The God Delusion.
So I have been talking about this to a few people (ie, Cassidy, John, Steve, etc). So I thought I would share it with everyone. There has been a lot of controversy going on about this book by Richard Dawkins, one of my recent heros. For people who believe in god, this will probably shock and anger you and you will close your mind off to it. For
( Read more... )
As far as saying that within a species it is impossible to make a genetic leap. that is rediculous and I will tell you why. an evolutionary change is slow and steady. And it doesnt just happen magically. A lot of the time the way an evolutionary change is by natural selection. Not always ingrained into genetics.
The stronger, better suited member of a species survives better in the environment, the weaker ones or the ones with features that dont suit the climate die off, those strong members breed and produce offspring that are even more suited for the environment. Eventually it gets to the point that the females (which generally choose which genes get passed on) prefer the members of the species with those better suited features, therefore the species becomes even more and more specialized for the climate. You can see this with humans in that now that we dont need body hair anymore, we tend to prefer mates that are less hairy, when you choose mates that are less and less hairy, you produce less and less hairy offspring, and so on.
evolution isnt just something that mutates overnight all of the time. it is something that happens slowly out of natural selection. human women tend to choose men with more testosterone driven features, (muscles, squarer jaw, larger frame) because they will produce offspring with these same features (its a subconcious decision we make)
it sounds to me like you are very uninformed of some of the very basics of evolution. because of this it is really difficult to have this discussion with you because i feel like i have to be educating you on some of the very basics of the theory.
scientist are not synonymous with soothsayers. they use the scientific method, they prove or at least try to prove their theory's. however when scientists are without a doubt proven wrong. they may be disappointed that they poured so many years into one theory, however if they are proven wrong, then science is still advancing because it is still ruling out possibilities. scientists are constantly being open to new ideas. whereas religion is not. it seems silly for you to call them notorious liars and cheats when you see so many religious leaders that are far worse. scientists are human. they have always claimed to be human. whereas religion claims to be devine and perfect.
religion assumes that they have all the answers, the earth was created according to the creation story, etc. therefore there is no reason to explain how the sun rises or where thunder comes from and how it is formed. right? wrong. once we became more scientifically advanced, then we learned what the sun really is, and thunder etc. then there was no need for zeus or Apollo or any of those other gods to explain how the universe worked. the same goes for christianity. science does that for us now.
if you love the scientific method so much. then tell me why there is no well demonstrated reason why one should believe in god.
im sure there is more i left out here. but this is all i have time to respond to.
-Angela
Reply
You also have grave misconceptions about religion... you are only going off various interpretations of humans... NOT the actual religion itself. It appears you are very jaded and hostile towards religions so much, that you not only have closed yourself off to the very root concept and ideal, but are putting all your stones into what other people have thrown your way as what the principle is. For no religion is perfect nor pretends to be so. The bit about the humans was amusing though... for that is not how it works. Just selecting mates with less hair does not make further offspring down the line less hairy on and on.
While I appreciate the feedback, you have much to learn about genetics. I would recommend some deep research in the key areas and aside from JUST looking at pro-evolutionary steps... you look at the counter publications as well. You cannot look at a coin from one side to get the whole... you'll only end up with distorted truths.
As far as evolution.. you are speaking of Micro-Evolution (small changes within a species), which IS observed, but the changes are small.. and do not deviate from the actual species genetic boundaries. You need to take this time to look into Macro and Micro evolution.. the differences between them and what they entail. Here is where you will find walls. So while you may think you're educating me about the basics... you have not even understood what the basics actually are yet.
If you do not believe man would lie about something for a goal.. such as scientists... tell me, what did you learn in highschool history and science? Now... tell me WHAT of that did they tell you was inaccurate or a flat out lie in college? I can think of hundreds of things off the top of my head. Now... tell me why the nation is led to believe these things in the first place?
Just like a movie "based on a true story" has facts changed to suit the writer... many things in history (like the KJV Bible) are altered to suit a specific purpose.
Don't sell yourself short here.
As to a well demonstrated resason why on should believe in God (whichever God you are referring to)... you are going outside what I was speaking of into the aspects of faith. Explaining the principles of faith... why it is necessary for humans etc is a different area altogether.. the above writing was saying how Science, for some, is a religion for them. Do not mistake religion to mean a belief in a God.
It is even harder to discuss these things with you since you are not informed of the actual items you are trying to debate with me. If you would like links to publications discussing macro/micro evolution, genetics and the trappings of being too religious and how those claiming to be "christians" now, follow a history/set of rules, written by a man to convert pagans... I would be happy to show you.
Reply
When I was growing up I had a deep love for Science. I believe it started in First Grade when my teacher, Mrs. Matthews gave me a book about Science. This love grew as I got older and I desired to make it my motivation in life. By the time my age reached double digits my most loved and primary fields of study were Physics and Cosmology. I had an opportunity around this time to watch a wonderful television show on PBS called "Cosmos." The show was produced and starred as its narrator someone whom I grew to admire greatly, Carl Sagan.
On one airing of Cosmos, Carl Sagan reproduced an intriguing show of lights and goo referred to as the Urey-Miller Experiment. It was known as such due to its author, researcher Stanley Miller and its major contributor and his instructor; Harold Urey. In this series of experiments Stanley Miller hoped to validate the "chemical evolution thesis." This is a really fancy way of saying life originated in a pond of primordial ooze. This should sound familiar to you. In fact I believe it is still being published in Biology textbooks today just as it was when I attended High School.
But as I watched Sagan reproduce this experiment I had a few questions that were left unanswered. It had already been established by Dr. Sagan and others that 'Primordial Earth' was a nasty violent place that was conceivably bombarded with Intense Cosmic and Ultraviolet Rays. As a side, studies have revealed that the Ultraviolet Rays were at least 10,000 times more intense than the early estimates of Evolutionary scientists. These rays should have completely obliterated any amino acids formed. Sagan never addressed it. He showed the goo in his lightning ball and moved on to other topics.
What exactly was the Urey-Miller Experiment?
Miller hoped to establish by his experiment that amino acids (the building blocks of proteins) could form "by chance" as a result of energy (lighting) being discharged into a mixture of gases that represented Earth's primordial atmosphere about 3.5 billion years ago… give or take. (I believe this was in our textbooks in the chapter which followed "spontaneous generation" and other life-origin fallacies. How ironic.)
He started with a gas mixture which he believed existed at the time; ammonia, methane, hydrogen, and water vapor. These gases would not interact unaided so Miller applied an electric current which he believed could have been derived from lightning. He heated the gas mixture to 100 º C, applied his makeshift lightning, and let it simmer. After a week, Miller analyzed the goo which formed at the bottom of the container and discovered 3 out of the 20 amino acids which form the basic elements of protein.
SUCCESS! Or not…
While Miller's success was hailed as a great advance toward establishing the chemical evolution thesis there were issues. There are 4 facts which invalidate the Urey-Miller experiment:
A Cosmic Experience
The conditions under which the amino acids formed were so intense they would have immediately destroyed them had Miller not found a way to prevent it. He did so by utilizing a mechanism called a "cold trap" which trapped the amino acids just after they were formed… preventing the environment from destroying them. It is extremely doubtful such a "cold trap" existed in Primordial Earth. In review of Miller's experiment, chemist Richard Bliss states the following,
Actually, without this trap, the chemical products would have been destroyed by the energy source. - Richard B. Bliss, Gary E. Parker, Duane T. Gish, Origin of Life, C.L.P. Publications, 3rd ed., California, 1990, pp. 14-15.
So how does the Urey-Miller experiment deal with the Cosmic/Ultraviolet ray issue? It doesn't at all. Before the use of the "cold trap" Miller was unable to get a single amino acid to form.
Continued (post limits suck)
Reply
How did Miller determine what gases to use in his experiment? In the 1980's scientists resigned that nitrogen and oxygen should have been used in Miller's experiment, not ammonia and methane. Miller specifically chose ammonia because without it, it would have been impossible to synthesize amino acids. "Miller and Urey imitated the ancient atmosphere on the Earth with a mixture of methane and ammonia. ...However in the latest studies, it has been understood that the Earth was very hot at those times, and that it was composed of melted nickel and iron. Therefore, the chemical atmosphere of that time should have been formed mostly of nitrogen (N2), carbon dioxide (CO2) and water vapour (H2O). However these are not as appropriate as methane and ammonia for the production of organic molecules." - Kevin McKean, Science and Technology, no. 189, p. 7.
IT BURNS!!!
Oxygen should have been used in Miller's experiment… so much oxygen in fact that it would have destroyed all the amino acids that could have formed. This is made evident by oxidized iron found in rocks that are believed to be about 3.5 billion years old… give or take. ("New Evidence on Evolution of Early Atmosphere and Life," Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, vol. 63, November 1982, pp. 1328-1330.)
Had oxygen been present in the atmosphere, as it should have, the ammonia and methane would have broken down into nitrogen, carbon dioxide, and water. In addition if oxygen had not been present in the primordial atmosphere then there would be no protective layer (ozone) and everything would have been irradiated… as I believed it should have been when Dr. Sagan recreated the experiment.
Miller's Right-hand Man
Miller did manage to create amino acids… with a wee bit of scientific legerdemain. However the amino acids created by the experiment were detrimental in design to biological systems. Had they not been squirreled away by the "cold trap" they would have been destroyed or transformed into other unusable chemical compounds. Moreover according to Bliss and others (Richard B. Bliss, Gary E. Parker, Duane T. Gish, Origin of Life, C.L.P. Publications, 3rd ed., California, 1990, p. 16.) they were right-handed amino acids. Right-handed amino acids cannot function within living systems.
In essence Miller's experiment not only failed to substantiate the 'chemical evolution thesis' but actually was quite successful in establishing that such a scenario was quite improbable. Ironic. That was never addressed in my High school biology class. Instead after reading the text I was left with a 'scientifically affirmed' belief that we originated in a pond of primordial ooze. It was also never addressed by Dr. Sagan who left me with the exact same impression. But to his credit a lot of these conclusions refuting the Urey-Miller experiment happened years after the airing of "Cosmos."
Miller himself has resigned to the fact that his experiment failed to lead to an explanation to the origins of life. Yet somehow the general public is under the impression that it did. This is amazing considering even evolutionary scientists have accepted the experiment as invalid.
Concludes next
Reply
Many scientists now suspect that the early atmosphere was different to what Miller first supposed. They think it consisted of carbon dioxide and nitrogen rather than hydrogen, methane, and ammonia.
That's bad news for chemists. When they try sparking carbon dioxide and nitrogen, they get a paltry amount of organic molecules - the equivalent of dissolving a drop of food colouring in a swimming pool of water. Scientists find it hard to imagine life emerging from such a diluted soup. - "The Rise of Life on Earth," National Geographic, March 1998, p. 68.
And what of Harold Urey, the instructor that was instrumental in the Urey-Miller experiment?
All of us who study the origin of life find that the more we look into it, the more we feel it is too complex to have evolved anywhere. We all believe as an article of faith that life evolved from dead matter on this planet. It is just that its complexity is so great, it is hard for us to imagine that it did. - Harold Urey (W. R. Bird, The Origin of Species Revisited, Thomas Nelson Co., Nashville,1991, p. 325.)
Reply
My biology class rules. The prof told us that since there is no scientific evidence to prove one way or the other how we got here(creation versus evolution) that we will not be discussing it, because that is philosophy, not science. <3
It's true though.. we have no evidence, so you and me will go round and round forever honestly. Thanks for your input and I hope mine gave some different takes on things you're looking into.
Reply
-Angela
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment