Evolution v ID v Desire

[Kaldayen]

Thank you for that link on the "switches", Tao. I agree with you that many mechanism are still poorly understood. That's what's so interesting and motivating
___
Kal

[wil]

Punctuated evolution happens when there has been some kind of disruption - a changed ecosystem, a change in climate, whatever other dramatic thing. It happens more quickly because those organisms that do not adapt, quickly die out.

I saw something on Chernobyl where all the animals have come back, they are all highly radioactive but now live without the tumors or cancers, they've adapted...

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Kal!

An inch per decade is indeed a lot. I'd love to see those statistics somewhere. Other than a better alimentation, I could also think of another cause...

Actually, I can think of another cause too. I remember reading about (not to mention observing) how Americans are growing at a similar rate. And it is attributed in this country to bovine growth hormone in the beef supply. I don't know if we ship beef to China or not, but I can see the possibility. (I say this while I remain acutely aware that so much of our beef is raised in South America...)

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Sarah!

Things 'acquired' in life do not effect DNA. This is not a hypothesis and is not arguable.

Ummm, saying something is "not arguable" does not make it so. Depending how Francis Collins and Craig Ventor are to be interpreted, "nurture / environmental" influences can and do affect the genome. Usually in the form of disease. Textbooks and professors not withstanding. Collins and Ventor are a lot closer to the cutting edge of the science, and some of their findings contradict the texts. I have to correct myself, I have learned that Ventor has left Celera since the announcement of the human genome map. I don't know what is up to at the moment.

There are certain 'non-genetic' factors that can indeed influence genetic expression or even the DNA itself. But these are things such as viruses and prions, not mental focus.

Yes. I will add though that there are two other factors to figure into the equation: human genes "multitask," and as we age our genes lose their memory and can begin to copy incorrectly. An interesting insight is that children born with older fathers have more mental problems, or so I was told in a psych class. I would have to look it up to show, but it was just an interesting aside to me at the time.

As for activities of parental generations affecting the expression of the offspring's genes, yeah, but these are chemical changes, not, say, changes in muscle or in joints, promoting strength or flexibility, etc.

But are not these "chemical expressions" basically how the genome works to begin with? That is, the genome uses chemical expression to do what it does? Upset the chemical expression, and something is going to change. For better or worse is up to time to tell, but change it will, yes?

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, wil!

Originally Posted by wil

I saw something on Chernobyl where all the animals have come back, they are all highly radioactive but now live without the tumors or cancers, they've adapted...

That would be really cool if you knew of a link to show.

[Tao_Equus]

Originally Posted by sara[h]ng

Having read this article, I'm surprised to learn that people think this to be new and controversial. I thought it was well-known - not necessarily well understood, but well-known. There are certain 'non-genetic' factors that can indeed influence genetic expression or even the DNA itself. But these are things such as viruses and prions, not mental focus.

As for activities of parental generations affecting the expression of the offspring's genes, yeah, but these are chemical changes, not, say, changes in muscle or in joints, promoting strength or flexibility, etc. It's all about nature vs. nurture. There is the genetic potential that an organism may have, 'nature', and that is refined by 'nurture' based on its health/nutrition/environment and that of its near ancestors.

I'm about to be kicked off of this computer, so I better cut this here. I'll elaborate if that wasn't clear enough.

- Sarah

No need Sarah you were perfectly clear

I agree with all you say, especially mental focus not being a credible factor. Protien switching in individual genes, where the only discerable factor of difference in the observed protien is the knowledge of its origin, is quite mind blowing however.....and I had never come across this before. There is no obvious way that a protien can carry a record of its ancestry, it hints at much deeper level of coding than we have so far assumed.

Enviroment enduced rapid changes in a species are possibly aided by this function. (pure speculation). It effectively doubles the rate at which mutations can take place and so may be in part activated when enviromental stresses are present. It also allows 'breathing time' in that if the advantage/disadvantage of a particular mutation is carried through several generations it may produce permanent changes, without full commital at first try. So perhaps it may be the 'code writer', or its short hand note-taker at any rate. It may be some time before we figure out whats really going on there. But aint it fascinating !!!

Regards

TE

[Hazratio]

Awhile back, I posted a draft of an essay in one of the evolution threads. Here's a link to the finished essay--feedback appreciated:

Intelligent Design
While it seems rather obvious that the objections raised by conservative Christian groups against the theory of evolution have less to do with scientific evidence than with what they perceive to be its moral and theological implications, their belief in intelligent design is not at all unreasonable. [More]

All the best,

Wayne (aka Hazratio)

[Tao_Equus]

Originally Posted by Hazratio

Awhile back, I posted a draft of an essay in one of the evolution threads. Here's a link to the finished essay--feedback appreciated:

Intelligent Design
While it seems rather obvious that the objections raised by conservative Christian groups against the theory of evolution have less to do with scientific evidence than with what they perceive to be its moral and theological implications, their belief in intelligent design is not at all unreasonable. [More]

All the best,

Wayne (aka Hazratio)

Nice little bit of writing Wayne.

I dont personaly see any reason why a christian should have any problem in accepting the duality you propose. The problems really stem, it seems to me, from the christian hard right. These people are not interested in truth but control and manipulation. They want a monopoly on truth and use whatever they can to that end. The vast majority of such ministries are in reality financial structures and it boils down to greed and corruption. The best thing to do is expose this fact wherever and whenever possible.

Regards

TE

[Hazratio]

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

Nice little bit of writing Wayne.

I dont personaly see any reason why a christian should have any problem in accepting the duality you propose. The problems really stem, it seems to me, from the christian hard right. These people are not interested in truth but control and manipulation. They want a monopoly on truth and use whatever they can to that end. The vast majority of such ministries are in reality financial structures and it boils down to greed and corruption. The best thing to do is expose this fact wherever and whenever possible.

Regards

TE

Thanks for the feedback, Tao_Equus...

With some qualification, I would agree with your characterization of the "christian hard right". Certainly, the financial/institutional structure has a way of skewing the approach of those leaders to the truth (i.e. they find it harder to entertain questions and criticism inasmuch as to do so would put at risk their position -- cf. the pharisees reaction to Jesus). And these institutions claim to have a monopoply on the truth and, by design, seek to have a monopoply on the hearts and minds of the whole world. However, I'm not sure if their leaders are consciously pursuing control and manipulation for its own sake. Rather, it seems to me that control and manipulation are techniques which the tradition-- which has a life of its own --employs. The leaders, themselves, are (to some extent) victims of the tradition in the service of which they work. This is the most negative interpretation of the situation--one that I used to believe without reservation. At that time, I characterized the sins of Christianity, in general, as follows:

1. Social, political, or ecclesiastical control over

freedom of speech and thought.

2. The disparagement of the body or of the temporal order
as intrinsically evil or flawed.

3. The acceptance of mythic and religious imagery as
scientific/historical explanations of phenomena.

4. The acceptance of various prevailing cultural norms
as absolute moral imperatives, not subject to rational
criticism.

5. The idolatrous acceptance of particular texts as the
essential foundation rather than an essential expression
of religious faith. [from Spinozism and Chrisitianity]

However, I have mellowed a bit, and have begun to look for the good even in the Christian Right--see "The Purpose Driven Life".


Thanks again!

Wayne (aka hazratio)

[Ghaniel]

I read an article yesterday about ID. A non was interviewed and she thought that the debate about ID, science is rather a debate about a materialistic/mechanical world view and a spiritual world view. A good thought.

I believe there is also a fear of being controlled by natural laws and bound to a primitive biology that in every individual is concentrated on reproducing and only cares for its own survival(selfish gene theory!). I am myself scared by the thought that I am a mechanical being with no ability to choose. And no matter how much I believe in altruism and every man's need for a spiritual life, our world is a place where the genetically fittest will survive and all other lesser, "inferior" individuals will perish.

Actually, we act against evolution of our own species. Because we take care of the sick and mentally retarded. And they are allowed to reproduce and their negative genetic traits will pass on to the next generations. To an evolutionist I'd ask: Why not delete these individuals? They reproduce and contaminate our gene pool. Fortunately for them, designer babies are coming around and we will have the opportunity to engineer individuals in a lab - perfecting humankind.

But hey wait! you can say. What about respect for life, respect for the individual, care and kindness? And altruism? Are they all lies?

Apparently. Because each and every one struggles for themselves. No one cares and any love and togetherness and empathy is false. It is nature's way of keeping us together as a species and making sure that our off-spring will be taken care of - because they have our genes.

It is sad that some people adhere to this thought. What kind of persons are they, I wonder. Narcissistic? Perhaps. At least I am glad I'm not one of them.

ID is a good thought if only it would present more scientific evidence!

And there are many documented findings that support the idea of an evolution. Yet it isn't enough to satisfy my spiritual hunger. Perhaps some evolutionist will claim that spirituality is a psychological self-deceit designed to preserve our minds? Some bloke on another forum got eager when I proposed this and I suggested that we delibarely engineer all future generations' DNA to annihilate spiritual tendencies and save Mankind from such "irrational thoughts". He said "Yes!" I played the devil's advocate of course, but if we look at evolution... why not? I long to be disproved and have my arguement debunked!

Spirituality is important to many(me too)... but am I just a slave of a God-gene? Is religion a survival mechanism, a good help when things go wrong that make you rise again and struggle to win? I am convinced it is not...

But science rules. Hope someone find my queries interesting.

[Quahom1]

The scientific "evidence" for intelligent design is available, and has been presented over and over. Evidence for evolution is available, and has been presented over and over. However, evidence is worthless to those who refuse to accept it as valid. In my opinion, the two camps should be looking for evidence to confirm or refute the other's claims, instead of looking at their own material and ignoring everything else. That would be the objective way of coming closer to solving this issue.

If I were an evolutionist, I would be delving into the micro-level of things, to try and find evidence for or against Creationism. If I were a Creationist, I would delve into the macro-level of things to try and find evidence for or against evolution.

I happen to be one who accepts Intelligent Design as viable and probable (and no, ID is not Creationism in disguise). The concept combines God's genius for creating and Nature's function to evolve into something higher.

As far as time goes, we already are aware that time is relative, subjective and can be modified. But at one time we thought it was fixed and absolute. We once thought that light had only one speed and moved in a straight line, now we know it can be decreased or increased, and bent.

I also think we each are evolution examples on a daily (or within a lifetime) basis. We adapt to our environment, we adapt to handicaps, we improvise with what is available, we compensate for imperfections, we overcome difficulties, and we flourish, not simply die off. The "evolving" is in our mind, thought, sense of self. Sometimes it is gradual, and othertimes punctuated (instant or quick).

Ghaniel, commented on our bodies being mechanical. The truth is our bodies are based on mechanical principles. It is a electro-chemical machine, highly complex, impossible to synthesize, or directly repair. Our minds are even more complex. And that which make us, us (our "essense" if you will), is impossible to define, let alone even partially conceive of (simply consider the miriad of religious, philisophical ideas we have about ourselves).

But the strangest most unfathomable part is we are more than the sum of our parts. We know it even if we don't want to admit it, because we profess it daily to each other (His body is buried there, He's lost his mind, His spirit is heavy, She is beyond herself...).

No, I would think the best way to find the answer to this issue, would be if evolutionists and creationists took the approach of "What if the other one is right?", then set out to finding any evidence to confirm it... that would be interesting indeed, and I bet we come to some kind of answer sooner, than later...

v/r

Q

[wil]

An atheist professor of philosophy speaks to his class on the problem
science has with God, The Almighty.
He asks one of his new students to stand and.....

Prof: So you believe in God?

Student: Absolutely, sir.

Prof: Is God good?

Student: Sure.

Prof: Is God all-powerful?

Student : Yes.

Prof: My brother died of cancer even though he prayed to God to heal
him.
Most of us would attempt to help others who are ill. But God didn't. How
is this God good then? Hmm?

(Student is silent.)

Prof: You can't answer, can you? Let's start again, young fella. Is God
good?

Student :Yes.

Prof: Is Satan good?

Student : No.

Prof: Where does Satan come from?

Student : From...God...

Prof: That's right. Tell me son, is there evil in this world?

Student : Yes.

Prof: Evil is everywhere, isn't it? And God did make everything.
Correct?

Student : Yes.

Prof: So who created evil?

(Student does not answer.)

Prof: Is there sickness? Immorality? Hatred? Ugliness? All these
terrible things exist in the world, don't they?

Student :Yes, sir.

Prof: So, who created them?

(Student has no answer.)

Prof: Science says you have 5 senses you use to identify and observe the
world around you. Tell me, son...Have you ever seen God?

Student : No, sir.

Prof: Tell us if you have ever heard your God?

Student : No, sir.

Prof: Have you ever felt your God, tasted your God, smelled your God?
Have you ever had any sensory perception of God for that matter?

Student : No, sir. I'm afraid I haven't.

Prof: Yet you still believe in Him?

Student : Yes.

Prof: According to empirical, testable, demonstrable protocol, science
says your GOD doesn't exist. What do you say to that, son?

Student : Nothing. I only have my faith.

Prof: Yes. Faith. And that is the problem science has.

Student : Professor, is there such a thing as heat?

Prof: Yes.

Student : And is there such a thing as cold?

Prof: Yes.

Student : No sir. There isn't.

(The lecture theatre becomes very quiet with this turn of events.)

Student : Sir, you can have lots of heat, even more heat, superheat,
mega heat, white heat, a little heat or no heat. But we don't have
anything called cold. We can hit 458 degrees below zero which is no
heat, but we can't go any further after that. There is no such thing as
cold. Cold is only a word we use to describe the absence of heat. We
cannot measure cold. Heat is energy. Cold is not the opposite of heat,
sir, just the absence of it.

(There is pin-drop silence in the lecture theatre.)

Student : What about darkness, Professor? Is there such a thing as
darkness?

Prof: Yes. What is night if there isn't darkness?

Student : You're wrong again, sir. Darkness is the absence of something.
You can have low light, normal light, bright light, flashing light....
But if you have no light constantly, you have nothing and it's called
darkness, isn't it? In reality, darkness isn't. If it were, you would be
able to make darkness darker, wouldn't you?

Prof: So what is the point you are making, young man?

Student : Sir, my point is your philosophical premise is flawed.

Prof: Flawed? Can you explain how?

Student : Sir, you are working on the premise of duality. You argue
there is life and then there is death, a good God and a bad God. You are
viewing the concept of God as something finite, something we can
measure. Sir, science can't even explain a thought. It uses electricity
and magnetism, but has never seen, much less fully understood either
one. To view death as the opposite of life is to be ignorant of the fact
that death cannot exist as a substantive thing. Death is not the
opposite of life: just the absence of it. Now tell me, Professor. Do you
teach your students that they evolved from a monkey?

Prof: If you are referring to the natural evolutionary process, yes, of
course, I do.

Student : Have you ever observed evolution with your own eyes, sir?

(The Professor shakes his head with a smile, beginning to realize where
the argument is going.)

Student : Since no one has ever observed the process of evolution at
work and cannot even prove that this process is an on-going endeavor,
are you not teaching your opinion, sir? Are you not a scientist but a
preacher?

(The class is in uproar.)

Student : Is there anyone in the class who has ever seen the Professor's
brain?

(The class breaks out into laughter.)

Student : Is there anyone here who has ever heard the Professor's brain,
felt it, touched or smelled it?.....No one appears to have done so. So,
according to the established rules of empirical, stable, demonstrable
protocol, science says that you have no brain, sir. With all due
respect, sir, how do we then trust your lectures, sir?

(The room is silent. The professor stares at the student, his face
unfathomable.)

Prof: I guess you'll have to take them on faith, son.

Student : That is it, sir.. The link between man & god is FAITH. That is
all that keeps things moving & alive.

That young man was ALBERT EINSTEIN.......


Interesting story any truth to it?

[Quahom1]

No, but it is a good story. What A. Einstein did say (among many quotes), is that God does not play dice with the Universe. What he meant I suspect, is that there is an order, that randomness can not explain, and entropy can not overcome. I think Einstein was in fact agnostic. He didn't express an understanding one way or another. He however, had questions...and one of them was "What if...". see, he did not limit himself to the box...he ventured outside the box every day.

Yes he set the stage for the Atomic bomb, but then he wrote a personal letter to President Roosevelt, pleading with him not to use it. (Roosevelt didn't, but Truman did). Once unleashed, Einstein recognized that man could literally create "hell" on earth.

If God did not play dice with the universe, then man should not either.

You surprised me with your post (pleasantly I might add).

v/r

Q

[Ciel]

Thanks wil and Albert,

Where the dual and the nondual are concerned, great truth. Though strange as Albert was considered a brain amongst brains that he should focus on the denial of the brain unless seen. And Albert was a brain unto himself.

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by Ciel

Thanks wil and Albert,

Where the dual and the nondual are concerned, great truth. Though strange as Albert was considered a brain amongst brains that he should focus on the denial of the brain unless seen. And Albert was a brain unto himself.

He was a man, who refused to be placed into a category, and refused to accept the status quo. He simply let his mind wander, and wonder...