EBA,

For what it is worth, I would never mock you for your belief in God when presented in such a humble way. Only those who want to use their beliefs to tell me I'm going to hell deserve to be mocked in my opinion. Your expression of your beliefs earns nothing but my respect.

Link to this comment :: ^Back to top

Well said CG. I'm in complete agreement. I'm often in awe of your thoughtful arguments E_B_A, and I would never mock anyone who has a sincere and caring belief in their religion. It's the religion nazis (any version, not just Christianity) who earn my disdain and disgust.

Link to this comment :: ^Back to top

Why can't they co-exist? They co-exist just fine with me and my scientist father, scientist uncle and plenty of other people I know.

My father is a microbiologist/biochemist who has been published numerous times, has a PhD from OSU (in biochemistry), has been given many awards and currently works at the Medical College of Georgia. My uncle is a laser physicist, albeit, not one of the bio sciences, but he too has a PhD from a major university (I don't remember which but likely the University of Iowa), has been published and awarded and is currently working for the government with laser physics. Both are devout Old-World creationists. They don't come to these conclusions on blind faith as you say but real, solid conclusions.

I don't like blind faith. I abhor it, in fact.

Is Descartes' mover theory blind faith? If so, you better inform the philisophical community. They've been chipping away at that one with little leeway for over 100 years.

Evolution is looked at by most old-world creationists as the likely methodology for creation since nothing in and of itself contradicts the Bible, if you see certain numbers, not facts, just numbers, as metaphorical.

Link to this comment :: ^Back to top

Well, clearly they can co-exist, you're proof of that. But they aren't compatible, not at all. They are mutually exclusive; one or the other has to give. It sounds as if you've worked it out so that religion gives. If you want to observe all the things that science has figured out and say "Yeah, God set that up," well, I can't argue with that; there's no way to prove it or disprove it, so (from my point of view, anyway) it's irrelevant, but you are intellectually honest enough that you don't deny that the process exists.

Link to this comment :: ^Back to top

I appreciate that Ryland but honestly, I think they can be compatible. Point to me where the Bible actually contradicts evolution on any fact.

The location of the garden of Eden is by definition, the fertile crescent of Mespotania which just happens to be a desert (flaming sword, anyone?) and is pretty widely accepted as the birthplace of man. There's nothing in the Bible I can see, regardless of the version, that contradicts evolution.

Most Christians are bothered by the monkey to man bit more than anything because the Bible says "In his own image" but I think that's much deeper philisophically then we give it credit for. Too many people think that means God looks like a man but does God have a physical body the way we do? I doubt it. I think it means more along the lines of "powers of descernment" and "reasoning abilities" which, although other animals possess, they don't possess to the strength mankind has.

It's interesting to note that most Christians mark evolution off as a function of God's actions when they don't do this with other things. You know, if a savage wind sweeps a boat that is lost at sea to a harbor thereby saving the people on board, they praise God for saving them but it's not as if God actually extended a physical hand and picked the boat up and moved it. He used the powers of wind (if he interceeded at all). That's just scientific forces at work.

But try and say that God used the powers of evolution to create the world in Genesis and many Christians think your blasphemous and crazy.

Link to this comment :: ^Back to top

I don't want to disturb this excellent discussion with my pathetic ramblings, so I'll just say this: Here's one person, E_B_A, who completely agrees with you.

Link to this comment :: ^Back to top

Isn't it interesting how widely accepted interpretation and widely accepted facts can be objectively proven to be mutally exclusive yet only seem to co-exist with subjective human ingenuity?

I think you'll find what you are looking for in the Skeptics Annotated Bible. More specifically: http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/science/long.html where you'll find 153 direct scientific contradicitions within the Bible. Yes, these contradicitions apply to the literal entries within the Bible, but if they weren't then we'd be arguing semantics all day (yet another reason I take the Bible with a grain of salt). Although sematics can be fun to argue, I'd just rather not in this instance.

Link to this comment :: ^Back to top

You're missing the point. I read the entire Genesis section on that site and still find no contradictions. Just places where the language is ambiguous. And that's our modern, KJV translation.

While beautifully written, the KJV is very suspect in many places. I, personally, don't like it, but for many folks it's what they stand by.

I'm not a scholar of the Bible nor do I speak the original Armaic language (I believe) it was written in. I have read versions of the Bible more accurately translated and even the award-winning The Message contains a more accurate portrayal of early Biblical texts.

You can say you don't want to argue semantics but that is exactly what you are doing. These are VERY important, even vital to your contention.

But I doubt there's anything I can say at this point to dissuade you otherwise.

Sorry...

At any rate, I disagree. I think I've pretty well established this but you're entitled to your opinion.

Link to this comment :: ^Back to top

Wasn't the original bible (a collection of oral traditions) first written in ancient Greek? That's always been my understanding, but if that's not correct, I'd like to know.

Link to this comment :: ^Back to top

The old Testement was written before Greece existed. It's important to note that the old Testement is shared by Jews, Muslims and Christians with nearly no differences.

The fundamental split between the three is their New Testaments, that is, the text that takes place after the Old Testament. I might be wrong about this but I'm pretty certain it's accurate.

Link to this comment :: ^Back to top

Greek civilization dates back to 3000 BC, with neolithic sites in the area ranging from 10,000 to 70,000 years BC (the place has been settled a long time). If I understand your answer, you're telling me that the wandering tribes of Israel had a written language prior to then? They were writing stuff down prior to the Egyptian civilization? Is there historical data on this, or is your information based on religious teaching?

I'm sorry E_B_A, I find it difficult to believe that nomadic people in the desert wrote down the old testament. People who live in that way usually rely on oral tradition, passed from generation to generation.

Perhaps this might clarify it: http://www.linguistlist.org/ask-ling/oldest.html

Link to this comment :: ^Back to top

This one is interesting too, and does support what you were saying, although the dates are more recent.

http://ask.yahoo.com/ask/20030227.html

Link to this comment :: ^Back to top

Well, that's cool. Thanks for the read. And for the kind words further up on this page.

Link to this comment :: ^Back to top

I'm glad our discussion prompted the research - I learned something new today as well! :)

Link to this comment :: ^Back to top

That's an interesting article, thanks redraven.

Offtopic: I recently watched The Passion of the Christ, and it was interesting that the Romans (and the Jews, when speaking to the Romans) spoke Latin rather than Greek. (If you guys want to hash over The Passion, I'll post a new thread about it, although my capsule review is that it was more successful as a slasher flick than as a biblical epic.)

Link to this comment :: ^Back to top

I was gonna say that I thought it was written in Hebrew, hence the term "Hebrew Bible." After reading that article, I see I was partly right.

Lots of people think Aramaic was a holy language spoken by god, as well as those who wrote the bible. This could be due to religious movies such as Stigmata. While Aramaic may be Jesus' native tongue, I haven't seen anything stating this to be "the language of god." Well, other than some religious movies.

Link to this comment :: ^Back to top

I feel the same way E_B_A. I'm content with agreeing to disagree. ;)

Link to this comment :: ^Back to top

Both things can coexist in a single brain, obviously, but I don't see that as compatible, or even at all related other than arbitrarily. Religion is one thing, science another. Your religious beliefs don't contradict scientific facts, but they don't prove anything, either. However, I'm content to let this point lie. We agree on the central point, all else is bickering over details.

Link to this comment :: ^Back to top

I often feel that religion is just a way to answer the questions that we can't answer through other means. If you think about it, many religious beliefs center around one mindset: "If you can't explain it, god did it." Or, if it was something bad: "The devil did it."

With that being said, I also think religion kinda attempts to supplement science. It fills in the blanks, albeit much like a gossiping neighbor.

Link to this comment :: ^Back to top

Where are they not compatible? Science can be used to directly observe evolution. The invisible magical skydaddy is still in hiding.

The very concept of blending the two life origin theories is to assume the existence of a supreme being is an accepted fact of both theories.

Link to this comment :: ^Back to top

I don't want to argue religion with you -- keep your beliefs, I have no right condemning them (though, as a fan of the site, I'd suggest a second look at SAB) -- but, don't you think the Old World arguments make God look a little... inept? All the evolutionary failures, these creatures that have been unable to cope and survive, that have died from either confrontation with other animals, starvation or a rapidly changing climate -- mans evolutionary offshoots, like Homo rufolfensis (the example comes from a chart of the estimated path modern man took from proto-simian, "monkey," to now found in "Dawn of Man" by Robin McKie) come to mind. I mean, theoretically, God is perfect, and a perfect being would be incapable of creating anything imperfect. And yet, we see failure after failure in the geological strata (they didn't all evolve into new species). Doesn't this conflict with Christian dogma just a bit?

Link to this comment :: ^Back to top

You won't hear me defending old world creationism.

Link to this comment :: ^Back to top

And those who do seem to have no problem with the idea that God put those bones in the ground to test their faith. As most things do, this reminds me of a Bill Hicks bit, about when you die and go to St. Peter:

St. Peter: "Did you believe in dinosaurs?"

You: "Well, yeah. There was fossils everywhere."

[Thump! trapdoor opens, you fall into the Pit]

You: "Aaaaaaarhhh!"

St. Peter: "You fucking idiot. Flying lizards. You moron! God was fucking with you!"

You: "It seemed so plausible! Aaaaaaahhhh!"

St. Peter: "That was one of God's easiest jokes! Enjoy the lake of fire, fucker!"

Link to this comment :: ^Back to top

So, you're a New worlder?

Link to this comment :: ^Back to top

I misread and then mistyped. I don't defend NEW world creationism.

Do I think old world creationism makes God look inept? Not at all.

Just because some jargon gets mixed up in the translation doesn't change anything...

Link to this comment :: ^Back to top

*nod* To each his own.

Link to this comment :: ^Back to top

(a book that has been edited and changed over and over)

if you will do some research you will find that they have more complete and partial manuscripts, particularly of the New Testament, than any other book in history by far. No other document of antiquity comes close to the numers of manuscripts. The number 2 manuscript is Homer's Illiad with 643 manuscripts that still survive. The New Testament has (according to the book that I have from 1999) 24,970. There is extremely low variations between these manuscripts and pretty much show that today's version is right in line with the versions dating back to the 1st century AD.

There are numerous copies of the Old Testament as well. The way in which it was copied and passed down is astounding. There were people that the only thing that they did was to hand write copies of the Old Testament. There were numerous checks and balances in place for them as well. They would know exactly how many words to a page, what was the letter in the center of the line supposed to be, the list goes on and on. If any little mistake was found the copy was destroyed to prevent false copies from floating around.

Even if you don't believe a word the Bible has to say, the history of the book itself and the way that it was handled and copied throughout the ages is fascinating.

Link to this comment :: ^Back to top

The problem is, the oldest surviving piece of cononized Gospels in a piece of John dated to around 125 CE, and, despite what you've said, there are some pretty big variations (later additions are common, John 7:53-8:11, John 5:3-4, John 5:7, John 21, Mark 16:9-20...). Check out this page for some details.

Link to this comment :: ^Back to top

I totally agree. I am not a very religious person myself, but I do consider my self Jewish, thus my main following is of the old testament. My personal belief is that the old testament is a book that was created to answer the question everyone was asking: Why are we here? It is my speculation that people in the past were not as religious as we are today, and that our orthodox today are people who interperet the old testament differently and more seriously (as our ancestors would). In my opinion, the old testament is just giving people an excuse to live. It makes us feel better about our insignificant lives if we can find purpose in them and create a reason for our excistence. EBA, I respect your opinion, and I agree with where your point is coming from.

Phil

P.S. Three posts in one day? I don't know if I can handle it.

Link to this comment :: ^Back to top

Yeah, I've used up my quarterly posting allotment. See you in 2005!

Link to this comment :: ^Back to top

They are incompatible because science was discovered and religion was created. Whatever happened billions of years ago happened without any regard or consequence. It is only our innate humanity and ego that asks "why" and thinks it can explain the world around us. It's perfectly natural and one of the more basic survival techniques inherent in all of us. The problem, however, comes in the form of blatant and audacious righteousness based on a singular belief of our own creation.

Religion was created to satisfy the ego. Plain and simple. Science was the wrench in the system when we stumbled across it. Science wasn't created to oppose religion. It is the mirror which our egos naturally choose to look through instead of at. It's when we realize that the mirror reflects our own image and not that of someone else on the other side that science becomes evident.

Science has no animosity, judgment, feelings or any other reciprocal human qualities to which we so easily like to attribute. Religion on the other hand is based solely on these selective qualities (or I should say the ones the religion in question deem fit). While both can exist in our minds neither can viably rely, or even mingle with, each other because they have absolutely nothing to do with each other. To claim the contrary only proves that your ego is trying to make that connection.

Link to this comment :: ^Back to top

Wow, after reading all of my commentary it seems to come off as arrogant and rude when all I'm trying to do is reply to everyone with sincere honesty and constructive refutation. It's become obvious to me that I lack the ability to convey tone, hehe. I aplogize if my comments seem a bit forward or harsh. I can only promise to work on that in the future. For what it's worth your rebuttals are definately mind provoking and all that I had in mind to provoke. ;) Thanks.

Link to this comment :: ^Back to top

i've always wondered about this one myself. if the amino acids did accidentally combine, why would they change to something else?

this is simplified thinking here, but if they combined, and advanced and advanced and years down the road you have a fish cell, why would some of them all of a sudden form a pine tree cell? and others would all of a sudden form a dog cell, and monkey cell, and bacteria cell, and worm cell.

some will try to say that mutations happened, but you don't see those today so science can not show this to be a repeating occurence so it would have to be eliminated from the possible explanations. You don't see a woman have a baby horse.

Link to this comment :: ^Back to top

Why are some cats born with two heads? That is what a mutation is. Maybe you have not noticed, but every person with a "birth defect" is an example of a mutation. When humans were not in control of their environment, it was mutations like these which caused changes. Some mutations helped for survival, and some did not. These mutations also took place internally. The reason a fish cell eventually became a tree cell is because mutations happen on top of previous mutations, which over time can make a significant change. These mutations can be caused be genetic fault, or they can be caused by adaptation. Living entities naturally adapt to their environment. You see less of that in humans today because we are in control of our own environment.
To answer your question about what propted the amino acids changed in the first place, I honestly have no clue.

Phil

Link to this comment :: ^Back to top

please name me a mutation that helped for survival.. mutations are primarily fatal or limiting in the object that has the mutation.

cats born with two heads will die, it is fatal so that mutation would end with that cat and will not be passed on to the rest of the gene pool

Link to this comment :: ^Back to top

A mutation is just a change; it can be either good or bad. The good ones are ones you can't really see because we take them for granted. All the mutations that have happened up until now, the ones that caused us all to have hands instead of paws, opposable thumbs, larger brains, the ability to survive a wider range of temperatures than our reptile forebears, those are the mutations that have kept us alive.

Organisms born with two heads is usually a problem with embryos that try to divide into twins during gestation but don't quite make it, it's not necessarily a mutation, and not necessarily fatal to the organism, either. How many sets of Siamese twins have you heard about?

Link to this comment :: ^Back to top

Rick, have you ever watched the Discovery channel? Or are you always too busy watching the 700 club? Try watching a special about the differences between snake species. Some snake skeletons show signs that they once had legs. Study the differences between the ape species too. The evolution(mutations) of the ape family seems helpful for survival.

The problem most people have with evolution is they expect to see evidence in their lifetime. These people just can't grasp the concept of a gradual change that takes many years to produce a noticeable difference.

Human hair doesn't go gray or fall out in an instant, it is a gradual change that occurs over many years. That is by no means an example of evolution, but it is a good analogy. You can look at a picture of yourself from twenty years ago and tell if your hair has changed. We don't have pictures of humans back before evolutionary changes, so we can't easily name a mutation. Even fossils from that age are sparse.

In short, if you want to see a mutation that helped for survival, watch the Discovery channel and read some books. Discovery Kids has a show called Ultimate Guide to the Awesome, which not only has discussed evolutionary trends of different species, it is also good for people with a short attention span, like me.

Link to this comment :: ^Back to top

I'd also recommend watching Cosmos, specifically volume 2, but the whole series kicks ass.

Link to this comment :: ^Back to top

The series made such an impression on me when I watched it years ago. I'll have to get the DVD's, because my kids haven't had a chance to see it.

I still smile every time I think about "...billions and billions of stars". Sagan was an incredible man, and Cosmos contributed a tremendous amount to the education of many, many people (and still does!).

Link to this comment :: ^Back to top

While we're on the topic of mutations, some of you might find this book an interesting read.

Link to this comment :: ^Back to top

Oh yes, and Cosmos was great.

Carl Sagan's enthusiasm for science was just incredibly infectious, and his storytelling really shone through in the 13-part documentary. He also crammed an incredible amount of information into such a small time-frame, and managed to pull it off without even a single episode feeling like it was a rushed fact-dump. In fact, the whole series could pretty much replace all of the various science classes (well, except for physics) in today's high schools, and we'd all be the better for it.

After finishing watching Cosmos, I actually went on a personal crusade to make many of my friends and family members watch the series as well, and they all agreed that it was great.

I think Cosmos holds quite a few records for a documentary (i.e. how many languages it was translated to, how many countries it was aired in, etc.), and while it's a bit outdated, it certainly deserves all those accolades and should be watched by everyone.

Link to this comment :: ^Back to top

Is this stuff downloadable somewhere, or am I gonna have to take my cheap ass out and buy/rent it?

Link to this comment :: ^Back to top

Here's an article about fruit flies evolving fast enough for our limited, human existence to observe it. http://www.cnn.com/2000/NATURE/01/28/fruit.flies.enn/

Link to this comment :: ^Back to top

A good mutation could be something simple like a bigger lung capacity. Not everything has to be a bulging ulcer or apendage.

Phil

Link to this comment :: ^Back to top

How about rats becoming immune to rat poison? Seems like a pretty useful, observable mutation to me.

Link to this comment :: ^Back to top

A successful mutation? Other than Michael Jackson?

Moths during the industrial revolution. Black moths, white moths.

Simple write-up here.

Link to this comment :: ^Back to top

Those amino acids changed because they were constantly being bombarded with heat, radiation, and electricity - volcanic activity from the newly formed Earth, lightning storms, solar radiation, cosmic rays - for a very long time. They didn't "all of a sudden" form anything, the process took billions of years. Tiny incremental changes took place constantly, and over extremely long periods of time, those changes added up.

The conditions that resulted in self-replicating molecules have been duplicated in laboratories. Put some methane, some ammonia, and a few other chemicals in a flask, apply heat and electricity for a while, and those molecules start forming spontaneously. This isn't science fiction, this is fact - the experiments were done in the 60s and 70s. If the right conditions and chemicals exist on a planet, the evolution of life is inevitable, not accidental.

You actually see mutations happen today - ask the people that live in Nagasaki and Hiroshima. Ask people that live near superfund sites. Those are examples of bad mutations, ones that kill organisms and are therefore not normally passed on; such radical short-term mutations are usually fatal. The good mutations, the ones that result in things like walking upright, having a larger brain and opposable thumbs, those things happened very gradually, and started many millions of years ago.

And that's just talking about natural selection, the conservation of genetic traits through the survival of a species in a given environment. There's also artificial selection, which the human race has been practicing since before recorded history. As I said in my post, poodles didn't occur naturally - man bred them into existence. And they didn't happen overnight. Wolves didn't just start spontaneously popping out poodles one day. They are the result of a careful process of observing a species, saving and breeding the specimens with the characteristics you want, and eliminating the ones you don't want. Eventually, enough mutations occur that you get the breed you're looking for, although I'm fucked if I understand why anyone would put the time and effort into breeding poodles.

Link to this comment :: ^Back to top

Promise this is my last post for today.

"You don't see a woman have a baby horse."

I can't beleive you posted that, it really underscores your complete ignorance of science and evolution. I really don't know what more to say about it.

I don't know.....go to talkorigins.org???

Link to this comment :: ^Back to top

I don't have an ultimate "why are we here" answer for you, simply because I don't think it's a meaningful question. If you think there is an ultimate answer, answer me this: what purpose could there be for life that would make sense to us, on a human scale? What purpose could life be intended to achieve that would matter to us? To me, any real, concrete answer you can come up with would be at best a reduction of the wonder and mystery of the universe; at worst it would be a travesty, reducing life to a grim comedy, a huge joke played on us. We'd be crash test dummies in someone else's game. I take comfort from the human connections I make in life. My life has the purpose I give it, not the purpose assigned by some fictional deity in the sky. I'm a moral person, I have meaningful things to do and say. I think the universe is vast and wonderful, a grand and infinite mystery. Trying to explain it all in terms of a neurotic, petty deity like the ones in most human pantheons reduces that mystery and grandeur, shrivels it down to something humans can feel they're in control of.

But as always, philosophical discussions like this are a mug's game.

I think the practical answer to your question, Why is life such a tenacious force?, is that if it were not, it wouldn't exist. There are infinite ways that life can express itself, but not all of them are successful. Countless millions of lesser forms, countless inferior species, have died out before now -- only the most fierce, the most determined, the most adaptable, the smartest, the strongest, the toughest ones are still around. And we're improving all the time. We can't help it. You either get better, or you get replaced. That's what I'm talking about. The universe isn't static. It doesn't just run for a few thousand years and then finish up with a big fight between opposing sides. In the real, infinite universe, our possibilities are also infinite. We can become gods ourselves. All it takes is lots and lots of time.

Link to this comment :: ^Back to top

What science finds to be nonexistent a Buddhist must necessarily accept, but what science merely does not find is a completly different matter. It is quite clear that there are many, many mysterious thngs.
-Dalai Lama

I'm Back :P

Link to this comment :: ^Back to top

Thank you for reinforcing my above theory: "Religion is just a way to answer the questions that we can't answer through other means."

At least Buddhist allow for logic in their belief system.

Link to this comment :: ^Back to top

My feelings exactly.

Science becomes religion when it grapples with first causes. An astronomer friend of mine once told me that most astro-physicists are desperate for a creator. They can trace the process of creation back to a trillionth of a second into the big bang (or something) but they have no way of adequately explaining why it should have happened or why the singularity was there in the first place.

Biologists tend to be a little cagier, since biology has a bad history, contributing to eugenics between the mid 19th century and the 1930s. There are some ardently atheist, materialist biologists; I've seen a lecture by the author of The Selfish Gene (Steve Jones?) which is an attack on religion, but Darwin was a Christian and his research and theoretical writing did not undermine his faith.

I see no incompatability between the acceptance of scientific understanding and faith in the existance of a creator. Where the tension exists is between fundamentalism, in its most rigid sense, and the sense of intellectual adventure engendered by the scientific revolution of the last three hundred years. It's not God who is threatened by science, but priests, rabbis, preachers, mullahs, theocrats, pious tyrants and anyone who would rather we do not think, or feel God, or create for ourselves.

If you have faith, God is. Its existance cannot be argued away. The trouble is in the patenting of faith by priesthoods. I worship via Christianity because that is my cultural inheritance, but, to be honest, I find the Bible utterly irrelavant to my life, and I was fed that peculiar collection of bad history, phallocentric progaganda and cod mysticism throughout my childhood, until it was more real to me than my own dull world.

Watch the Life of Brian. Think about it.

I would like to revise this post, linking to sources and the rest, but I have to get to work.

Link to this comment :: ^Back to top

no, no, no.

You are citing the old "primordial soup" thoery. That thoery has even been discounted by modern evolutionist, for probably 30 years. That is NOT what scientist believe. The first lifeform was RNA based, moslty likely, I think it's called a ribozyme. A self replicating RNA molecule. Amino acids are far far far down the evolutionary scale. Amino acids would of have to have formed AFTER the emergence of a single cell.

Link to this comment :: ^Back to top

Previous comment was to ragdle.

Link to this comment :: ^Back to top

check again ag. First amino-acids, then some unknown precursors to RNA, then RNA, then DNA. That's the current theory anyway.

Link to this comment :: ^Back to top

According to my dad (who I just called to get this straight), and again, who is a Microbiologist, the two founding blocks of life are DNA and Protein and that you can't create DNA with Protein and you can't create Protein without DNA (and they are not the same thing).

It's one of the oldest dilemmas of the Evolution debate. Essentially, you can't create any form of life from inert lifelessness. And that's just science itself.

I'm not trying to argue the issue. I'm just adding to the existing comments.

Link to this comment :: ^Back to top

Yeah EBA, I've heard of that dilemma also. That's where the unknown precursor RNA comes into play. The theory goes that the precursor RNA was able to assemble the amino-acids into the first proteins which allowed the creation (oops, evolution) of RNA as we know it today... But due to the total lack of fossils from 3.7 billion years ago, it's all scientific faith at this point. Evolution is built on a great deal of faith.

Link to this comment :: ^Back to top

With much respect for your dad (especially since he's an actual microbiologist and I've just read a few books and watched a few documentaries), "you can't create DNA with protein and you can't create protein without DNA" sounds a lot like "you can't fly," "you can't travel faster than sound," and "you can't go into space," and the people that said those things had terrific-sounding arguments to back them up that later proved to be based on false assumptions. It will probably turn out that the process was bootstrapped in some different and completely unexpected way.

I just find it frustrating that people can't accept a few (temporary) factual lacunae without bringing a deity into it. If recent history has taught us anything, it's that someone somewhere will figure this out sooner or later, and most likely it will be sooner.

Link to this comment :: ^Back to top

I'm not the expert on it (and a typo to boot... it should read DNA withOUT protein) but it's not something that occurs in nature. Even under severe scientific scrutiny, it doesn't happen.

That's what he says. He's talking in general terms about nature. Scientists have been able to replicate the event, as I understand it, using outside forces.

That's what he says. I'm not the expert and I wouldn't even pretend to know what any of this means. It's just something he's always mentioned.

Keep in mind that he, like me, doesn't care. Even if it all happened by forces of nature and not divine intervention, in the end it doesn't detract from the meaning of God being the original driving force. That's the thing Christians need to keep in mind. I can accept that it was natural selection and all that.

Link to this comment :: ^Back to top

You have to realize, though, that it's not going to happen in nature, not anymore. Oxygen ruins the process of early evolution. Earth was a very different place way back when. Everything was still warm, a nice low simmer that allowed all the ingredients to be agitated properly, there was a very thin atmosphere, allowing plenty of radiation to seep through (necessary for any evolutionary steps), and, from what I've heard, there were plenty of electrical storms. When plants came along and started converting gasses to oxygen, the ozone built up, oxygen covered the entire planet, and life naturally springing out of nowhere became much less likely. At least that's how it was all explained to me. And, curiosity, exactly how much of the bible do you view as metaphorical? It's obvious you consider the creation stories (there are two -- conflicting -- versions) to be so, which just makes me wonder. I mean, it's all presented as factual, Old and New, so do you rely on your own whims (er, faith) to decide, or is it just whenever you're presented with irrefutable evidence against a particular section that you decide to regard it as such? (re-reading this comment, it seems a bit hostile, but it's not meant to be)

Link to this comment :: ^Back to top

wrong.

The central dogma goes DNA=>RNA=>Protein. It works well but life has a way to adapting or adapting from.

THe classic examples are viruses that don't have DNA, ONLY RNA. Yet, they produce proteins and never have a DNA stage.

Link to this comment :: ^Back to top

Dammit ag, why don't you just do a web seach. Here, let me help:
http://web.ask.com/web?q=what+came+first%2C+rna+or+dna%3F&qsrc=0&o=0

And viruses only have RNA. They do not produce proteins, they fool other cells into doing it for them.

-not a biologist

Link to this comment :: ^Back to top

Your right your not a biologist.

True, viruses do not produce proteins them themselves, but I do consider them "alive".

It seems you stumbled upon a dirty little secret in biology. Scientist cannot decide what "life" is.

Are viruses living?, Virions? satelite viruses? how about prions?, if not than what about obligate parasites?. These questions were a big problem for persons looking for life in other planets, but thats another argument.

Back to the question at hand. Millers experiment (thoery of the primordial soup) is very old, even outdated. Other more credible theories are the RNA world or the crystal/pseudo-life theories. I'll help you out.

RNA world link.
http://www.panspermia.org/rnaworld.htm

Heres another link supporting another theory about the mineral/life interface.

Link to this comment :: ^Back to top

This is the website for the mineral/life.

http://www.astrobio.net/news/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=73

Link to this comment :: ^Back to top

?! You do realize that the point of the link you provided is that the RNA preceeded DNA right? I can't tell if you're trying to make a point or just messing with me.
And yeah, I stumbled on the 'are viruses alive' debate at least 10 years ago. I'm gonna stop talking to you now.

Link to this comment :: ^Back to top

I think we are arguing past each other. I reread your previous post,

"First amino-acids, then some unknown precursors to RNA, then RNA, then DNA. That's the current theory anyway."

I'm a moron, this is the point I was trying to make, but throw in minerals in there at the pre-amino acid level.

Link to this comment :: ^Back to top

Ah, I should have known there was a misunderstanding somewhere. My apologies for being short with you.

Link to this comment :: ^Back to top

Let's get something straight. I have a Master's degree in Biochemistry from Purdue University and a PhD in Biochemistry from the Ohio State University College of Medicine and have studied this whole thing at the molecular level.

DNA is the basic code of life. It consists of two strands of billions of deoxyribonucleotides. The replication of DNA requires the cooperation of possibly hundreds of proteins as enzymes.

The manufacture of proteins, to include enzymes, requires a ribonucleic acid (RNA) template, which contains the actual code, and which requires enzymes to construct protein off of the RNA. The actual construction of proteins from amino acids requires the cooperation of ribozymes, which are a combination of proteins and RNA, the RNA template, transfer RNA linked to the amino acids, and numerous enzyme proteins.

But before this, the amino acids, the transfer RNA, and the ribosomes all require DNA transcription and protein enzymes for their own synthesis.

Therefore, there is no way under heaven that DNA could replicate itself; it requires the cooperation of dozens of other molecules, both nucleic acids and proteins enzymes, which also require numerous other nucleic acids and protein enzymes for their manufacture.

Similarly, DNA cannot make protein by itself; it again requires the cooperation of numerous other nucleic acids and protein enzymes.

The question then arises, where do we get all of these other nucleic acids and proteins enzymes with which to duplicate or transcribe DNA? Obviously, they must be manufactured by transcribing DNA. But you can't transcribe DNA without them.

Thus the whole thing is like pulling yourself up by your bootstraps, which is physically impossible. Thus, DNA cannot exist without protein and protein cannot exist without DNA. Which came first, the chicken or the egg? Which came first, DNA or protein?

In the "primordial" soup, I will concede that some simple nucleic acids and amino acids and probably even some simple peptides (small proteins) might have been created. However, the nucleic acids could not have joined together to form long nucleic acids without some enzymes, and, even then, the result would have been garbage, which would have also quickly decomposed in the primordial soup. The enzymes could not have formed from the amino acids without a DNA or RNA template, and, even if they could have used the garbage DNA or RNA as a template, the resulting peptide would again have been garbage, and again have decomposed quickly.

Some scientists have talked about the first life coming from self-duplicating RNA, and I have seen at least one article about scientists who claim to have developed such a molecule.But think about evolution. If RNA could self-duplicate, there would have been no reason to evolve DNA or proteins and we would all be RNA-based creatures. And self-replicating RNA is not life.

Many viruses contain only RNA as their template. There has always been some debate as to whether viruses are actually alive. Viruses cannot replicate themselves, so they are not the RNA life some people think. Viruses must hijack the RNA replication and protein production of a living cell. Since viruses cannot be reproduced without life already in existence, they could not have been the first forms of "life."

What this all boils down to is that for cells to replicate, that is, be alive, they must contain miles of DNA and hundreds of enzymes already. DNA and protein must coexist for life to exist. It is that way now and has always been that way. And, even then, a mixture of the appropriate DNA and enzymes does not constitute life; even a dead cell has all of these, yet it is not alive.

There is only one way for DNA and proteins to exist together now; they were created together when life was created by a living God, who breathed the breath of life into dead cells and gave them the spark of life.

Link to this comment :: ^Back to top

That's my father. I asked him to add his two cents to the discussion. He doesn't intend to respond so don't bother flaming or so forth (especially given the final line).

To be honest, most of this is way over my head. I don't quite get it either.

But he is speaking from experience. For the record, I was mistaken on his credentials. He is a Biochemist and has a PhD and Masters in Biochemistry and Pathology (which includes Microbiology). I get confused because many of his awards are for Biochemistry/Microbiology which must be very closely related somehow.

Anyway, that's my Dad. He's my go-to person for any question medical or chemical. My uncle (his brother) is a Physicist. As you can well imagine, they frequently field calls from me on these subjects.

Link to this comment :: ^Back to top

He sounded good till he threw in that three letter word. Once again my theory comes to mind. I think I will call it David's Theory on Religion.

We may not know which comes first, and it may seem that you can't have one without the other. However, we cannot discount the possibility that one did exist first and somehow spawned the other. Try as we may, we cannot replicate the conditions of the time in question since, regardless of what scientist may believe, we do not truly know the conditions of the time. Even if we did know the conditions, we haven't even been able to accurately replicate the conditions of our current environment(Every biosphere I know of has failed).

With all that being said, I think anyone who says one cannot exist without the other is failing to include objectivity in their thesis. I don't believe in the bible, but I don't discount the possibility that we were all created by an intelligent being. I also don't discount the possibility that all matter is merely energy condensed to a slow vibration, that we are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively, there is no such thing as death, life is only a dream, and we're the imagination of ourselves.

Link to this comment :: ^Back to top

One of the biggest problems with this discussion is that there are so many holes in both sides of beliefs. No matter what side you are on it pretty much becomes one of faith that you are right and the others wrong.

It is obvious that the ones that believe that God, the creator, created us all and set us on our way takes faith to believe. You eventually get to a point on some issue in the history of how we got here that you have to step out on faith and say "i don't know, but i believe that the rest of it is true so I am going to believe that this is the work of God's hand too".

those that believe in the goo to you evolutionary theory, it has never been proven, it can not be proven because it can not be exactly replicated and until so can not become true repeatable provable science so it shall remain a theory, you eventually reach the same impass that creationists face. It becomes a thing of faith too. The theory of evolution becomes a religious belief for others too, look at David S's statement

we cannot discount the possibility that one did exist first and somehow spawned the other. this is a leap of faith, you don't know, but you seem to believe the rest of what evolutionary scientists have handed you so you say the same thing that creationists say "i don't know, but i believe that the rest of it is true so I am going to believe that this this part of evolution is true too".

they are both schools of religion, you will reach a point that you have no explanation for, for evolutionists, why aren't there more "between" fossils found? if there was so long between say, monkey and man, why aren't there more discoveries being found, why do they try to build a whole skeleton for some "between" creature like Lucy from less than ten bones? For creationists, what about the dinosaurs? the Bible makes mention of a serpent in at least one place in the Bible, but no other mention of what dinosaurs were, or that they were even here. There are varying beliefs on who, what, when,.... but they are just guesses in the end.

Both sides take a stand of faith because the truth is we don't know and probably never will, unless the creationists are right, then we should know shortly after death.

Link to this comment :: ^Back to top

Religionists always say something like that: "Science doesn't know everything, so you have to have faith that science will explain it eventually, so since you have faith and since you believe what science tells you, science is kinda like religion." This is absolutely wrong.

First of all, you're still not differentiating between the theory of evolution, and the fact of evolution. Despite your belief that it didn't happen and couldn't happen, it happened, and continues to happen. You're rejecting facts when they don't fit your theory. Science does the opposite; it rejects the theory if it doesn't fit the facts. It doesn't work on faith, it works on observed evidence.

Second, you keep pointing out that since the theory of evolution is incomplete, and since there isn't a complete A to Z fossil record, it must be all wrong. No, the theory isn't complete, but the parts that are there describe reality pretty well, and the parts that are in dispute are being worked on. I think they'll eventually be worked out; if you want to call that faith, go right ahead, but I think it's more along the lines of a good bet, based on past performance. But the point is, the theoretical work isn't meant to prove that evolution happened. It happened and is still happening. The theoretical work is meant give an understanding of how it worked, the same way that theoretical work in gravitational physics gives us an understanding of how gravity works; if the theory is wrong, gravity is still there.

it has never been proven, it can not be proven because it can not be exactly replicated and until so can not become true repeatable provable science so it shall remain a theory

Wrong, wrong, wrong. It has been proven. We don't yet completely understand how it works, but we know that it works. It can be replicated, and in fact is is being replicated. Better techniques and insights are coming along every day. But I get the feeling that even if they were able to present you with a complete, accurate theory that explains everything, with no contradictions or ambiguities, you would still say that there is no such thing, because the bible says so.

Link to this comment :: ^Back to top

There are fundamental holes in the Evolution ideology but those are not them, Rick.

I'm the first to rely on a belief in definitive, provable absolutes.

I love the rigidity of science and the methodology behind it.

That said, it's interesting to point out that science breaks down once it reaches certain points. For instance, we know how gravity works but we don't know what it really is or what causes it. Sure, we understand the factors involved but not the actual cause behind it. That's a scientific dead end.

Ultimately, sciences in the nature of evolution are cause based and eventually they come to the stopping point. Sure, all these things happened, but what CAUSED them to happen? Something had to initiate the big bang. Things never happen on their own in nature (there is ALWAYS an active force in play). Descartes' Mover Theory has been around for over 100 years and nobody has been able to disprove it, much as they have tried.

The bigger problem with the debate is the very nature of it.

You have evolutionists with an agenda just as you have creationists with an agenda. As the argument continues, both try more vehemently to rub the other out. There is no middle ground. No settlement.

We, as humans, try to see things in terms of black and white because it's so simple. Accepting more than two polar opposites reduces the required rationalizing for any situation. Consider any debate: pro lfie verses pro choice. Free speech verses censorship.

The biggest problem I see is that people are unable to come to comfortable middle ground when often the middle ground is the most rational and realistic scenario.

I'm not asking for anyone to change their views.

I just fail to see the long-reaching consequences.

Devout Christians are likely going to ignore any and all attempts to "convert" them to evolution.

i don't see too many concessions being made on the Evolution side either.

If the issue is education, well... we're kidding ourselves if we think what our children get out of the public school system even approaches an education.

So I guess maybe it's best to let this one lie. For some 100 years it's been going on with no leeway and increasing polarization of the two sides.

What happened to respecting diveregent opinions from your own? Is that concept outdated? Did it succumb to some sort of societal evolution? I'm speaking to both sides of the debate here.

We are such a thin-skinned society. Sticks and stones, apparently, can't hurt us as much as words.

Well, regardless, fight on.

Link to this comment :: ^Back to top

'we know how gravity works but we don't know what it really is or what causes it...That's a scientific dead end.'

Just because science doesn't know how gravity works, doesn't mean gravity is a dead end! A lot of research is being done on gravity, trying to find out what it is and how it works:

'In quantum theory, force is mediated by an exchange of virtual particles. Although general relativity is a classical, not a quantum, theory, we expect that gravity is also mediated by a particle. We call this the graviton. ' http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_astro/answers/980319b.html

There are never dead ends in science, only areas we do not have the equipment or the prior know-how to probe.

Link to this comment :: ^Back to top

That's exactly what I mean by "dead end." Places where our knowledge stops and the research is still ongoing.

We may find one day HOW the protein/DNA dilemma is rectified but for right now it's still being researched. It's a dead end as far as our knowledge goes.

Link to this comment :: ^Back to top

"What happened to respecting diveregent opinions from your own?"

Since when have people respected divergent opinions? Oh yeah, I remember how Magellan's opinions about the earth being round were highly respected.

People act this way anytime science disagrees with religion. I'm just glad scientist and the like don't get persecuted for it anymore.

Link to this comment :: ^Back to top

This website will answer the issues you pose, Rick.

Five Major Misconceptions about Evolution
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html

Link to this comment :: ^Back to top

I have some issues with some things Dr. Sutherland posted. RNA is known to not be stable, therefore life would have wanted to have a stable genetic code, hence the move to DNA.

We have to remember that cells we see today have evolved the same amount of time humans have. They are very very very advanced. Primordial cells probably did not have all the enzymes, DNA, and most likely did not have all the competition they do know.

If there is one thing I've learned is that even scientist are human and impose their ideas into current theories to make everything fit.

Link to this comment :: ^Back to top

Dude... he's not citing his own research. He researched cancer for 30 years. He's talking about scientific fact.

It may interest you to know that I ran this same info by my friend John MacDonald (RIP) who had a Degree in Science and was in fact a science teacher. He was a devout evolutionist and athiest and he confirmed everything my father said as fact. Same for Sir Mildred Pierce who, while not accredited, is very knowledgable on the subject and is also an evolutionist.

You can disagree all you want but it's my understanding that this is a well-known and difficult issue accepted by the scientific community at large both evolutionists and creationists alike.

Link to this comment :: ^Back to top

Tell you what. Point me to some non-evolution website that discusses the issue. Any of them will do.

Prove to me that what you say is true. I don't think that's asking too much. I'm just curious why you believe the exact opposite of every scientist and scientific mind I've ever met/discussed the topic with (which is many given my dad's line of work).

Link to this comment :: ^Back to top

In fact, I just did some cursory reading of several evolutionist websites and every single time, on this issue, they admit they have no answer since, according to the scientific law established, everything about this is accurate.

They ALL break down into these little circular problems...

Something to the effect of "This would be possible if that were present but in order for that to be present, this would have to be there. And it's not." Over and over. Several websites.

I think you need to reconsider what you are saying.

Link to this comment :: ^Back to top

What do you mean?

RNA is more labile than DNA, thats a fact. What kind of proof do you want? Do you want irrefutable proof that life arose from non-living molecules?

I would check out, www.talkorigins.org, the website is posted here somewhere.

or this website is also good, its a NASA sponsored website on Astrobiology.

http://www.astrobio.net/news/Topic3.html

Link to this comment :: ^Back to top

This article also hypothesizes about it but doesn't prove anything...

Link to this comment :: ^Back to top

EBA, I think I get what you want. You want definitive proof that life evolved from non-living matter. You are correct there is no definitive proof of that. Even if scientist do create life, the question arises. Did life evolve in this manner?

The proof, as I see it, is everywhere you look. All complex life is closely related and evolution itself is obvious (proof of evolution is evident and too long to discuss now, the links I provided will help with it).

About the origin of life, there is hardcore data that can support certain theories, but nothing like the support for the thoery of evolution.

I make it a point to not try to argue about evolution and origin of life because how can you argue against belief?

I'll leave it at that.

Link to this comment :: ^Back to top

It wasn't even my point to argue the issue at all.

I really haven't done much to argue against the concept. I just thought the stuff was interesting.

I do think it's important to recognize these parts of the equation where we cease to have scientific fact and are working with theory and it bothered me they weren't being presented as such.

Aside from that, I think my other posts have made it pretty clear how I feel about the issue. I'm sorry if I'm being frustrating in asking for something more concrete.

But we can leave it at this.

Link to this comment :: ^Back to top

I would also recommend the article I linked to above, What Came Before DNA?, reprinted from the June 2004 issue of Discover Magazine. It talks about how scientists are actually working on this, with the aim of nothing less than recreating the entire process and making artificial DNA-based life. They've actually gotten to the RNA stage already, and they sound confident that they'll progress to DNA in short order.

Link to this comment :: ^Back to top

So the article says they haven't actually DONE it yet but they think they can.

Okay...

At any rate, it still changes nothing from my original comments.

Link to this comment :: ^Back to top

The experiment has already been completed.

Link to this comment :: ^Back to top

And where, ag, do I, a person who accepts evolution as the likely cause for things, fit into this since I am also a creationist? And I'm not even the only one!

You know, I don't stereotype evolutionists in this manner. You, again, need to reconsider what you're saying.

Link to this comment :: ^Back to top

Welcome back! I actually was wondering what happened to you.

Evolution versus creationism -- could you have found a more volatile subject, Ryland?

Yeah, next time I'll do something lighthearted, like abortion or the death penalty... or maybe even (gasp) Mac vs. PC!

Link to this comment :: ^Back to top

I'm a Mac user trapped in a PC body...

Link to this comment :: ^Back to top

I'm still recovering from the last abortion discussion we had here, and I already tried antagonizing the Mac users to no avail. Maybe we could try the death penalty or legalizing drugs.

Link to this comment :: ^Back to top

Glad to see you back and adding your opinion Sir Craig. :)

Link to this comment :: ^Back to top

welcome back.

Link to this comment :: ^Back to top

Not too prescient... there's been a very large and vigorous anti-intellectual movement in this country that has only redoubled in intensity since Bush came into office. It reminds me of the Reagan era, only more aggressive, and the techniques have become more sophisticated.

Link to this comment :: ^Back to top

You hit upon something that has always bothered me. I mean, so many college professors, experts, intellectuals and all-around geniuses seem to disagree with Bush and his policies and, while they may not all agree (like RAND and MIT consistantly butt heads) they certainly are united against our commander in chief.

When confronted with this, Limbaugh, Hannity and most of the rabid, passionate conservatives respond with, "Yeah... like I trust intellectuals..."

And all the time, what they are saying is, "Yeah... like I trust SMART people..."

Just a little thought to make you want to punch somebody.

Link to this comment :: ^Back to top

Are you and Matt not IM'ing any more. I wish you would update the hijinks.

Link to this comment :: ^Back to top

What with one thing and another, I haven't been on IM for a while. No telling what will happen in the future, though.

Link to this comment :: ^Back to top

Remember I had an idea a while back for a random IM hijinx generator?

You know, it might not make much sense but I bet it'd be good fun.

Link to this comment :: ^Back to top

Talking about prescience.

Today and tomorrow PBS will be having a show called Origins. This is the link to their website.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/origins/

Link to this comment :: ^Back to top

Thanks for the heads-up, I just told the DVR to watch that for me.

Link to this comment :: ^Back to top

E_B_A, this is off topic, but did you do ok with hurricane Jeanne? I know you are over in GA., just making sure yall didn't get much damage over there.

Link to this comment :: ^Back to top

We got heavy rains but no real damage to anything here despite usually getting the brunt of things because of our closeness to the sea and Augusta being right on the Savannah River (which must drag these things up the river and into our city).

But we're all fine here. Thanks for asking. Most people, if they were hurt at all, it was due to unwarranted hysteria.

Link to this comment :: ^Back to top

doc, do some research into the rigid way that the Bible was copied throughout history and you will see that we have manuscripts and fragments of manuscripts that match almost perfectly with the copies that sit around our houses today.

the rest you can argue, but look into the way that Bible was passed down, it is interesting even if you don't believe what it has to say.

Link to this comment :: ^Back to top

anybody that tells you to believe the Bible blindly doesn't understand christianity. the Bible tells you to love the Lord with all your heart, mind, and soul. It also says to come let us reason together. To me this means that I should dwell on the things that it says in the Bible and in order to love something with all my mind I will have to study it and make sure that it is true and correct.

There are places where you have to look at something you may not understand and take it on faith that if the rest of it is true than this must be too, even though I don't understand it, just like evolutionists do.

Link to this comment :: ^Back to top

That one will definitely have to go into my repertoire of witty sayings! Thanks for sharing that Rick. The statement kind of brings it down to the simplest of terms, doesn't it?

Funny, and yet profound.

Link to this comment :: ^Back to top