Posted on 03/29/2006 1:47:22 PM PST by SampleMan
Nice family pic. Is that your sister?
I gave verification, as did you. Thanks again.
I'm curious to know myself. My impression, from what I've seen from you here and in the past, is that you basically ascribe to "theistic evolution" (i.e., the idea that evolution took place much as described by science, yet under the guiding hand of God). I sure could be wrong about that, so let's have it!
I don't believe that this is actually an effect of electromagnetism; the spinning mass (supposedly) creates a gravi-magnetism force related to gravity in a manner analagous to the way magnetism is related to electricity. The superconductors are used because the electrons are totally free of electrical "friction" and the minute effect is clearly manifested, if I'm not mistaken (and I may very well be...).
I did, and it was rather interesting. I have two observations.
(1) The researcher says:
“To a scientist, this kind of self-inflicted genetic damage appears unhealthy, the sort of thing that would cause undesirable mutations and could kill off the organism,” Fresco said. “Cells have evolved a complex DNA repair system to constantly repair such damage. But evolution has not, as we’d expect, put a stop to it. So we theorize it must be happening for some good reason that we have yet to uncover.”
They're theory may be correct, and the inquiry is definitely merited, but it also may very well be that it is in fact unhealthy and undesirable, and that 'evolution hasn't put a stop to it' simply because it wasn't able to.
This brief quote actually points out two problems that I often see in biological research:
(a) the personification of evolution, as if it were, say, an intelligent designer.
Evolution doesn't 'plot things out'; it doesn't 'plan ahead'; and it doesn't 'put a stop' to things. Evolution doesn't do anything; evolution is what happens. There's an important conceptual distinction there.
(b) closely related, the “atomistic” approach to evolution (especially prevalent amongst sociobiologists), theorizing as if specific biological traits can evolve in and of themselves, without regard to structural constraints on design or to the possibility that given structural changes may not appear a possible outcome of the phylogenetic history.
In short, there are any number of plausible explanations why evolution may not have halted this phenomenon, even if it's damaging and of no benefit whatsoever. The researchers presumption that it must be beneficial or else "we'd expect" that evolution would've corrected it is an expression of cognitive bias. They might very well be correct when all's said and done, but there's no guarantee that they're correct, and evolutionary science certainly does not predict that they'll be correct (i.e., that if it's there, we'd 'expect' it to be beneficial).
(2) And my second broad observation is that: On the other hand, it may very well have a positive role in evolution. If so, then how can an added 'vector' of evolvement possibly be a problem for evolution? Quite to the contrary, if that were true - if in fact this does play a role in mutation and evolution - then it seems to me this would definitely be far more of a challenge to, say, ID advocates who reject the notion of beneficial spontaneous mutations.
So, anyway, those are my initial thoughts on all this.
Their theory, not "They're" theory..
That pretty much sums it up. I believe in God, and believe that he doesn't go around creating fossils in order to fool people. I don't think God's hand will be revealed, because we're intended to have free will and that would throw a wrench in things.
My lack of atheism makes me unqualified to speak according to many. I don't accept that principle. My ideas on evolution are not tied to my faith, as science is God's tool, no need for magic. I'm learning more about ID simply because I keep getting accused of lying about being an ID backer. Can't say I've researched the theory enough yet though, but I'm reading more on it out of a new found curiosity.
My major gripe with evolution backers (other than myself)is that too many of them are simply dogmatic attack dogs. For example, I don't think that current scientific understanding of mutation in evolution is correct. In fact, this article opens up a possibility. But I'm not allowed to voice that opinion without being called a closet ID proponent, a troll, and worse.
If evolution is taken out of schools (its taught in Catholic School by the way) it will be because these cranks ruined its reputation.
In short, I have no problem with religion in addition to science. I have a big problem with religion in place of science. And that is hardly because I want to drum religion out of schools and society (as I've been accused), but rather because I have a paramount self-interest in the progress of science and all the benefits it might bring, in particular to me! :)
My problem is with anything that I feel holds back progress.
As for the degree to which science "explains everything" you'll get no dispute from me. Science explains many things quite well, but we are hardly at the end of science so far as I'm concerned. Humanity has been doing science for a bare twinkling of atom by comparison to the grand sweep of the universe's history, and our scientific knowledge is growing exponentially, so who knows where we'll be in another thousand years, not to mention another 10,000 or 100,000 years.
I have no doubt there's plenty left to learn. Heck, most of what we have learned so far was achieved in merely the past few decades. An infinitesimal timespan in the grand scheme of things.
I concur with your statements concerning their overreach in stating that if it were bad, evolution would have eliminated it.
I've seen plenty of evolution apologists state eccentially the same thing, "It came about because it had a positive effect." or "It has a positive effect or it wouldn't exist."
This has always struck me as you would say, personifying evolution. A life form might mutate and evolve many negative traits, that simply aren't bad enough to make it go extinct (e.g. Helen Thomas). But evolutionary purists insist that evolution makes no mistakes. I simply disagree with the premise.
And yeah, I think these threads get way too heated way too often. I'm hardly innocent when it comes to that. I always regret it afterward, but c'est la vie!
It's tough to debate the meaning of life, the universe, and everything without getting a bit worked up sometimes..
Good night.
G'nite to you too!
That's, ugh... from the start.
"Maybe an Intelligent Designer???"
Why intelligent? I understand that some people might want to believe there is some kind of designer that existed before the existence itself(contradictory, but still..).
But, why "intelligent?"
There are a lot of imperfection, mutations, alterations, and randomness in the natural world to be called part of the "intelligent" creation. Unless the randomness and imperfections themselves are well thoughtout by a "designer."
Like modern art.
I'm sold by all this "evidence".
DNA "could" modify itself with no outside help, say biologists
"may" also actively modify themselves
"some" single strands of DNA are "capable" of
it raises the possibility
has the potential to
We can only speculate
"If" we have indeed found one way that DNA can change itself spontaneously,
Your ignorance of science and how it is applied as shown in your original post. If you truly knew how science worked you would never had made such a stupid remark.
What would be an example of "randomness"?
bump
Sorry, but I've been around too many college professors to accept that your Utopian world of science actually exists in the real world. The problem arises when you insert human beings into the process. They are jealous, self-agrandizing, and generally normal people, quite capable of ignoring science. The real beauty of science is that it eventually wins out over the scientists. If this observation makes you want to attempt ostracizing me by labeling me a troll, then so be it.
Are you attempting to make an argument? If so, I do not understand what point you are attempting to demonstrate.
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.