediate stages of evolution?

    I want a ‘thing like a fowl’ that was not hatched, but is just about to lay eggs for the first time in its evolution
    progress….

    You know where I can find one of them?
    Ha ha HA as BAFBFP would say….LMHYAT

    Like

  3. Micro Mock Engineer January 13, 2010 at 11:08 PM #

    Before I answer your last questions, lets look at your house example closer…

    If you look back in history at buildings in Barbados or anywhere else in the world for that matter), you will observe general changes in design. You will find certain common traits in designs based on time or geography. The common changes you observe over time reflect the technology and/or culture of the designers, and represent a form of evolution… externally induced evolution.

    If the very first houses were designed with the incredible ability to self-reproduce… without the need for the designer (except for perhaps providing inhabitants – or souls), then it would be entirely reasonable to assume that the changes you observe in home design over time were the result of internal evolutionary mechanisms of these self-reproducing homes.

    Like

  4. Bush Tea January 13, 2010 at 11:17 PM #

    @MME
    “but I’m sure you disagree with the steps above so I’ll stop here LOL?”
    ***************************************
    AAAAHHHHHa ha ha ha
    What sure BT disagree what?!!
    You done know yourself that this is a load of baloney MME. ROTFL.

    Wha’ skippa, this thing sounds much more far fetched than arguing a concept that claims that “a set of super boss engineers from out of our world mek all these things.”….just so – BRAM!

    BTW.
    ….you catch me with the blocks…..oops! ..must be sleepy…. or just depressed with the situation in Haiti…

    Like

  5. Bush Tea January 13, 2010 at 11:30 PM #

    @MME
    “If the very first houses were designed with the incredible ability to self-reproduce… without the need for the designer (except for perhaps providing inhabitants – or souls), then it would be entirely reasonable to assume that the changes you observe in home design over time were the result of internal evolutionary mechanisms of these self-reproducing homes.”
    ************************************
    Now! Now! MME.
    From anyone else BT would let that one pass, but no one knows better that you, that in accord with the laws of engineering, and entropy in particular, that as processes progress in time, they DEGRADE and definitely do not become naturally more refined or complex….UNLESS THERE ARE INTELLIGENT INPUTS.

    …think you owe us an apology?

    Like

  6. Micro Mock Engineer January 13, 2010 at 11:54 PM #

    LOL… what DEGRADE what?!!

    That law only applies to closed systems. Entropy does not have to increase in localised open systems (like the earth) receiving an almost limitless amount of energy (from a neighboring star).

    You can do better than that BT.

    …but is best we deal wid these things before getting to the chicken egg. LOL

    As for the terms ‘simple’ and ‘complex’… I normally try to avoid these, as people tend to misinterpret complex as meaning superior… many of these so-called ‘complex’ organisms would have a hard time surviving in the environments of their ancestors.

    Like

  7. Georgie Porgie January 16, 2010 at 4:18 PM #

    MME
    You is a man with a great understanding in these matters.

    Could you pplease kindly help me with the modus operandi or the mechanism of action as to the evolution of the following oiece of information I read in a book ?

    “The presence of highly specific receptor proteins on the lymphocyte surface implies that even before an antigen enters the body, immuno-competent B and T cells are already waiting “in the wings.”

    Moreover, the genetic code for synthesizing the surface receptor is present in an individual even though the individual has not been exposed to that antigen. We may never experience malaria, for example, yet we already have surface receptor proteins for recognizing and binding to the antigens of malaria parasites.”

    Maybe my good friend NS can help.

    Like

  8. Micro Mock Engineer January 16, 2010 at 10:07 PM #

    @GP,

    Many of the answers you seek are in the same book you have quoted from.

    It is also important to read the early chapters in a book before jumping to the back (sort of like reading the Bible… but I am sure you were aware of that LOL)… here is how that text book you are using put it in Chapter 1, page 35, under the heading “Microbial Evolution”…

    “Evolution represents the foundation for all biology and medicine. Bioligists have estimated that there are millions of species of organisms living on Earth today. The study of phylogeny involves the identification of evolutionary relationships between these organisms and has resulted in a complex genealogical tree, called the “phylogenetic tree of life”. Using the gene sequences for ribosomal RNA (rRNA) from different organisms, one can determine evolutionary relationships. Such studies have identified three distinct phylogenetic lineages (Fig.1.20). As mentioned earlier, the prokaryotes, or classical “bacteria”, actually sort out into two separate lineages and so have been split into two separate domains, the Bacteria and Archaea. All the eukaryotic organisms remain in one domain called the Eukarya. The phylogenetic tree of life provides a working framework for the life sciences and represents the model for the organization of biological and microbiological knowledge in this text.”

    Now you see what I meant when I lamented that evolutionary biology was not a core subject in many medical schools? Can you imagine the discipline which forms the “foundation for all biology and medicine” and the “working framework for life sciences” being skimmed over (or ignored altogether) in medical schools… whu dat would be like doing engineering without teaching physics.

    Even though your question was clearly facetious, for the benefit of those interested in evolutionary theory, I will provide an opinion…

    Like

  9. Christopher Halsall January 16, 2010 at 10:19 PM #

    @MME: “Even though your question was clearly facetious, for the benefit of those interested in evolutionary theory, I will provide an opinion…

    Aren’t you a little late to class, MME?

    Not problem. I’m happy to provide peer review to same.

    Like

  10. Micro Mock Engineer January 16, 2010 at 11:05 PM #

    GP… both humoral and cell-mediated immune response have evolved over time. Although I notice you have focused on the latter, it is difficult to tell the evolutionary story of one without the other. I will share what little knowledge I have on the evolutionary origins of both. It all began with phagocytosis* in unicellular animals…

    [*phagocytosis –> in Bush language, this is the process whereby cells ‘eat’ bacteria, pathogens, and other ‘foreign’ matter etc.]

    In our ancestral unicellular organisms, phagocytosis was used primarily as a means of refueling. However, as multicellular organisms evolved it became an important defense mechanism where certain cells in the organism used phagocytosis to ‘eat’ pathogens and debris that would otherwise be harmful to the whole organism. Both modes of phagocytosis are evident today. The shift from innate (or generic) to adaptive (or specialized) immune systems corresponded with a shift in survival strategy from collective survival to individual survival. So for example, most fish use a survival strategy of rapid reproduction with batches of numerous offspring… a ‘brute force’ victory-by-outnumbering strategy against pathogens, for which innate and primitive adaptive immune systems are adequate. In contrast, a combination of changed environmental conditions and genetic mutation resulted in slower reproductive maturity and fewer offspring for our ancestors, requiring a different immune strategy.

    Evolutionary theory predicts that we should see the stages of immune system development as we make our way up the ‘tree of life’ through geological time. Lets look at just a few steps in that process to see what we find…

    Protozoa (2,000 million years ago) – phagocytosis… cells ‘eat’ toxins and bacteria.

    Agnathan fish (510 million years ago) – B cells produced by gut associated lymphoid tissue (GALT), but no lymphoid organs present. A lymphoid organ (thymus) found in later species of fish like Teleostei.

    Amphibians (350 million years ago) – GALT, thymus and spleen… lymph nodes begin to form but are in primitive stages of development. Bone marrow in a few species. T helper cells appear.

    Primates (60 million years ago) – 5 lymphocyte classes capable of combating numerous pathogens… but still susceptible to many (including malaria which you mentioned), and more importantly, still evolving. At the moment we help it along with vaccines… in the future we will make even greater strides using gene therapy and genetic engineering.

    Like

  11. Georgie Porgie January 16, 2010 at 11:18 PM #

    I see
    What a load!

    Like

  12. Bush Tea January 16, 2010 at 11:31 PM #

    @MME
    Man you is an engineer or a lawyer? You are (ingeniously I admit) dodging the issues…..

    Even where entropy decreases, can you give examples of natural systems which tend to become more complex (and you DO know what complex means) WITHOUT intelligent external inputs and which are of enough significance to suggest large scale creation via this process?

    Take the domestication of wild animals for example as species becoming more ‘complex’. Where has this occurred without intelligent planning and control by humans?

    LOL – I can’t wait to hear your explanation (without the fancy latin or legal verbiage) of how we came to have omelette’s …… ROTFL.

    Like

  13. Christopher Halsall January 16, 2010 at 11:32 PM #

    @Georgie Porgie: “I see[.] What a load!

    Give me a break…

    Simple. Logic. Obvious…

    It is only a “load” upon those you hope to place it upon.

    Complexity without the background.

    Come on Mr. Georgie Porgie (probably not his real name)…

    Please don’t play this game with the “children”.

    You are bigger than this.

    (Hopefully.)

    Like

  14. Christopher Halsall January 16, 2010 at 11:34 PM #

    @Bush Tea: “LOL – I can’t wait to hear your explanation (without the fancy latin or legal verbiage) of how we came to have omelette’s …… ROTFL.

    Any chance you might stop laughing?

    Like

  15. Micro Mock Engineer January 16, 2010 at 11:37 PM #

    “Even where entropy decreases, can you give examples of natural systems which tend to become more complex (and you DO know what complex means) WITHOUT intelligent external inputs and which are of enough significance to suggest large scale creation via this process?”
    ………………….

    No I can’t.

    BT… evolution, like gravity, was the product of intelligent design.

    … by the way, domestication of wild animals is a perfect example. That is MICRO evolution… can you imagine what type of evolution BBE is capable of designing?

    Like

  16. Micro Mock Engineer January 16, 2010 at 11:41 PM #

    Man BT… even a simple MME can design and create a self-reproducing computer code that, left to its own in a virtual environment programmed with certain ‘laws’ like variation (random mutation) and differential fitness (competition), will evolve more ‘complex’ functions… provided of course I keep the computer (sun) plugged in. Of course you will argue that it was intelligently designed… and I would agree with you.

    If you like I can even tell you where to download it. :-)

    Like

  17. Bush Tea January 16, 2010 at 11:45 PM #

    Actually MME, reading your 1105 P.M. post, I believe that you could be hired to prove beyond reasonable doubt to an educated observer, that the 3S project to widen the ABC highway was created without any intelligent inputs……. ROTFL.
    ….which just happens to be true in this particular case LOL

    Like

  18. Micro Mock Engineer January 16, 2010 at 11:56 PM #

    ROTFL… cuddear BT… yuh opening old wounds now. LOL

    Like

  19. David January 16, 2010 at 11:59 PM #

    @MME

    Please try FireFox browser when posting to BU.

    Like

  20. Georgie Porgie January 17, 2010 at 12:03 AM #

    MME

    Where is the evidence for all this BS that evolutionary theory predicts ? Is there any reproducable replicatable evidence, Sir? Or am I to take this all by faith?

    “Both humoral and cell-mediated immune response have evolved over time.”
    Is there any reproducable replicatable evidence, Sir? Or am I to take this all by faith?

    “Protozoa (2,000 million years ago) – phagocytosis… cells ‘eat’ toxins and bacteria.” Is there any reproducable replicatable evidence, Sir? Or am I to take this all by faith?

    “Agnathan fish (510 million years ago) – B cells produced by gut associated lymphoid tissue (GALT), but no lymphoid organs present. A lymphoid organ (thymus) found in later species of fish like Teleostei.”

    Is there any reproducable replicatable evidence, Sir? Or am I to take this all by faith?

    “Amphibians (350 million years ago) – GALT, thymus and spleen… lymph nodes begin to form but are in primitive stages of development. Bone marrow in a few species. T helper cells appear.”
    Is there any evidence, Sir?Or am I to take this all by faith?

    Primates (60 million years ago) – 5 lymphocyte classes capable of combating numerous pathogens… but still susceptible to many (including malaria which you mentioned), and more importantly, still evolving.

    Is there any evidence, Sir? Or am I to take this all by faith?

    At the moment we help it along with vaccines… in the future we will make even greater strides using gene therapy and genetic engineering. I see. Have you seen the blue prints for such engineering Sir? You seem to have a lot of faith in man.

    No I dont see what you meant when you lamented that evolutionary biology was not a core subject in many medical schools?

    It wont help us to do the simple things we do. How will this BS help me to differentiate between PID, ectopic pregnancy or fluid from an ovarian cyst falling into the Poch of Douglas?

    How will this help me treat an inguinal or femoral or umbilical hernia? How will this BS help us determine the cause of jaundice?

    Who says that this BS that you are promoting is the discipline which forms the “foundation for all biology and medicine” and the “working framework for life sciences?”

    Apparently ALL the curriculum committees of the world’s medical schools dont share this view. Thank God!

    No Sir ! This BS is not a necessary Basic Science for the foundation of Medicine Sir.

    I wont ever go into a Biochem class and talk about God, but I have some ppts to show tomorrow of how a PhD at a US university is allowed to go oito a class room and spout about some nig bang theory. Never saw that in any of the ten leading texts I have read. Amazing.

    Like

  21. Micro Mock Engineer January 17, 2010 at 12:07 AM #

    Ok David… will try.

    Like

  22. Bush Tea January 17, 2010 at 12:10 AM #

    MME

    I will again state why you are confusing the whole debate.

    By arguing that BBE created the universe through a process of evolution you are clearly NOT a ‘real real’ evolutionist.

    ‘Real’ evolutionist seek to explain our reality minus BBE.

    You are therefore confusing the macro debate by starting with a BBE.

    Now to your particular (and unique) position, I again ask:

    1 – Why would BBE use evolution instead of just making the startup scenario as effectively described in Genesis? (relatively one time – BRAM)

    2 – Even if evolution was the selected process, when and why did the chicken change to laying its egg rather than using internal incubation?

    3 – Would you agree that adding a process of ‘evolution’ to a Genesis style startup scenario would be nothing short of brilliant?

    Yours is an interesting – but flawed theory MME…. but take an A for effort and creativity….

    Like

  23. Bush Tea January 17, 2010 at 12:25 AM #

    Man BT… even a simple MME can design and create a self-reproducing computer code that, left to its own in a virtual environment programmed with certain ‘laws’ like variation ……………..
    **************************************
    MME…. You back with that rum and coconut water again…..?

    If a MME design and create a code… THAT is called intelligent input.

    If it runs on a computer platform – THAT requires intelligent inputs….

    If the system needs a reliable power supply to run “on its own…..” etc etc

    Like

  24. Micro Mock Engineer January 17, 2010 at 10:56 AM #

    BT,

    It has not been my intention to confuse the debate, and I have included God in the process from the outset. As I also indicated, I believe the reason this topic generates so much emotion and animosity is because many people (including some scientists like GP) misunderstand the theory of evolution. It is also true that several scientists attempt to use evolution as a plank in their arguments against the existence of God, however, I think I have shown that this can be easily dismissed since evolution is a theory about biological processes, not the metaphysical. To reinforce this point, here is an extract from Charles Darwin’s Autobiography:

    “…the impossibility of conceiving that this grand and wondrous universe, with our conscious selves, arose through chance, seems to me the chief argument for the existence of God; but whether this is an argument of real value, I have never been able to decide. I am aware that if we admit a First Cause, the mind still craves to know whence it came and how it arose. Nor can I overlook the difficulty from the immense amount of suffering through the world. I am, also, induced to defer to a certain extent to the judgment of the many able men who have fully believed in God; but here again I see how poor an argument this is. The safest conclusion seems to me that the whole subject is beyond the scope of man’s intellect; but man can do his duty.”

    … even Darwin recognized that his theory of evolution was useless in the debate on God’s existence. Above are the words of a man who was uncertain on the question of God… an agnostic… he was unable to reconcile pain and suffering in the world with the existence of God. As you know, that is a challenging issue for many people.
    ………………………..

    @BT

    “1 – Why would BBE use evolution instead of just making the startup scenario as effectively described in Genesis? (relatively one time – BRAM)”

    I don’t know why evolution was used., but the evidence leads me to conclude that evolutionary mechanisms were employed in the creation of biological life (creation of the Soul is an entirely different matter). I have also opined that the “startup scenario as described in Genesis” was not intended to give us a ball-by-ball commentary on creation, anymore than “the trees of the field shall clap their hands” (Isaiah 55:12) should be taken literally. A book that intends to remain relevant for all time, must communicate in a way that is sympathetic to the limitations in knowledge and vocabulary of people throughout the ages.

    “2 – Even if evolution was the selected process, when and why did the chicken change to laying its egg rather than using internal incubation?”

    … coming up… how you want those eggs, fried or scrambled? LOL.

    “3 – Would you agree that adding a process of ‘evolution’ to a Genesis style startup scenario would be nothing short of brilliant?”

    I would agree. But why create an untestable hypothesis, when evolutionary theory not only explains the evidence left behind by God’s creation, but does so in a useful way that creates a “framework for life sciences” and “foundation for all biology and medicine”… as indicated in the text book from which GP teaches and quotes frequently.

    Tell me BT… wouldn’t you find it a bit odd if I told you the reason why an apple falls from a tree when its stem breaks is because God grabs it and throws it to the ground. Maybe He does… and if true, I would not be able to tell you why… but I would be able to present you with a scientifically verifiable theory describing how He does it. It is the same with biological evolution.

    Evolution… whether in computer code or biological life is evidence of intelligent design. I am agreeing with you on that BT… you mekkin this thing real hard yuh… I have just enough energy left for one more evolutionary process description… you want the chicken egg, the butterfly or the platypus? ROTFL

    Like

  25. Bush Tea January 17, 2010 at 11:37 AM #

    @ MME

    Let me begin by telling you how much I appreciate your honest and forthright contributions. I have to tell you that you are easily my most thought provoking adversary on this subject ..ever!!…. and that I have indeed learnt much in the process of engaging you.

    You have a fundamental problem with your theory however.

    You seem to be arguing that BBE decided to use evolution in the creation of the world ‘so that you would be able to explain the things around us in scientific terms’.

    You seem to be saying that although our world COULD have been created as a fait accompli (just so BRAM!), and that the Bible in fact gives that clear impression (even if using figurative language), it was actually done over eons – thus giving a wrong indication in the bible.

    Your weakest point however comes when you suggest that the evidence ‘supports’ creation via evolution.

    …in fact, the evidence shows ONLY that evolution is a fact. That changes occur to species, which reflect the influences of their environment (high class engineering design); and that these changes are essentially WITHIN SPECIES.

    If you were right, then evolution would be an ongoing process with many examples of transitional specimens in the process of evolving to another species….

    BBE deliberately created a number of anomalies whose main purpose is is to ‘confound those who are wise in their own eyes’…… that is why we have omelette for example.
    It is also why Jesus spoke in parables to deliberately confuse listeners; why the Devil was created and why the world is generally confused even among the greatest level of education ever.

    Attempts to explain the ways of BBE using man’s wisdom (science and theology) are doomed to confusion and disarray….. as can be seen even here on BU…

    Like

  26. Not Saved January 17, 2010 at 11:58 AM #

    @BT

    “By arguing that BBE created the universe through a process of evolution you are clearly NOT a ‘real real’ evolutionist.”

    ++++

    No BT it is YOU that constantly conflates evolution with creation of the universe or creation of life.

    As MME has painstakingly explained to you (and others), the theory of evolution is a theory OF BIOLOGY. It is a theory OF LIVING ORGANISMS

    IT IS NOT, I repeat, IT IS NOT a theory of the creation of life (or the universe).

    Those subjects are abiogenesis and cosmology.

    You might as well attack Einsteins Theory of general relativity for not explaining the origin of space and time.

    There have been believers and non believers before and after the theory of evolution.

    The best biological departments of the world are filled with believers and non believers.

    Your “real real evolutionist” is nothing more than a strawman.

    Like

  27. Not Saved January 17, 2010 at 11:59 AM #

    @BT,

    “…in fact, the evidence shows ONLY that evolution is a fact. That changes occur to species, which reflect the influences of their environment (high class engineering design); and that these changes are essentially WITHIN SPECIES.”

    +++

    Of course this is flat out false.

    Like

  28. Not Saved January 17, 2010 at 12:07 PM #

    @BT,

    “If you were right, then evolution would be an ongoing process with many examples of transitional specimens in the process of evolving to another species….”

    +++

    And that is exactly what the evidence shows.

    MME has already provided links to just some of this evidence which incidentally keeps growing.

    (and considering how rare fossilisation is its remarkable we have any evidence at all ).

    (standy by for the usual creationist denial)

    Like

  29. Not Saved January 17, 2010 at 12:18 PM #

    @MME

    “Even where entropy decreases, can you give examples of natural systems which tend to become more complex (and you DO know what complex means) WITHOUT intelligent external inputs ”

    +++

    Why did you say no?

    A hurricane is one of many examples of a decrease in entropy by a natural process process (or did you disqualify these types of examples because you attribute an ultimate first cause to BBE)

    @BT,

    The hurricane does not violate the second law because it is not a closed system.

    Like

  30. Bush Tea January 17, 2010 at 1:38 PM #

    @ Not Saved

    To tell you the truth NS, my problem (and I do mean- MY problem) is that I cannot for the life of me understand exactly where you stand.

    When you make references to well known scholars and reference materials (as is MME’s wont also) you must understand that that style is only useful when wanna bright boys talking to (trying to impress) one another….. It is NOT helpful in trying to enlighten a bushman.

    Do you, like MME, believe in a pre-existing supernatural being?

    Do you (like MME) concur that this supernatural being is responsible for the reality that we call existence?

    Are you saying that the supernatural being created the biological process called evolution, which was then the process through which our world came into being?

    Or do you subscribe to the belief that NO such superior intelligence exists, and that we are what we are as a result of circumstances of chance? … and that ‘evolution’ is just another arbitrary law that happens to exist…..?

    Wha’ it is that you arguing here NS?…. apart from just being against bushmen ….LOL

    Like

  31. Micro Mock Engineer January 17, 2010 at 2:26 PM #

    “Why did you say no? A hurricane is one of many examples of a decrease in entropy by a natural process process (or did you disqualify these types of examples because you attribute an ultimate first cause to BBE)”
    ………….

    You are correct NS… it is just that conceptually I agree with BT that the laws which govern these natural processes are divine in origin. I do believe in a ‘first cause’… this belief is faith based and informed by my philosophy of life.

    In the context of the discussion, your hurricane example is a good one. I had thought of using lightning, but figured GP would quote from Job 37:11-15. LOL

    Like

  32. Not Saved January 17, 2010 at 2:36 PM #

    @BT,

    “Do you, like MME, believe in a pre-existing supernatural being?”

    ++++

    I am not aware of any.

    Like

  33. Not Saved January 17, 2010 at 2:51 PM #

    Hi Georgie,

    Ironic you should use malaria as an example.

    You may find this paper interesting:

    “How Malaria Has Affected the Human Genome and What Human Genetics Can Teach Us about Malaria
    Dominic P. Kwiatkowski”

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1224522/

    Note, malaria parasites have existed long before humans.

    Like

  34. Not Saved January 17, 2010 at 2:53 PM #

    Thanks MME, your position is clear.

    Like

  35. Bush Tea January 17, 2010 at 4:13 PM #

    @ NS

    “I am not aware of any.”
    ***********************************
    You only acknowledge those of whom you are aware?
    …. and have the gall to refer Bush Tea to fossil records from 2,999,9200 years ago? LOL

    Man answer the question nuh?

    What exactly is your argument? …. or maybe you can assist MME with the egg thing…

    Like

  36. Not Saved January 17, 2010 at 8:45 PM #

    The question was clearly answered, but for you I will expand;

    I am not aware of the existence of any “pre existing supernatural being”.

    My argument?

    The theory of evolution, a theory of living things, is settled science.

    That is my argument.

    Like

  37. David January 17, 2010 at 8:50 PM #

    @Not Saved

    Please try posting to BU using FireFox Browser.

    Like

  38. Not Saved January 17, 2010 at 8:57 PM #

    @David,

    I can do. (need to download it)

    Any particular reason?

    (sorry I been away from the blog for a little bit so I missed any earlier explanation)

    Like

  39. David January 17, 2010 at 9:03 PM #

    @NS

    Based on feedback it seems IE especially Google Chrome does not work well with WordPress.

    Like

  40. Bush Tea January 17, 2010 at 9:33 PM #

    Thank you NS.

    No doubt you know that there is no such thing as ‘settled science’, just the most current accepted explanation.

    ….like how the world was flat and the phlogiston theory was accepted for centuries.

    ….this is ‘higher draft’ NS.

    Like

  41. Not Saved January 18, 2010 at 12:22 AM #

    Yes BT, settled science is current generally accepted scientific theory.

    It is always open to improvement.

    Lets not argue semantics now.

    Lets also be clear that “evolution” is data, the facts we observe from the fossil record.

    Over 99% of species that ever lived are now extinct.

    Hardly the case of creation by “BRAM” !

    The “Theory of Evolution” is the “how and the why” these observed changes occurred.

    No doubt we will continue to improve our understanding of the “how and why” and the theory will become more and more robust in its explanatory power.

    To throw out a form of the “galileo gambit” is a disingenuous argument.

    Tell me, is your “BRAM” theory open to revision in light of the evidence?

    Like

  42. Not Saved January 18, 2010 at 12:35 AM #

    @BT,

    By the way,

    “a flat earth” was never an accepted scientific theory.

    You may find this useful:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myth_of_the_Flat_Earth

    Phlogiston theory was already being seriously challenged within a 100 hundred years and hardly lasted for “centuries”.

    Surely you appreciate that science is able to move faster now.

    Like

  43. Micro Mock Engineer January 24, 2010 at 9:35 AM #

    BT… thought this might help to put your “just so BRAM!” worldview in perspective.

    Cambrian explosion = “just so BRAM!” LOL

    Like

  44. Micro Mock Engineer February 16, 2010 at 9:20 PM #

    OK BT… a good place to pick this back up is from your question… “Even if evolution was the selected process, when and why did the chicken change to laying its egg rather than using internal incubation?”

    The chicken-egg evolutionary process is actually easy to describe having done the groundwork higher up the thread, but first we have to get a few more GP-ite translations out of the way…

    Amniotes – these are vertibrates that lay eggs which can survive out of water (called amniotic eggs). Examples would be all birds, most reptiles (exceptions are some lizards and snakes) and some mammals (e.g. anteater and platypus).

    Amnion – this is the membrane or sac containing amniotic fluid, in which the fetus develops. It is common to both fertilized chicken and human eggs… the rupturing of the amnion is what happens when a woman’s “water breaks”.

    Oviparity – this is the process where the embryo develops in an egg outside of the mother’s body, with the embryo being nourished by a yolk.

    Vivparity – this is the process where the embryo develops in an egg inside of the mother’s body, with the embryo being nourished by a placental connection to the mother.

    Ovoviparity – this is an evolutionary intermediary between oviparity and vivparity, where the embryo develops in an egg that remains inside the mother until birth, but there is no placental connection. In all three cases, fertilization of the egg takes place inside of the mother.

    Now to make a small correction to your question… the chicken didn’t “change to laying its egg rather than using internal incubation”, because according to evolutionary theory the order in which reproductive systems evolved was oviparity–> ovoviparity –> viviparity. In other words, “internal incubation” is a relatively new reproductive mechanism. Fossil evidence demonstrates that oviparity predates viviparity by millions of years. Fortunately we don’t have to rely on fossil records alone for evidence of this transition, as we have many examples of transitional species still in existence… for example, the veiled chameleon lays eggs while its cousin, Jackson’s chameleon, gives live birth. Similarly, the python lays eggs while its cousin the boa gives live birth.

    So… to cut a multi-billion year story short LOL, eggs have been around for millions of years before chickens… of course in those ‘early’ days, the eggs didn’t contain chickens, but they did contain species which would eventually evolve to become chickens… and chameleons… and snakes etc. The process started with single cell reproduction, moving on to multicellular organisms laying eggs for external fertilization, then internal fertilization of eggs before being laid, then longer and longer uterine retention of fertilized eggs before being laid, then eggs that ‘hatched’ internally, then eggs that not only fully developed internally but with yolk placentation.

    … and today we see a species, over the past 50 years, actively involved in its own evolution… external fertilization (test tube babies), genetic engineering, cloning… the next million years should be interesting :-)

    Like

  45. Micro Mock Engineer February 16, 2010 at 9:27 PM #

    “In all three cases, fertilization of the egg takes place inside of the mother.”

    Correction to above… I was thinking in terms of the chicken, but in oviparity, fertilisation can take place either internally (e.g. chicken) or externally (e.g. fish and amphibians).

    Like

  46. Micro Mock Engineer February 16, 2010 at 9:35 PM #

    …and BT, now that we know some of GP’s fancy words, we understand what his text books mean when it describes the phylogenetic reconstruction (translation: path through the tree of life) for the butterfly’s evolution which you also asked about higher up the thread ROFL.

    Their biological ancestors separated in the branch I provided above, at the ‘Colelomata’ ‘limb’ around 600 million years ago and continued down the following evolutionary path…

    › Coelomata
    › Protostomia
    › Panarthropoda
    › Arthropoda
    › Mandibulata
    › Pancrustacea
    › Hexapoda
    › Insecta
    › Dicondylia
    › Pterygota
    › Neoptera
    › Endopterygota
    › Amphiesmenoptera (family of butterflies and moths)

    Like

  47. Bush Tea February 16, 2010 at 9:39 PM #

    OK MME, I promise to let the matter rest here.
    There are a few reasons for this.

    – I have forgotten the gist of this thread and don’t have the time or patience to review it. ( I barely recall the various positions)

    – I still find it hard to understand how you could know all this draft…. from Latin to biology to engineering to law – RU4real?

    – Skippa, you sound like you actually believe these things that you are saying…. snigger!!

    – and lastly, you trying to trick the bushman by suggesting that ‘evolution’ includes processes like genetic engineering..
    How could it be ‘evolution’ when it is engineered by brilliant minds and cutting edge technology? When BBE did a similar but more complex thing we called it CREATION.

    Like

  48. Micro Mock Engineer February 16, 2010 at 9:50 PM #

    “How could it be ‘evolution’ when it is engineered by brilliant minds and cutting edge technology?”
    ……………………..

    Evolution, like gravity and the laws of thermodynamics, are just a few of those cutting edge ‘technologies’ used in “the more complex thing” we call CREATION.

    Like

  49. Bush Tea February 16, 2010 at 10:04 PM #

    MME
    That position defies logic. You can do much better.

    If modern scientists were able to build a human being ‘just so’, would it make sense to waste time on in vitro fertilization, intracytoplasmic sperm injection, and other similar procedures.

    Similarly, if BBE could CREATE things ‘just so’ why would they waste time with such haphazard mechanisms as evolution? – just so you and your bright friends can show off with those fancy (and admittedly impressive) Latin word? LOL

    Like

  50. Micro Mock Engineer February 16, 2010 at 10:34 PM #

    “if BBE could CREATE things ‘just so’ why would they waste time with such haphazard mechanisms as evolution?”
    ……………..

    Evolution is no more haphazard than quantum mechanics… and while both leave us with unanswered questions, they also provide us with testable knowledge about the natural world.

    Frankly, I am a bit disappointed in that last question BT… it is sort of like asking why BBE would waste time with haphazard mechanisms like allowing suffering in the world… surely BBE could create perfect beings ‘just so’ without the need for this drama called life on earth… right? :-)

    There is nothing haphazard about any observable process around us, and what you may perceive as imperfections is all part of a plan… but you already know this… you like you sleepy yuh… or dem big words I borrow from GP got you confuse?

    Like

  51. Anonymous February 16, 2010 at 10:57 PM #

    If there is a God, He will not or cannot be understood by us, otherwise He wouldn’t be God. Let’s get on with enjoying life as we understand such.

    Like

  52. Micro Mock Engineer February 16, 2010 at 11:32 PM #

    “If there is a God, He will not or cannot be understood by us, otherwise He wouldn’t be God. Let’s get on with enjoying life as we understand such.”
    …………………

    Anonymous… that is an interesting observation. It’s similar to this quotation from the Vedas… “As far as the Universe extends, thus far extends the space within the heart.”
– Chandogya Upanishad 8-1-3

    Meaning-of-life type questions and philosophical discussions should help us to enjoy life… or at the very least, face death when that time comes without fear.

    Like

  53. Anonymous February 17, 2010 at 12:03 AM #

    MME

    There is a Bible quote about “putting away childish things”. Meaning-of-life questions seem childish. All I know is that I am alive and thus each “moment” has meaning and if only I can let go of my preconceived notions then maybe I will find that meaning for each “moment”. To live so as to die without fear seems like such a waste.

    “Every day is as old as a new day is. Time represents itself.
    Night fakes the rule of stars; as we fake
    light’s good pencil.
    As child’s chalk ridden black board. Alphabet of hope in a season of insects. Crawl of the beast in a season of days.
    I unapologetic, remember why every day was once a new day. As new and as old as my childhood roaming.”

    “As New and as Old (I)” – Martin Carter

    Like

  54. Micro Mock Engineer February 17, 2010 at 1:10 AM #

    Anonymous,

    I enjoy contemplating the nature of human beings and our place in the universe… indeed, it helps me find meaning in each moment… but I appreciate the fact that others like yourself do not share similar interests. LOL

    I agree with you though that we should not “live so as to die without fear”… although I am not sure how you reached that conclusion from my statement… unless of course you thought I was suggesting that one should spend ones entire life engaged in philosophical discourse (or blogging for that matter) :-)

    “An individual human existence should be like a river – small at first, narrowly contained within its banks, and rushing passionately past boulders and over waterfalls. Gradually the river grows wider, the banks recede, the waters flow more quietly, and in the end, without any visible break, they become merged in the sea, and painlessly lose their individual being. The man who, in old age, can see his life in this
    way, will not suffer from the fear of death, since the things he cares for will continue.” – C.S. Lewis

    Like

  55. Micro Mock Engineer February 17, 2010 at 1:25 AM #

    oops… that quote was Bertrand Russell.

    Reading a book right now contrasting the lives and philosophies of Russell, Hume and C.S. Lewis.

    Despite very different worldviews they all expressed remarkably similar sentiments about aging and death.

    Like

  56. Anonymous February 17, 2010 at 7:16 AM #

    MME

    can you give me the title of that book? Russell’s quote has a Buddhist or Hindu sensibility to it. I believe (regretfully) when I was younger that I spent too much time on questions on life’s meanings. Now in the high afternoon of my days there is an urgency to taste as much of life as possible before merging into that infinite sea of Nirvana (hopefully).(with a sigh and a smile).

    Like

  57. Micro Mock Engineer February 17, 2010 at 7:44 PM #

    Anonymous,

    Its called “God and the Reach of Reason: C.S. Lewis, David Hume, and Bertrand Russell”. Here is an Amazon link…

    It focuses mainly on critiquing Lewis’ philosophy. While I don’t agree with some of the author’s conclusions, I like the way he puts one of Christianity’s most influential apologetics in conversation with two of its most famous critics.

    Like

  58. Anonymous February 17, 2010 at 7:48 PM #

    Thanks MME.

    Like

  59. Bush Tea February 17, 2010 at 9:13 PM #

    @ MME
    “Frankly, I am a bit disappointed in that last question BT… it is sort of like asking why BBE would waste time with haphazard mechanisms like allowing suffering in the world… surely BBE could create perfect beings ‘just so’ without the need for this drama called life on earth… right? :-)
    *************************************
    MME, listen to Bush Tea carefully. EVERYTHING you posted above is completely wrong. Please let me explain why.

    The problem with your thesis that BBE chose to use evolution as the mechanism for creation is understood by answering the question which I asked and you skilfully skirted…. If scientist could make living human beings directly, would they use ‘in vitro fertilization’ and such methodologies?
    …do you now use a slide rule in your design work? It makes no sense.

    Secondly, if as you suggest, BBE DID use evolution as his design approach please tell me why the inspired word would explain the concept in’ creation ‘terms of BBE saying ‘ LET THERE BE….and there was….” Do you think that this was done to mislead us? or was it a mistake?

    But where you REALLY fall down is in your reference to the ‘drama of life on Earth’ and the suffering and pain involved.

    MME, THAT is the real beauty and excellence of the whole project. There are some things that CANNOT BE CREATED ‘just so’….. as you well know.

    Life can be created.
    Matter can be created
    Civilizations can be created

    CHARACTER cannot be created ‘just so’. That needs to be forged in a crucible of different and difficult experiences.
    Think about it, can you contemplate a more complete and excellent crucible? – designed to facilitate the molding of that special righteous character that is characterized by the ability to LOVE one’s enemies; to pray for those who seek to kill you; to rise above pain and suffering?

    For the purpose for which it was built, life on earth is indeed PERFECT in every way…..(as BBE said upon completion of the construction)

    ….so your assessment of the ‘mechanisms of life such as suffering, as ‘haphazard’ is hugely misguided. Such is the assessment of those to whom ‘life on earth’ represents their be all and end all….. as articulated by Anonymous above.

    Like

  60. Micro Mock Engineer February 17, 2010 at 11:33 PM #

    BT, my statement on the mechanisms of life (like suffering) being haphazard was meant to be ‘tongue-in-cheek’… it was made in the context of your referring to evolution as haphazard, which to me is an equally absurd statement.

    I don’t believe that evolution is a purposeless trial-and-error process. Nor do I see it as analogous to genetic engineering experiments. While evolution may not be as directly involved in shaping character the same way experiences do, it is one of the observable forces of nature (like gravity) at work in the crucible. It is not THE mechanism, as you put it, but one of many mechanisms at work in the crucible. Reducing my “thesis” (LOL) to one of BBE choosing “to use evolution as the mechanism for creation” was a crafty way of framing my position to shoot it down… you could just as well have said that I believe BBE chose to use gravity as the mechanism for evolution. Do you agree with the theory of gravity, and if so why? If you do, I suspect your reasons would be similar to those I would give in support of evolution.

    A look at gravity in more detail may help clear up an issue… there are two ways we look gravity. One is as a fact (i.e. the natural observable phenomenon that objects/masses attract each other) and the other as a theory (right now the best one we have is general relativity/space-time curvature… but just as this replaced Newton’s theory, it too is likely to be replaced as our knowledge improves… maybe String theory will be its successor?). It is similar with evolution… there is the naturally observable phenomenon (from fossil records, and other evidence presented higher up the thread) that biological organisms have evolved from common ancestors over millions of years. Then there is Darwin’s theory of the mechanism, which, like general relativity, may be replaced some day.

    BT… I don’t know why you and others consider evolution to be so threatening, or incompatible with the Creation account. As a physical/biological creation, the differences between us and other organisms may appear significant on the surface, but the fact is we are constructed from the same fundamental physical ingredients molded in different ways over time… it is our Soul that makes us unique.

    As an aside, when BBE said “let us make man in our image” do you think this referred to our physical bodies?

    Like

  61. Micro Mock Engineer February 17, 2010 at 11:42 PM #

    correction…

    “you could just as well have said that I believe BBE chose to use gravity as the mechanism for *creation*.”

    Like

  62. Anon February 18, 2010 at 11:46 PM #

    New Center at Michigan State U. Will Study Evolution, Both Natural and Digital
    By Mary Helen Miller

    Computer scientists, biologists, and engineers will work together to study evolution in a new center set to open at Michigan State University in June. The university announced Wednesday that it had recieved a $25-million grant from the National Science Foundation to establish the Bio/computational Evolution in Action Consortium, which will be known as Beacon.

    Scientists at Beacon will study evolution as a continuing process, and they will conduct research in the field, in labs, and with computers. They will study digital evolution using self-replicating computer programs that imitate natural evolution. Charles Ofria, an associate professor of computer science and engineering at Michigan State who was heavily involved in establishing Beacon, explained the benefits of studying digital evolution.

    “When evolution occurs on a computer, we can record every single thing that happens,” he said. “For example, we can take an evolved digital organism, trace its descent, and see every single mutation.”

    Though Beacon will be located at Michigan State, four other universities will be partners in the center: North Carolina A&T State University and the Universities of

    Like

  63. Anonymous March 5, 2010 at 6:08 PM #

    MME

    today it was announced that scientists believe there is compelling evidence that a single asteroid collision with the earth was responsible for the extinction of the dinosaurs. This mass extinction led to the rise of mammals as the dominant species on earth. It would appear that the extinction of the dinosaurs occurred fairly rapidly in about 300 000 years. I believe that biologists claim that other life forms evolved from dinosaurs for example birds. So my question: If dinosaurs were killed off fairly rapidly how is it that that they could have evolved into new species? [My understanding of the evolution of life on earth is probably incomplete if not incorrect so feel free to provide corrections]

    Like

  64. Anotoxfa August 10, 2011 at 10:50 AM #

    This is ridicolous, and I’m glad about everyone who doesn’t believe in evolution is outcasted by intelligent people.

    Like

  65. The whole truth February 10, 2012 at 7:32 AM #

    It’s no wonder that many people are leaving churches, the cult of christianity, and religion in general when arrogant, sanctimonious, authoritarian, tyrannical Dominionists like Dictionary (Gordon E, Mullings of Montserrat), Zoe, and Georgie Porgie (to name a few), show just how morally bankrupt, two-faced, dishonest, abusive, and delusional, and insane religious zealots are.

    Like

  66. old onion bags February 10, 2012 at 8:04 AM #

    I don’t know why Peter Wickham don’t come clean and own up for this blog.
    After all the lick and kick the poor atheist got yesterday from the good christian people on Brass Tack…the sore loser chose to run to BU to exalt some console from lame do doers from the back door .This is the worst post in recent times….Peter poor Peter..go find a lonely place in the gym.

    Like

  67. Level 2 Maths July 25, 2012 at 3:41 PM #

    Hi to every one, it’s really a nice for me to pay a quick visit this website, it includes precious Information.

    Like

  68. projekty garaży October 9, 2012 at 5:21 PM #

    It’s going to be end of mine day, except before finish I am reading this enormous paragraph to increase my knowledge.

    Like

Join in the discussion, you never know how expressing your view may make a difference.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 3,517 other followers