Evolution (Pls read post â??1â?� b4 posting)

So long gang, this is a good topic, but after do consideration, I do not think I have the time to read enough formal studies and familiarize my self with all the nuances that would make me comfortable laying out a in-depth argument on either side of the case. I would be like some who post more personal opinions and small amounts of knowledge that are really to glib IMO to be able to facilitate an informed discussion that rises above the level of a table talk, in which there is nothing wrong with, but I do not have the apatite for that right now.
Perhaps I will still follow the topic from the side lines as a ignorant spectator seeking to grasp at the straws of knowledge that I can comprehend threw the maze of elaborate arguments, but that is it for now.
For those who do support a complete view of molecular evolution and would like to really delve into the intricacies of the science then here is a list of books that you could spend the next 20 years reading, www.talkorigins.org/faqs/behe/publish.html
I think that these are some fairly respectable studies and so on.
For others looking for a view other than that stated above here is a decent work on DNA characteristics and how the complexities of the make up may disqualify some evolution theories. It is OK, I liked most of the info, but I had disagreements with some things, but that is the case with most literature I read.
Adieu

well I will miss you

yea this thread has gotten much more complex than i intended. I created this to get an idea of why people doubt evolution, not to debate indepth concepts but to talk about simple misconceptions and such.

I defined my usage of the word above. I am using it to refer to something created through a spontaneous reaction. Which i defined above

You keep talking about the Theory of spontaneous generation. I am NOT talking about this. And didnâ??t Pasture prove that wrong. I know the one you are talking about now.

blue bear, I didn't mean to pick on you excessively. My problem with the information you provide is not where it was found (although I find that suspect) but rather that its not collaborated anywhere on any scientific source that I could find.
Leading me to believe that such scientific claims have in fact not been disproven at all.


And Jake, can we drop the spontaneous generation thing? I don't think evolution needs to be tied to the origin of life, but rather it models the development and proliferation of life.
If you really want to discuss spontaneous generation let's discuss this intelligent creator of yours.
Or we could just cut off this entire infinite regression with a single application of occum's razor.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jake Martinez

All three schools of thought require observation of some sort...

Religion requires the observation of experiences with no scientific explanation (religion and science just don't mix)

Philosophy requires the observation of experiences and thoughts associated with them.

Science requires observations of what you can perceive through your senses.

---

i agree. everything requiers observation. so theoretical flaws in observation affect everything so i dont think it is correct to say science has faith in it, it's implicit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jake Martinez

To be honest, when I took physics, I realised that there must be an intelligent creator. Why else would such an INTELLIGENT concept, such as math and numbers, apply to every thing in nature?

D=1/2GT^2...why is it that just RANDOMLY, the distance an object falls will ALWAYS be determined by half the acceleration of gravity times time spent falling squared?

---

Physics, math, and reality don't "exist" inside black holes... So by your reasoning, I've just proven that God doesn't exist right?;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lucifuge

Physics, math, and reality don't "exist" inside black holes... So by your reasoning, I've just proven that God doesn't exist right?;)

---

interesting.

i've been thinking about this also, and this is what i've come up with.

Math is a language humans created to accurately describe certain things.
we use Math rather than English because how the hell are you going to accurately describe a parabola, etc.

so saying that "math" exists everywhere in nature is kinda funny.
what you mean is math can describe things everywhere in nature.

Recently, geneticists have determined that we share about 99.9% of our dna with Neanderthal Man. However, our mitochondrial dna has been found to differ dramatically from Neanderthal Man.

How can this be, if evolution occurred naturally? Could it be that homo sapiens were genetically engineered using Neanderthal dna and a different female source of dna? Could this have been the genesis (gene Isis) of the human race?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Perp

Recently, geneticists have determined that we share about 99.9% of our dna with Neanderthal Man. However, our mitochondrial dna has been found to differ dramatically from Neanderthal Man.

How can this be, if evolution occurred naturally? Could it be that homo sapiens were genetically engineered using Neanderthal dna and a different female source of dna? Could this have been the genesis (gene Isis) of the human race?

---

.1% difference is HUGE. we are less than 3% different that gorillas. And less than 30% different than a pumpkin, itâ??s really not that surprising though when you look at how similar our cells and organs are.

i would be interested to know were you read about the mitochondrial dna (i wana read about it) i dont know too much about it.
But that dna doesnâ??t interact at all with ours.

And another little known fact:
Chloroplasts also has DNA, WO, science rules

Mitochondria and chloroplasts are actually thought to be symbiotic bacteria living in our cells. they have lived their so long that they nor us could live without the other.