Posted on 01/07/2005 7:55:13 AM PST by Michael_Michaelangelo
Where and how did the complex genetic instruction set programmed into DNA come into existence? The genetic set may have arisen elsewhere and was transported to the Earth. If not, it arose on the Earth, and became the genetic code in a previous lifeless, physical-chemical world. Even if RNA or DNA were inserted into a lifeless world, they would not contain any genetic instructions unless each nucleotide selection in the sequence was programmed for function. Even then, a predetermined communication system would have had to be in place for any message to be understood at the destination. Transcription and translation would not necessarily have been needed in an RNA world. Ribozymes could have accomplished some of the simpler functions of current protein enzymes. Templating of single RNA strands followed by retemplating back to a sense strand could have occurred. But this process does not explain the derivation of "sense" in any strand. "Sense" means algorithmic function achieved through sequences of certain decision-node switch-settings. These particular primary structures determine secondary and tertiary structures. Each sequence determines minimum-free-energy folding propensities, binding site specificity, and function. Minimal metabolism would be needed for cells to be capable of growth and division. All known metabolism is cybernetic--that is, it is programmatically and algorithmically organized and controlled.
(Excerpt) Read more at ncbi.nlm.nih.gov ...
Saying that that ToE is a theory is not difficult or something any scientist has to "admit" because it is the simple truth. Simply by asking for the admission you betray that you are way out of your field of knowledge. Doubtless if I started to question or harangue people about firearms I'd say very stupid things. But it isn't "just a theory" however. It is a scientific theory, which is quite unlike the normal use of the word theory (wild-assed-guess) for which concept scientists use the word hypothesis.
In science there is no higher status for a belief that explains how the world works than "theory" (ie there is not any kind of progression that goes "hypothesis->theory->fact"). The theory of evolution is supported by millions of observations, has made many startling successful predictions, and no-one has succeeded in falsifying it. The best thing that you can say about a theory is that it is strongly supported by the data. By demanding particular proofs that will satisfy you (which proofs which you probably know it is impossible to supply) you are ignoring the vast quantity of real evidence that persuades biologists to accept the theory.
If you heard someone demand photographic evidence that the earth is revolving round the sun before they would accept that the earth does so you would think them foolish. No-one can supply such evidence because we haven't been outside our solar system to see it happening. Yet only a few people with very bizarre belief-systems reject heliocentricity. Likewise most people accept that the dots of light in the sky are suns like our own yet the evidence for this is entirely indirect and inferred, just like the vast evidence that evolution has occurred. Why don't you reject those things too?
(That would be a LARGE creature....)
If THESE are the two choices in a STABLE enviro, no WONDER E's can claim all sorts of things in an UNstable one!
And just what WAS this 'change' and how was it accomplished?
UHhhh...
You spelled farce wrong...........
Is your skepticism about scientific theories consistent? To check that those points of light in the sky are really suns as astronomers foolishly claim from very little evidence we'd have to visit them. They don't seem to be suns like ours according to the bible because the bible talks of 1/3 them falling to the earth when swished by Satan's tail. The "points of light on a black backdrop" hypothesis is more likely ;)
Further to what I said before, a change in environment does not of itself cause the mutations as you seem to imply in your question. It makes the creature which gets the mutation that is favourable in the new environment more likely to survive and breed successfully. Just thought I'd clear that up.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1320036/posts?page=487#487
Here's what you're missing: You Are an Ape.
If you disagree, please name a biological characteristic of the ape family which humans do not also share.
Humans *are* apes -- apes of the human variety. We're also primates, vertebrates, mammals, eutherians, eukaryotes, etc.
"Valid logic will be valid forever."
You know, you said I was in the wrong forum, that, in your words:
"You belong on the Religion forum ..."
'valid forever' ....
Wow. You are quite amazing VR, how you can balance logic in one part of your mind, and be sure of things, like logic, without doubt, before the big bang and after the big crunch (or the long, slow all the lights are buring out now ... scientists aren't sure yet).
Forever is a long time. You are sure, SURE?, 'logic' will be 'valid' forever? And that is not called 'faith'?
There is a great word for this: it is the synthesis of
'confidence' and 'ignorance' ---- (cue the synthesizer)
---- 'arrogance'
It is you who should JOIN me on the religion forum; I've already visited there many, many times.
It is there that you might learn that 'what the world calls wise is foolish to God, and what God calls wise is foolish to the world'.
To God, in other words, invalid logic is indeed invalid forever ... (like the cold clear logic of atheistic Darwinian evolution by 'natural selection')
ping to the post above ... I had thought I was replying to you, but I guess I was in the religion forum....
THIS is the way you SHOULD have worded it:
If you disagree, please name a biological characteristic of the HUMAN family which APEs do not also share.
Bioscientists now combine fossil discoveries, genetic assays, and behavioral studies to virtually prove that, of all non-extinct species of life now on Earth, the chimpanzee and gorilla are our closest relatives (Figure 6.22). Humans haven’t descended from these apes, a common misunderstanding. Rather, modern science demonstrates that apes and humans share so many attributes that they likely have a common ancestor.
Aegyptopithecus on the basis of 30-million-year-old fossils, is thought by many researchers to be the common ancestor of apes and humans.
The insect-eating, squirrel-like mammal sketched here
is widely regarded as the ancestor to humans, apes, monkeys, and a large number of creatures now inhabiting Earth. These land-dwelling prosimians, now extinct, lived ~60 million years ago Here is the reference Cosmic Evolution
I have seen so many different references as to which specific creature was the ancestor of man, makes anyone wonder, who is right.
Ok, please help me understand, this article say we are not apes but we have a common ancestor, so who is right?
I suggest you spend the next two minutes thinking about the following propositions.
Humans are apes.
Apes are humans.
Hint: If I assert that Humans are apes, I am saying the category names apes is larger than the category named humans. Logically there can be apes that are not human.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.