Spoon

[dawg80]

Is that true? Can science really prove how the universe came into existence or how the first life form happened? Or do they just theorize?

It takes a single pick-up truck to hold all the tangible evidence produced/discovered that supports the Theory of Evolution. The rest is HUGE gaps filled in with conjecture...and blind hope that it is true.

The best analogy I've seen that quantifies the amount of real science that supports evolution vs. what is truly needed, is this:

Let's say you believe a road once existed that connected what is now New York to Los Angeles. There exist 4 miles of an old bed near NY, another 10 miles near LA, and 5 miles in Kansas, that all display similar characteristics, and appears, using the best science available, this total 19 miles dates back to about the time it is thought that road existed. Now, while it IS evidence that such a road may have existed, it takes a tremendous leap of faith to pronounce the road indeed did exist, and declare the ancient road to be fact.

Evolutionists are atheists, searching for ANY tidbit that helps them cope with their fantasy. Yeah, I realize I'm painting with a broad brush, but it is mostly true. Can a Christian believe in evolution? That answer is no. Can a Christian believe in some aspects of it? That answer is yes. Just as, going back to my road analogy, one can believe there once existed some roads, 4 miles of which has been uncovered near NY, etc... but that does not PROVE the three segments were, or are, connected.

[Guisslapp]

Is that true? Can science really prove how the universe came into existence or how the first life form happened? Or do they just theorize?

Again, you are confusing biogenesis and evolution. Both are relatively new sciences. Evolution, as a science, has only been studied for about 200 years, but our most sophisticated methods - and most ironclad basis for validating the theory (as a whole, mind you, not any specific historical account of a specific species lineage) came about in most of our lifetimes (guessing here at the age of most posters). To understand evolution, you really need to understand DNA. A full class on molecular biology is probably the minimum to get a general understanding here. A summary in a general science textbook is just not adequate.

Evolution is at a stage where it is more of a study of history. Biogenesis is a collection of theories, really seeking to understand how cells and DNA or RNA could have been created in the first place - how the first single cell structured were created. Several models have been proposed, but it takes simulations to prove the viability of the model and comparison with initial conditions (like environments and what we think we know pre-life Earth was like ). Once such a theory is validated as being possible, it will be quite another task to make it a study of history, like evolution. In fact, it could be impossible, because what makes life unique is that it is self-sustaining. Pre-emergent life forms could be so transitory that directly observable evidence of its existence (laying your eyes on such a form in nature) may not be possible. It is really too early to say, because this field (and the tools used in this field) are just so new. This science really is in its infancy.

[T1]

Again, you are confusing biogenesis and evolution. Both are relatively new sciences. Evolution, as a science, has only been studied for about 200 years, but our most sophisticated methods - and most ironclad basis for validating the theory (as a whole, mind you, not any specific historical account of a specific species lineage) came about in most of our lifetimes (guessing here at the age of most posters). To understand evolution, you really need to understand DNA. A full class on molecular biology is probably the minimum to get a general understanding here. A summary in a general science textbook is just not adequate.

Evolution is at a stage where it is more of a study of history. Biogenesis is a collection of theories, really seeking to understand how cells and DNA or RNA could have been created in the first place - how the first single cell structured were created. Several models have been proposed, but it takes simulations to prove the viability of the model and comparison with initial conditions (like environments and what we think we know pre-life Earth was like ). Once such a theory is validated as being possible, it will be quite another task to make it a study of history, like evolution. In fact, it could be impossible, because what makes life unique is that it is self-sustaining. Pre-emergent life forms could be so transitory that directly observable evidence of its existence (laying your eyes on such a form in nature) may not be possible. It is really too early to say, because this field (and the tools used in this field) are just so new. This science really is in its infancy.

I think when Christians argue evolution they are really arguing biogenesis. Observable microevolution is not as controversial and is widely accepted. One species evolving into a different species is widely rejected though. It seems highly improbable that DNA randomly formed too. What are the odds?

[Guisslapp]

I think when Christians argue evolution they are really arguing biogenesis. Observable microevolution is not as controversial and is widely accepted. One species evolving into a different species is widely rejected though. It seems highly improbable that DNA randomly formed too. What are the odds?

Species evolving into other species is also widely accepted - just as widely as so called "micro evolution".

Natural biogenesis "seems highly improbable"? I am sure the iPhone seemed highly improbable just 100 years ago, let alone 1000 years ago. If you were on the other side of the molecular biology education curve, it might not seem so improbable. Probability also has to be considered over a much longer time scale (the age of Earth, if not longer) than you are used to gauging probabilities. Then when you further consider that you can only dream about such probabilities in one of the environments that does support life (over the billions or so that could not support life), that will skew your thinking of probabilities.

Biogenesis is a very challenging project in reverse engineering. We can make synthetic DNA. We just have to figure out the base design specs of the first cells and the toolkit of starting materials that would have been available at the time.

[T1]

Species evolving into other species is also widely accepted - just as widely as so called "micro evolution".

Natural biogenesis "seems highly improbable"? I am sure the iPhone seemed highly improbable just 100 years ago, let alone 1000 years ago. If you were on the other side of the molecular biology education curve, it might not seem so improbable. Probability also has to be considered over a much longer time scale (the age of Earth, if not longer) than you are used to gauging probabilities. Then when you further consider that you can only dream about such probabilities in one of the environments that does support life (over the billions or so that could not support life), that will skew your thinking of probabilities.

Biogenesis is a very challenging project in reverse engineering. We can make synthetic DNA. We just have to figure out the base design specs of the first cells and the toolkit of starting materials that would have been available at the time.

It's the creation that seems plausible. The iphone randomly developing itself seems far-fetched to me.

[dawg80]

Included in DNA is instructions how to create more DNA. Seems to me someone, something, had to "create" the initial set of instructions.

[Dowty]

Again, you are confusing biogenesis and evolution. Both are relatively new sciences. Evolution, as a science, has only been studied for about 200 years, but our most sophisticated methods - and most ironclad basis for validating the theory (as a whole, mind you, not any specific historical account of a specific species lineage) came about in most of our lifetimes (guessing here at the age of most posters). To understand evolution, you really need to understand DNA. A full class on molecular biology is probably the minimum to get a general understanding here. A summary in a general science textbook is just not adequate.

Evolution is at a stage where it is more of a study of history. Biogenesis is a collection of theories, really seeking to understand how cells and DNA or RNA could have been created in the first place - how the first single cell structured were created. Several models have been proposed, but it takes simulations to prove the viability of the model and comparison with initial conditions (like environments and what we think we know pre-life Earth was like ). Once such a theory is validated as being possible, it will be quite another task to make it a study of history, like evolution. In fact, it could be impossible, because what makes life unique is that it is self-sustaining. Pre-emergent life forms could be so transitory that directly observable evidence of its existence (laying your eyes on such a form in nature) may not be possible. It is really too early to say, because this field (and the tools used in this field) are just so new. This science really is in its infancy.

I know you're a smart guy, and I certainly respect your opinion. You've shown much more basis for what you believe than anyone else that has been on here saying Christians are wrong but provide no explanation as to why or what they even believe to be the alternative. That's why you're pretty much the only one that's still saying anything about the alternatives. You and I have never spoken on these things so I never knew where you stood til now, but it certainly wouldn't ever have any bearing on our friendship unless I felt you were attacking me personally, which I do not believe to be the case. Without differences of thought, we would have missed out on some of the biggest advancements in human history.

While this all sounds really interesting, and while I always enjoy seeing scientific advancements and will support technological breakthroughs that I can believe in, it sounds to me like you need just as much faith in the unseen as a Christian would to believe these things. You even classify the field as a collection of theories. It's currently unproven. It sounds like it could even come to a conclusion of Divine Intervention since there are so many theories out there related to the subject. I obviously don't know as much about Biogenesis as you do, but it just sounds that it could be possible from what you've said. So please enlighten me some more on this. From what I'm reading, it doesn't even really sound like it's not out to debunk Christianity; it's more or less an attempt to understand DNA and cells at their core. Please correct me if I'm wrong, though; I'm not well-versed in biological science.


I'm not saying you fall into this category, but it seems like most of the time, atheists will go after anything that promotes itself as an alternative to creationism whether it makes any sense or not. What dawg80 said is correct: Christians don't, and can't, believe in evolution, but it is possible to support parts of it. I personally believe in micro-evolution as I defined it earlier. Otherwise, how could we explain flu strains that are now showing resistance to medicine? Adaptation on a scale such as this is completely different than macro-evolution.

[Guisslapp]

Included in DNA is instructions how to create more DNA. Seems to me someone, something, had to "create" the initial set of instructions.

There are plenty of "useless" instructions in DNA, too. And "instructions" is a very humanistic way to understand DNA. Which is useful for purposes of teaching and understanding what DNA is and how it affects organisms, but it doesn't suggest that it was deliberately encoded with such instructions. Counterproductive "instructions" would be expected to self-terminate, which they often do, whether it is by killing the cell (or in some cases killing the organism - like some cancers). Obviously, nucleotide base pair combinations that "code for" making functionally useful proteins (self-sustaining or reproduction supporting) would thrive over combinations that are not so supportive. Useless sequences are created and maintained as well. And sometimes it is not the code itself that is particularly important, but the length of the sequence or the location of a sequence on a chromosome. It is the shape and "chemistry" of proteins (amino acid combinations) produced using these genetic "catalysts" that are very relevant to the function of the protein and the effect the expression of the protein has on an organism.

Thus, a transcription error or mutation of DNA results in the expression of different protein structures, that may influence the behavior of the cell. Some of them make an observable difference in how the cell functions (or how effectively it does), while others appear largely inconsequential.

Taken over long durations for species, we see certain expressed functionalities improve sustainability/reproducibility (life sustaining properties) and that leads to evolution. Sometimes these evolved functions/cells/organs become less important and mutations can kill off or inhibit the expression of certain functions, thus we have certain vestiges of organs or not-quite effective code in our DNA to make these other organs (like the vestige of our bat-like third eyelid, our vestige tailbone, etc.).

This is essentially the molecular driver for speciation, but there are environmental factors and population factors that also come into play here.

[Guisslapp]

I know you're a smart guy, and I certainly respect your opinion. You've shown much more basis for what you believe than anyone else that has been on here saying Christians are wrong but provide no explanation as to why or what they even believe to be the alternative. That's why you're pretty much the only one that's still saying anything about the alternatives. You and I have never spoken on these things so I never knew where you stood til now, but it certainly wouldn't ever have any bearing on our friendship unless I felt you were attacking me personally, which I do not believe to be the case. Without differences of thought, we would have missed out on some of the biggest advancements in human history.

While this all sounds really interesting, and while I always enjoy seeing scientific advancements and will support technological breakthroughs that I can believe in, it sounds to me like you need just as much faith in the unseen as a Christian would to believe these things. You even classify the field as a collection of theories. It's currently unproven. It sounds like it could even come to a conclusion of Divine Intervention since there are so many theories out there related to the subject. I obviously don't know as much about Biogenesis as you do, but it just sounds that it could be possible from what you've said. So please enlighten me some more on this. From what I'm reading, it doesn't even really sound like it's not out to debunk Christianity; it's more or less an attempt to understand DNA and cells at their core. Please correct me if I'm wrong, though; I'm not well-versed in biological science.


I'm not saying you fall into this category, but it seems like most of the time, atheists will go after anything that promotes itself as an alternative to creationism whether it makes any sense or not. What dawg80 said is correct: Christians don't, and can't, believe in evolution, but it is possible to support parts of it. I personally believe in micro-evolution as I defined it earlier. Otherwise, how could we explain flu strains that are now showing resistance to medicine? Adaptation on a scale such as this is completely different than macro-evolution.

J, I doubt any of these research fields are driven by the motivation to disprove Christianity. I think these fields exist because scientists are always questioning the whys and hows. I suspect Christianity will continue to adapt to new information as it becomes undeniable (except at its insular fringes), and will just say that the new science still allows for a creator god. For me, the more I learn about these fields of science, the less mysterious life and the universe seem.

The more I get into the weeds of it, the more convincing it becomes that all the fantastic things we see and experience are unique but perfectly natural and there is no requirement of a supernatural explanation.

Regarding your question about a flu strain not adapting - I am not entirely sure what you are getting at. Clearly some bacteria show signs of adaptation to drug treatments. MRSA is probably a good example. Adaptation is not necessarily a given for any given species. Some will go extinct. Placing a stress on a species may influence evolution, but unless you have a molecular (such as mutation) driver occurring under such a stressed environment, seems unlikely that there would be a genetic adaptation, particularly if the stressor only lasts for a short duration (hundreds of years or less). Also, a virus is a bit unique because it isn't a self-sustaining life form in the classic sense. They, RNA viruses, rely on the host cell of other organisms to replicate the virus.

[sharky]

For evolution it doesn't take faith, it just takes education.

Perhaps this is why every atheist that I ever encountered seemed to think that they were the most intelligent person in the room. Yes, even smarter than God!

[Dowty]

J, I doubt any of these research fields are driven by the motivation to disprove Christianity. I think these fields exist because scientists are always questioning the whys and hows. I suspect Christianity will continue to adapt to new information as it becomes undeniable (except at its insular fringes), and will just say that the new science still allows for a creator god. For me, the more I learn about these fields of science, the less mysterious life and the universe seem.

The more I get into the weeds of it, the more convincing it becomes that all the fantastic things we see and experience are unique but perfectly natural and there is no requirement of a supernatural explanation.

Regarding your question about a flu strain not adapting - I am not entirely sure what you are getting at. Clearly some bacteria show signs of adaptation to drug treatments. MRSA is probably a good example. Adaptation is not necessarily a given for any given species. Some will go extinct. Placing a stress on a species may influence evolution, but unless you have a molecular (such as mutation) driver occurring under such a stressed environment, seems unlikely that there would be a genetic adaptation, particularly if the stressor only lasts for a short duration (hundreds of years or less). Also, a virus is a bit unique because it isn't a self-sustaining life form in the classic sense. They, RNA viruses, rely on the host cell of other organisms to replicate the virus.

There's absolutely nothing wrong with questioning whys and hows. It's human nature, and has been since the beginning. I would never claim to understand the universe and all of its mysteries, whether or not I believe God is behind it all. If not for these questions and a desire to learn, we would miss out on so much this world has to offer. I see science and religion as two seperate entities that can coexist and learn from each other. While I believe that God is the creator of the universe, it doesn't, and will never, keep me from asking questions and wanting to learn about it. I feel an obligation as someone living in this universe to inquire about my existence and how this all came to be. As a Christian, I hope to ask Him all these questions one day. Until then, I'll seek what I can from those here on Earth.

Looking outside of my personal experiences with God, I've always been under the impression that the world is too perfect to have just happened by chance. I felt that way before I got back in church. Nothing against you, but I've yet to see or hear anything that has changed my mind.

I may be completely ignorant or just not know the right words to describe what I was attempting to earlier about flu strains, but I know what I was trying to say anyway. Maybe it was just a bad example. In a nutshell, I was trying to say that I believe the theories on micro-evolution as described earlier to be true, wherein there are small changes in a species in order to adapt (like my flu that now is unharmed by the medicine that used to kill it, but probably still a bad example) but nothing on the scale of a "whale descending from a land mammal" as the article I posted earlier described.

[Guisslapp]

There's absolutely nothing wrong with questioning whys and hows. It's human nature, and has been since the beginning. I would never claim to understand the universe and all of its mysteries, whether or not I believe God is behind it all. If not for these questions and a desire to learn, we would miss out on so much this world has to offer. I see science and religion as two seperate entities that can coexist and learn from each other. While I believe that God is the creator of the universe, it doesn't, and will never, keep me from asking questions and wanting to learn about it. I feel an obligation as someone living in this universe to inquire about my existence and how this all came to be. As a Christian, I hope to ask Him all these questions one day. Until then, I'll seek what I can from those here on Earth.

Looking outside of my personal experiences with God, I've always been under the impression that the world is too perfect to have just happened by chance. I felt that way before I got back in church. Nothing against you, but I've yet to see or hear anything that has changed my mind.

I may be completely ignorant or just not know the right words to describe what I was attempting to earlier about flu strains, but I know what I was trying to say anyway. Maybe it was just a bad example. In a nutshell, I was trying to say that I believe the theories on micro-evolution as described earlier to be true, wherein there are small changes in a species in order to adapt (like my flu that now is unharmed by the medicine that used to kill it, but probably still a bad example) but nothing on the scale of a "whale descending from a land mammal" as the article I posted earlier described.

You can get a pretty good understanding of the relationships between species by looking at genetic similarities, much like you do when you do paternity testing. The fact that we have 96% genes in common with a chimpanzee (depending on how you crunch the numbers) is not surprising. The fact that we have more genetically in common with a fish than a platypus might be more surprising, but tells more of the story of the respective species ancestral heritage. Around 25% of our genes are also shared with plants. Current estimates put common ancestor for plants and animals at ~ 1.5 billion years ago. This crude high-level look at genetic similarity is not nearly as convincing as when you get into the weeds and see genetic similarities between species that would have no reason to be there but for common ancestry, for example, vestige organs and superfluous or redundant common codons.

[Lotsudo]

I wonder who will replace Spoon. I also wonder where Spoon will go.

LT, those are great questions? Unfortunately, those questions can't be answered in this thread because is got hijacked about six pages ago!

[ITdrummer]

I wonder if she will play a larger role in the NY Liberty WNBA team. Wasn't she hired as a part-time consultant for them a year or two ago?

[Russdawg]

Speaking of evolving...can we now talk about how the program will evolve under Coach Summitt? Hopefully:

Natural selection (of excellent talent)

Survival of the fittest (we'll be in great shape, play lots of players, be strong at the end)

Origin of Species (the species of WINNING TECHSTERS)

Creation (of a new fan base and new standard of excellence)

GO LADY TECHSTERS!!!