Functionally Complex

Originally posted by Thequ1ck
There's a little more to it than that.
Firstly I don't really believe in much
at all, I'm a little weird like that but
for the sake of behaving normally,
I will take a stance and say stuff.

Science is not really about belief.
I ...[text shortened]... ve to believe it but I can say it is the
most likely option.

As for DNA, we have shown that evolution
is the most likely explanation by observing
patterns of inheritence and family divergence
in proteins and nucleic acids.
In addition we have observed this take place
on isolated colonies such as the galapagos
islands where scientists have actually recorded
the evolution of new species of birds.

Now you are putting some faith into evolution beliefs here in
this statement. As far as I'm have seen no one has ever said
that there isn't some amount of change within species, yet
that does not translate into evolutionary line of life going
back into a single cell; it only means that there is some
change in species. Taking what we see and saying that it must
mean it goes back into a single cell or whatever the first life
form was is a leap of faith, a grand leap of faith. If you only
believe what is before you, you should see the difference in
this small but important point of how far back do these
changes go!

So the theory of evolution really does have a lot
going for it.

I agree, it does have a lot going for it, some solid science some
not.

I don't have to believe it but I can say it is the
most likely option.

True, but it is a foundational point in how people view life, it will
color all things seen by how you look at evolution and life's beginning.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
[b]As for DNA, we have shown that evolution
is the most likely explanation by observing
patterns of inheritence and family divergence
in proteins and nucleic acids.
In addition we have observed this take place
on isolated colonies such as the galapagos
islands where scientists have actually recorded
the evolution of new species of birds.

Now ...[text shortened]... life, it will
color all things seen by how you look at evolution and life's beginning.
Kelly[/b]

Science can and will stand on the evidence. the OT bible is not:
a science book;
a world history book.
an ethics book,

what it is however, is a violent history of tribes of people conquering other peoples and attributing it to a god that acts exactly like all the other stone age gods.
Discard it ,Kelly, the Father of Christ is not in the OT unless by accident.

Originally posted by frogstomp
Science can and will stand on the evidence. the OT bible is not:
a science book;
a world history book.
an ethics book,

what it is however, is a violent history of tribes of people conquering other peoples and attributing it to a god that acts exactly like all the other stone age gods.
Discard it ,Kelly, the Father of Christ is not in the OT unless by accident.

Standing on evidence does not mean that your have rightly
figured out what that evidence means; it only means that you
are set in your veiws on what the evidence means nothing
more. As far as the OT goes, it is not part of the issue with
what is wrong with evolution. The OT is another subject
altogether.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
Standing on evidence does not mean that your have rightly
figured out what that evidence means; it only means that you
are set in your veiws on what the evidence means nothing
more. As far as the OT goes, it is not part of the issue with
what is wrong with evolution. The OT is another subject
altogether.
Kelly

so far I haven't seen any valid scientific data that disputes evolution or the big bang cosmology. and that's probably because they fit the data.

Originally posted by frogstomp
so far I haven't seen any valid scientific data that disputes evolution or the big bang cosmology. and that's probably because they fit the data.

Yep, I believe you.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
Standing on evidence does not mean that your have rightly
figured out what that evidence means; it only means that you
are set in your veiws on what the evidence means nothing
more. As far as the OT goes, it is not part of the issue with
what is wrong with evolution. The OT is another subject
altogether.
Kelly

The OT is the problem.

It is surely no co-incidencew that the concept of ID started to be heavily promoted by christian groups once creationism could no longer be taught as science in the US following Supreme Court rulings. The dispute between supporters of evolution and ID or creationism have very little to do with the detail of the science but everything to do with concerted attempts by fundies to undermine rational liberalism.

The US fundies are guilty of the politicisation of science.

Originally posted by aardvarkhome
The OT is the problem.

It is surely no co-incidencew that the concept of ID started to be heavily promoted by christian groups once creationism could no longer be taught as science in the US following Supreme Court rulings. The dispute between supporters of evolution and ID or creationism have very little to do with the detail of the science but eve ...[text shortened]... to undermine rational liberalism.

The US fundies are guilty of the politicisation of science.

As I have pointed out here before, it does not matter what the
OT has in it or not! If evolution is not what people believe, it
will not mean anything as far as the OT is concern, one has
nothing to do with the other.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
[b]As for DNA, we have shown that evolution
is the most likely explanation by observing
patterns of inheritence and family divergence
in proteins and nucleic acids.
In addition we have observed this take place
on isolated colonies suc ...[text shortened]... gs seen by how you look at evolution and life's beginning.
Kelly

Well not really,
My actual faith is based around us being points of emotional inflection in a much bigger interplay.
My faith believes that any number of pasts and futures can instantaniously be fabricated (as in a dream) to pull
forward a specific emotion that could not otherwise be felt.
So you see in my version of reality (my faith) I don't even believe
that I am 'human' or here or was ever 'there'.
Yet I am prepared to accept evolution as a theory simply because it makes sense and I don't have the capacity 'as yet' to undermine it.
So there is a difference between 'faith' and 'acceptance'.

You are right in saying that we do not yet have a fully functional
theory on how larger genomes have evolved from smaller (eukaryotic)
cells but genomic evolution is still in its infancy and we are making
big steps. We have shown patterns of divergence in eukaryotes
such as yeast that lead to increasing larger (or smaller) genomes
but this is a long way from a complete theory.

Originally posted by KellyJay
As I have pointed out here before, it does not matter what the
OT has in it or not! If evolution is not what people believe, it
will not mean anything as far as the OT is concern, one has
nothing to do with the other.
Kelly

Let me begin by saying I'm not trying to be argumentative or even participate in this particular conversation. I'm just wanting to make sure that I understand what you've said here, because the first time I read it I saw something different than when I just re-read it.
Is your statement that if evolution is not part of a belief system then the Old Testament of the Bible is irrelevant to the conversation? Or is your statement that if people are misunderstanding evolution (it is not what they believe [it is]), then there is no connection?

Originally posted by echecero
Let me begin by saying I'm not trying to be argumentative or even participate in this particular conversation. I'm just wanting to make sure that I understand what you've said here, because the first time I read it I saw something different than when I just re-read it.
Is your statement that if evolution is not part of a belief system then the Old Testa ...[text shortened]... e misunderstanding evolution (it is not what they believe [it is]), then there is no connection?

I maintain they are not the same subject, no matter if evolution is
true or not, that does not affect OT being true or not, OT is another
subject all together! If the OT is true, that does not mean that
everything people believe about evolution is wrong either, again
because one is a process the other an event.
Evolution is a process, a on going process, while the events in the
OT speak to a special event of creation. So if you disprove evolution
that does not automatically mean that the OT is what happened.
There is nothing more beyond that.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
I maintain they are not the same subject, no matter if evolution is
true or not, that does not affect OT being true or not, OT is another
subject all together! If the OT is true, that does not mean that
everything people believe about evolution is wrong either, again
because one is a process the other an event.
Evolution is a process, a on going proces ...[text shortened]... not automatically mean that the OT is what happened.
There is nothing more beyond that.
Kelly

You seem to be saying that Genesis is fully consistent with the TOE when you say

no matter if evolution is true or not, that does not affect OT being true or not

I don't think that you believe this. Can you clarify?

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
You seem to be saying that Genesis is fully consistent with the TOE when you say

[b] no matter if evolution is true or not, that does not affect OT being true or not

I don't think that you believe this. Can you clarify?[/b]

The two are stand alone subjects!

If evolution is shown to be false, that does not mean that the
creation story in OT is true.

They are not linked so that they are an either or.

OT can be true, and only parts of evolution would have to be wrong.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
The two are stand alone subjects!

If evolution is shown to be false, that does not mean that the
creation story in OT is true.

They are not linked so that they are an either or.

OT can be true, and only parts of evolution would have to be wrong.
Kelly

Are you saying that if the OT is true, parts of "evolution" would have to be wrong? And I assume you mean the full theory of evolution including macroevolution and microevolution when you say "evolution". Is that right?

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
Are you saying that if the OT is true, parts of "evolution" would have to be wrong? And I assume you mean the full theory of evolution including macroevolution and microevolution when you say "evolution". Is that right?

I'm saying that instead of going back in the evolutionary time line
we would not find a single source for all life in the evolutinary time
line, the single cell life form. We would see what creatin says is there
several types of kinds and from those kinds we get the variety of life
we see today. We would not see grass, rats, eagles, whales, ants,
rose bushes, jelly fish all coming from the same source of DNA. Which
is what I have been saying all along, there are changes that occur,
but they start and end within kinds, you start with dogs you end with
dogs.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
I'm saying that instead of going back in the evolutionary time line
we would not find a single source for all life in the evolutinary time
line, the single cell life form. We would see what creatin says is there
several types of kinds and from those kinds we get the variety of life
we see today. We would not see grass, rats, eagles, whales, ants,
rose ...[text shortened]... that occur,
but they start and end within kinds, you start with dogs you end with
dogs.
Kelly

So explain the homology of Mads box genes