Evolution - Who wants to KNOW?

TTF, as we sequence more organisms we are understanding , by reading the BAR CODE, that the interconnecttion of life is much closer than weve realized.
One sequence that involved Mus and man showed that key sequences in humans go back all thhe way to our Paleocene monotreme mammals. We share about 25% of a mouses genome and , by ttime (using the mere accumulation of mutations and recombination ) we are only about 50 million years away from evolving from a mouse-like monotreme.
The simple rule that I mentioned before pertains in genomic record.
Once nature finds a basic form that serves a purpose quitte well, its not generally screwed with, its preseerved. aAnimals dont have to be "re-eevolved" from thhe start everyttime teres an environmental die-off or minor change , or a contineent drifts off into the sunset
he fact that nature is economical in the genome takes a big shot at the "Thermo based" and "insufficient time arguments" away from the Creationists.

However, having said all that, noone of thhe SCience camp has come up with a really good story about how life began on the planeet. Thats why the search for life elsewhere may give clues .
ABIG BANG startup, for me, is unsatisfactory for tthe origins of life on multiple worlds. I feel a beginning affinitty for Membrane ttheory (but itts gonna take aa long time reading before i canreacquaint myself with N dimensional analyses ) Theres too much distance between worlds to account for a pan spermia start up.

Of course gungasnake posteed a thread that showed 'fossil trilobites" on Mars.

Agreed.

'Speciesism': the Great Grandfather of Racism.

I think CI is right that this is dogmatic specieism.

My personal belief is this - and it is a working one - God created the universe and whatever intelligent creature came out of the primordial ooze he would have saught to have a realationship with.

This does not preclude the revelations of the old testament. I try to imagine God revealing the big bang to Moses (when there about 3 scientists today that truly understand what the Hartell Hawking equation does and how it works) and I laugh out loud.

I think the mechanisms of Evolution and Cosmology are unbelievable and seem to firm up a Paley's watchmakes style argument for me.

Thanks for the book suggestions and the discussion. I think one of the most interesting statments of this discussion was when Rosborne said that science precludes God or Gods. I think that is true, and should be interjected in the 'New Possibilities' thread on this board.

I hate the fact that theists often come across as crazy on this thread because they cannot rationally carry on a conversation with the scientific types. I think if the theists became agents of thier beliefs (acceptance and forgivness) we could go a long way to introducing the scientific types to the ethical truths that religion believes it is privvy to.

TF

I was actually sorry I wrote that statement the way I did, because science does not preclude the possibility of God, it only precludes the assumption of God in its theories, and there's a big difference. And it's too bad that more people don't understand this difference. People might feel less threatened by science if they understood it better.

I knew what you meant. It can't measure for a God's influence that is not independantly verifiable and repeatable in his/her influences.

TF

TF,

Another way of looking at Rosborne's point is that science deals with the natural rather than supernatural. We are all mostly in favor of the supernatural belonging to the special domain of religion.

The recent tsunami in Asia tells me nature is in control of this planet - not any god man has created to wish there is something more to this life on earth.

Natural Disasters have confounded religion for years.

Nearly as many years as Miraculous happenings have confounded science.

TF

I do believe, however, that scientists are willing to let religion have the Miraculous as part of its own domain.

What we perceive as "Miraculous happenings" is all part of 'nature.'

Well, that's very glib TF, I give you credit. But it's not quite true.

Natural Disasters are a fact of life. Miracles are a supernatural interpretation of events.

Religion may have a problem with the facts of life, but ya can't say that science is confounded by something which doesn't exist. Gods and Miracles, they're all he same to science, just supernatural interpretations of things we don't yet have accurate data on.

rosborne, cicerone, TF,

I would like to suggest a moderate perspective. I respect both science and religion within their own domain of expertise. I think it is just as wrong to say science can explain everything as it is to say truth can only be found in religion.

Hi Wand,



Moderate perspectives don't generate much debate

When you say, "I think it is just as wrong to say science can explain everything", are you suggesting that there is something magical/mystical/mysterious about the Universe which is beyond nature (nature being something which science can study), or are you suggesting that there are natural things which science simply doesn't explain yet?

I'm with Rosborne on this...although perhaps with a slightly different focus.

I think we should all be agnostic with regard to explanations of the Ultimate REALITY.

As regards religious explanations...it is paying too much credit to most religous "explanations" to suggest that they be treated with LOTS AND LOTS of skeptisticism.

Most are not truly explanations at all...but merely fear of the unknown personified so that people can exhibit their fear without the stigma fear engenders.

But scientists often overstate their contributions to understanding of Ultimate REALITY...although most, to their credit, readily acknowledge that they are working mostly with hypotheses rather than certain truths.

And the burden of science is to continue to explore and question...constantly testing these hypotheses.

In any case...it is never a bad idea to be agnostic toward religous or scientific notions.

I do not want to say yes to either. I just think that there are matters that are better analyzed under religion than under science.

It's never my position that science can answer all questions of life, or that religion does not have its place. The dilemma for most people of religion is their inability to separate the two.

Fair enough WandelJW, to each his own.

Happy New Year Everyone!

On the flip side, there are scientists who claim they have made religion obsolete.

There are people on both sides of that fence.

Ros - I wasn't trying to be 'glib'. What I was trying to say was that if natural disasters are reasons for loosing faith - there are many miraculous things that science cannot - and will never - explain.

To say, too easily in my opinion, that miracles do not exist and that if you had data on them they would be simply explained is to be scientifically dogmatic.

For instance - let's say that God came and visited you and cured you of an ailment you had. You saw him, he appeared in front of you, he told you your cancer was cured, and you were tested within a day and had 'spontanious remission'.

Science by nature uses at least two criteria for its proofs - independantly verifiable findings, and repeatable experiments. This experience of yours could never be explained by science - but to say that it doesn't exist - seems to be dogmatic.

Anyway, happy new year!

TF