rta@cmu-cs-spice.ARPA (Robert Aarhus) (01/30/85)
OK, more questions -- 1. Why do creationists overwhelmingly ignore the scientific evidence that certain organisms evolved from other precursor organisms? 2. Why do many evolutionists deny the possibility [sic] that there is something more to evolution than just pure chance which resulted in the one-time spontaneous generation [sic] of an autonomous, self-replicating organism from random amino/nucleic acids, especially in light of the lack of evidence for continuous evolution in the restricted timeframe of 4.6 billion years (give or take a couple weekends)? 3. Can anyone keep a straight face when somebody tries to label mutations "bad" or "good"? If so, then would you explain why a storm that relieves a drought is "good", while the same storm that causes flash flooding is "bad"? 4. Does anybody else out there have a degree in molecular biology? How about just plain ol' biology? Maybe took a course in High School? Well, how about 'I read it on the back of a cereal box'? Do you have any idea what you are saying when you throw these voluminous tomes of scientific falderal across the net? Or are you just meta-searching for keyword references to dredge up more arguments for- and against- whatever side you take? 5. Are you really trying to understand, to find "the truth", or is everybody out "to win the argument"? If it is the latter, I guarantee both sides will be forever disappointed, because Science will never be able to show one side or the other wrong to the other side's satisfaction. 6. How does a God-mediated evolution of organisms refute either current religious or scientific evidence, considering that the Bible is not a biology textbook, nor will science ever be able to prove/disprove the existence of God? Just curious.... Bob Aarhus@cmu-cs-spice.arpa
friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen) (02/01/85)
In article <269@cmu-cs-spice.ARPA> rta@cmu-cs-spice.ARPA (Robert Aarhus) writes: > > OK, more questions -- > > > 2. Why do many evolutionists deny the possibility [sic] that > there is something more to evolution than just pure chance > which resulted in the one-time spontaneous generation [sic] > of an autonomous, self-replicating organism from random > amino/nucleic acids, especially in light of the lack of > evidence for continuous evolution in the restricted > timeframe of 4.6 billion years (give or take a couple > weekends)? > This question is based on misleading semantics. Pure chance? Modern advances in cosmology and organic chemistry seem to be heading towards the conclusion that life is *inevitable* given the right initial conditions. Random amino/nucleic acids? See previous point, the associtions of these chemicals which form under natural conditions are *just* those necessary for life to form. 4.6 *billion* years restricted?? Doyou have any idea how *long* that really is, especially considering the recent evidence for a relatively rapid pace of evolution. > 3. Can anyone keep a straight face when somebody tries to > label mutations "bad" or "good"? If so, then would you > explain why a storm that relieves a drought is "good", > while the same storm that causes flash flooding is "bad"? > Probably not, biologists speak about benificial/harmful not good/bad. And even then only with regard to a *specific* set of conditions. The same allele(gene variant) may be benificial or harmful depending on the environment(including the rest of the genome). Case in point. the vestigial wing mutant in lab fruit flies. Under normal fruit fly growth conditions these flightless individuals are unable to breed successfully and would die out if not maintained by selective breeding. But under conditions of steady high wind, "normal" fruit flies get blown away and die, because their wings act as "sails", the vestigial variant, however, walks around just fine on the ground, and breeds quite successfully among itself. This is the basic paradigm of selection used by biologists in thinking about evolution. > 4. Does anybody else out there have a degree in molecular > biology? How about just plain ol' biology? Maybe took > a course in High School? > Do you have any idea what > you are saying when you throw these voluminous tomes of > scientific falderal across the net? > Yes, and Yes. I have two degrees in biology(and *none* in computer science). I also have an excellent memory and still try to keep up in biology in my spare time. > > 6. How does a God-mediated evolution of organisms refute either > current religious or scientific evidence, considering that > the Bible is not a biology textbook, nor will science ever > be able to prove/disprove the existence of God? > It doesn't, you are quite right here, this is why I do not use theological arguments to decide scientific points. The two things deal with different issues. Science deals with the description/explanation of the universe, *as it exists*; religion deals with the *purpose* and ultimate fate of the universe. Neither has the tools and methods to deal with the other's field. -- Sarima (Stanley Friesen) {trwrb|allegra|cbosgd|hplabs|ihnp4|aero!uscvax!akgua}!sdcrdcf!psivax!friesen or quad1!psivax!friesen