Another win for evolution
-
brianwelsch wrote: Ooh, maybe it gets used in the afterlife. Interesting idea, Maybe this Junk DNA actually supports reincarnation. :-) eg; it could be used when I come back as a lizard or as a shark etc Regardz Colin J Davies Attention: It's finally arrived, The worlds first DSP.
I think you'll come back a little higher on the food chain than that, Colin. ;) BW The Biggest Loser
"Farm Donkey makes us laugh.
Farm Donkey hauls some ass."
-The Stoves -
brianwelsch wrote: Ooh, maybe it gets used in the afterlife. We take our DNA with us into the afterlife? brianwelsch wrote: or, maybe we should have learned by now not to jump to conclusions, as though we had a freaking clue. And yet I'm willing to bet that you believe some things are true and some things are false in this world. Should I remind you of this comment anytime you say something? Because I'm at a loss to figure out when this comment can't be used push someone towards uncertainty. ----------------------------------------------------- Empires Of Steel[^]
I have to admit my entire response earlier was off the cuff, and not thought out, (not unusual :-O ) But my point was only that it is difficult to say the DNA is junk or it isn't. Maybe it's like taking out white space in a book, and not whole pages. You can still read the book, it's just more difficult and perhaps not as enjoyable. (however that translates when discussing genes):~ We are only beginning to really understand anything about the genome. I mean, look at how long we've been studying the human body at all and there are continuously changing opinions on what we should eat, or whether herbs have positive effects, effects of drugs , psychology and on and on. I don't think we have a firm grasp of many complexities. Of course, we need to create theories to further discussions and experiments, but it seems to me (and I don't claim any expertise in the field wharsoever) premature to say some things are simply not even used or important. BW The Biggest Loser
"Farm Donkey makes us laugh.
Farm Donkey hauls some ass."
-The Stoves -
Marc Clifton wrote: Ridiculous. Just goes to show that creationists don't really have a clue what faith and the desire to better man's existance is all about. But it's the easy way to do it. You don't have to stay ahead of the competition. As soon as you find something that's not immediately understood, you can claim that it is a miracle of God. When the competition finds some clues as to why it is like it is, creationists invent some new science based on their beliefs. It doesn't matter if it's totally impossible to back it up without the word of the Lord, because it has all been written by the Lord. You just have to believe it. If I was religious, I'd be looking at things at hand, and then try to map it onto my beliefs, and not the other way around. It must be a royal pain having to reevaluate your own beliefs every now and then. But I must say that scientific religionists (in contrast to religious scientists) have come a long way. The duck has been obsoleted in the witch detection process. :-D Marc Clifton wrote: lame Heh, did he really use that word? :-D -- Weiter, weiter, ins verderben. Wir müssen leben bis wir sterben.
Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote: The duck has been obsoleted in the witch detection process. Who are you who is so wise in the ways of science? :-D BW The Biggest Loser
"Farm Donkey makes us laugh.
Farm Donkey hauls some ass."
-The Stoves -
I think you'll come back a little higher on the food chain than that, Colin. ;) BW The Biggest Loser
"Farm Donkey makes us laugh.
Farm Donkey hauls some ass."
-The Stovesbrianwelsch wrote: I think you'll come back a little higher on the food chain than that, Colin. As long as I don't come back as a VB programmer, I don't care. :-) Regardz Colin J Davies Attention: It's finally arrived, The worlds first DSP.
-
I have to admit my entire response earlier was off the cuff, and not thought out, (not unusual :-O ) But my point was only that it is difficult to say the DNA is junk or it isn't. Maybe it's like taking out white space in a book, and not whole pages. You can still read the book, it's just more difficult and perhaps not as enjoyable. (however that translates when discussing genes):~ We are only beginning to really understand anything about the genome. I mean, look at how long we've been studying the human body at all and there are continuously changing opinions on what we should eat, or whether herbs have positive effects, effects of drugs , psychology and on and on. I don't think we have a firm grasp of many complexities. Of course, we need to create theories to further discussions and experiments, but it seems to me (and I don't claim any expertise in the field wharsoever) premature to say some things are simply not even used or important. BW The Biggest Loser
"Farm Donkey makes us laugh.
Farm Donkey hauls some ass."
-The Stovesgood post !! You get my coveted 5 for the day. Regardz Colin J Davies Attention: It's finally arrived, The worlds first DSP.
-
Brit wrote: When people discovered that the earth travels around the sun there was no application for this knowledge. There is an application now, however, when we calcalate spaceship trajectories. An application for astronomy then may well be the same as an application for space travel now - to fulfill a desire for knowledge, to better understand the world in which we live. Danger lies with those who would take such observations and install them as proof of their own conclusions. Consider the Catholic Church in the days of Copernicus and Galileo: they had taken conclusions drawn based on previous observations (that of a geocentric universe) and based portions of their doctrine on it. When such observations proved faulty, they had a fight on their hands. Why build your beliefs on such an unsteady foundation? Many have believed in a Creator prior to the existence of any knowledge regarding DNA, and many have not - why look for proof, here, now? It is not useful.
bUMBLES bOUNCE!I guess I don't quite follow your line of logic. You are comparing my views to the Catholic Church's dogmatic insistence of a geo-centric solar system. Yet, I'm the one arguing for observation over dogma, which puts me much closer to Galileo. You respond that, "observation is often flawed or incomplete", which is something you can easily imagine the Catholic Church saying to Galileo. I'm actually quite surprised by the role reversal you've done here. Shog9 wrote: Why build your beliefs on such an unsteady foundation? Unsteady foundation? I'm not sure what you mean. Perhaps you should read this article[^]. I've had it sitting around on my computer for months. I finally got around to publishing it. Sorry if there are broken links or mistakes. I'm not sure if everything is exactly right. Shog9 wrote: Many have believed in a Creator prior to the existence of any knowledge regarding DNA, and many have not - why look for proof, here, now? It is not useful. Not useful? I shouldn't change my views based on new information? For some reason your words sound an awful lot like, "Many have believed in a [geocentric solar system] prior to the existence of any knowledge regarding [apparent motions of the planets], and many have not - why look for proof, here, now? It is not useful." ----------------------------------------------------- Empires Of Steel[^]
-
Perhaps God put the junk DNA in there for later use. Perhaps every ten thousand years or so he activates another little segment and our IQ goes up a point or two. Or perhaps once we have decoded all the junk DNA it will be God's secret recipe for pineapple upsidedown cake or something. "Benedict Arnold was a war hero too."
Stan Shannon wrote: Perhaps God put the junk DNA in there for later use. Perhaps every ten thousand years or so he activates another little segment and our IQ goes up a point or two. Or perhaps once we have decoded all the junk DNA it will be God's secret recipe for pineapple upsidedown cake or something. Seriously. We're talking about God -- with God-like powers. He doesn't need to insert junk DNA for later use. That's something that humans - with limited capabilities - would do. ----------------------------------------------------- Empires Of Steel[^]
-
Perhaps this "junk DNA" is just FILLER inside a fixed length record. Maybe it'll be used on the next release. Which I understand will be available sometime this millenium. Ooh, maybe it gets used in the afterlife. or, maybe we should have learned by now not to jump to conclusions, as though we had a freaking clue. BW The Biggest Loser
"Farm Donkey makes us laugh.
Farm Donkey hauls some ass."
-The Stovesbrianwelsch wrote: Perhaps this "junk DNA" is just FILLER inside a fixed length record. Not sure how seriously this was intended, but: If you remove the filler from computer memory (i.e., don't allocate memory for filler), then the program will malfunction. Thus, using your analogy, the removal of junk DNA should cause damage, precisely the opposite of what was found (I agree that we should be cautious before accepting the conclusion that the removal of the DNA had no effect; some bugs only manifest themselves in very specific contexts). John Carson
-
In the creation-vs-evolution debate, the evolutionists have been saying that the large existence of "junk DNA" is evidence that our genomes were created through the process of mutation and selection rather than divine fiat. A creator would not create a species with large portions of it's DNA that did nothing at all. "Junk DNA" as it is called, refers to the large sections of DNA which exists between genes and doesn't code for proteins or play a role in promoting genes. It's estimated that something like 98% of human DNA is "junk". Creationists have retorted that maybe we just don't know what the "junk DNA" does - just because we don't know what role it plays doesn't mean it plays no role whatsoever - thus the evolutionists assignment of "junk" is speculative. Looks like someone cooked up an experiment which involved removing large portions of this junk DNA from mice. They removed a large section of the mouse's DNA and checked to see the removal of this "junk DNA" had any effect on the organism. The apparent answer is "no". Which makes it a win for evolutionists who say "junk DNA" really is junk DNA. Through molecular techniques, a total of 2.3 million letters of DNA code from the 2.7-billion-base-pair mouse genome were deleted. To do this, embryonic cells were genetically engineered to contain the newly compact mouse genome. Mice were subsequently generated from these stem cells. The research team then compared the resulting mice with the abridged genome to mice with the full-length version. A variety of features were analyzed, ranging from viability, growth, and longevity to numerous other biochemical and molecular features. Despite the researchers' efforts to detect differences in the mice with the abridged genome, none were found. "By and large, these deletions were tolerated and didn't result in any noticeable changes," said Nóbrega. ... The negligible impact of removing these sequences suggests that the mammalian genome may not be densely encoded. Similar-sized regions have previously been removed from the mouse genome, invariably resulting in mice that did not survive, because the missing sequences contained important genes and their deletion had severe consequences for the animal. http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2004-10/dgi-mtd101504.php[^] [Edit] I'd also recommend
I consider myself as an evolutionist, and I also don't believe this concept is opposed to the one of a Divine Creator. Evolution can be part of the process, after all. If some evolutionists say "A creator would not create a species with large portions of it's DNA that did nothing at all", I think to myself "what do they fucking know what a creator would do?". Taking the Bible literally seems also to be an enormous mistake to me. Just the concept of the whole humanity coming from Adam and Eve only is totally incompatible with all the knowledge we have about genetics! I don't think we have such a debate on this side of the big pool. Creationist are a species in the process of disappearance there :-D
Fold With Us! "A leader is a man who can adapt principles to circumstances - Georges S. Patton, 1885–1945"
-
I consider myself as an evolutionist, and I also don't believe this concept is opposed to the one of a Divine Creator. Evolution can be part of the process, after all. If some evolutionists say "A creator would not create a species with large portions of it's DNA that did nothing at all", I think to myself "what do they fucking know what a creator would do?". Taking the Bible literally seems also to be an enormous mistake to me. Just the concept of the whole humanity coming from Adam and Eve only is totally incompatible with all the knowledge we have about genetics! I don't think we have such a debate on this side of the big pool. Creationist are a species in the process of disappearance there :-D
Fold With Us! "A leader is a man who can adapt principles to circumstances - Georges S. Patton, 1885–1945"
K(arl) wrote: If some evolutionists say "A creator would not create a species with large portions of it's DNA that did nothing at all", I think to myself "what do they f***ing know what a creator would do?". If people speculated on what a Creator would do with just a single feature, then you might have a point. However, the real evolutionary argument is that there is a mountain of evidence that 1. fits the evolutionary framework, when it could easily have not done so if evolution was false 2. has no apparent rationale if the world was created by God. Now, if the world looks like it is the product of purely naturalistic processes, you can always say "God made it look that way". Indeed, whatever the world looks like, you can always say "God made it look that way". However, by adopting this approach, you are making belief in a Creator immune from evidence. Belief in evolution, by contrast, depends on the evidence matching the theory and could be disproved if the evidence failed to match the theory. If Creationists simply said that evidence is irrelevant, then they would at least have the virtue of consistency. Instead, most argue that apparent design in nature is evidence for the existence of a divine Creator. You can't argue that and then claim that an apparent lack of design is irrelevant to the issue of the existence of a divine Creator. John Carson
-
K(arl) wrote: If some evolutionists say "A creator would not create a species with large portions of it's DNA that did nothing at all", I think to myself "what do they f***ing know what a creator would do?". If people speculated on what a Creator would do with just a single feature, then you might have a point. However, the real evolutionary argument is that there is a mountain of evidence that 1. fits the evolutionary framework, when it could easily have not done so if evolution was false 2. has no apparent rationale if the world was created by God. Now, if the world looks like it is the product of purely naturalistic processes, you can always say "God made it look that way". Indeed, whatever the world looks like, you can always say "God made it look that way". However, by adopting this approach, you are making belief in a Creator immune from evidence. Belief in evolution, by contrast, depends on the evidence matching the theory and could be disproved if the evidence failed to match the theory. If Creationists simply said that evidence is irrelevant, then they would at least have the virtue of consistency. Instead, most argue that apparent design in nature is evidence for the existence of a divine Creator. You can't argue that and then claim that an apparent lack of design is irrelevant to the issue of the existence of a divine Creator. John Carson
You seem to connect the evolutionnary theory with the belief in God. I don't see where there's a relation in between. As for your point #2, I don't understand what it has to do with the theory of evolution. Also, the concept of "apparent rationale" seems very disputable to me, it's like saying there's only one way to make a program to do a task. IMHO, according to the point of view, there may be many ways to program something fulfilling the task asked. John Carson wrote: Belief in evolution Belief?? Evolutionnism isn't a religion, right? As you say, it's a scientific theory, so it isn't a matter of believing in it or not. Believing in God is a matter of Faith, but science is about facts and demonstrations. Claiming Faith is Science is IMHO as stupid as claiming Science is Faith: both are unrelated.
Fold With Us! "A leader is a man who can adapt principles to circumstances - Georges S. Patton, 1885–1945"
-
John Fisher wrote: That statement also goes directly against the possible explanations I mentioned. I was trying to cover all bases. So, your explanation is that "it is easy to imagine how some DNA could become unused after a few thousand years"? What does that mean exactly? That the genome has mutated in the past few thousand years to the point that it can no longer do the job that it used to do thousands of years ago? John Fisher wrote: I guess the question, then is "What did you win?". If it doesn't prove anything, how can it be a win in a contest for proof? Einstein's theory of relativity said that gravity bends light. Newtonian physics didn't. In 1919, scientists confirmed that the sun's gravity does in fact bend light (http://archive.ncsa.uiuc.edu/Cyberia/NumRel/EinsteinTest.html[^]). Does this prove that relativity is correct? No, because there are other possible explanations for this phenomena which might not rely on relativity. So, "how can it be a win in a contest for proof?" Easy, it's a win because it is more evidence, just like the sun's bending of light was another win for relativity even though it wasn't definitive proof. (You might also note by looking at that website that relativity is not "proved" - it just has a lot of little confirmations.) ----------------------------------------------------- Empires Of Steel[^]
Brit wrote: That the genome has mutated in the past few thousand years to the point that it can no longer do the job that it used to do thousands of years ago? Basically, yes. However, that is assuming that "junk DNA" really exists. The nature of mutations is to cause deterioration. Along with that, our limited knowledge of DNA shows us that DNA has mechanisms for repairing itself as well as handling unusual situations. If a mutation took place in a key location that effectively "turned off" several other areas, that one mutation could be responsible for a relatively large area of "junk DNA". At any rate, once more evidence is discovered, the whole concept of "junk DNA" could possibly be thrown out the window. We've been through a similar situation before, where evolutionists used "vestigial" organs as evidence. We know now that all of our human organs are actually useful. I suspect that the same will be true of these sections of DNA, but my beliefs are compatible with either finding. THIS is why your claim of a "win" is rather meaningless. When the other side can explain the same things, too. What have you won? John
"You said a whole sentence with no words in it, and I understood you!" -- my wife as she cries about slowly becoming a geek. -
You seem to connect the evolutionnary theory with the belief in God. I don't see where there's a relation in between. As for your point #2, I don't understand what it has to do with the theory of evolution. Also, the concept of "apparent rationale" seems very disputable to me, it's like saying there's only one way to make a program to do a task. IMHO, according to the point of view, there may be many ways to program something fulfilling the task asked. John Carson wrote: Belief in evolution Belief?? Evolutionnism isn't a religion, right? As you say, it's a scientific theory, so it isn't a matter of believing in it or not. Believing in God is a matter of Faith, but science is about facts and demonstrations. Claiming Faith is Science is IMHO as stupid as claiming Science is Faith: both are unrelated.
Fold With Us! "A leader is a man who can adapt principles to circumstances - Georges S. Patton, 1885–1945"
K(arl) wrote: You seem to connect the evolutionnary theory with the belief in God. I don't see where there's a relation in between. It is possible to believe in both God and evolution, but that means not taking the Bible literally. Many Christians believe in taking the Bible literally and hence, for them, belief in God and evolution are incompatible (as I am sure you are aware). Once belief in the literal truth of the Bible is abandoned, the question arises as to what in the Bible you can believe and why. K(arl) wrote: As for your point #2, I don't understand what it has to do with the theory of evolution. I don't understand what you don't understand. Both points bear on the question of the relative merits of alternative hypotheses: naturalistic processes versus divinely directed processes. K(arl) wrote: Also, the concept of "apparent rationale" seems very disputable to me, it's like saying there's only one way to make a program to do a task. IMHO, according to the point of view, there may be many ways to program something fulfilling the task asked. I think you are being deliberately obtuse. Of course there may be different ways of accomplishing the same thing, but some of those ways will typically seem very inefficient or ineffective. Do you write programs with vast amounts of code that do nothing? If you did, wouldn't any observer say that all this code had no apparent rationale? The junk DNA thing is just one example. Biologists can give other examples of "design flaws". The more fundamental point is this. Either you are prepared to specify what the world should look like if created by God or you are not. Those that have been prepared to specify what the world should look like typically say that the world should look "designed" and claim to be able to see design in the world. For logical consistency, they should face up to cases where features seem contrary to good design. If they are not prepared to do this, then the whole claim to see evidence for the existence of God in the facts of the world is a fraud. You apparently don't make that claim, but many others do. K(arl) wrote: Belief?? Evolutionnism isn't a religion, right? As you say, it's a scientific theory, so it isn't a matter of believing in it or not. You seem to be using "belief" in a strange way. I believe that Washington is the capital of the United States. That doesn't make it religion. John Carson
-
FWIW, tonsillectomies were common as dirt at one time...
bUMBLES bOUNCE!I love it when people use shifting views in science as evidence that science is flawed, whereas in reality it is proof that science works. Religious views (such as creationism) are seen as immutable, and therefore people try to change the facts to support the conclusion. Scientific theories change in the face of new evidence; in other words, the conclusions change based on known facts. I will take the latter, thank you.
-
In the creation-vs-evolution debate, the evolutionists have been saying that the large existence of "junk DNA" is evidence that our genomes were created through the process of mutation and selection rather than divine fiat. A creator would not create a species with large portions of it's DNA that did nothing at all. "Junk DNA" as it is called, refers to the large sections of DNA which exists between genes and doesn't code for proteins or play a role in promoting genes. It's estimated that something like 98% of human DNA is "junk". Creationists have retorted that maybe we just don't know what the "junk DNA" does - just because we don't know what role it plays doesn't mean it plays no role whatsoever - thus the evolutionists assignment of "junk" is speculative. Looks like someone cooked up an experiment which involved removing large portions of this junk DNA from mice. They removed a large section of the mouse's DNA and checked to see the removal of this "junk DNA" had any effect on the organism. The apparent answer is "no". Which makes it a win for evolutionists who say "junk DNA" really is junk DNA. Through molecular techniques, a total of 2.3 million letters of DNA code from the 2.7-billion-base-pair mouse genome were deleted. To do this, embryonic cells were genetically engineered to contain the newly compact mouse genome. Mice were subsequently generated from these stem cells. The research team then compared the resulting mice with the abridged genome to mice with the full-length version. A variety of features were analyzed, ranging from viability, growth, and longevity to numerous other biochemical and molecular features. Despite the researchers' efforts to detect differences in the mice with the abridged genome, none were found. "By and large, these deletions were tolerated and didn't result in any noticeable changes," said Nóbrega. ... The negligible impact of removing these sequences suggests that the mammalian genome may not be densely encoded. Similar-sized regions have previously been removed from the mouse genome, invariably resulting in mice that did not survive, because the missing sequences contained important genes and their deletion had severe consequences for the animal. http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2004-10/dgi-mtd101504.php[^] [Edit] I'd also recommend
I haven't read all of the messages in this thread yet so you may have covered this already. Think "code reuse." When you reuse a class, you don't delete the unneeded methods and variables, you just don't use them.
"Live long and prosper." - Spock
Jason Henderson
blog -
I guess I don't quite follow your line of logic. You are comparing my views to the Catholic Church's dogmatic insistence of a geo-centric solar system. Yet, I'm the one arguing for observation over dogma, which puts me much closer to Galileo. You respond that, "observation is often flawed or incomplete", which is something you can easily imagine the Catholic Church saying to Galileo. I'm actually quite surprised by the role reversal you've done here. Shog9 wrote: Why build your beliefs on such an unsteady foundation? Unsteady foundation? I'm not sure what you mean. Perhaps you should read this article[^]. I've had it sitting around on my computer for months. I finally got around to publishing it. Sorry if there are broken links or mistakes. I'm not sure if everything is exactly right. Shog9 wrote: Many have believed in a Creator prior to the existence of any knowledge regarding DNA, and many have not - why look for proof, here, now? It is not useful. Not useful? I shouldn't change my views based on new information? For some reason your words sound an awful lot like, "Many have believed in a [geocentric solar system] prior to the existence of any knowledge regarding [apparent motions of the planets], and many have not - why look for proof, here, now? It is not useful." ----------------------------------------------------- Empires Of Steel[^]
Brit wrote: I guess I don't quite follow your line of logic. No worries. In long threads, i don't always bother to read previous posts before replying, so things get disjointed after a bit. The point i've been trying to make (and probably only came close to with my initial post) is simply this: History has shown that, at a certain time, a certain person may be unable to find a purpose for X. This does not mean that a purpose will never be found, but such a hypothesis can prove useful (optimizing research into a system) provided it is not taken as absolute Truth (preventing further study). I feel it likely that you agree with me on this. So, moving on to what seemed to be the focus of your original post... I answered my door a few weeks ago to a group of evangelizing Mormons. We spoke for a short while, after which they gave me a small book and left. Being bored at the time, i sat and skimmed through the book... I would like to say something good about it, but honestly cannot - it was terrible. And the reason was the sort of argument argued against at the beginning of this thread - that proof of a Creator lies in the existence... or non-existence... of Something Specific. Think about it: if i believe that the universe and everything in it was created by God, there should be just as much "evidence" of this for me in opening my eyes each morning as there is in calculating that the position of the earth IRT the sun is optimal for life. But, the flip side of this is also true: if i believe that the universe and everything in it came into being as a result of essentially random occurrences, there should be just as much evidence of this in the flip of a coin as in the evidence of junk DNA. Understand? The Church would have had no worries IRT the heliocentric system, if they hadn't tried to rely on something beyond faith for their beliefs. But foolishly they did, and thus looked like fools as understanding changed.
bUMBLES bOUNCE! -
K(arl) wrote: You seem to connect the evolutionnary theory with the belief in God. I don't see where there's a relation in between. It is possible to believe in both God and evolution, but that means not taking the Bible literally. Many Christians believe in taking the Bible literally and hence, for them, belief in God and evolution are incompatible (as I am sure you are aware). Once belief in the literal truth of the Bible is abandoned, the question arises as to what in the Bible you can believe and why. K(arl) wrote: As for your point #2, I don't understand what it has to do with the theory of evolution. I don't understand what you don't understand. Both points bear on the question of the relative merits of alternative hypotheses: naturalistic processes versus divinely directed processes. K(arl) wrote: Also, the concept of "apparent rationale" seems very disputable to me, it's like saying there's only one way to make a program to do a task. IMHO, according to the point of view, there may be many ways to program something fulfilling the task asked. I think you are being deliberately obtuse. Of course there may be different ways of accomplishing the same thing, but some of those ways will typically seem very inefficient or ineffective. Do you write programs with vast amounts of code that do nothing? If you did, wouldn't any observer say that all this code had no apparent rationale? The junk DNA thing is just one example. Biologists can give other examples of "design flaws". The more fundamental point is this. Either you are prepared to specify what the world should look like if created by God or you are not. Those that have been prepared to specify what the world should look like typically say that the world should look "designed" and claim to be able to see design in the world. For logical consistency, they should face up to cases where features seem contrary to good design. If they are not prepared to do this, then the whole claim to see evidence for the existence of God in the facts of the world is a fraud. You apparently don't make that claim, but many others do. K(arl) wrote: Belief?? Evolutionnism isn't a religion, right? As you say, it's a scientific theory, so it isn't a matter of believing in it or not. You seem to be using "belief" in a strange way. I believe that Washington is the capital of the United States. That doesn't make it religion. John Carson
John Carson wrote: It is possible to believe in both God and evolution, but that means not taking the Bible literally. Absolutely. That's what I said at first[^] :) John Carson wrote: I don't understand what you don't understand Hihi. We should try in French then ;P IMO, there's no relation with this theory and the belief in God. John Carson wrote: I think you are being deliberately obtuse Nice. John Carson wrote: Biologists can give other examples of "design flaws". What I say there is that it is being very pretentious to claim these examples are "design flaws", because it would be considering the current state of evolution as the final one. About the junk DNA, who can say if a mutation on these currently unused genes won't lead to a new species in the future, more adapted? This DNA may be junk for now, but you can't say more. Also, these junk DNA may have had a use before, without it at first would be mice mice? John Carson wrote: Do you write programs with vast amounts of code that do nothing? Don't you write sometimes "useless" code because of criteria like maintainability? Or compatibility? John Carson wrote: I believe that Washington is the capital of the United States I know that Washington DC is the capital of the United States. For me, "believe" is "To accept something as true, or possibly true without firm evidence", there's a part of irrationality in it. I make a difference between knowledge and belief.
Fold With Us! "A leader is a man who can adapt principles to circumstances - Georges S. Patton, 1885–1945"
-
John Carson wrote: It is possible to believe in both God and evolution, but that means not taking the Bible literally. Absolutely. That's what I said at first[^] :) John Carson wrote: I don't understand what you don't understand Hihi. We should try in French then ;P IMO, there's no relation with this theory and the belief in God. John Carson wrote: I think you are being deliberately obtuse Nice. John Carson wrote: Biologists can give other examples of "design flaws". What I say there is that it is being very pretentious to claim these examples are "design flaws", because it would be considering the current state of evolution as the final one. About the junk DNA, who can say if a mutation on these currently unused genes won't lead to a new species in the future, more adapted? This DNA may be junk for now, but you can't say more. Also, these junk DNA may have had a use before, without it at first would be mice mice? John Carson wrote: Do you write programs with vast amounts of code that do nothing? Don't you write sometimes "useless" code because of criteria like maintainability? Or compatibility? John Carson wrote: I believe that Washington is the capital of the United States I know that Washington DC is the capital of the United States. For me, "believe" is "To accept something as true, or possibly true without firm evidence", there's a part of irrationality in it. I make a difference between knowledge and belief.
Fold With Us! "A leader is a man who can adapt principles to circumstances - Georges S. Patton, 1885–1945"
K(arl) wrote: What I say there is that it is being very pretentious to claim these examples are "design flaws", because it would be considering the current state of evolution as the final one. About the junk DNA, who can say if a mutation on these currently unused genes won't lead to a new species in the future, more adapted? This DNA may be junk for now, but you can't say more. Also, these junk DNA may have had a use before, without it at first would be mice mice? Whether something is a design flaw must be assessed on the basis of available evidence and, as with all science, conclusions may be revised in light of new evidence or new understandings of existing evidence. That doesn't mean we can't tentatively draw reasonable conclusions where the available evidence seems to support them. Junk DNA may have a future use --- or may not. I would hazard a guess that many species that went extinct in the last 100 years had junk DNA that found no future use. As for having a past use, this seems to me to be a straight concession to the evolutionary viewpoint that existing organisms display non-functional legacies of their evolutionary history. K(arl) wrote: Don't you write sometimes "useless" code because of criteria like maintainability? Or compatibility? I don't know about "useless" code. I may write code that is less efficient than it would have been without those other considerations. However, I don't think that is relevant since I am not God and hence am subject to limitations and constraints that God (as commonly understood) is not subject to. John Carson
-
I haven't read all of the messages in this thread yet so you may have covered this already. Think "code reuse." When you reuse a class, you don't delete the unneeded methods and variables, you just don't use them.
"Live long and prosper." - Spock
Jason Henderson
blogJason Henderson wrote: Think "code reuse." When you reuse a class, you don't delete the unneeded methods and variables, you just don't use them. A good optimising compiler will not include unused methods in its binary output. I would hope that God was at least as efficient as Microsoft. Rather more efficient in fact. Of course, as I have remarked elsewhere in this thread, if you adopt the view that, whatever the facts reveal, "God chose to make it that way", then no fact can dent your position. On the other hand, no fact can support it either since your position is simply independent of the facts. John Carson
-
I love it when people use shifting views in science as evidence that science is flawed, whereas in reality it is proof that science works. Religious views (such as creationism) are seen as immutable, and therefore people try to change the facts to support the conclusion. Scientific theories change in the face of new evidence; in other words, the conclusions change based on known facts. I will take the latter, thank you.
I love it when people misinterpret what i write so that they can make smug comments... no, wait, i hate that.
bUMBLES bOUNCE!