Evolution's 'Dictatorship' -- Student Struggles to Get Opposite Viewpoint Heard

AgapePress ^ | 16 August 2004 | Ed Vitagliano

[Jaguar1942]

OK, give me an hour or so and I'll see if I can get a thesis together.

[Heartlander]

The link I provided is what they call in the FBI, ‘a clue’… (just to be fair)

[microgood]

And so on. It's a rich field of study, to which you do a great disservice by misrepresenting it as nothing more than "primordial soup and lightning bolts".

Thanks for the info. Sorry if I did a disservice to this field but it seems to me this is science in its infancy and should not be claiming it knows how life evolved on this planet, at least not yet. That seems completely arrogant and dishonest. A more correct reply would be: we are working on some ideas and will get back to you when we can prove something.

One of the tenants of abiogenesis is that it took millions or billions of years of randomness to get to the first living matter which is unprovable, kind of like a deity concept. There is a lot about abiogenesis you have to accept on faith. So I find it interesting and wish them all the luck but until they prove it in a lab, I am wary of this data.

I believe physics and gravity as I can watch the Space Shuttle launch and orbit around the world. I guess being an applied science guy I am waiting until the patent is out to apply the science.

[AndrewC]

[kpp_kpp]

"creationist's theories" -- as in theories which are accepted by people who believe in creation. and there are many theories that they put forth to try and answer/rebut evolution, including multiple theories regarding the same question (light from stars, etc.)

"evolutionist's various theories" -- as in 'origin-of-life' theories which are accepted by those who accept the evolutionary theory of life. i know there are some but i don't know too many who hold to evolution religiously that also fully accept the supreme creator theory to the origin of life.

[bluejay]

Why be held in the iron fist of Newton's dictatorship?

Newton's theory is not universally applicable - i.e., quantum theory. It also does not apply at speeds very close to c.

Try this exercise - what is the probability of the human genome (3 billion base-pairs) randomly assembling exactly the right way? How long would you expect it to take? Through random methylation and acetylation, how much time is needed to get to today’s precise meta-control of genomic expression? You also need to make sure that proper methylases and acetylases (as well as de-methylases and de-acetylases) are evolved (via random modification of their genomic sequences). First bacteria appeared ~3.6 billion years ago. Earth completely formed ~ 3.8 billion ears ago. You’ve got 200 million years to go from nothing to bacteria with DNA sequences, enzymes, organelles, etc.

It is, of course, possible that evolution alone explains our presence in this world. It is just highly improbable.

[cookcounty]

" If, as it is stated, this was an after-school activity, then the school had no business interfering. Of course, it would be unwise to take anything in a creationist article at face value, including the words 'the' and 'a'."

IIRC, this is a direct quote from the Fascist's Handbook of Mindless Materialism.

[Jaguar1942]

Ooh, aren't we nice this evening?

wow, now that was sarcastic, wasn't it?

Well, I followed your clue, and have now decided that a better explanation would be wasted.

When you wish to be civil, let me know and we'll talk again.

[balrog666]

It is not unreasonable to assume that you are an advocate, an evangelist, if you will.

Did you ever just think it might be "news"? Interesting news at that.

[hopespringseternal]

Wow, put it all in a logic tree and watch where it takes us....

...don't put your conclusions before your observations. Starting with the assumption that God doesn't exist is no better than assuming that because God did it there is nothing at all to learn from simple extrapolation.

[Jaguar1942]

Not only is it not highly improbable, it is exactly opposite and highly probable.

You think that just one little bacteria sprung out of that ocean? there were billions of different combinations over hundreds and thousands and billions of years, the fact is that the correct combination occurring by accident was not only probable, it was impossible for it not to happen.

It was not 1 chance in a trillion, as some would like to say, it is more like a 1 chance in 1, in other words 100% chance that the correct combination that worked would be reached and therefore flourish. It was impossible for it not too.

[Ichneumon]

Starting with the assumption that God doesn't exist [...]

And who do you assume does that?

[PatrickHenry]

You don't know what you're getting into. Be careful.

[Old Professer]

Torquemada, must you always be so smug?

If your momma knew what you do, she'd whup you.

[Hunble]

Try this exercise - what is the probability of the human genome (3 billion base-pairs) randomly assembling exactly the right way? How long would you expect it to take?

OUTSTANDING!

You have just demonstrated why some form of a selection criteria was involved in the development of life on Earth.

If things are purely random, then it would take an impossible amount of time. Once a selection criteria is introduced, the time required is dramatically reduced.

I have no problem with any theories (to include ID) on how the selection process has operated, as long as those theories can be supported with factual evidence.

[RightWingNilla]

You don't know what you're getting into. Be careful.

LOL. The cover of that book creeps me out.

[hopespringseternal]

You really have no clue at all, do you? The random mutations cause change. The natural selection picks the best changes. The population is subtly altered. Hence, evolution.

No clue? I have had this exact mantra drummed into my head in every science class I have taken, every bioscience article I have read, and every scientifically oriented program I have watched for my entire life.

No other aspect of science is so relentlessly promoted.

[js1138]

placemarker

[Heartlander]

Prof,

Do you know anything about this gentleman ? If so, can you give me your opinion of his work?

Fritz Schaefer, the inventor of computational quantum chemistry, stands out. With over 900 peer-reviewed publications, he is the third most cited chemist in the world and has been considered for the Nobel Prize five times. Hence there is no question that design theorists publish and have their work cited in the peer-reviewed literature -- they are credible scientists and scholars.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the ping!