11/29/2009 10:19:50 PM
Van
Posts: 4
|
It is only a recent phenomenon (since Darwin) that says atheism is the only rational way to look at the world, and even that is now greatly disputed among scientists.
It seems that the more we learn about biology (on a molecular level), about genetics and the universe, the more we see how incredibly intricate and engineered everything is. Darwin's theory states that as you go back in time, life becomes simpler, less evolved. That was fine in 1859 when he came up with the theory, because our understanding of the cell was very simple - there was jelly inside, but now that we know so much more, we find that the complexities of the cell had to be designed, it couldn't happen by accident.
Darwin’s theory says life developed in a step-by-step process (undirected mutation), as one change proved advantageous to the organism it was adopted until the next change came along (natural selection). But that doesn't explain systems. For example - vision. Vision is not just the eye, but rather a system involving the eye, the optic nerve and a portion of the brain (and lots of other things). For us to see we need each and every component (eye, nerves, brain) to be fully formed and connected to each other before the system will work. We cannot see 'a little' with one or two eyes cells and then see a bit more with a few more eye cells. The whole intricate system has to be in place for any part of it to work. Just like a computer, or a camera, or a toaster - you cannot have a button or a piece of wire and expect it to work as a toaster. A toaster only becomes a toaster when all the pieces are properly arranged. This means there is a blueprint, an engineered design before the toaster is made. We see this in DNA. For the simplest cell to exist there has to be a minimum of 250 specific protein sequences. The first cell also has to be pre-programmed to replicate itself and to show variation in development. We are only able to observe this because of our recent advancements in nano-technology.
Darwin's theory is light on evidence. I mean evolution is fine if you mean 'variation in species', however Darwin theory proposes that 'all life developed from a single cell through the process of undirected mutation and natural selection'. Following this claim, we should find the thousands or millions of mutations in the fossil record, but we cannot find them. Instead, we find distinct organisms, not half-breeds. The fossil records have not supported Darwin’s claim of incremental changes over time. In fact, we find that changes in species happened suddenly and globally - there was life then a big global catastrophe where everything was wiped out, only to be reborn in a more evolved form. This did not happen once but a few times - it is known as 'Punctuated Equilibria'.
Perhaps we would find evidence to support Darwin’s theory in the data we have from 10,000 - 15,000 years of animal husbandry. Animal husbandry is directed mutation and therefore should work faster than Darwin’s theory of undirected mutation. Scientists have found that we can cause some variation within species (bigger cows, woollier sheep) but we cannot ever, not once, bring about an essential change in species so that it is no longer a cow or sheep or even a bit different than a cow or sheep. In fact, whenever there is a mutation that might affect change in species the mutated animal dies, or is ill, or loses the ability to reproduce or is so disabled that it will die shortly. The mutations are never advantageous - ever. It seems that species are so constrained in their design that any fundamental genetic change just messes them up. Yet humans were supposed to develop from apes in 150,000 years - that is just 10 times more than the history we have with animal husbandry. And all those changes from ape to man were supposed to happen accidentally! Our best scientists with all their knowledge cannot affect even one single change across species.
In other words, the evidence to support Darwin’s theory is very thin on the ground and fading fast. It is a nice theory to explain variation within species, and we certainly do see evolution but Darwin's theory is inadequate, how life was created and how it evolved. The theory falls miserably short.
All of this is causing a 'crisis' in molecular biology. Some scientists are hanging onto Darwin’s theory because of the implications of accepting intelligent design - that there is something else out there!
--
http://viralverse.net
|
11/29/2009 10:32:40 PM
Mark
Posts: 6
|
A rational person might ask, “How relevant are any speculations about the absolute realm? How much weight should one give to these conjectures? Quantify it for me—give me an actual number.”
Well, rationally speaking, the universe might be infinite. For the past four centuries, virtually every time astronomers and engineers have built larger telescopes, they have found a larger cosmos. Who among us can say, that this trend cannot continue ad infinitum? There is no evidence that rules out this possibility. Our universe might be topless, or infinite in all outward directions. Moreover, if empty space is infinitely divisible, then the universe is bottomless or infinite in all inward directions as well.
If either were the case, all our collective knowledge (which is finite) would have only an infinitesimal insight into this infinite universe. As such, we might be drowning in uncertainties right now and hence unable to determine the probabilities—for us drowning in uncertainties. We simply do not know how much we do not know, vis-à-vis the absolute realm. This includes the grand theory of everything, the size and origins of the universe, the origin of life, intelligent design, dark energy, etc.
The easiest way to collapse these speculations is to ask for the mathematical equation, because if one of the variables is an infinity, then the whole thing becomes indefinable and of no relevant use. If none of the variables in their equation is infinity, then they are ruling out the possibility that the universe might be infinite by premise—therefore unrealistic. They are stuck either way.
I focus my attention on only relevant matters, which means finding solutions to the practical problems of today and tomorrow within our practical realm.
--
Mark Plain
Omniscience is the only thing that freewill is sure to be free of.
|