Biological evolution: Are origins important?

[Administrator2]

JOHN PAUL

What difference does it make at what
organism, population of organisms or populations of
organisms, life (as we today classify it) started
andevolution began?

Looking at this evolution v Creation (and to a lesser
extent ID) debate I see one of the main differences is
the starting point for evolution. Also it is not
whether or not evolution, as in the change in allele
frequency over time, occurs or not, but to what extent
can an organism, a population of organisms
orpopulations of organisms evolve.

That said, does knowing something's origins, aid in
any way, someone's ability to understand its function,
deduce its (a) purpose and conduct proper
maintenanceon it?

IMO- Absolutely NOT. Does 'knowing' an alleged common
ancestor aid, in any way, cancer research?
AIDSresearch?

So which is more important? Knowing something's
origins? Or knowing how it functions so you may
attempt to maintain it (as required)? I'll go with
the latter.

What would change in our way of maintaining life if it
were proven that we are here by Divine intervention
(i.e. Common Creator) pretty much like the Bible says?
I'll tell you what I think would change- we would know
an organism was confined. In knowing that I believe we
could better figure out how bacteria and viruses
evolve and therefore be more able to counteract that
ability. How so? Predictability will be increased due
to the limit we would have knowledge of. Computer
simulations could be made showing all possible viable
mutations (and combinations of mutations) an organism
could handle and what mutation (combination) caused
what effect. (I wonder if anyone has done that with
amino acid sequences. Load one in a computer, allow it
point mutations and see when it breaks down) And then
how to alter that effect if it is detrimental. (But
that will only work if there is a limit and we
know what it is.)

The point of this discussion is to show that if
origins of life, procaryotes, eucaryotes, metazoans,
etc. are not important to discovering an organism's
(or just biochemical) function and how to maintain
that function in the event that it requires
maintenance, then why is today's ToE so important to
evolutionists. And why is it forced on kids in science
class? Shouldn't we better prepare our children, our
future, with sciences that can be applied and
operational sciences? Do you think guys like Tesla,
the Wright brothers, Edison, Bell et al. needed the
ToE to make the advances that they made?

God Bless,

John Paul

 

[Administrator2]

THE BARBARIAN

John Paul:
The point of this discussion is to show that if
origins of life, procaryotes, eucaryotes, metazoans,
etc. are not important to discovering an organism's
(or just biochemical) function and how to maintain
that function in the event that it requires
maintenance, then why is today's ToE so important to
evolutionists.

Because it's the only theory so far that adequately explains the evidence.
Of it's impossible to understand how biochemical functions are related in
different organisms. Probably not as big a thing for just one organism.
Still, it's a good thing that evolutionary theory can tell us about the way
antibiotic resistance works; doctors using the theory have worked out
treatment protocols to minimize the evolution of resistance among bacteria.

Evolutionary algorithms, using natural selection, are now being used in
design. (Ironic, isn't it? Evolution leads to design, not the other way
around) Circuits are now being designed by evolutionary processes that
produce much more efficient results than designed ones.

JP:
And why is it forced on kids in science class?

For the same reason English and Math are "forced" on them; people who are
educated are more capable at living.

JP:
Shouldn't we better prepare our children, our future, with sciences that can
be applied and operational sciences?

So we shouldn't teach them about stars and planets? Even if evolutionary
theory were not being applied in a number of applications,
it would still be important to learn about it.

JP:
Do you think guys like Tesla, the Wright brothers, Edison, Bell et al.
needed the ToE to make the advances that they made?

About as much as Watson and Crick needed a phonograph or a biplane.
Alternating current was useful in some applications, though. That is the
function of engineers; to provide the tools by which science can be
advanced, and to learn from science so that their craft can provide useful
new devices.

[ March 01, 2002, 11:45 AM: Message edited by: Administrator ]

 

[Administrator2]

HELEN

Evolutionists generally shy clear of origins because they can’t explain
them. That is why so many of them will say that evolution is only about
what happened AFTER life got started. Creation, on the other hand, is
primarily ABOUT origins.

And this makes Pat’s response above kind of funny, because I have seen
him arguing parts of your points before, when asked about origins! But I have noticed that there seems to be a knee-jerk reaction among some evolutionist apologists regarding anything a creationists says. It's strange.

As far as the question brought up by John Paul’s post, I think he has a
real point: the argument over origins really has nothing to do with how
something functions now and what we have to work around now. However
knowing origins, would, as he mentioned, give a much more accurate
predictability where the limits of an organism’s variation potential was
and therefore give us more workable knowledge in knowing how to deal
with it.

[ February 16, 2002: Message edited by: Administrator ]

 

[Administrator2]

RADIOCHEMIST

Shouldn't we better prepare our children, our
future, with sciences that can be applied and
operational sciences? Do you think guys like Tesla,
the Wright brothers, Edison, Bell et al. needed the
ToE to make the advances that they made?


None of the ones you mention above were working
in biological science, so they certainly didn't
need evolution in their fields. But what about
Pasteur, Mendel and biological scientists? Can you
say that evolution would not have been important
to Pasteur, had he known about it?

 

[Administrator2]

FROGGIE

John Paul stated, "That said, does knowing something's origins, aid in
any way, someone's ability to understand its function, deduce its (a)
purpose and conduct proper maintenanceon it?. . .IMO- Absolutely NOT. Does
'knowing' an alleged common ancestor aid, in any way, cancer research?
AIDSresearch?"

JP-as a biologist, of course I disagree. Epidemiological studies of HIV
require accepting evolution. Cancer? Well, the lab across the hall from
studies proteins in a parasite called Toxoplasma Gondii, which are
important in cell cycle control. They are studying the evolutionary
patterns of these genes. Perhaps understanding how the proteins work in
various organisms will help us understand how they work in humans, and lead
to cures.

Also, I believe that studying how we evolved from our primate ancestors will
someday give us insights into our behavior, such as territorial aggression,
adultery, drug addiction. Chimps have some of our traits--definitely
territorial aggression. And their cousins the bonobos are not violent, but
they are very "promiscuous." Understanding how humans adapted specific
traits of their ancestors to survive can help us understand and perhaps help
cure our social ills.

I am currently debating a creationist at II. When I ask him questions such
as, "Why do Africans have a high rate of sickle cell anemia," or "Why do the
Pima Indians have a high rate of diabetes?" his answer is consistently,
"Because of the Fall." Well, even if that is true, this blanket explanation
has not been helpful in elucidating specific cures or treatments for the
Africans nor the Indians. What about evolutionary theory? Remember,
evolutionary theory is rather simple (although the details can be rather
complicated): populations struggle for survival since their capacity to
breed exceeds the resources available, and beneficial traits get passed on
to help a population adapt to its environment.

In humans, there is a working theory about sickle-cell anemia and malaria. A
mutation in hemoglobin causes the protein to aggregate and causes a disease
called sickle-cell anemia. However, it seems that a carrier of the disease
is more resistant to malaria. This is a case where the same mutation can be
beneficial in one instance (living in a malaria-infested region) yet harmful
in another (living in the USA).
http://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/health/public/blood/sickle/sca_fact.pdf.

A new
gene has recently been discovered which seems to confer malarial resistance,
but does not have the devastating effects of sickle cell anemia. Medical
researchers are currently using these detailed studies from evoluionary
biologists to provide explanations and cures for both diseases.

There are similar theories about diabetes, and other nutritional diseases.
One theory is that diabetes evolved in feast-or-famine type populations,
such as Native American tribes. One particular tribe is the Pima Indians in
Arizona, who have a very high rate of diabetes--over one/half of adult Pima
Indians suffer from this disease. This NIH link explains:
http://www.niddk.nih.gov/health/diabetes/pima/obesity/obesity.htm


We have a long way to go in our understanding of how nutrition, cholesterol,
digestion, metabolosm, ect, all interact to cause disease. Evolutionary
studies like the one above will help us understand the paradox of diabetes,
"the French paradox," and many other unanswered questions. Remember these
studies only came about because of the theory of natural selection and
adaptation.

So, yes understanding evolution can, does, and will cure human diseases, and
much more. Like--give us ideas on how to save biodiversity or how to grow
better crops. But even if it didn't, so what? There are a lot of
scientists who study phenomenon that will not cure cancer tomorrow. Like
people who study black holes. But we have decided as a human race that
learning about our world for the sake of just learning, is a noble and
worthy pursuit.

Also, it is my belief that the Evo/Cre controversy is contributing to the
dumbing-down of our education system. Teachers are afraid to teach
controverial issues, so instead they require their students to memorize the
names of animals instead of teaching them how science works. If you look at
the issues that our children are going to have to deal with--stem cell
research, cloning, DNA testing in crimes, they need to be more educated
about biology. Many facets of biology necessitate an understanding of at
least microevolution in order to be used. The RFLP analysis which helps us
convict criminals based on DNA evidence relies on genetic principles that
are linked to evolutionary theory.

John Paul stated, "then why is today's ToE so important to
evolutionists. "

Have any of you ever watched "The X files" with a scientist? It is a very
annoying activity. They will point out all the flaws, like "There is no way
that Scully can determine a protein sequence by looking under a light
microscope!" I become upset at this show because first of all, it's not
that hard to get the details right. Second, shows like that mislead the
public about science, what science can and can not do, and what scientists
do. True, it is just a show for entertainment, I realize that. But
scientists all over the world are irritated with misrepresentation of their
theories and work. Just like lawyers are, I'm sure, if Law and Order uses
the wrong motion in a case or something.

Why are scientists like this? Because overall, scientists are interested in
seeking and promoting the truth. Please read my reply in "a change in
position, a testimony" for a much longer treatise on what a scientist is.
Evolution is not a conspiracy of evil atheists, it is a scientific truth
known to the scientific community for over 100 years that works very well to
explain the evidence. Therefore, scientists want people to accept this
basic scientific tenet, and to stop mis-representing what evolution is, and
what it isn't, to our children.

I will not send my child to a school where the teacher teaches that "the
moon is made of green cheese," even if you could demonstrate to me that
believing the moon is make of cheese is not detrimental, or even if it made
us feel better to believe such a theory.

froggie

 

[Administrator2]

PAUL OF EUGENE

Of course the origin of life is an important area of interest to science.

We just don't have a scientific answer yet, that's all

And I believe God was involved and if science comes up with a scientific answer I will still believe God was involved since God is the God who made all the laws of science.

I get the impression some people around here would go up to a crossword puzzle fan and chide him for not finishing the whole thing while he's still in the middle of working on it.

 

[Administrator2]

JOHN PAUL

John Paul:
The point of this discussion is to show that if
origins of life, procaryotes, eucaryotes, metazoans,
etc. are not important to discovering an organism's
(or just biochemical) function and how to maintain
that function in the event that it requires
maintenance, then why is today's ToE so important to
evolutionists.

Pat:
Because it's the only theory so far that adequately
explains the evidence.

John Paul:
There are millions, if not billions, of people who
disagree with that. There isn’t any evidence that life
originated via purely natural processes, so we can
cross that one off. If life didn’t arise via purely
natural processes, how did it arise?

So what does the evidence tell us about what started
the evolutionary process? How did that population of
organisms just happen to have the ability to
self-replicate get here, what, exactly, were they and
how would that theoretical musing of the unobserved
and unverifiable past, help us?

Right now the current ToE says the apparent design in
living organisms is illusory and the apparent
progression of life in the fossil record is real. That
stance is considered scientific.
IDists (and Creationists) say the apparent design is
NOT illusory and Creationists say the apparent
progression in the fossil record is. However this
stance is not considered scientific. Go figure.

What I’m trying to say is the ToE may be believed to
be the only theory so far that allegedly adequately
explains the evidence, but that would only be because
all other explanations are excluded a priori.


Pat:
Of it's impossible to understand how biochemical
functions are related in
different organisms.

John Paul:
How could we tell the difference between a Common
Creator relationship and a common ancestor
relationship, and why would it matter? Truthfully I
think looking at life’s relationships via a Common
Creator scenario may help us to decipher the genetic
code, which could be analogous to a computer code.
http://www.arn.org/docs2/news/approachingbiology041701.htm

Approaching Biology from a Different
Angle


Pat:
Probably not as big a thing for just one organism.
Still, it's a good thing that evolutionary theory can
tell us about the way
antibiotic resistance works; doctors using the theory
have worked out
treatment protocols to minimize the evolution of
resistance among bacteria.

John Paul:
But that has nothing to do with origins. We don’t have
to know the origins of bacteria or insects in order to
study their resistance to antibiotics and pesticides.
Some history of the organism is always helpful, but
theoretical musings of the unobserved past are no
substitute for hard data.


Pat:
Evolutionary algorithms, using natural selection, are
now being used in
design. (Ironic, isn't it? Evolution leads to design,
not the other way
around) Circuits are now being designed by
evolutionary processes that
produce much more efficient results than designed
ones.

John Paul:
Actually Pat, evolutionary algorithms, using natural
selection, refined the design. Ya see Pat, I
work with FPGAs (Field Programmable Gate Arrays). The
example you are talking about uses a FPGA. It is a
designed device. It can be changed via a program which
would alter the internal pathways of specified input
signals to specified outputs. Also the program can
only alter the FPGA if certain conditions exist, and
some/ most/ all, have to power cycled before any
alteration takes affect. Other ‘IA’ (intelligent
agent) interactions were required for the evolutionary
algorithm to work.
Refining designs and intelligent agent interaction is
not the debate.


JP:
And why is it forced on kids in science class?

Pat:
For the same reason English and Math are "forced" on
them; people who are
educated are more capable at living.

John Paul:
I understand what English and Math bring to the
knowledge table. I am still trying to figure out the
‘value’ added by the alleged ‘knowledge’ gained by a
rigid materialistic naturalism PoV when it comes to
evolutionary biology. It is pretty much a given we
can’t apply those standards to life’s origins, so what
does it matter so much to the alleged evolutionary
origins?
That is what education is about, isn’t it? Increase
our knowledge, therefore making us less ignorant.


JP:
Shouldn't we better prepare our children, our future,
with sciences that can
be applied and operational sciences?

Pat:
So we shouldn't teach them about stars and planets?

John Paul:
Why would you say that? The stars and planets can be
observed. Someday we may visit them. You know, rocket
science stuff. At that time we may be able to verify
what we have speculated about down here, looking up.


Pat:
Even if evolutionary theory were not being applied in
a number of applications,
it would still be important to learn about it.

John Paul:
Things change Pat. No one is questioning that.
Changed from what (sure I am a descendant of
someone, but is it necessary to speculate if my
species is descended from another, very different
looking species?)- Low importance IMHO (clarification;
knowing ones genetic lineage is useful especially when
dealing with genetic diseases; finding out we were
designed as human beings may help us decipher or
genetic code)- changing to what- definitely
matters more- what causes the changes-
important- what affects the changes- also
important- if a change comes and we can’t adapt to
it can we devise something that will allow us to
survive- very important.


JP:
Do you think guys like Tesla, the Wright brothers,
Edison, Bell et al.
needed the ToE to make the advances that they made?

Pat:
About as much as Watson and Crick needed a phonograph
or a biplane.
Alternating current was useful in some applications,
though.

John Paul:
Did Watson & Crick need to know the origins of the
double-helix in order to spot it or study it? Perhaps
if they understood life was the product of design
they, or someone else, would have spotted it sooner.
Maybe we would also understand its role much better
than we do.

To further my point was the ToE helpful to Mendel,
Pasteur, Einstein or Hawking? (the point being that
theoretical musings of our alleged biological history
really don’t matter as much to science as
evolutionists would have people believe)


Pat:
That is the function of engineers; to provide the
tools by which science can be
advanced, and to learn from science so that their
craft can provide useful
new devices.

John Paul:
No Pat, that is the function of scientists. These guys
also happened to put on an engineering hat to bring
their ideas to life. Just because they did that
doesn’t diminish the science behind their ideas and
the scientific method employed to do just that. I
guess you think rocket science isn’t really science
either, just a bunch of engineers providing tools.
I have always looked at engineering as a way to prove
science. If science were just theoretical musings, it
would be philosophy. We wouldn’t have any physical
bridges but we could argue about their need and the
possibility of their existence.

To further my point for starting this thread, I would
say that we don’t have to know the origins of DNA in
order to decipher the genetic code. Just like I also
don’t have to know how C++ originated or who invented
it in order to read (decipher), write (design), and
modify a program in C++. However, to re-iterate,
knowing it was designed may help us better understand
its function.

God Bless,

John Paul

 

[Administrator2]

JOHN PAUL

John Paul:
Shouldn't we better prepare our children, our
future, with sciences that can be applied and
operational sciences? Do you think guys like Tesla,
the Wright brothers, Edison, Bell et al. needed the
ToE to make the advances that they made?

radiochemist:
None of the ones you mention above were working
in biological science, so they certainly didn't
need evolution in their fields. But what about
Pasteur, Mendel and biological scientists? Can you
say that evolution would not have been important
to Pasteur, had he known about it?

John Paul:
As stated in my opening post:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Looking at this evolution v Creation (and to a
lesser extent ID) debate I see one of the main
differences is the starting point for evolution. Also
it is not whether or not evolution, as in the change
in allele frequency over time, occurs or not, but to
what extent can an organism, a population of organisms

orpopulations of organisms evolve.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

What I am getting at is- is it sufficient to know that
evolution occurs without having to know at what
theoretical point evolution started? Do we have to
theorize a boudary doesn't exist in order to study
germs and understand immunology? Can we get by with
what we can observe, test and verify?

Pasteur was a contemporary of Darwin. From what I
understand he knew of Darwin's work and dismissed at
least the conclusion- that life's diversity owes its
common ancestry to some unknown single-celled
organism.


God Bless,

John Paul

 

[Administrator2]

JOHN PAUL

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>John Paul stated, "That said, does knowing something's
origins, aid in any way, someone's ability to
understand its function, deduce its (a) purpose and
conduct proper maintenanceon it?. . .IMO- Absolutely
NOT. Does 'knowing' an alleged common ancestor aid, in
any way, cancer research? AIDSresearch?"

Froggie:
JP-as a biologist, of course I disagree.
Epidemiological studies of HIV require accepting
evolution. Cancer? Well, the lab across the hall from
studies proteins in a parasite called Toxoplasma
Gondii, which are important in cell cycle control.
They are studying the evolutionary patterns of these
genes. Perhaps understanding how the proteins work in
various organisms will help us understand how they
work in humans, and lead to cures. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

John Paul:
But what do theoretical musings of an alleged common
ancestor have to do what you just stated? From my
thread opening post:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Looking at this evolution v Creation (and to a
lesser extent ID) debate I see one of the main
differences is the starting point for evolution. Also
it is not whether or not evolution, as in the change
in allele frequency over time, occurs or not, but to
what extent can an organism, a population of organisms

or populations of organisms evolve.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That is to say I also accept evolution. It’s
when the starting point(s) of evolution and the extent
of evolution are dogmatically stated and not to be
questioned, is when I have a problem with acceptance.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>froggie:
Also, I believe that studying how we evolved from our
primate ancestors will someday give us insights into
our behavior, such as territorial aggression,
adultery, drug addiction. Chimps have some of our
traits--definitely territorial aggression. And their
cousins the bonobos are not violent, but
they are very "promiscuous." Understanding how humans
adapted specific traits of their ancestors to survive
can help us understand and perhaps help cure our
social ills. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

John Paul:
But what if we find out that chimps are the way they
are from observing humans? And it has nothing to do
with common ancestry? Perhaps a group of bonobos
observed Cagligula in action, brought that back to
their respective groups and it spread.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Froggie:
I am currently debating a creationist at II. When I
ask him questions such as, "Why do Africans have a
high rate of sickle cell anemia," or "Why do the
Pima Indians have a high rate of diabetes?" his answer
is consistently, "Because of the Fall." Well, even if
that is true, this blanket explanation has not been
helpful in elucidating specific cures or treatments
for the Africans nor the Indians. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

John Paul:
I agree. Specifics would be more helpful. The
Creationists’ position is, let’s go research the issue
and find those specifics and solve this dilemma.
Whether Africans, Prima Indians and all humanity owe
their common ancestry to Adam & Eve or some unknown
population(s) of primates, would only matter if we had
Adam’s, Eve’s or that unknown population(s) of
primates’ DNA so we could compare. But seeing that we
don’t, we should be able to make due with what we do
have, can observe and can verify.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Froggie:
What about evolutionary theory? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

John Paul:
I think you are missing my point. There are parts of
the ToE that are good and parts that are totally, like
unnecessary. Most (maybe even all) of the good parts
are substantiated by the evidence, whereas the
unnecessary parts are actually theoretical musings.
Even though theoretical musings are nice, perhaps
philosophy would be a better venue to discuss those.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Froggie:
Remember, evolutionary theory is rather simple
(although the details can be rather
complicated): populations struggle for survival since
their capacity to
breed exceeds the resources available, and beneficial
traits get passed on
to help a population adapt to its environment. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

John Paul:
The point is, does that mechanism really account for
the diversity of life from some as yet unknown
population(s?) of single-celled organisms, that just
happened to have the ability to self-replicate? You,
being a biologist, certainly must appreciate the
complexity of the cell and the processes of mitosis &
meiosis. The only place we see this is in living
organisms. What is the advantage of theorizing that
life (and its diversity) is due to purely natural
processes rather than life was Created or designed?


<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Froggie:
In humans, there is a working theory about sickle-cell
anemia and malaria. A
mutation in hemoglobin causes the protein to aggregate
and causes a disease
called sickle-cell anemia. However, it seems that a
carrier of the disease
is more resistant to malaria. This is a case where the
same mutation can be
beneficial in one instance (living in a
malaria-infested region) yet harmful
in another (living in the USA).
http://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/health/public/blood/sickle/sca_fact.pdf.

John Paul:
Sickle-cell anemia. Thanks to this debate I have read
much about it. It is a good example of a point
mutation having observable effects on an organism (in
this case human hemoglobin). It is the substitution of
a T for an A in the gene encoding one of the chains in
the human hemoglobin protein. The change occurs in the
codon for the sixth amino acid of what is known as the
beta chain of the protein. The mutation changes a
glutamic acid to a valine and results in the disease
we call sickle-cell anemia.
How does theorizing human origins as evolving from
some other primate, that is now extinct, help us
figure out a cure for SCA?

Froggie:
A new gene has recently been discovered which seems to
confer malarial resistance,
but does not have the devastating effects of sickle
cell anemia. Medical
researchers are currently using these detailed studies
from evoluionary
biologists to provide explanations and cures for both
diseases.
There are similar theories about diabetes, and other
nutritional diseases.
One theory is that diabetes evolved in feast-or-famine
type populations,
such as Native American tribes. One particular tribe
is the Pima Indians in
Arizona, who have a very high rate of diabetes--over
one/half of adult Pima
Indians suffer from this disease. This NIH link
explains:
http://www.niddk.nih.gov/health/diabetes/pima/obesity/obesity.htm

We have a long way to go in our understanding of how
nutrition, cholesterol,
digestion, metabolosm, ect, all interact to cause
disease. Evolutionary
studies like the one above will help us understand the
paradox of diabetes,
"the French paradox," and many other unanswered
questions. Remember these
studies only came about because of the theory of
natural selection and
adaptation.
So, yes understanding evolution can, does, and will
cure human diseases, and
much more. Like--give us ideas on how to save
biodiversity or how to grow
better crops. But even if it didn't, so what? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

John Paul:
Again what does this have to do with at what point
does the evolutionary process start? I can’t see how
any of that would change for the worse by postulating
life and its subsequent diversity were the result of a
Creator, pretty much as lain out Genesis. Me thinks
you have the wrong idea of what Creationists want. We
know that it is up to us to figure things out. We know
we have to maintain it.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Froggie:
There are a lot of scientists who study phenomenon
that will not cure cancer tomorrow. Like
people who study black holes. But we have decided as a
human race that
learning about our world for the sake of just
learning, is a noble and worthy pursuit. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

John Paul:
There is nothing wrong with learning about our world.
I know of no Creationist that says we should stop
trying to figure things out or to stop observing
phenomenon.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Froggie:
Also, it is my belief that the Evo/Cre controversy is
contributing to the
dumbing-down of our education system. Teachers are
afraid to teach
controverial issues, so instead they require their
students to memorize the
names of animals instead of teaching them how science
works. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

John Paul:
Don’t blame that on Creationists. We want our children
to know the controversies, especially those that exist
pertaining to the ToE. Have you read Icons of
Evolution yet? Maybe it is the fault of today’s
materialistic naturalism’s dogmatic control over
science that has turned people off.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Froggie:
If you look at the issues that our children are going
to have to deal with--stem cell
research, cloning, DNA testing in crimes, they need to
be more educated
about biology. Many facets of biology necessitate an
understanding of at
least microevolution in order to be used. The RFLP
analysis which helps us
convict criminals based on DNA evidence relies on
genetic principles that
are linked to evolutionary theory.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

John Paul:
Again, that has nothing to do with the theoretical
musings about life’s alleged history. I am sure DNA
testing would be unaffected if common descent from
some unknown population(s) of single-celled organisms
was absolutely refuted tomorrow. Education pertaining
to biology isn’t the issue. At issue is the necessity
of postulating unknown origins of the evolution
process and extrapolating what we can observe to some
unverifiable conclusion.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>John Paul stated, "then why is today's ToE so
important to
evolutionists. "

Froggie:
Have any of you ever watched "The X files" with a
scientist? It is a very
annoying activity. They will point out all the flaws,
like "There is no way
that Scully can determine a protein sequence by
looking under a light
microscope!" I become upset at this show because first
of all, it's not
that hard to get the details right. Second, shows like
that mislead the
public about science, what science can and can not do,
and what scientists
do. True, it is just a show for entertainment, I
realize that. But
scientists all over the world are irritated with
misrepresentation of their
theories and work. Just like lawyers are, I'm sure, if
Law and Order uses
the wrong motion in a case or something.
Why are scientists like this? Because overall,
scientists are interested in
seeking and promoting the truth. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

John Paul:
Um, excuse me. That would be promoting the truth as
long as it follows the rigid materialistic naturalism
PoV.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Froggie:
Please read my reply in "a change in position, a
testimony" for a much longer treatise on what a
scientist is.

Froggie:
Evolution is not a conspiracy of evil atheists, it is
a scientific truth
known to the scientific community for over 100 years
that works very well to
explain the evidence. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

John Paul:
Where is the scientific truth behind all of life’s
diversity owing its common ancestry to some unknown
population or populations of organisms that just
happened to have the ability to self-replicate?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Froggie:
Therefore, scientists want people to accept this basic
scientific tenet, and to stop mis-representing what
evolution is, and what it isn't, to our children. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

John Paul:
That is what I would like also. So please, until we
know how those first population(s) arose, how they
acquired the ability to self-replicate and how errors
in that ability led to the diversity of life we
observe today, theoretical musings on the unobserved
and unverifiable past should be kept out of the
science classroom unless the alternatives are also
discussed.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Froggie:
I will not send my child to a school where the teacher
teaches that "the
moon is made of green cheese," even if you could
demonstrate to me that
believing the moon is make of cheese is not
detrimental, or even if it made
us feel better to believe such a theory. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

John Paul:
How about teaching what the facts are, what the
evidence is and letting them figure it out?

God Bless,

John Paul

* * *

second email

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Paul of Eugene:
Of course the origin of life is an important area of
interest to science. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

John Paul:
Um, that's not the point of this thread. I am sure it
is an interesting quest. But what happens once we are
absolutely certain that life is a product of a
Creator? Do we disallow it because it doesn't fit
someone's twisted view that science must conform to
materialistic naturalism?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Paul of Eugene:
We just don't have a scientific answer yet, that's all <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

John Paul:
From what science has shown us it is very, very
doubtful that life's origins are via purely natural
processes.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Paul of Eugene:
And I believe God was involved and if science comes up
with a scientific answer I will still believe God was
involved since God is the God who made all the laws of
science.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

John Paul:
Very good. And if that belief were verified tomorrow,
what would change in the way we conduct research?
Maybe some atheists would be affected, but what would
it do to their research?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Paul of Eugene:
I get the impression some people around here would go
up to a crossword puzzle fan and chide him for not
finishing the whole thing while he's still in the
middle of working on it.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

John Paul:
That's not it at all. We see the crossword puzzle fan
sitting staring blankly at the crossword puzzle and he
has been that way for quite some time. He filled in
some wrong words and now the crosses don't go. But
instead of going back to change what he did wrong he
stubbornly presses on.

God Bless,

John Paul

[ February 18, 2002: Message edited by: Administrator ]

 

[Administrator2]

POIKILOTERM

The point of this discussion is to show that if
origins of life, procaryotes, eucaryotes, metazoans,
etc. are not important to discovering an organism's
(or just biochemical) function and how to maintain
that function in the event that it requires
maintenance, then why is today's ToE so important to
evolutionists.


I think that this is a most important question: Why bother with science
that has little apparent practical value to a non-scientist? I think that
the question is asked in all seriousness is deeply troubling. I invite you
to look at the Nobel prize medal: it shows the allegory of Nature, being
revealed by Science. Why do we bother to try to do this? Because that’s what
science is: the use of human reason to reveal nature. Science is not
engineering, that seeks only to do useful stuff: it is simple rigorous
inquiry into questions of empirical fact. It leads to odd and puzzling
answers, some of which are disturbing to our emotional security. But they
are the answers of science, and that is the reason why they are taught in
science class.

If you, or anyone else, do not like those answers, then I urge you to
formally educate yourself in biology and chemistry, and perform the research
that will allow them to be legitimately and rigorously challenged.

 

[Administrator2]

HELEN

Just wanted to weigh in with a few thoughts here…

Froggie, you said that studies of HIV require accepting evolution. I
assume you are simply talking about variation, for the HIV virus is,
first of all, RNA-based and not DNA-based and, secondly, remains HIV,
despite the variations. Since no one is arguing variations, how is it
then necessary to ‘accept evolution’ as apart from simple variation?

Yes, of course understanding how the proteins work could very well lead
to cures, or even vaccines, but none of this has to do with the
so-called “evolution” of this virus – only what it is today and the
variations we see now.

I do have a question for you – if you are going to presume (which you
do) that we are simply a variety of ape, so to speak, then why should
you attempt to either ‘understand’ or ‘modify’ any human behavior. We
are what we are via evolution in your worldview. The insects and
bacteria, by far the most ‘successful’ of all life forms, have no need
to analyze themselves – why should we? And what on earth brought about
this desire to analyze ourselves or find ourselves less than what we
think we should be in any given case? I find nowhere in the rest of the
physical world anything near this characteristic.

Why call what has evolved “social ills”? We study primates and do not
consider anything they do to be socially ill – why consider ourselves
that way?

You might tell your creationist opponent on the other board this, from
another creationist: “Because of the Fall” is too general an answer, no
matter how true, to be of any help in any discussion or medical
research. From a creation point of view, the perfection of the original
creation has degenerated quite a bit, and certain mutations have become
predominant in certain populations, such as diabetes with the Pimas and
sickle cell among Africans. These are mutations which have established
themselves to some degree in certain populations. The FACT of these
mutations may be due to the Fall, but the mutations themselves need to
be studied so that we can help one another to the best of our
abilities. (Is the third allele you mention in sickle cell the C
allele? If so, it is recessive and not much help.) However, mutations
are not a matter of evolution here, but of degeneration from a better
set of individuals/populations. If diabetes and sickle cell are the
results of evolution and therefore to be studied in that light only,
then they should not be fought, for they are eliminating unfit members
of the populations, are they not? Isn’t this what evolution is all
about?

The only reason to fight them is if they actually do represent genetic
failings and degenerations, which is what the creation model is all
about. Evolution posits, instead, that we are improving.

How? Where? Documented presentations such as “Man and Microbes”
strongly disputes the idea that somehow we are getting better!

You wrote, “We have a long way to go in our understanding of how
nutrition, cholesterol, digestion, metabolosm, ect, all interact to
cause disease.”

Please consider that it is the malfunction of these things which
contribute to diseases and problems. Nutrition by itself does not cause
any disease, nor does digestion or metabolism. These are processes of
life. Cholesterol is under intense scrutiny as the extrapolations from
the earlier experiments may not be true. Diseases/disabilities/physical
problems are caused by either external agents overpowering the life
processes or by the internal causes associated with the malfunctioning
of something contributing to those life processes. The life processes
themselves do not cause disease.

You stated that studies to do with diabetes, “the French paradox” etc.
“only came about because of the theory of natural selection and
adaptation.”

Baloney. People have been studying health for a lot longer than the
theories of natural selection and adaptation have been around! In
fact, it was people who established the necessity of creation, such as
Redi and Pasteur, who helped us understand that rats did not evolve out
of rags or flies out of meat. It was the very FACT of creation by KIND
that was the key to understanding and treating diseases! One kind of
thing does NOT change into another and that is the only reason we are
able to attack diseases at all in the first place! We get variations of
HIV or the flu or colds or whatever, but we recognize what they are as
discrete problems and not problems of one sort evolving into diseases or
problems of another sort.

Froggie, in working in your lab every day, you are depending on the
validity of the fact that what you are working with is going to stay
essentially the same every time you repeat an experiment or try a new
stimulus on a population of bacteria or whatever. If those bacteria
were actually evolving, your experiments would mean nothing tomorrow!
But that is not what we see. We honor those of you who have the
incredible patience to do the unbelievably boring (sometimes….often….)
lab work which does yield answers where diseases and such are
concerned. But if evolution were true, that would really be impossible,
for what you discovered yesterday about a population of bacteria could
be completely invalid in a year after they had mutated into something
else!

You might fight the concept of ‘kind’, but you not only work with it but
depend on it daily.

You said that it is your belief that the ‘Evo/Cre controversy is
contributing to the dumbing-down of our education system. Teachers are
afraid to teach constroversial issues, so instead they require their
students to memorize the names of animals instead of teaching them how
science works.’

Froggie, if a student is going to be proficient in any area of study,
the vocabulary and basic facts are essential. High school students are
in NO position to decide about anything like stem-cell research or
anything else – they are still trying to figure out who THEY are! Just
getting them to understand the basics of biology is a year-long task.
And until the basics are learned, and until they have the maturity to
consider certain ethical questions, which they don’t as teenagers, then
to criticize any education system for them NOT being able to consider
these things is not even in the realm of reality. The education system
cannot determine the rate of mental maturity of a young person. It can
only work with what’s there. As a retired biology teacher of this age
group, I can guarantee to you that simply getting the basics of cell
biology, genetics, organic chemistry, classification, and human anatomy
all done in one year is quite enough without asking them to consider the
questions which those much more educated and experienced are grappling
with. Oh yeah, biology teachers here in California are now also usually
responsible for the ‘health’ issues formerly referred to as ‘sex-ed.’

Now what was it you wanted these fifteen and sixteen year olds to
analyze??? The girls are far more interested in who is wearing what to
the Prom and who is going with who and the boys are either discussing
sports or what girl to target for a play. Not all. Most. We have to
teach through screens of hormones, preoccupations, breakfasts of Coke
and chocolate, parents getting divorces, friends in the hospital or
morgue from auto accidents, romantic traumas, and studying madly for a
test in the next period’s course. These kids are trying to survive.
They are not equipped to analyze anything. Getting them to learn basic
facts is a job that takes the full year in any one basic science course.

It is asking them to use their mixed-up minds to analyze without the
facts known that is dumbing down education! Teaching them the basics
never dumbed down anything.

And teaching them that there is a sacred cow of an idea which may not be
challenged is not helping to increase science education either. Instead
it is treating science as a religion and the scientists as priests who
cannot be questioned in their statements. That’s NOT science. That is
bringing YOUR belief system into the classroom under the pretext of
science. Teaching the controversy – or simply acknowledging that there
IS a controversy, never dumbed down anyone either. Instead it gives
them the freedom to look at data from different points of view and to
BEGIN to analyze things on their own.

If evolution is true, then you needn’t fear the conclusions they will
come to, need you? You are the one who stated, “overall, scientists are
interested in seeking and promoting the truth.”

And that means testing it against opposing ideas in light of the data.
Kids will never learn to seek the truth if they are informed that “here
is the truth and you dare not question it.” Why be curious after that?

To use your words, “I will not send my child to a school where the
teacher teaches that ‘evolution happened and no challenges will be
accepted’ even if you could demonstrate to me that believing evolution
is not detrimental, or even if it made us feel better to believe such a
story.”

As it is, I do feel that evolutionary ideas are detrimental and do not
make us feel better anyway.

To Paul of Eugene: Yes, God was involved and did make all the
laws of science. He also told us there were boundaries within which
scientific truth could be found. Why accept the first and reject the
second?

 

[Administrator2]

THE BARBARIAN

(John Paul asserts that since we don't know how life started, we can rule
out a natural cause for it)

Maybe in preChristian Norway, we'd hear some pagan say "There isn't any
evidnece that lightning originates by purely natural processes, so
Thormustadunnit." But that's neither logically justified, nor is it good
science. That assumption goes to the very heart of the problems that
scientists have with ID.

The point of evolutionary algorithms is not that the are done inside
processors, but rather that they are capable of finding much more elegant
and effective solutions than can be designed. Indeed, there are some
problems that probably can only be effectively handled by such processes.

I grant you that a Perfect Designer could do better at design than humans,
but He also would be able to produce better evolutionary processes than we
can. So that isn't any comfort for ID, either.

John Paul, you ask how to tell genetic evidence for evolution from genetic
evidence for creation.

Common Creator can't explain psuedogenes, or why we have the remains of a
chimp telomere in one of our chromosomes, the one that looks exactly like
two chimp chromosomes fused together. Makes no sense from a "designer"
approach, but makes perfect sense in an evolutionary perspective.

You suggested it was a waste of time to educate our children in anything but
applied and operational science. That would exclude, for example,
astronomy, because there is no operations we can perform on stars or planets
at this time.

[ March 01, 2002, 11:46 AM: Message edited by: Administrator ]

 

[Administrator2]

JOHN PAUL

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The point of this discussion is to show that if
origins of life, procaryotes, eucaryotes, metazoans,
etc. are not important to discovering an organism's
(or just biochemical) function and how to maintain
that function in the event that it requires
maintenance, then why is today's ToE so important to
evolutionists.

poikiloterm:
I think that this is a most important question: Why
bother with science that has little apparent practical
value to a non-scientist?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

John Paul:
Because someday it may have practical value to a
non-scientist?

I couldn't tell you how many of today's gadgets are
the result of scientific research that at the time
didn't appear to have any practical value.

Let me ask you this, if it were proven that life could
not have arisen via purely natural processes, would
the pursuit of life's purely natural origins still be
considered 'science'? And if it were proven that life
was designed by an Intelligent Agent, would you still
consider the pursuit of that origin to be
un-‘scientific’?

Theoretical musings are great, for what they are. I
would rather my tax dollars were spent on other
objectives. If you want to pursue these unverifiable
musings, please by all means, proceed. But do so with
private funding and stop preaching them to our
children using those tax dollars (or at least give
them the alternatives).

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>poikiloterm:
I think that the question is asked in all seriousness
is deeply troubling. I invite you
to look at the Nobel prize medal: it shows the
allegory of Nature, being
revealed by Science.

Why do we bother to try to do this? Because that’s
what
science is: the use of human reason to reveal nature. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

John Paul:
And what we have revealed so far is life didn’t
originate via purely natural processes. Time to let
someone else step up to the plate and have a swing.
That means putting the resources behind this effort.
If life is designed let someone have the resources
necessary to figure out that design. If the genetic
code is analogous to a computer code free up the
resources for that research. If it takes someone
versed in encryption, bring them on board too.
Why limit your resources to a one-way dead-end
street?
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>
Poikiloterm:
Science is not engineering, that seeks only to do
useful stuff: it is simple rigorous
inquiry into questions of empirical fact. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

John Paul:
Science should be about discovering truths.
“Science is the search for the truth,” chemist
Linus Pauling, winner of two Nobel prizes. (you seem
to like the Nobel prize)
Does that mean the search for the truth only under a
materialistic naturalism framework? And all
conclusions must be based upon that PoV? Sorry, I
don’t live in China, the old USSR or Nazi Germany. I
will let the evidence take me where it leads me.

Doesn’t sound like today’s ‘science’ is very
objective. Hopefully all that is about to change.

Also engineering is applied science. Engineers even
put on the scientist cap and scientists put on the
engineering cap. How do you think technology came
about? Without technology, science wouldn’t be able to
do as much as it now does. Science is more than
theoretical musings of materialistic naturalism.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>
Poikiloterm:
It leads to odd and puzzling answers, some of which
are disturbing to our emotional security. But they
are the answers of science, and that is the reason why
they are taught in science class. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

John Paul:
Perhaps it is time to re-define science, or rather put
it back the way it was and should be. Newton wasn’t
bothered by the knowledge he was part of God’s Special
Creation and the same goes for scientists up until
Darwin’s time. Then all of a sudden that became a bad
thing.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Poikiloterm:
If you, or anyone else, do not like those answers,
then I urge you to formally educate yourself in
biology and chemistry, and perform the research
that will allow them to be legitimately and rigorously
challenged. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

John Paul:
I don’t mind your answers. I just don’t see how they
pertain to the topic.

The people who are formally educated are doing a great
job of showing us purely natural processes can’t
account for the origins of life. And why do you think
only biology & chemistry are required to understand
life?
http://www.arn.org/docs2/news/approachingbiology041701.htm]

Approaching
Biology from a Different Angle

Just so we have this straight- I am all for science
doing what it supposed to do- search for the truth.
Why? Because it is out there and it will not be
constrained by the narrow vision of materialistic
naturalism.


God Bless,

John Paul

 

[Administrator2]

JOHN PAUL

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Pat Parson: John Paul asserts that since we don't know how life
started, we can rule
out a natural cause for it. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

John Paul:
In reality, the science that has been conducted pretty
much demonstrates that life did not arise via purely
natural processes. It is pretty obvious that DNA & RNA
can’t survive long enough outside of the cell to do
anything and there is no evidence that either could
originate outside of a living cell. Kind of a big
catch-22.
Put all the amino acids, that are the alleged
‘building blocks of life’, in a flask and see what
happens. Do you think what we can’t do in the ideal
conditions of a lab could have occurred in the
supposed harsh conditions of the early Earth (speaking
in evolutionary time scales)? We can bypass millions/
billions of years of supposed evolutionary history by
already having the amino acids at our disposal,
combining them at will and in different scenarios.

And if we could verify (without a shadow of a doubt)
that life could NOT have originated via purely natural
processes, what in biology would change? (trying to
get back on topic)
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>
Pat:
Maybe in preChristian Norway, we'd hear some pagan say
"There isn't any
evidnece that lightning originates by purely natural
processes, so
Thormustadunnit." But that's neither logically
justified, nor is it good
science. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

John Paul:
I guess if you ignore the work already done in finding
life’s origins you might have a point. Science has
shown us that lightning does indeed (as far as we can
tell) originate via purely natural processes. Science
has been unable to show us that life can originate via
purely natural processes. Quite the opposite has
occurred.
Substantiating evidence. Either you have it or you
don’t. In this instance, as with the common descent
premise, the substantiating evidence is nowhere to be
found.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>
Pat:
That assumption goes to the very heart of the problems
that scientists have with ID. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

John Paul:
It’s not as simple as you make it out to be. In
preChristian Norway they had no way of telling how
lightning originated. Also lightning doesn’t exhibit
CSI (complex specified information). When applied to
Dembski’s filter it doesn’t make it to the 3rd
decision box (the box that would determine design).
If you apply all we know about detecting design, THEN
throw in ‘there isn’t any evidence that X could
originate naturally’, the design inference cannot be
ignored. No one said to skip the steps before making
that statement. Process flow is very important.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>
Pat:
The point of evolutionary algorithms is not that the
are done inside processors, but rather that they are
capable of finding much more elegant
and effective solutions than can be designed.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

John Paul:
Pat asserts that since one evolutionary algorithm
refined the design of one circuit that humans would
not have been able to come up with the same design. He
also appears to ignore the fact that the original
circuit and the EA itself were both the product of an
intelligent agent.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>
Pat:
Indeed, there are some problems that probably can only
be effectively handled by such processes. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

John Paul:
Could be true, but that has nothing to do with origins
and why they are important to biological evolution.
(which is the topic of this thread)
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>
Pat:
I grant you that a Perfect Designer could do better at
design than humans, but He also would be able to
produce better evolutionary processes than we
can. So that isn't any comfort for ID, either. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

John Paul:
ID says nothing about evolutionary processes. It is a
given that evolutionary processes cannot design
anything from scratch. It can refine a design though.
IDists and Creationists don’t debate that.
About humans- this has been said before- what we
observe today is the result of the evolutionary
process you think so highly of. The only humans that
were designed would be the originals. The rest are
error filled ancestors of that original design.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>
Pat:
John Paul, you ask how to tell genetic evidence for
evolution from genetic evidence for creation.
Common Creator can't explain psuedogenes, or why we
have the remains of a chimp telomere in one of our
chromosomes, the one that looks exactly like
two chimp chromosomes fused together. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

John Paul:
Why can’t a Common Creator explain that? Is all we
have your word for that? Is that in the highly coveted
peer-reviewed journal?
Mike Brown states,

“So I think there is a mechanistic process that
has produced many of the Pseudogenes that we have,
rather than a random process. If the Pseudogene is
truly defective and if the mutations are truly found
in patterns (not random), then the idea that it's a
common mechanism is possible. Viruses have enzymes
that, under the same conditions, do repeatable
reactions.
If the DNA in Humans, Chimps, Monkeys, etc., are very
similar, then if they are all infected by the same
virus, would we expect the virus to do the same thing
in the different species? I think so.

The "dreaded endogenous retroviral sequence common to
both chimp and human DNA" is probably the major
example of Common Mechanism. Viral enzymes (proteins)
react with specific DNA sequences. If both chimp and
human DNA have the same active sites, I would expect
the viral proteins to react in the same exact way to
both human and chimp.
Common descent or common Ancestor is not the only
answer.”

However, I’ll wait until we decipher the genetic code
before I label anything a ‘pseudo-gene’ and conclude
that is only evidence for common descent. Anyway, it
appears they don’t make much sense from an
evolutionary/ common descent perspective. Why would an
organism keep something that requires energy to
duplicate but offers no apparent benefit? And if it
does offer a benefit there is nothing ‘pseudo’ about
them.

As far as I can tell the only way to use pseudo-genes
as evidence for common descent is to first assume
common descent.

Here’s a Creationist’s look at the so-called
‘pseudo-genes’: Pseudogenes and Origins
http://www.grisda.org/origins/21091u.htm

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

Pat:
Makes no sense from a "designer" approach, but makes
perfect sense in an evolutionary perspective. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

John Paul:
You should have said, if these so-called pseudo-genes
have no function and it can be verified that common
descent is the only possible way for their existence,
makes no sense from a "designer" approach, but makes
perfect sense in an evolutionary perspective.

If you can prove that Adam & Eve had these so called
‘pseudo-genes’ you may have a point. Good luck.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>
Pat:
You suggested it was a waste of time to educate our
children in anything but applied and operational
science. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

John Paul:
Theoretical musings are nice but perhaps best saved
for philosophy class. Or perhaps start another class
called “unverifiable theoretical musings”. Some kids
may be interested but this class is definitely not for
everyone and definitely shouldn’t be in a biological
science classroom, regardless if it allegedly deals
with biology.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>
Pat:
That would exclude, for example, astronomy, because
there is no operations we can perform on stars or
planets at this time. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

John Paul:
No it would not. Like I said before and you
conveniently ignored:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Why would you say that? The stars and planets
can be
observed. Someday we may visit them. You know, rocket
science stuff. At that time we may be able to verify
what we have speculated about down here, looking
up.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

To further that point, Pluto’s orbit comes to mind. No
one has observed Pluto complete an orbit of the Sun.
However we can infer it will by observing it. Someday
that inference will be verified by observational data.
However those observations cannot tell us how Pluto
originated or how many orbits it has completed.

So why study astronomy (& astrophysics)?- It’s called
‘preparation’.


God Bless,

John Paul

 

[Administrator2]

PAUL OF EUGENE

From Helen to me:
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>To Paul of Eugene: Yes, God was involved and did make all the
laws of science. He also told us there were boundaries within which
scientific truth could be found. Why accept the first and reject the
second?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
What difference does it make what we accept as to the boundaries of what science can discover? We'll only discover no more than we can anyway. Maybe we'll miss less truth if we don't stop seeking on general principles.

 

[Administrator2]

THE BARBARIAN

It's no good to simply assert that there is no way life could have started
by natural means. That cannot be known at this time. However, I remind you
that once lightning was thought of as magical too, because it could not be
otherwise explained.

If you have some actual data to prove that it couldn't have happened this
way, I'd be interested in seeing it.

John Paul:
I guess if you ignore the work already done in finding
life’s origins you might have a point. Science has
shown us that lightning does indeed (as far as we can
tell) originate via purely natural processes. Science
has been unable to show us that life can originate via
purely natural processes. Quite the opposite has
occurred.

Do you think it's significant that your belief is more common among
engineers than among people who actually know something about biology?
Again, I'd like to see some evidence. And keep in mind, if life started
naturally, it would almost certainly not begun with DNA or RNA.

As you said, substantiating evidence is required. Show me some.

John Paul:
It’s not as simple as you make it out to be. In preChristian Norway they had
no way of telling how lightning originated.

Presently, we have no way of telling how life may have originated. But the
"God of the Gaps" argument is a very exposed position to take. We have
learned about a great many things formerly thought to be directly caused by
God.

John Paul:
(Pat) asserts that since one evolutionary algorithm
refined the design of one circuit that humans would not have been able to
come up with the same design. He also appears to ignore the fact that the
original circuit and the EA itself were both the product of an
intelligent agent.

In fact, humans can't come up with the same design, because it found a way
to use some unknown effect of the circuit in the process. We don't know
what that effect is. We don't even know how it works. And since I
personally know that the universe was the product of an intelligent agent, I
have no problem with God creating the kind of universe that would permit
such wonders to evolve.

John Paul:
Could be true, but that has nothing to do with origins and why they are
important to biological evolution. (which is the topic of this thread)

ID does not limit itself to biological entities. The fact that this device
does what ID declares to be impossible is sufficient.

John Paul:
ID says nothing about evolutionary processes. It is a
given that evolutionary processes cannot design
anything from scratch.

If you mean there has to be a universe first, that's true. How the universe
is accounted for varies. Why not just accept that God made the universe,
and it brought forth living things?

It can refine a design though. IDists and Creationists don’t debate
that.

I don't know about that. So far, evolutionary processes haven't done
anything with anything that is designed.

I realize how much some people want humans to be "designed". But it just
isn't supported by the evidence. Those telomeres in the middle of one of
our chromosomes says that we had a chromosome fusion sometime in the past.
There is no other explanation. I wonder again; you're a Muslim, yet you
talk about human genome as being "error-filled". That is not, as I
understand it, Muslim thinking. What is the justification for that in the
Q'uran? I'm truly interested in that, but it's probably not on-topic here,
would you be willing to email me about it?

John Paul: (in response to Barbarian's questions about the legitimacy
of Astronomy, Forensics, and other historical sciences)

Theoretical musings are nice but perhaps best saved for philosophy class. Or
perhaps start another class called “unverifiable theoretical musings”. Some
kids may be interested but this class is definitely not for everyone and
definitely shouldn’t be in a biological science classroom, regardless if it
allegedly deals with biology.

Keep in mind there is extensive evidence for all these sciences. Why should
we reject science with all this evidence, and accept ID, for which you
counsel patience while they try to find evidence?

I know that someday, might be able to actually perform experiments on stars.
But that's not now. We can, however gather data and learn about them.
Which is the goal of science. "Operational" has nothing to do with it.

To further that point, Pluto’s orbit comes to mind. No
one has observed Pluto complete an orbit of the Sun.

No one has watched a giant redwood grow from a seedling. No one has watched
one class of vertebrates evolve into another.

However we can infer it will by observing it.

However we can infer that they do by observing them.

Someday that inference will be verified by observational data.

All of this has been verified long ago. Kepler showed how planets move, and
confidently made predictions which have been verified. Newton showed why
they move that way. We have examples of redwoods in all stages of growth,
and they are geneticall all alike. And we have massive evidence for the
evolution of new classes of vertebrates. I will not recount it all, in the
interests of brevity, but I would be pleased to list the details, if you'd
like them.

It is true that we cannot now know Pluto's precise origin from it's present
orbit. Neither can we now know how life originated, from the evidence for
evolution. However, Kepler didn't need to know that, and certainly was able
to produce valid science even though he didn't know the origins of planets.
Likewise, Darwin was able to achieve his great understanding of living
things, even if we still can't be sure how life began.

Incidentally, astronomy sometimes turns out to have useful applications.
Astronomers discovered helium, which is certainly a useful thing to know.

[ March 01, 2002, 11:47 AM: Message edited by: Administrator ]

 

[Administrator2]

SHUANR

Concerning HIV, an issue for scientists was determining where this apparently new virus came from. It seemed to just pop into exisatence from nowhere. Scientists using the tools of evolutionary biology (cladistic analysis etc) traced its first appearance among humans to Central Africa in 1959. Scientists also discovered that it was a virus that originally affected monkeys, which adapted via a mutation to affect humans.This discovery isvitally important for tracking thespread of this diseadse and for determining how to treat it
Yes, John Paul, origins are as important sometimes as life or death.

 

[Administrator2]

MR. BEN

Paul States:

The point of this discussion is to show that if
origins of life, procaryotes, eucaryotes, metazoans,
etc. are not important to discovering an organism's
(or just biochemical) function and how to maintain
that function in the event that it requires
maintenance, then why is today's ToE so important to
evolutionists. And why is it forced on kids in science
class? Shouldn't we better prepare our children, our
future, with sciences that can be applied and
operational sciences? Do you think guys like Tesla,
the Wright brothers, Edison, Bell et al. needed the
ToE to make the advances that they made?

Mr. Ben Replies:

Paul, it's likely that in the future, all complex systems will be designed using a variety of evolutionary techniques. The dramatic increase in efficiency of systems designed using mutation and selection are quite important when you consider the economy of the future.

Here are some of the future industries which presently use evolution in their research right now:

1. Optimal mechanical design and engineering (aircraft design, ship hull design, etc.)

2. Software development

3. Industrial production and manufacturing efficiency

4. Drug research

5. Robotics

6. Neurology and artificial intelligence

Why do these industries or research concerns use evolution? For the same reason that biological organisms are dependent on it. Only evolution is capable of solving large N variable optimization problems. These NP hard problems just are not ammenable to closed form 'designed' solutions, They must be iteratively discovered through evolution's "trial and error" process. (Incidentally, nature itself as it stands today is almost certainly such a problem, and mathematically could not be designed closed form by any designer which does not violate the basic axioms of mathematics).

If we fail to teach our children about evolution and how it works, we are dooming the United States and its economy to second class status in the future. Without the ability to use the power of evolution in future industries, we will fall behind.

----------------------------------

Ultimately, as evolutionary design techniques and processes move into the mainstream of engineering and mechanical design we will probably see the gradual decline of Creationism. After all, with everyone familiary with how evolutionary design works, and able to easily spot its hallmark attributes, it will be obvious to anyone that biological organisms were designed the same way.

 

[Administrator2]

FROGGIE

John Paul stated, You, being a biologist, certainly must appreciate the
complexity of the cell and the processes of mitosis &
meiosis. The only place we see this is in living
organisms. What is the advantage of theorizing that
life (and its diversity) is due to purely natural
processes rather than life was Created or designed?

Interesting discovery I made last week: The two men on this earth who
probably know the most about DNA (that molecule that allegedly MUST be the
product of Design), James Watson and Francis Crick. . .They won the Nobel
Prize for elucidating the structure of DNA, and have spent their entire
lives studying it. . . they are both atheists.
The advantage of theorizing anything is that the theory might be
correct.

John Paul stated, That is to say I also accept evolution. It's
when the starting point(s) of evolution and the extent
of evolution are dogmatically stated and not to be
questioned, is when I have a problem with acceptance.

Ok JP, I'm a little confused now. Are you talking about abiogenesis, or
macroevolution? Up until this point, I thought you were talking about
macroevolution.

Sure, you can accept microevolution, but not macroevolution. Equally, you
can believe that gravity is what causes your pencil to drop to the floor,
but disbelieve that gravity holds the solar system together. That's fine,
if you only want to study pencil dropping. But if you ever want to
speculate about a larger system, you are going to be in trouble.

You see, the same processes that evolved to give the Pima Indians that
thrifty gene are the same processes which caused humans to evolve
from other primates. Random mutation and natural selection. One is just on
a larger scale.

Onto the post from Helen:

Helen stated, Froggie, you said that studies of HIV require accepting
evolution. I
assume you are simply talking about variation, for the HIV virus is,
first of all, RNA-based and not DNA-based and, secondly, remains HIV,
despite the variations.

An RNA-based virus can evolve. All you need for evolution is a nucleic acid
which encodes for a selectable phenotype and has the potential for
variation. The single-stranded RNA genome of HIV has this capability, so of
course it can evolve. And it has. There are two strains of HIV now. HIV-2
I believe, is more resistant to anti-aids drugs.

Since no one is arguing variations, how is it
then necessary to accept evolution as apart from simple variation?

Call it whatever you want. Evolution IS only variation + natural selection.

I've noticed from debating people at infidels that many creationists are
surprised at the simplicity of evolutionary theory. They are like, "that's
it? Just variation, and selection of variations that are more
advantageous?" and we infidels are like 'yep that's it' and they are like
"Wow, I accept evolution now, so . . . do I have to like worship Satan now
or something?"

Ok so it doesn't go exactly like that. But the idea of natural selection is
a simple one--and yeah, you could just call it variation. But imagine that
variation occuring over millions of years, and you get a variety of
variations (descent with modification).

Helen stated, I do have a question for you if you are going to presume
(which you do) that we are simply a variety of ape, so to speak, then why
should you attempt to either understand or modify any human behavior.

What makes us human? I don't know. I will say though, that just because
religion produces an answer, does not mean they are correct. Also, you are
confusing the science with the application. Scientific study does not
produce the morality. Evolutionary biologists do not look to apes for
examples of moral behavior, but simply explanations for it: "We have violent
tendencies because we evolved from territorial chimps." Just like a doctor
doing a physical--"your throat is sore because you have a bacterial
infection." These are not moral statements in any way, nor should they be.

If we do decide as a society, however, that we want to improve our 'social
ills,' and that learning why we have these ills is a key to that
improvement, than it is a moral pursuit to seek the answers. But the
answers themselves are simple facts. Is this making sense?

Helen stated, We are what we are via evolution in your worldview. The
insects and bacteria, by far the most successful of all life forms, have
no need to analyze themselves why should we? And what on earth brought
about this desire to analyze ourselves or find ourselves less than what we
think we should be in any given case? I find nowhere in the rest of the
physical world anything near this characteristic.

The fact that we can analyze ourselves can speak for itself--we can do it,
so it must be important! Actually, if we did evolve 'self awareness,' than
we should see a gradient of more self aware organisms as we look forward
through evolutionary history. We do. Chimps can recognize themselves in a
mirror, and have a greater degree of awareness than, say, a mouse.

Why call what has evolved social ills? We study primates and do not
consider anything they do to be socially ill; why consider ourselves that
way?

Again, I don't know. And again, just because your religion gives you
answer, doesn't mean it is the correct one.

Helen stated, "The only reason to fight them is if they actually do
represent genetic
failings and degenerations, which is what the creation model is all
about. Evolution posits, instead, that we are improving."

No, evolutionary theory makes no moral statements. If a population has
evolved, it has done one thing and one thing only: improved its reproductive
success by adapting to its environment. If you think that reproductive
success makes us 'better,' than you are way better than me. I have no
children. (See how silly this sounds!)

Incidentally, we have evolved better disease-fighting capabilities than our
ancestors. However, the little buggers evolved too.

Helen stated, "Froggie, in working in your lab every day, you are depending
on the validity of the fact that what you are working with is going to stay
essentially the same every time you repeat an experiment or try a new
stimulus on a population of bacteria or whatever. If those bacteria were
actually evolving, your experiments would mean nothing tomorrow!...But if
evolution were true, that would really be impossible, for what you
discovered yesterday about a population of bacteria could be completely
invalid in a year after they had mutated into something else! "

Actually Helen, biologists do have to worry about evolution. First of all,
the fact of random mutation means that you will get revertents of your
mutant bacteria or viruses, and you have to periodically test them to make
sure they haven't evolved resistance to the antibiotic, or evolved a new
trait which confuses your results. Because of evolution, it is important to
keep stocks in the liquid nitrogen of the "original" or what we call
"wild-type" organisms of bacteria, viruses, and cell lines. My friend who
works with mice recently informed me that some strains of lab rats and mice
are considered new species, and can no longer breed with their "wild"
couterparts. Lab mice have also evolved new specific behaviors that give
them advantages in the lab setting. This means that we can't always assume
that an experiment that works on "balb-C mice" will work on all mice. My
friend down the hall deals with this issue, and I can find some references
for you if you like. Human cell lines will also adapt to the tissue culture
environment, and their genes do mutate and evolve. Evolution is the reason
that I cannot use my MA104 cells after passage 70 or so, because they have
adapted too much to tissue culture and are no longer a good representation
of a real monkey kidney cell.

As to your statements on the education system. . . I can simply say this:
Thanks to, in part, the efforts of my biology teacher, who was not content
to simply teach us the facts but also taught us theories, I pursued biology
as a career and now I am entering medical school. I am not opposed to
people challenging a scientific theory, as long as it is done with science,
not religion or "feel good" rhetoric. After all, trying to refute a theory
is exactly how science works.

Here's a question for you--how would you feel if science classrooms suddenly
allowed all the different religious creation stories in? I have a
feeling your tune about 'giving every theory a chance' would change. . .

froggie

[ February 23, 2002, 11:23 PM: Message edited by: Administrator ]

 

[Administrator2]

JOHN PAUL

Shuanr:
Concerning HIV, an issue for scientists was determining where this apparently new virus came from. It seemed to just pop into exisatence from nowhere. Scientists using the tools of evolutionary biology (cladistic analysis etc) traced its first appearance among humans to Central Africa in 1959. Scientists also discovered that it was a virus that originally affected monkeys, which adapted via a mutation to affect humans. This discovery is vitally important for tracking the spread of this diseadse and for determining how to treat it
Yes, John Paul, origins are as important sometimes as life or death.

John Paul:
Thank you Shuanr for an honest attempt to answer my thread starting post. What you have pointed out shows it may indeed be important to know an organism’s history. At least as much as we can observe. But do we have to know how life originated or what the alleged original population(s) of organisms where in order to conduct HIV or AIDS research? Is it necessary to theorize that all of life’s diversity owes its common ancestry to this (these) alleged first population(s) in order to properly conduct such research? Would it matter to this research if life was Created, Intelligently Designed or arose via purely natural processes?

(You know what I read about HIV? It may not cause AIDS. Something like only 10% of HIV people get AIDS. If that does indeed turn out to be the case, is it a disease at all? If it’s not a disease what is it and what causes AIDS? Maybe HIV is a necessary piece to the AIDS puzzle?)

That a virus remains a virus is not the debate. That a virus can mutate is not the debate. When I watched the PBS series Evolution they discussed AIDS. They showed it wasn’t that the virus mutated to protect itself from the drugs. It showed that there already existed in the population, certain viruses that were already immune and that when the drug wiped out the non-immune virus, the other one just stepped into a vacated niche. Once there, they multiplied at will.

Also in the same series Dennett stated there was no way to predict what would be selected for in any given environment. I take it he meant in an evolutionary (materialistic naturalism) scenario. What I’m getting at is knowing an organism’s history, according to Dennett, might not help us in predicting its future.

What if it turns out that biological viruses can be dealt with the same way computer viruses are dealt with, but since no one is teaching that in schools the person that could do such a thing is never exposed to it.
Why do evolutionists seem determined to keep all the eggs in one- materialistic naturalism basket?

* * *

from a second email

John Paul states:

The point of this discussion is to show that if
origins of life, procaryotes, eucaryotes, metazoans,
etc. are not important to discovering an organism's
(or just biochemical) function and how to maintain
that function in the event that it requires
maintenance, then why is today's ToE so important to
evolutionists. And why is it forced on kids in science
class? Shouldn't we better prepare our children, our
future, with sciences that can be applied and
operational sciences? Do you think guys like Tesla,
the Wright brothers, Edison, Bell et al. needed the
ToE to make the advances that they made?

Mr. Ben Replies:

(John) Paul, it's likely that in the future, all complex systems will be designed using a variety of evolutionary techniques. The dramatic increase in efficiency of systems designed using mutation and selection are quite important when you consider the economy of the future.

Here are some of the future industries which presently use evolution in their research right now:

1. Optimal mechanical design and engineering (aircraft design, ship hull design, etc.)

2. Software development

3. Industrial production and manufacturing efficiency

4. Drug research

5. Robotics

6. Neurology and artificial intelligence

Why do these industries or research concerns use evolution? For the same reason that biological organisms are dependent on it. Only evolution is capable of solving large N variable optimization problems. These NP hard problems just are not ammenable to closed form 'designed' solutions, They must be iteratively discovered through evolution's "trial and error" process. (Incidentally, nature itself as it stands today is almost certainly such a problem, and mathematically could not be designed closed form by any designer which does not violate the basic axioms of mathematics).

If we fail to teach our children about evolution and how it works, we are dooming the United States and its economy to second class status in the future. Without the ability to use the power of evolution in future industries, we will fall behind.

John Paul:
That’s all fine and dandy Mr. Ben, but what does it have to do with the importance of origins to biological evolution? That is the topic of this thread, not whether or not evolutionary processes can be observed and whether or not studying & understanding evolutionary processes are of any importance.

Why is only the materialistic naturalism view on evolution the only one considered to be ‘science’? Why is only considering the materialistic naturalism’s PoV on origins the only one worth pursuing?

----------------------------------
Mr. Ben
Ultimately, as evolutionary design techniques and processes move into the mainstream of engineering and mechanical design we will probably see the gradual decline of Creationism.

John Paul:
Ultimately the opening of Darwin’s black box will lead to the decline of materialistic naturalism and an increase to the numbers of IDists.

Mr. Ben:
After all, with everyone familiary with how evolutionary design works, and able to easily spot its hallmark attributes, it will be obvious to anyone that biological organisms were designed the same way.

John Paul:
What we will find (and are finding) is that evolutionary processes can only refine an existing design but can’t design anything from scratch.

So Mr. Ben, what difference would it make if life was Created, Intelligently Designed or arose via purely natural processes? (And that the evolutionary process took over from there) Do you think it would affect the industries you mentioned?
Do you think it would affect research? To me the benefits of looking at life as a product of intentional design has many benefits over looking at life as a result of purely natural processes. More often than not, intentionally designed objects have form, function and purpose. If that is the case with intentionally designed biochemical systems, once we look it that way, it should be much easier to figure out what those are.