The Great Debate (religion)


log in

Advanced search

Message boards : Politics : The Great Debate (religion)

Previous · 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5 . . . 32 · Next
Author Message
bobby
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 22 Mar 02
Posts: 1962
Credit: 14,635,448
RAC: 3,105
United States
Message 1222172 - Posted: 23 Apr 2012, 13:54:10 UTC - in response to Message 1222167.

We are very closely related to our primate brothers. One might declare, "but they have 48 chromosomes and we only have 46. How can we even remotely be related." because 1 pair of our DNA is actually 2 chromosomes that failed to split properly. Again this is proven by science.

Telomeres are found at each end of a chromosome, except in chromosome 12 which has telomeres inside it structure where the chromosomes failed to separate or it recombined 1000's of years ago. We really don't know when. These are facts.


And here's the picture:



Source: http://www.mun.ca/biology/scarr/Human_Ape_chromosomes.htm
____________
I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

Profile soft^spirit
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 18 May 99
Posts: 6374
Credit: 28,628,501
RAC: 972
United States
Message 1222191 - Posted: 23 Apr 2012, 15:14:22 UTC - in response to Message 1222186.

random mutations

Why is it called random? As I have said, remove chance and it's design.


Chance is nothing more than mathematic probability. If you exclude "Chance" well I guess it is all magic.

If the universe is infinate, than the improbable not only might occur, but will occur.
____________

Janice

Profile Ex
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 12 Mar 12
Posts: 2895
Credit: 1,683,491
RAC: 1,198
United States
Message 1222200 - Posted: 23 Apr 2012, 15:42:51 UTC - in response to Message 1222186.
Last modified: 23 Apr 2012, 15:44:36 UTC

random mutations

Why is it called random? As I have said, remove chance and it's design.


It's "random", because some of those first cells of life on earth turned into what we evolved from, and the rest turned into everything else. Randomly.
____________
-Dave #2

3.2.0-33

Profile Sirius B
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 26 Dec 00
Posts: 10181
Credit: 1,528,801
RAC: 254
United Kingdom
Message 1222201 - Posted: 23 Apr 2012, 15:47:23 UTC

Who is to say Maths is right? After all, that's a man made "solution" (quotes used as not sure of the corect word to use).

Man has used maths to solve enigma's since maths became the norm. Again, who is to say its correct... Man?
____________

Profile ignorance is no excuse
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 4 Oct 00
Posts: 9529
Credit: 44,433,274
RAC: 0
Korea, North
Message 1222202 - Posted: 23 Apr 2012, 15:48:11 UTC

the human genome has random changes. However, the changes occur a specific pace so one can Identify how old the change is by looking at what percent of the population has the mutation.

NatGeo ran a story on Ghengis Khan and his progeny.

read more here This doesn'c conclusively prove Ghengis Khan sired so many children but someone in his time did. The likeliest person is him.

they give the estimate of 0.5% of all men living today as his ancestors. Assuming he had as many daughters as sons he is responsible for 1% of the world population. 7 billion X 1% = around 70 million ancestors. Thats pretty impressive after just 750 years
____________
In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope

End terrorism by building a school

bobby
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 22 Mar 02
Posts: 1962
Credit: 14,635,448
RAC: 3,105
United States
Message 1222208 - Posted: 23 Apr 2012, 15:58:47 UTC - in response to Message 1222054.

But you will not turn around and reject my belief and at the same time use science that you say absolutely has no absolutes, that make you the worst kind of hypocrite.


And I said to you in a PM "[a]s I understand it, science is not about absolutes and their advancement, it is about developing a better approximation of various aspects of the world around us through the collection of evidence". Why do you insist on trying to attribute absolutes to science, it has very few, if any, because its practitioners appreciate it's a work in progress, even "absolute zero" is a theoretical value.

BTW I have checked skildude's posts, I can't find one with the word "absolutely".

[...]remove chance and it's design


Remove probability (aka chance) and you remove science. The best approximation that science has is that some events are probabilistic, mutations in DNA are one such event. Some mutations will have a deleterious effect on an organism in terms of making it a better "fit" to its environment, some will have no effect and others a beneficial affect, when there is a beneficial effect from a random mutation, the host organism will have a better chance of thriving and passing on this mutation to its descendants. The process is called evolution through natural selection.

It was through this process that all vertebrates share a common structure for their eyes, and cephalopods a different structure. The cephalopod structure is clearly superior, though the number of random mutations required to go from a vertebrate eye to a cephalopod eye are so many that it is highly improbable for any vertebrate to evolve the cephalopod structure from the one it has inherited. If there is a Designer, why did it only benefit the cephalopods with this advanced "design"?

Cephalopod and vertebrate eyes are only one instance where evolution has come up with structures that on their surface appear very similar, though are the result of parallel paths of development. There have been marsupials that looked very much like horses, the thylacine looks very much like a dog (though is again a marsupial and unrelated to modern canines), the list goes on. Natural selection results in these similar patterns of structure from divergent sources, as the general pattern is a better fit for a common environment. At least that's the best approximation that science currently can provide us with.
____________
I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

Terror Australis
Volunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 14 Feb 04
Posts: 1666
Credit: 203,444,417
RAC: 26,232
Australia
Message 1222214 - Posted: 23 Apr 2012, 16:10:10 UTC - in response to Message 1222191.

If the universe is infinate, than the improbable not only might occur, but will occur.

Allowing that there is a miniscule but finite probability that there is a "creator". You have just proved (a) God must exist !

T.A.

Profile Gary Charpentier
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 12078
Credit: 6,381,621
RAC: 8,164
United States
Message 1222216 - Posted: 23 Apr 2012, 16:11:34 UTC - in response to Message 1222186.

random mutations

Why is it called random? As I have said, remove chance and it's design.

So your God decides when each and every radioactive atom undergoes decay, what direction the decay products travel, when chemical bonds form and break, etc. That seems a bit much for me. It also removes free will as his decisions on the chemical bonds prevent you from doing anything except what he divines. So if you sin, it is God who made you sin as he controls your body.


____________

Profile soft^spirit
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 18 May 99
Posts: 6374
Credit: 28,628,501
RAC: 972
United States
Message 1222221 - Posted: 23 Apr 2012, 16:25:22 UTC - in response to Message 1222218.

If the universe is infinate, than the improbable not only might occur, but will occur.

Allowing that there is a miniscule but finite probability that there is a "creator". You have just proved (a) God must exist !

T.A.

Indeed. I was going to wait for her next post but--There it is!


Oh all of the gods must exist.

Or none of the gods must exist.

Or both.

It takes a leap of faith to believe in a god.
It takes another to believe in one true god.
It takes another to believe you know that one true god.
It takes another to believe he inspired thousands of people
to write his word over millinia.
It takes several more to believe those words make sense to you

Just a couple more and he can personally be telling you what to do in his own voice.

But the biggest leap of faith is to think that whatever created the universe cares about you personally. Wow. Just.... wow.
____________

Janice

Profile soft^spirit
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 18 May 99
Posts: 6374
Credit: 28,628,501
RAC: 972
United States
Message 1222222 - Posted: 23 Apr 2012, 16:27:57 UTC

quick note on evolution (darwin as prophet is not in the curriculum)

Although the scientific evidence that evolution has occurred many times over,
this neither proves nor disproves the "Divine" theory. It does however disprove the universe is less than 10,000 years old.
____________

Janice

Profile soft^spirit
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 18 May 99
Posts: 6374
Credit: 28,628,501
RAC: 972
United States
Message 1222223 - Posted: 23 Apr 2012, 16:28:55 UTC - in response to Message 1222214.

If the universe is infinate, than the improbable not only might occur, but will occur.

Allowing that there is a miniscule but finite probability that there is a "creator". You have just proved (a) God must exist !

T.A.


Only if it is "possible".


____________

Janice

bobby
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 22 Mar 02
Posts: 1962
Credit: 14,635,448
RAC: 3,105
United States
Message 1222224 - Posted: 23 Apr 2012, 16:31:01 UTC - in response to Message 1222217.

Why is only String Theory used in schools and called correct?


It's not and I understand many physicists have issues calling it a theory, a better name might be the String Hypothesis. Just as Einstein did not agree with the theory of Quantum Mechanics (it seems he was wrong), Feynman argued against String theory (and either he or Hawking are wrong). Einstein, Hawking and Feynman are taught in schools.

____________
I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

Previous · 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5 . . . 32 · Next

Message boards : Politics : The Great Debate (religion)

Copyright © 2014 University of California