Seriously off topic...

#21
However, "ID" is an elegant name...

... that can provide for more than just a psuedonym for the fundamentalists' creationism (a rather unintelligent backwater mythology IMO) IF we place the evolutionary sense within the context of a "unified theory of consciousness".. everything must be recognized as consciousness, not merely matter and energy, thus there is an underlying intellegence of the highest order... in everything... including one's higher brain center(s) and heart.

Of late I've taken a keen interest in the "directed panspermia" of Zacharia Sitchin, Fred Hoyle, Francis Crick and others.
-- zg(took the red pill)

Sensational Human Genome Discovery and...
THE CASE OF ADAM'S ALIEN GENES
here - http://www.sitchin.com/adam.htm
Online video series here - http://www.mars-earth.com/sitchin.htm

Ps - The Mayor started this!
 
#22
Just one last thing

There may be some misunderstanding here as I did not once state or suggest that evolutionary theory is non-scientific or should not be taught, or that religious perspectives on origins should be taught as anything other than a religious perspective.

What I'm talking about is a more general theory of origin of humans, life, and all matter. You can call it metaphysics or philosophy, but NOT religion (although metaphysics and philosophy do not a priori exclude any kind of answers or questions) because we're not looking specifically for a deity or object of worship. Although philosophy as itself cannot be proven, the logical extensions of philosophy are the source of mathematics (Euclid's postulates, and non-Euclidean postulates that are also valuable) and mathematical conclusions are the basis of science. We can prove that things evolve by observation, but we are not yet sure of why they evolve, where we can expect them to evolve from here, and if and why only living things evolve. Some people pan the term "intelligent design" without even being sure what those two words mean and what the differences are between that which is intelligent and that which is designed, and that which is not. There is no universally accepted definition of intelligence nor do we know if we would even recognize non-human intelligence if we encountered it. (Advantage play has evolved- would it have done so if we weren't intelligent? Just a question.) These are the questions that need to be asked by the philosophy before they can be answered by the science. If they end up bolstering the argument for some religion (and I am not religious, by the way), so be it.

Yes I know schoolkids aren't ready for metaphysics but they aren't any more ready for evolutionary biology. I'd rather teach both in proper measure. OK, I'm done being that pain-in-the-ass child who wants deeper answers, thanks!
 
#23
Is it truely accurate to say ...

... that there is a:
"huge body of firmly understood and proven aspects of evolution"?

That may sound like a totally inane question, but I am heartened nonetheless that it was Fred Hoyle who first coined the "Boeing 747 from the junkyard tornadoe" analogy, and not some backwater fundamentalist. zg
 
#25
too big a stretch

I have for years heard the theorists make those kinds of statements (i.e. a tornado thru a junk yard, enough times, will leave a perfectly functional 747 at least once out of an infinite number of trials, or a roomfull of monkeys and typewriters will eventually produce Lincoln's Gettysburg address.

My take is a bit different.

An infinite number of tornadoes will just produce an infinite number of messes passing thru a junkyard.

An roomfull of monkeys will just produce a room full of monkey crap, although with random sampling this is at least a plausible hypothese.

The 747 is too big a stretch however. A tornado is incapable of producing a working LSI silicon chip. No number of random events could produce such a thing since the basic physical requirements (pure silicon, zero contaminants during the plating process, extreme temp requirements, etc) are just not going to occur in a tornado.
 
#26
What Some Scientists Say about Neo Darwinism

What Some Scientists Say

According to most mathematical calculations, a universe 100 billion years old is still not old enough for a simple single cell to have developed on earth. Even attempts to synthesize RNA, an information carrying molecule, in the laboratory have also been unsuccessful. Life has not been explained through chemical origins.

Harold Morowitz, a biophysicist, compared the number of interactions needed to randomly produce a living cell with the number of interactions available since the beginning of the universe. The mathematical probabilities are so small that we ought to see no life at all at this stage of the earth's history. The probability of assembling amino acid building blocks into a functional protein is also too small to consider possible. Random assembly is therefore ruled out of the question.

Fred Hoyle comments, "The current scenario of the origins of life is about as likely as the assembly of a fully functional (Boeing) 747 by a tornado whirling about in a junkyard." The Darwinian theory of evolution fails to predict what we actually currently observe. Schutzenberger, a mathematician writes, "There is a considerable gap in the neo-Darwinian theory of evolution, and we believe the gap to be of such a nature that it cannot be bridged by the current conception of biology.

Hubert Yuckey, an information theorist, argues that the information needed to begin life could not have developed by chance; he suggests that life be considered a given "quantity," like matter or energy. He and some other mathematicians have challenged evolutionary biologists with the extreme improbability of the origin of life by chance chemical reactions, and of the improbability of the origin of all known species by random mutations. If the real "units of life" are bits of information (that is, the messages coded on DNA rather than the DNA molecule itself), evolutionary biology may take quite a different turn in the future.

A very mathematical "information theory" has been developed to solve problems in storing and transmitting information, as do computers and telecommunication systems. Some scientists are applying information theory to help unravel certain unsolved problems in biology, such as prebiological selection, similar in concept to the biological natural selection of Darwinism. They are also studying the self-organized properties of complex chemical systems, and searching for ways to reduce the minimum complexity needed for life. The goal is to find a sensible plausible theory to explain the origin of life. Nobel Laureate Francis Crick writes, "An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have been satisfied to get it going."

ON MATHEMATICAL PROBABILITY: "Life cannot have had a random beginning... The trouble is that there are about two thousand enzymes, and the chance of obtaining them all in a random trial is only one part in (10 to the 20th) to the 2,000th = 10 to the 40,000th, an outrageously small probability that could not be faced even if the whole universe consisted of organic soup" (Fred Hoyle and N. Chandra Wickramasinghe, Evolution from Space [Aldine House, 33 Welbeck Street, London W1M 8LX: J.M. Dent & Sons, 1981]).
 

The Mayor

Well-Known Member
#27
outdated

>ON MATHEMATICAL PROBABILITY: "Life cannot have had a random beginning... The trouble is that there are about two thousand enzymes, and the chance of obtaining them all in a random trial is only one part in (10 to the 20th) to the 2,000th = 10 to the 40,000th, an outrageously small probability that could not be faced even if the whole universe consisted of organic soup" (Fred Hoyle and N. Chandra Wickramasinghe, Evolution from Space [Aldine House, 33 Welbeck Street, London W1M 8LX: J.M. Dent & Sons, 1981]).

Right, 1981.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_life#Current_models_of_the_origin_of_life
Catch up on what's current and stop posting nonsense. Please! And if you don't completely understand the Biochemistry involved, stay out of the argument until you do.
 
#28
Really? 1981?

Can you describe a single discovery in the last two decades that significantly tends to validate "neo-Darwinism"? If you have to ask a co-worker, thats ok. zg

-----------

OOPS, I found one, (probably just anomalous) -

Evolving Before Our Eyes
Songbirds and salamanders bolster Darwin's theory
that change in habitat can create 2 species from one

David Perlman, Chronicle Science Editor

SFGate.com | March 26, 2001

When Charles Darwin pondered the wonderfully diverse beaks and bodies and lifestyles of the finches on the Galapagos Islands, he wrote these classic words:

"Seeing this gradation and diversity of structure in one small, intimately related group of birds, one might really fancy that from an original paucity of birds one species had been taken and modified for different ends."

It was an idea that was to strike him again and again because, in the 13 different species of Galapagos finches, the young naturalist saw the living results of creatures adapting to pressures imposed by varying environments.

Now three California scientists, led by Darren Irwin of the University of California at San Diego, have explored a very different race of birds around the Himalayan mountain range. The scientists say they have discovered the most compelling evidence yet to buttress the theory Darwin elaborated in his epochal volume "The Origin of Species," which ignited a revolution in human thought.

... continued here: http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Evolving-Before-Our-Eyes-Songbirds-and-2938427.php
 
Top