[quote]grettiron wrote:
Iron Dwarf wrote:
Professor X wrote:
The human body is a work of art on such a level that it makes me wonder how people can believe this all happened by accident.
Best fucking post… EVER.
i really don’t think it was an accident, but probably not in the same way you guys are thinking it.[/quote]
Nobody thinks it’s an accident.
[quote]Nanan wrote:
bushidobadboy wrote:
Actually, the complexity of DNA is precisely what turned me away from my belief in evolution and made me begin to question the possibility of ‘intelligent design’.
Having studied engineering, the concept of modular design or common traits to achieve different ends is something that I would apply, if I ever got the chance to create my own universe.
To have one single common thread running through all life (as we know it) suggests (to me) that there is some sort of ‘designer’ at work, taking proven techniques and utilising them over and over.
But that’s my opinion, and I don’t understand the subject well enough (in my own frame of reference) to be able, or willing to enter into debate, so I’ll leave it there, thanks 
BBB
As an engineer who works with modular design on a regular basis yes I agree, the whole system seems almost too well laid out almost as if it was designed by an outside party.[/quote]
It’s not as good as it perhaps appears. Genes are merely template modules that code for proteins (which are functional modules). The complexity comes from how many different genes (proteins) you have and how they interact with each other. The building blocks are simple, the end result isn’t.
Much of what might appear to be genetic elegance is, in fact, a kludge, but it works well enough to get by. The reason that all organisms have the same genetic code (more or less) is simply because they’ve all inherited it from the earliest form of life that could replicate itself.
There’s also the fact that genes alone aren’t enough. You need the membranes, mitochondria and other cellular structures present in the egg to grow a body. Genes can’t create cells, only control and modify them.
[quote]
The only thing I can say to this is life did not start on earth via evolution, life started out from a biological seed from somewhere else, life on earth has evolved from that seed to what it is today.[/quote]
That’s just passing the buck and instead requires an answer to the question “how did the life evolve elsewhere?”. If life could start elsewhere, why not on Earth?
DNA really isn’t complex. It’s just a simple code molecule for storing the order of amino acids in proteins. The vast majority of the genome doesn’t even code for proteins, so it’s like a computer program that’s nearly all hidden comments with only a few lines that actually do anything.
[quote]Mutu wrote:
The fact that 1 Taco Bell meal can cause me to take 6 shits fascinates and frustrates me simultaneously.[/quote]
LOL
[quote]honest_lifter wrote:
"Taking the physical variables into account, what is the likelihood of a universe giving us life coming into existence by coincidence? One in billions of billions? Or trillions of trillions of trillions? Or more?
Roger Penrose*, a famous British mathematician and a close friend of Stephen Hawking, wondered about this question and tried to calculate the probability. Including what he considered to be all variables required for human beings to exist and live on a planet such as ours, he computed the probability of this environment occurring among all the possible results of the Big Bang.
According to Penrose, the odds against such an occurrence were on the order of 1010123 to 1.
It is hard even to imagine what this number means. In math, the value 10123 means 1 followed by 123 zeros. (This is, by the way, more than the total number of atoms 1078 believed to exist in the whole universe.) But Penrose’s answer is vastly more than this: It requires 1 followed by 10123 zeros.
Or consider: 103 means 1,000, a thousand. 10103 is a number that that has 1 followed by 1000 zeros. If there are six zeros, it’s called a million; if nine, a billion; if twelve, a trillion and so on. There is not even a name for a number that has 1 followed by 10123 zeros.
In practical terms, in mathematics, a probability of 1 in 1050 means “zero probability”. Penrose’s number is more than trillion trillion trillion times less than that. In short, Penrose’s number tells us that the 'accidental" or “coincidental” creation of our universe is an impossibility.
Concerning this mind-boggling number Roger Penrose comments:
This now tells how precise the Creator’s aim must have been, namely to an accuracy of one part in 1010123. This is an extraordinary figure. One could not possibly even write the number down in full in the ordinary denary notation: it would be 1 followed by 10123 successive 0’s. Even if we were to write a 0 on each separate proton and on each separate neutron in the entire universe- and we could throw in all the other particles for good measure- we should fall far short of writing down the figure needed.
In fact in order to recognize that the universe is not a “product of coincidences” one does not really need any of these calculations at all. Simply by looking around himself, a person can easily perceive the fact of creation in even the tiniest details of what he sees. How could a universe like this, perfect in its systems, the sun, the earth, people, houses, cars, trees, flowers, insects, and all the other things in it ever have come into existence as the result of atoms falling together by chance after an explosion? Every detail we peer at shows the evidence of God’s existence and supreme power. Only people who reflect can grasp these signs. "
why does every culture, even those isolated from the rest of the world have some form of religion? could it not be because we were created with such a need? why do we have the ability to see in color? why to we have the desire to help others in need? these don’t seem to be things that would be NEEDED for evolution? from what i have seen, i think people would rather claim chance instead of having to answer to someone for their actions. to me, evolution is the leap of faith. my personal belief.[/quote]
this is all interesting.
you could take all the grains of sands on every beach of earth, and count each one a planet and that would give you an idea of our OBSERVABLE universe. If the universe is infinite - then all possible things are possible. Theres a universe out there where your twin is worshipped as their virgin God.
And the very good question of “well, theres religion everywhere so there must be a god”…
Did you know some religions don’t HAVE a God. Taoism being one. Some religions see themselves and everything around them as being the divine spirit. You’re only explaining science through a western culture’s point of view.
A God was created through cultural effervescense - the group mentality ( like monkeys, go figure) we transcended our group’s energy into a single material object - the unattainable - the perfect being that we would never be - God.
We are raised to help one another its society. Feral children - ones that grew up with no human contact - will most definately not have a need to help another Human. Thus, we are a product of our society. Each of our brains is connected in that fashion. Theres no need for a divine being to explain all of this.
https://webct.its.iastate.edu/webct/urw/lc1143124282101.tp1143124303101/displayContentPage.dowebct?updateBreadcrumb=false&pageID=1143148447101
its a powerpoint
Christ lovers read.
Im not saying you should throw your bibles away but…
[quote]Mattlebee wrote:
The only thing I can say to this is life did not start on earth via evolution, life started out from a biological seed from somewhere else, life on earth has evolved from that seed to what it is today.
That’s just passing the buck and instead requires an answer to the question “how did the life evolve elsewhere?”. If life could start elsewhere, why not on Earth?[/quote]
Not to mention the first part is stating the obvious.
[quote]Nanan wrote:
bushidobadboy wrote:
Actually, the complexity of DNA is precisely what turned me away from my belief in evolution and made me begin to question the possibility of ‘intelligent design’.
Having studied engineering, the concept of modular design or common traits to achieve different ends is something that I would apply, if I ever got the chance to create my own universe.
To have one single common thread running through all life (as we know it) suggests (to me) that there is some sort of ‘designer’ at work, taking proven techniques and utilising them over and over.
But that’s my opinion, and I don’t understand the subject well enough (in my own frame of reference) to be able, or willing to enter into debate, so I’ll leave it there, thanks
BBB
As an engineer who works with modular design on a regular basis yes I agree, the whole system seems almost too well laid out almost as if it was designed by an outside party.
The only thing I can say to this is life did not start on earth via evolution, life started out from a biological seed from somewhere else, life on earth has evolved from that seed to what it is today.
Yes my analogy of Genetics to C++ is well a bit weak, well humans have not and likely will not design anything as complex as a single strand of DNA for another few dozen or two decades.
[/quote]
Well genes were the original lifeforms and the are just simple chains of molecules that can replicate. There is nothing amazing here because replicators like this can be made in a petri dish. To be more stable, atom forms molecules, molecules form chains. If you take a petri dish with some “primordial soup” of atoms and apply a bit of energy you will find some long chains of molecules at the end and maybe something close to a replicator. Obviously if you repeat this experiment and the whole earth is your petri dish you will get better results.
Genes are molecule that was able to replicate itself, the replication was imperfect, and the molecules for it to replicate was whatever other molecules were around.
From these conditions genes entered into a competition with other genes. This lead to development of cells, all the way to the incredibly elaborate shells for genes that are humans. And basically it’s all from trial and error.
The real questions are now where did the atoms came from, why are they here and why do they obey these laws?
Because these questions remain unanswered evolution is not sufficient to disprove God, I happen think evolution would be God’s finest accomplishment. I also think that without really understanding science and universe human beings will have no hope of understanding the big questions why we are here and why is the universe here.
If you work in C++ then maybe you’ve heard of genetic algorithms. Basically the process of evolution is put to work on populations of equations and systems. The results are often used to find answers to questions that mathematics has no other way of solving in a reasonable time. These questions are very complex yet algorithms that behave like genes work and beat “intelligent design”.
[quote]Raided wrote:
Well genes were the original lifeforms and the are just simple chains of molecules that can replicate.[/quote]
Genes aren’t alive and they can’t replicate themselves - they need a clutch of proteins to do the replication. A piece of DNA can’t do anything on its own (unlike RNA and proteins).
[quote]
Because these questions remain unanswered evolution is not sufficient to disprove God, I happen think evolution would be God’s finest accomplishment. [/quote]
Evolution can’t disprove God, but it does make accepting the biblical account of life unnecessary. Besides, since evolution depends on imperfection in life processes, it seems to be at odds with an infallible creator.
[quote]Mattlebee wrote:
Raided wrote:
Well genes were the original lifeforms and the are just simple chains of molecules that can replicate.
Genes aren’t alive and they can’t replicate themselves - they need a clutch of proteins to do the replication. A piece of DNA can’t do anything on its own (unlike RNA and proteins).
Because these questions remain unanswered evolution is not sufficient to disprove God, I happen think evolution would be God’s finest accomplishment.
Evolution can’t disprove God, but it does make accepting the biblical account of life unnecessary. Besides, since evolution depends on imperfection in life processes, it seems to be at odds with an infallible creator.
[/quote]
Which part of the body codes for the construction of the DNA polymerase? Everything is created by the genes, therefore the replicate themselves!
The evolution process is simple and sweet pure genius. Relying on errors is the best bit.
The biblical account us just one account and nothing human is infalliable.
evolution didn’t happen by accident, it happened by the laws of physics.
[quote]Raided wrote:
Which part of the body codes for the construction of the DNA polymerase? Everything is created by the genes, therefore the replicate themselves!
[/quote]
Nothing is created by the genes, they’re just the template. Proteins are created by ribosomes using code transcribed from DNA. DNA isn’t involved directly. Things like essential fatty acids can’t be made by the human body so have to be eaten. Same with vitamins and minerals. Thinking genes can do everything required for life is naive.
[quote]Mattlebee wrote:
Raided wrote:
Which part of the body codes for the construction of the DNA polymerase? Everything is created by the genes, therefore the replicate themselves!
Nothing is created by the genes, they’re just the template. Proteins are created by ribosomes using code transcribed from DNA. DNA isn’t involved directly. Things like essential fatty acids can’t be made by the human body so have to be eaten. Same with vitamins and minerals. Thinking genes can do everything required for life is naive.
[/quote]
No I dont think genes can DO everything or generate resources that are needed to build molecules but they are the ultimate cause of everything in organisms!
Genes are the blueprint behind everything that occurs in your body. Everything in the body is coded by the genes, you cannot argue that. Obviously the genes need to get the resources like food to make anything. I say the genes replicate because the genes code for everything that needs to be done, to making the protein, to the urge to eat, everything even down to the urge to screw a chick.
You need to read The Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins to get up to speed.
[quote]spyoptic wrote:
this is all interesting.
you could take all the grains of sands on every beach of earth, and count each one a planet and that would give you an idea of our OBSERVABLE universe. If the universe is infinite - then all possible things are possible. Theres a universe out there where your twin is worshipped as their virgin God.
And the very good question of “well, theres religion everywhere so there must be a god”…
Did you know some religions don’t HAVE a God. Taoism being one. Some religions see themselves and everything around them as being the divine spirit. You’re only explaining science through a western culture’s point of view.
A God was created through cultural effervescense - the group mentality ( like monkeys, go figure) we transcended our group’s energy into a single material object - the unattainable - the perfect being that we would never be - God.
We are raised to help one another its society. Feral children - ones that grew up with no human contact - will most definately not have a need to help another Human. Thus, we are a product of our society. Each of our brains is connected in that fashion. Theres no need for a divine being to explain all of this.[/quote]
Everyone has a free will. they can believe what they want. the bible gives proof about why we should believe there is a God and that he is to be worshipped. But everyone isn’t going to. However, we cannot believe that both are right. If the God of the bible does not exist, then those that believe in one will be wrong, with no consequences, outside of foregoing some of lives “pleasures”. If the God of the Bible does exist, then those that believe in evolution will be wrong, and will face the consequences laid out in the Bible.
To me, there is too much proof to say there is no God.
[quote]honest_lifter wrote:
spyoptic wrote:
this is all interesting.
you could take all the grains of sands on every beach of earth, and count each one a planet and that would give you an idea of our OBSERVABLE universe. If the universe is infinite - then all possible things are possible. Theres a universe out there where your twin is worshipped as their virgin God.
And the very good question of “well, theres religion everywhere so there must be a god”…
Did you know some religions don’t HAVE a God. Taoism being one. Some religions see themselves and everything around them as being the divine spirit. You’re only explaining science through a western culture’s point of view.
A God was created through cultural effervescense - the group mentality ( like monkeys, go figure) we transcended our group’s energy into a single material object - the unattainable - the perfect being that we would never be - God.
We are raised to help one another its society. Feral children - ones that grew up with no human contact - will most definately not have a need to help another Human. Thus, we are a product of our society. Each of our brains is connected in that fashion. Theres no need for a divine being to explain all of this.
Everyone has a free will. they can believe what they want. the bible gives proof about why we should believe there is a God and that he is to be worshipped. But everyone isn’t going to. However, we cannot believe that both are right. If the God of the bible does not exist, then those that believe in one will be wrong, with no consequences, outside of foregoing some of lives “pleasures”. If the God of the Bible does exist, then those that believe in evolution will be wrong, and will face the consequences laid out in the Bible.
To me, there is too much proof to say there is no God.[/quote]
Yeah but why does god have to be your Christian god? Why can’t he be the Muslim one? Is god even conscious? Even if he is why would he concern himself with your mortal decisions? You need to see that you are making an assumption that your god is right. I am with you that there is a god, but my idea of god is vastly different than yours.
Edit: All that I’m really trying to say in my post is that you have narrowed it down to two possibilities when there are actually at least two more. You said it’s
But you really have to add:
[quote]honest_lifter wrote:
the bible gives proof about why we should believe there is a God[/quote]
No it doesn’t.
[quote]Dule wrote:
gethuge08 wrote:
Right on Prof. X. I don’t mean to change this into a God discussion, but there is no way that humans, or even animals could have developed on there own.
why not?? the human body has been evolving for billions of years, right from the first one cell organism to what man kind is today. Functions which are usless are discarded and the ones which are key to our survival (e.g. adaptation) are kept. nothing miraculus about that.[/quote]
Your one of those burning man fagets. Go smoke a blunt and leave the evo talk out of this post
[quote]Raided wrote:
Genes are the blueprint behind everything that occurs in your body. Everything in the body is coded by the genes, you cannot argue that.[/quote]
Sure I can. The fat composition of cell membranes is determined more by diet than anything else. Even having membranes at all relies on inheriting some from your mother. There are many structures in the cell that can’t be made from scratch and rely on augmentation of existing ones instead.
[quote]
Obviously the genes need to get the resources like food to make anything. I say the genes replicate because the genes code for everything that needs to be done, to making the protein, to the urge to eat, everything even down to the urge to screw a chick.[/quote]
Well, not really. Inject someone with adrenaline and they will quickly become more alert and active, but too quickly for it to be due to changes in gene transcription. It’s a change in cellular function, but without gene involvement. Similarly, the real-time functioning of nerve cells is far too quick for genes to affect. Red blood cells have no DNA at all. The actual physiology of how a body works is more independent from the genes than you might think.
The selfish gene was published in 1976. There’s been an ENORMOUS increase in knowledge of molecular biology and genes since then.
[quote]Mattlebee wrote:
Raided wrote:
You need to read The Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins to get up to speed.
The selfish gene was published in 1976. There’s been an ENORMOUS increase in knowledge of molecular biology and genes since then.
[/quote]
LOL
[quote]That One Guy wrote:
Yeah but why does god have to be your Christian god? Why can’t he be the Muslim one? Is god even conscious? Even if he is why would he concern himself with your mortal decisions? You need to see that you are making an assumption that your god is right. I am with you that there is a god, but my idea of god is vastly different than yours.
Edit: All that I’m really trying to say in my post is that you have narrowed it down to two possibilities when there are actually at least two more. You said it’s
But you really have to add:
He’s trying to use Pascal’s wager.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
That One Guy wrote:
Yeah but why does god have to be your Christian god? Why can’t he be the Muslim one? Is god even conscious? Even if he is why would he concern himself with your mortal decisions? You need to see that you are making an assumption that your god is right. I am with you that there is a god, but my idea of god is vastly different than yours.
Edit: All that I’m really trying to say in my post is that you have narrowed it down to two possibilities when there are actually at least two more. You said it’s
But you really have to add:
He’s trying to use Pascal’s wager.[/quote]
Yeah but wouldn’t an omniscient, divine body KNOW that you are believing a religion just to escape punishment rather than actually believing it?