As athesits many think God didn't create this world but it was result of a random event...starting from Big Bang.
Well, if I ask you to blast iron ores (rocks containing Iron FE), what is the probability that after a blast you will have Eifell Tower in front of you. 0.0000000....00001%. As we have so many perfect & complex creatures who display features (with special features which cant be evolved, if you follow Darwin Theory), so may perfect & complex systems like our solar system, sytem present in atoms etc, the over all probability would (000000000.....00001%)^millions. This will approximate to 0. Now if possibiliy of Universe being a random creation out of big bang is almost zero, it means that 99.999999% this universe was created or the reaction of the blast (big bang) was planned by some one. We call the planner/creator, the Almighty Allah.
Now what logics do Atheist have to prove that there is no God? +++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 11-19-05, 09:44 PM jusork Tbe Eiffel Tower isn't going to automatically form out of an explosion of iron because...well at no point does it become alive for it to evolve into the Eiffel Tower, plus it doesn't have any reason to adapt into the form of the Eiffel Tower. Without being alive, it would stay a pile of iron. So what you gave isn't an anology of how life formed or an analogy of evolution. However...
given 12-14 billion years and the need to survive, something could happen for life to come about and evolve by means of adapting to it's surroundings. Details such as how the beginnings of life would form are still unclear, but it's the most that we've gotten so far and we aren't going to jump to any conclusions (such as, it's all impossible and the idea of a god that created it all must be the answer).
Atheists don't have proof that God doesn't exist. And that's part of the issue. Atheists don't have definite proof that he does exist either. They don't have any proof of anything about God. Theists have a few people who believe they've experienced or spoken to God and expect others to believe them, plus they've got lots of people who believe Him on faith alone. And that evidence isn't definite enough. In fact, it's barely even strong enough to turn many atheists into agnostics.
Also, nothing in nature is perfectly formed (unless you mean perfectly natural). What features are there that can't be evolved and why can't they?
So do you think that makes sense?
This message has been edited. Last edited by: jusork, 11-19-05 10:18 PM
11-20-05, 12:32 AM newnickname
quote: ...with special features which can't be evolved...
Which features do you mean?
quote: ...so many perfect & complex systems like our solar system, sytem present in atoms etc, the over all probability would (000000000.....00001%)^millions...
It's impossible to calculate the chances for or against a universe like ours existing. It's the only universe we know of for sure, and it is how it is. How do you calculate probabilities for the only possible instance of something (or, rather, everything)? The universe isn't just 'a random event'; it is the event. It's not a question of calculating probabilities, but more of asking why there is something rather than nothing - and I don't think any atheist pretends to know the answer to that.
There is an argument that the complexity and 'perfection' of the universe is evidence of design. But how do we know it's a perfect universe - again, it's the only universe we have? What would a messy and random universe look like? Much like ours maybe - look at that mind-boogling waste of space, for example.
There is an argumant that the universe is "finely tuned" to produce us; if any of its fundamental constants or laws were even slightly different, we wouldn't be here. This is fallacious thinking. We're here, so obviously this is a universe capable of producing us. "To illustrate the vain conceit that the universe must be somehow pre-ordained for us, because we are so well-suited to live in it, he [Douglas Adams] mimed a wonderfully funny imitation of a puddle of water, fitting itself snugly into a depression in the ground, the depression uncannily being exactly the same shape as the puddle."
It's like thinking over the incredible odds against your parents meeting and eventually creating you; all the possible things that could have gone wrong - all the things that had to be just so. Actually, if they had married differently, someone could be doing just the same thinking.
There are several scientific scenarios which suggest that there are or have been infinite different universes - sooner or later one like ours, supporting complex systems and chemistry would be bound to come along.
Anyway, it's a complex and awe-inspiring universe. Some might take that as proof of the existence of God; some might take it as proof of the existence of a complex and awe-inspiring universe.
There is no proof that there is no God. It's impossible to prove a negative. What proof do the followers of any one particular religion have that the deities of other religions don't exist?
11-20-05, 07:19 AM GazSalem
quote: Originally posted by jusork: Tbe Eiffel Tower isn't going to automatically form out of an explosion of iron because...well at no point does it become alive.QUOTE][QUOTE]
Good question, but you will have to say
a)that after the explosion (big bang), some elements (like Hydrogen,Oxygen,etc etc) randomly acted in such a way that life was created
b) Some one gave life.
If we study deeper, simplest forms of life like unicellular creatures like ameobea need to have a perfect structure to have life. I questioning the possibility of the forming this perfect structure?
Another thing, is what do you mean by life? Are using using the biological definition e.g. something which had respiratory system, excretory system etc. If you can be clear on this, atleast I will know what examples to show you.
If you look at our solar system (not alive (if you use biological definition), sun at the centre, planets revolving around it. The sun also moving in its own axis and the planets doing the same. Moon revolving around the earth. A range of gravitational forces involved due to varying masses and distances. And a perfection of centripetal and centrifugal forces, speed etc. to keep the system running. And then we have also discovered that there are other galaxies, which have solar systems similar to ours. The probability of getting a perfect solar system out of blast is extremely remote? Then if we see earth, the probability of presence of all elements to form water,millions of species, earth's placement in the universe to have adequate light and heat. If you look at all the probabilities it comes down to almost zero. You will have to agree that our system formation, our life formation is an extremently remote (0.000..001% chance) event.
As a person of logics, using theory of probability, you have to agree to above.
11-20-05, 07:40 AM GazSalem
quote: Originally posted by newnickname: There is an argument that the complexity and 'perfection' of the universe is evidence of design. But how do we know it's a perfect universe - again, it's the only universe we have?[QUOTE]
I agree that so far we havent seen much of other galaxies and universes as they are thousands of light years away. Even the inside of our universe is so big, that you may observe millions of things showing perfection inside.
In my earlier reply, I gave an example of the perfect location of the earth for light and heat, presence of all elements to create a variety of life forms.
When I walk outside, I see birds, for example hawk. It flies high in sky with a flying capabilities perfect to suit it needs, an eyesight better perfect to sight a prey etc. You have to say that it either, a) This came as a result of evolution b) This bird was created meaning the first kind of it was created by someone.
Going forward, I will discuss evolution. Scientist say it is a theory of evolution. That is, science has no fact about evolution. But in absence of God, this is the best way to explain the living creatures in its current form. I will not talk about the thousand of missing links in the chain of evolution, as you may argue that these may not have been discovered. I will give you example about creatures that couldnt have evolved.
Agreed?
11-20-05, 08:06 AM methos "0.0000000....00001%." "(000000000.....00001%)^millions" "0.000..001% chance" "99.999999%"
Grabbing numbers out of thin air is not "using theory of probability."
11-20-05, 08:17 AM GazSalem
quote: Originally posted by methos: "0.0000000....00001%." "(000000000.....00001%)^millions" "0.000..001% chance" "99.999999%"
Grabbing numbers out of thin air is not "using theory of probability."
quote:
Come on! If you divide one (event of formation of life by an extremenly large number, say trillion (number of event that happend after big bang). You will end up with a extremely small number. I gave those numbers for simlicity sake...to give a brief idea. It doesnt matter whethere it is 0.0000000001 or 0.00000000000000000000001. All I was showing is that it will be quite close to zero.
11-20-05, 08:58 AM methos The exact universe is certainly a very low probability event, just as the exact moment of my birth (one moment divded by an infinitely parsable time) is infinitely small. That doesn't mean that the existance of a universe like ours is very small. You have provided no evidence that a universe like ours is either large or small.
11-20-05, 09:40 AM GazSalem
quote: Originally posted by methos: The exact universe is certainly a very low probability event, just as the exact moment of my birth (one moment divded by an infinitely parsable time) is infinitely small.
Yes. Your specific birth. The chances of specific you being born is remote. Millions of sperm travel and only a few actually make it. Basically ony the best is able to make it. It is infact a miraculous journey. Even here you will find signs that this mangificent and complex reproductive system cant have evolved on its own. Do you think that sperms have highly developed brain and it has forseen its future journey and has developed capabilities to survive that.
You will find so many complex systems, which cant be proven via evolution. Mans sperms are created inside man's body. How can they have know what is there in woman's body, so it can structure/design itself accordingly? Evolution means that you structure yourself overtime in order to fulfill some known needs. e.g. Zebra streching its neck for tall green trees and becoming a girrafe. But the Zebra saw the trees first and then tried to strech its neck.
In our case the sperm never saw what was inside the woman body. How did they structure/design themselves before hand?
11-20-05, 09:57 AM GazSalem
quote: Originally posted by methos: That doesn't mean that the existance of a universe like ours is very small. You have provided no evidence that a universe like ours is either large or small.
quote:
I agree that currently we have very limited information. Example maybe I am only seing a few hurdreds perfect galaxies and there may be trillions out there. You may argue that your sample (few galaxies) is not representative of the entire population (entire universe). And may be this is only 10% and 90% of universe is in Havoc. And it can also be argued the other way round. So what we can do is that intead of talking about galaxies not discovered, limit our selves to the known. We will talk about creation of life, creation of creatures which cant be evolved, perfect balances in the earth system etc.
11-20-05, 10:00 AM Viajero 'God' to many people is a term used as an explanation for all that remains unexplained.
Given that every ‘fact’ is actually a figment of human perception and that there are no absolutes that exist outside of the human mind, arguing about whether there is a ‘God’ or not is an exercise in futility; God exists if you perceive that He exists; otherwise He does not.
11-20-05, 10:38 AM methos My point was not about the probability of my being born, but about the timing of my birth. Classically speaking, at least, time can be divided into an infinite number of infinitely small chunks. The probability of me being born in any one of those chunks in infinitely small, just like the probability of our exact universe is infinitely small. Neither matters. What matters in the case of my birth is a reasonable window of time. Does it really matter to my life if I was born at 8:01.0001 or 8:01.0002?. To bring probability into the question of the universe, we would need to establish the probability of a reasonable range of universes that are "like" ours, not the probability of ours exactly. You haven't in any way established that probability. Numbers pulled from nowhere are meaningless.
Even after that, we still fall into the anthropic principle (more or less given by the puddle analogy above).
11-20-05, 10:41 AM frankvan
quote: 'God' to many people is a term used as an explanation for all that remains unexplained.
Granted. But others of us are content to leave some things unexplained for the time being, unwilling to accept all-encompassing "answers" like mythical gods and metaphysical absolutes. We, unlike the theists, don't try to proselytize anyone else nor do we join together in support groups. BTW, welcome to the Pool.
11-20-05, 11:15 AM methos I should point out that none of my posts are meant to respond to the actual question ("Now what logics do Atheist have to prove that there is no God?"); they are only meant to point out the weakness of the proof to the alternative that preceded the question.
11-20-05, 02:14 PM GazSalem
quote: Originally posted by methos: I should point out that none of my posts are meant to respond to the actual question ("Now what logics do Atheist have to prove that there is no God?"); they are only meant to point out the weakness of the proof to the alternative that preceded the question.
I understand that Atheist are the one who are sure that there is no God. And Agnostics are those people who are sure that there isnt enough evidence to persuade them either way. So if Atheist are sure that there is no God, they bound to have some logic.
11-20-05, 02:19 PM newnickname This question has come up before - answerpool.com. It is, of course, logically impossible to prove that there is no god. It may be that atheists are content to live as if there were no god. Agnostics, I guess, hold more strictly to the opinion that we just can't know one way or the other. I don't what implications that would have for how you organise your life.
How can a Muslim or a Christian be sure that the Hindu Gods - or the ancient pantheons of past civilizations - don't exist? It surely isn't because of logic.
11-20-05, 02:26 PM bik74
quote: Originally posted by newnickname:
How can a Muslim or a Christian be sure that the Hindu Gods - or the ancient pantheons of past civilizations - don't exist?
Me not very learned in hindu relegion... but someone told me ' a learnt hindu scholar' will also say from his texts... 'there is only One God'. Their relegion is indeed very complex. God the UNSEEN ONE that is is Allah (Jenova or Bhagwan which ever name you call Him)... is the same for everyone. The problem comes when one worships god making its idols. It can be proven idols are not god Smile
11-20-05, 02:33 PM frankvan I guess I would identify myself as more agnostic than atheist. Only because if one defines atheist as one who is "sure there is no God", I wouldn't claim to be sure of the non-existence of almost anything, only the improbability that the claims of those who assert their's is the real answer to all of the unknowns in life are correct. How could they all possibly be when there is so little agreement among them?? The burden of proof should always be on those who make the claim, not on those who question or dispute it.
11-20-05, 09:43 PM jusork
quote: Originally posted by GazSalem: If we study deeper, simplest forms of life like unicellular creatures like ameobea need to have a perfect structure to have life. I questioning the possibility of the forming this perfect structure?
Another thing, is what do you mean by life? Are using using the biological definition e.g. something which had respiratory system, excretory system etc. If you can be clear on this, atleast I will know what examples to show you.
When you say perfect, all you really mean is that the life is able to survive. The life that is here now, is the way it is becasue it survived that way. Those that don't have the ability to survive, didn't survive and that's why there aren't any imperfect forms of life.
By life I mean the biological definition, something that requires energy to survive. But unicellular organisms certainly don't have a repiratory system, etc so those aren't requirements of life.
11-20-05, 11:04 PM GazSalem
quote: Originally posted by jusork:
quote: Originally posted by GazSalem: If we study deeper, simplest forms of life like unicellular creatures like ameobea need to have a perfect structure to have life. I questioning the possibility of the forming this perfect structure?
Another thing, is what do you mean by life? Are using using the biological definition e.g. something which had respiratory system, excretory system etc. If you can be clear on this, atleast I will know what examples to show you.
When you say perfect, all you really mean is that the life is able to survive. The life that is here now, is the way it is becasue it survived that way. Those that don't have the ability to survive, didn't survive and that's why there aren't any imperfect forms of life.
By life I mean the biological definition, something that requires energy to survive. But unicellular organisms certainly don't have a repiratory system, etc so those aren't requirements of life.
Are you talking about "Survival of the Fittest" theory in which the only the fitest survived and the rest(weaker forms) died?
This message has been edited. Last edited by: DorianGreyed,
'Survival of the fittest' is an often misunderstood phrase.
It refers to those most suited to an environment - those that fit best - tending to survive and reproduce more than others less 'fit'. It's not a matter of strength or weakness - although it might be. It could also be to do with disease resistance, colouring, ability to go without food for periods... many things.
We know that in every species there is variation - chance variation through reshuffling of and glitches in copying DNA (religious people can see a divine influence on this chance happening - and why not). Just look at all the shapes, sizes and abilities of humans, for example.
We also know that most species produce far more young than actually survive. Which offspring survive and which don't is often also down to chance, of course, but those with, for example, better protective colouring, might tend to survive to breeding age in larger numbers, being less likely to get eaten.
They can then pass on the DNA which gives the better camouflage to their own offspring. If that cycle repeats that DNA will spread through a whole species, or a whole isolated group of a species. The species itself will, over time, gradually change, so that all the members of (that particular breeding group) of the species have the more effective colouring.
It's just one example of how being more 'fit' will promote survival, reproduction and evolution. Multiple small changes like that over huge amounts of time are the basis of evolution. ++++++++++++++++++++++++ 11-21-05, 07:43 AM Kendor
quote: Originally posted by GazSalem: ...That is, science has no fact about evolution. But in absence of God, this is the best way to explain the living creatures in its current form...
No, science doesn't care if there's a God. It's completely irrelavent. In fact, I'm sure there are a great deal if scientists who believe there is a God and that evolution is His tool of creation. In faith, the two can co-exist.
This message has been edited. Last edited by: Kendor, 11-21-05 11:23 AM
11-21-05, 09:13 AM GazSalem
quote: Originally posted by newnickname:
We also know that most species produce far more young than actually survive. Which offspring survive and which don't is often also down to chance, of course, but those with, for example, better protective colouring, might tend to survive to breeding age in larger numbers, being less likely to get eaten.
They can then pass on the DNA which gives the better camouflage to their own offspring. If that cycle repeats that DNA will spread through a whole species, or a whole isolated group of a species. The species itself will, over time, gradually change, so that all the members of (that particular breeding group) of the species have the more effective colouring.
quote:
How can a insects (like grasshoppers), color themselves to survive? Some of camouflages are extremely good. Like insects that look like twigs, leaves etc. These insect do not have enough brain and power to make these camouflages on their own. So these abilities cant be evolved according to theory of evolution. Perhaps you can say that in the begining there were red and green grasshopers and the red one because of their poor coloring got all eaten up and the green ones only survivied. Similarly those animals which use camaflouge to trap and eat other animals, in their case only the ones with good camafouge survived.
I still wonder on the probabilities of so many kinds of life forms being created by a random event such as big bang. As survival of fitest theory start after creation of life, do you still think the very creation of millions of life forms (fit/less fit) was a random event? Its hard for me to understand that random events resulted in creation of complex animals such as humans.
11-21-05, 09:46 AM methos "These insect do not have enough brain and power to make these camouflages on their own. So these abilities cant be evolved according to theory of evolution."
I would suggest that you read a book on evolution. This statement (as well as the rest of the above post) shows that you have no idea what the theory entails, which makes further discussion on the topic rather difficult.
11-21-05, 09:50 AM newnickname Evolution is not a conscious decision - it doesn't matter how much brain an insect has. It's not really a case, either, of there being a large variety of species to begin with, which were then whittled down in number, leaving only the fittest. It isn't that there were many colours of grasshopper, gradually all eaten except the green ones.
The variations - such as in colour and shape - are created little by little, by genetic variations; by imperfections in the process of reproduction. Most of these variations are harmful or neutral in effect, but (not often) a useful variation happens (for example, a colouring closer to the colour of the leaves a grasshopper lives among) and this variation can then spread throughout a species, just because it is so useful.
It depends on the environment; what would otherwise be a grotesque mutation is a useful adaption if it helps an insect to hide among twigs. Hiding better among twigs, such an insect could live to reproduce more offspring, so twig-like insects would prosper, while their 'normal' relations might not do so well. Among these insects, that look a little like twigs, another mutation might arise, even closer to the shape of a twig... and so on.
We have seen events like this happen (there are examples linked to somewhere in this thread). We have observed useful mutations arising, and we have identified new species emerging. We also have the fossil record, which shows species evolving over time. Denying evolution is a bit like denying gravity.
The Big Bang did not cause evolution. It does seem to be the point at which 'the laws of the universe' came into effect - and those laws do allow the complex chemistry of life to happen. If you choose to see the hand of God in creating those laws, then of course you can.
It is difficult to understand how random events created such complexity - but, observing the world around us as logically and objectively as possible, it does seem that that is what happened.
Another common misunderstanding of evolution is that it is entirely random. It isn't really. The variations are random, but there is also 'natural selection'. Useful variations are preserved and passed on through DNA, and can be built on - the process has been cumulative over billions of years (maybe part of not being able to grasp evolution is not being able to imagine 'billions of years'). Less useful variations are not passed on so effectively. There's a kind of natural filter that keeps some variations, and adds to them - without any conscious thought.
11-21-05, 10:37 AM GazSalem
quote: Originally posted by newnickname: The variations - such as in colour and shape - are created little by little, by genetic variations; by imperfections in the process of reproduction. Most of these variations are harmful or neutral in effect, but (not often) a useful variation happens (for example, a colouring closer to the colour of the leaves a grasshopper lives among) and this variation can then spread throughout a species, just because it is so useful.
quote:
Thanks for the explanation.
I still need to understand that who makes these genetic variation. Insect cant do it own its own as it you said it has nothing to do with the incest's brain power. I especially get confused as how can these qualities spread to subsequent generation and amoung other species.
1-21-05, 10:51 AM GazSalem
quote: Originally posted by methos:
I would suggest that you read a book on evolution. This statement (as well as the rest of the above post) shows that you have no idea what the theory entails, which makes further discussion on the topic rather difficult.
quote:
I understand that evolution is an unpredictable and natural process of temporal descent with genetic modification that is affected by natural selection, chance, historical contingencies and changing environments.
Is this not correct?
My questions are generally targeted on evolution on a micro level. Because it is easier to focus whem dealing with things at micro level.
11-21-05, 11:22 AM methos Evolution has nothing to do with intelligence.
Insects do not decide to evolve. Dofs do not decide to evolve. People do not decide to evolve.
----------------------------------
When a sperm and an egg join, they each contribute 1/2 the DNA of the resulting offspring. DNA is the blueprint for building the insect/dog/person/whatever. Parents with DNA that produces traits that help them to survive will be more likely to have children and therefore more likely to pass along this useful DNA. Over time, higher and higher percentages of the population will have this trait encoded in their DNA until (over a long period of time) the entire population has it.
But where do these traits come from? When the DNA from the sperm joins with the DNA from the egg, it is not perfectly the same as what the parents had. There are some mutations. If you tested your own DNA and compared it to your parents, you would find that about half matched with your father and about half matched with your mother, but you would also find a small amount that was new.
Many of these mutations do absolutely nothing that we would notice. They spread through some of the population, but don't become dominant because there is no advantage or disadvantage. They are neutral.
Some are harmful. # Most that are harmful are so much so that either A) the sperm never makes it to the egg because it is damaged by the mutation or B) the fertilized egg never even attaches to the womb and leave the woman's body without her ever knowning she was pregnant. # Some are harmful but a child is born. This is where birth defects come from. If the birth defect is truly debilitating, the child will never have children, and the mutation will not spread.
Some mutations are actually helpful.
--------------------------------------
Everything between the lines above is observable fact, no question about it, we've seen it occuring.
Evolution occurs in two ways. # A helpful mutation will spread through the population, as described at the beginning. # A neutral mutation becomes a helpful one because the environment changes. Again, this spreads in the same way as described in the beginning, but now it starts from a wider base.
These changes can be as minor as skin color (dark skin, as Africans tend to have is better suited to Africa where sun-caused skin damage is an issue and light skin, as northern Europeans tend to have, is better suited to the less sunny environments, where sun-aided vitamin D production is an issue), but when enough of them are added together (over millions of years), the resulting population is different enough from the earlier one that we consider it a different species.
When two groups of the same species are separated, they may (again, over millions of years) evolve separately and be different enough from each other that we consider them different species.
At no point does the intelligence of the animal/plant/bacteria/whatever come into the equation.
11-21-05, 01:02 PM GazSalem The concept of "random mutation" was supposed to provide the answer to the question of the origin of the advantageous variations which caused living organisms to evolve according to Darwin's theory—a phenomenon that Darwin himself was unable to explain, but simply tried to side-step by referring to Lamarck. The Geological Society of America group named this new theory, which was formulated by adding the concept of mutation to Darwin's natural selection thesis, the "synthetic theory of evolution" or the "modern synthesis." In a short time, this theory came to be known as "neo-Darwinism" and its supporters as "neo-Darwinists." Yet there was a serious problem: It was true that mutations changed the genetic data of living organisms, yet this change always occurred to the detriment of the living thing concerned. All observed mutations ended up with disfigured, weak, or diseased individuals and, sometimes, led to the death of the organism. Hence, in an attempt to find examples of "useful mutations" which improve the genetic data in living organisms, neo-Darwinists conducted many experiments and observations. For decades, they conducted mutation experiments on fruit flies and various other species. However, in none of these experiments could a mutation which improved the genetic data in a living being be seen. Today the issue of mutation is still a great impasse for Darwinism. Despite the fact that the theory of natural selection considers mutations to be the unique source of "useful changes," no mutations of any kind have been observed that are actually useful (that is, that improve the genetic information).
Mutations are defined as breaks or replacements taking place in the DNA molecule, which is found in the nuclei of the cells of a living organism and which contains all its genetic information. These breaks or replacements are the result of external effects such as radiation or chemical action. Every mutation is an "accident," and either damages the nucleotides making up the DNA or changes their locations. Most of the time, they cause so much damage and modification that the cell cannot repair them. Mutation, which evolutionists frequently hide behind, is not a magic wand that transforms living organisms into a more advanced and perfect form. The direct effect of mutations is harmful. The changes effected by mutations can only be like those experienced by people in Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and Chernobyl: that is, death, disability, and freaks of nature… The reason for this is very simple: DNA has a very complex structure, and random effects can only damage it. Biologist B. G. Ranganathan has said that, First, genuine mutations are very rare in nature. Secondly, most mutations are harmful since they are random, rather than orderly changes in the structure of genes;any random change in a highy ordered system will be for the worse, not for the better. For example, if an earthquake were to shake a highly ordered structure such as a building, there would be a random change in the framework of the building, which, in all probability, would not be an improvement. Not surprisingly, no useful mutation has been so far observed. All mutations have proved to be harmful.
11-21-05, 01:41 PM methos GazSalem - It is against site rules to post other's work without citing them.
11-21-05, 01:59 PM newnickname In any case, this...
quote:
All observed mutations ended up with disfigured, weak, or diseased individuals and, sometimes, led to the death of the organism. Hence, in an attempt to find examples of "useful mutations" which improve the genetic data in living organisms, neo-Darwinists conducted many experiments and observations. For decades, they conducted mutation experiments on fruit flies and various other species. However, in none of these experiments could a mutation which improved the genetic data in a living being be seen.
The direct effect of mutations is harmful. The changes effected by mutations can only be like those experienced by people in Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and Chernobyl: that is, death, disability, and freaks of nature… The reason for this is very simple: DNA has a very complex structure, and random effects can only damage it. Biologist B. G. Ranganathan has said that, First, genuine mutations are very rare in nature. Secondly, most mutations are harmful since they are random, rather than orderly changes in the structure of genes;any random change in a highy ordered system will be for the worse, not for the better. For example, if an earthquake were to shake a highly ordered structure such as a building, there would be a random change in the framework of the building, which, in all probability, would not be an improvement.
Not surprisingly, no useful mutation has been so far observed. All mutations have proved to be harmful.
Most mutations are harmful, and certainly most mutations in complex organisms ar harmful, as B. G. Ranganathan said. A few, however, are beneficial, as he implied. We have direct and indirect evidence of these beneficial mutations occuring. Notice that B. G. Ranganathan did not say that "all mutations have proved to be harmful". Whoever wrote that last sentence couldn't even keep to a logical line of thought in the space of a few sentences. The quote and the analogy do not support the conclusion.
Creationists who say "all mutations have proved to be harmful" are either mistaken or dishonest.
11-21-05, 03:01 PM babthrower Sorry to interrupt the flow here. But you can return to evolution at any time.
But in his/her original question, Gaz says:
"...atheists ... think ... God didn't create this world but it was result of a random event...starting from Big Bang..."
That refers only to those atheists who accept a certain hypothesis of contemporary physics.
Some atheists (like me, for example) kinda think that the universe is eternal.
Now, to resume the evolution issue:
Why do creationists like Gaz continually equate the acceptance of evolution theory with the disbelief in a creator god, godess or gods?
This shows disrespect for the beliefs of the many, many theists who believe in a creator but also accept that the creator may be using evolution as an ongoing creative technique?
11-21-05, 06:25 PM GazSalem My purpose is to understand the rationale... as why people do not believe in God. I just used theory of evolution as example used by some atheist who do not belief in God.
I understand there will be others. My point in not to discuss theory of evolution but to discuss as what are logics the behind Athest faith that there is no God.
I now understand that basically, they cant prove that there is no god. But they are also not convinced as there is god. This perhaps because most Atheist are infact agnostics who doesnt believe in either.
So my original question is answered. And the evolution thing is just for my better understanding about views held by different people.
11-21-05, 06:54 PM juanruiz
quote: they cant prove that there is no god.
And believers can't prove there is. So atheists, agnostics, theists, we're all stuck with each other. And we might as well live in peace together.
11-21-05, 07:14 PM babthrower Maybe it would be easier to understand the atheist position, Gaz, if you consider the guideline we call Occam's Razor. In modern English, it's more or less like this:
"Of two alternative explanations for the same phenomena, the more complicated is more likely to have something wrong with it, and therefore, other things being equal, the more simple is the more likely to be correct."
So:
Hypothesis #1: There is a universe. It must have been created, because it is inconceivable that anything can have always existed. So there must be a god, who was the creator. This god has always existed.
Hypothesis #2: There is a universe. It must have always existed.
I subscribe To #2.
11-21-05, 07:21 PM GazSalem
quote: Originally posted by newnickname:
Creationists who say "all mutations have proved to be harmful" are either mistaken or dishonest.
I understand from Book of Evolution by Harun Yahya that,
The instance evolutionary biologists give of "useful mutation" is the disease known as sickle cell anemia. In this, the hemoglobin molecule, which serves to carry oxygen in the blood, is damaged as a result of mutation, and undergoes a structural change. As a result of this, the hemoglobin molecule's ability to carry oxygen is seriously impaired. People with sickle cell anemia suffer increasing respiratory difficulties for this reason. However, this example of mutation, which is discussed under blood disorders in medical textbooks, is strangely evaluated by some evolutionary biologists as a "useful mutation." They say that the partial immunity to malaria by those with the illness is a "gift" of evolution. Using the same logic, one could say that, since people born with genetic leg paralysis are unable to walk and so are saved from being killed in traffic accidents, therefore genetic leg paralysis is a "useful genetic feature." This logic is clearly totally unfounded.
There are three main reasons why mutations cannot make evolution possible: l- The direct effect of mutations is harmful: Since they occur randomly, they almost always damage the living organism that undergoes them. Reason tells us that unconscious intervention in a perfect and complex structure will not improve that structure, but will rather impair it. Indeed, no "useful mutation" has ever been observed. 2- Mutations add no new information to an organism's DNA: The particles making up the genetic information are either torn from their places, destroyed, or carried off to different places. Mutations cannot make a living thing acquire a new organ or a new trait. They only cause abnormalities like a leg sticking out of the back, or an ear from the abdomen. 3- In order for a mutation to be transferred to the subsequent generation, it has to have taken place in the reproductive cells of the organism: A random change that occurs in a cell or organ of the body cannot be transferred to the next generation. For example, a human eye altered by the effects of radiation, or by other causes, will not be passed on to subsequent generations.
11-21-05, 07:23 PM GazSalem
quote: Originally posted by babthrower: Maybe it would be easier to understand the atheist position, Gaz, if you consider the guideline we call Occam's Razor. In modern English, it's more or less like this:
"Of two alternative explanations for the same phenomena, the more complicated is more likely to have something wrong with it, and therefore, other things being equal, the more simple is the more likely to be correct."
So:
Hypothesis #1: There is a universe. It must have been created, because it is inconceivable that anything can have always existed. So there must be a god, who was the creator. This god has always existed.
Hypothesis #2: There is a universe. It must have always existed.
I subscribe To #2.
Perhaps you dont like to beleive in the big bang theory.
11-21-05, 07:34 PM babthrower Originally posted by GazSalem:
"Perhaps you dont like to beleive in the big bang theory."
I accept the BBT with some reservations. Like any scientific theory, it is subject to modification as new data comes along. I also accept, but do not 'believe', evolution theory. ET is more 'robust', so I have greater confidence in it. But if a better theory comes along, I'll accept it.
I believe the universe exists. My faith in its existance is unshakable.
This message has been edited. Last edited by: babthrower, 11-21-05 08:17 PM
11-21-05, 07:38 PM jusork
quote: Originally posted by GazSalem: My purpose is to understand the rationale... as why people do not believe in God. I just used theory of evolution as example used by some atheist who do not belief in God.
I understand there will be others. My point in not to discuss theory of evolution but to discuss as what are logics the behind Athest faith that there is no God.
I now understand that basically, they cant prove that there is no god. But they are also not convinced as there is god. This perhaps because most Atheist are infact agnostics who doesnt believe in either.
So my original question is answered. And the evolution thing is just for my better understanding about views held by different people.
You can assume that God exists, but is it true? And there just doesn't seem to be any proof that is strong enough to persuade most non-believers. We have no reason to believe that a god exists. And so we turn to more logical answers.
And yes, survival of the fittest is what I meant, I think (is adaption the same as survival of the fittest?). That's why life seems "perfectly structured," as you say.
11-21-05, 07:56 PM jusork
quote: Originally posted by GazSalem: The instance evolutionary biologists give of "useful mutation" is the disease known as sickle cell anemia. In this, the hemoglobin molecule, which serves to carry oxygen in the blood, is damaged as a result of mutation, and undergoes a structural change. As a result of this, the hemoglobin molecule's ability to carry oxygen is seriously impaired. People with sickle cell anemia suffer increasing respiratory difficulties for this reason. However, this example of mutation, which is discussed under blood disorders in medical textbooks, is strangely evaluated by some evolutionary biologists as a "useful mutation." They say that the partial immunity to malaria by those with the illness is a "gift" of evolution. Using the same logic, one could say that, since people born with genetic leg paralysis are unable to walk and so are saved from being killed in traffic accidents, therefore genetic leg paralysis is a "useful genetic feature." This logic is clearly totally unfounded.
The loss of a leg would prevent people from being hit by a vehical while walking down the street, so yes, technically it would be a useful genetic feature. Sickle cell anemia is useful, though, because in places where malaria is widespread, it actually keeps people from dying from it. So the difference is that people can easily avoid getting hit by being careful, while malaria is harder to avoid.
This message has been edited. Last edited by: DorianGreyed,
Actually 'survival of the fittest' is a term first used by the somewhat Fascist philosopher Spencer, after reading Origin of Species. But later Darwin himself used the term, but perhaps in a different sense.
In the biological sense, it means more or less:
Given a population including a number of variations due to random mutations
A change occurs (wetter, dryer, new predator, whatever)
Of those existing forms, some MAY have an advantage, however slight, within the changed neenvironment
These forms are more likely to live long enough to reproduce and pass on their heritable traits. Those that don't survive don't leave offspring.
********* Think of a farmer putting his herd out into a field. He only has enough earmuffs for 10 out of 1000 cows. But it's okay, the weather forecast is for normal winter temperatures. So he picks cows at random, putting earmuffs on them.
But that night, the Storm of the Century happens. Which cows, do you think, are most likely to survive? (I know they might all die. But which are most likely to survive?)
Well, having earmuffs is not a heritable trait. But having fuzzier ears is. And we know that any breeder will select for breeding stock those animals which have desirable traits, and cull the rest.
So now we have hairless dogs because breeders artificially selected them, because a random mutation produced a hairless dog, and it became all the rage among dog fanciers.
They are the same species as other dogs, and they can interbreed. But if we had severe global warming, over time all other dogs might die out.
Then in ages to come we might find many dog fossils in the rocks: Great Danes, Newfoundlanders, Chows....
But perhaps only one would exist: Mexican Hairless. It would be the product of both artificial and natural selection.
This is of course oversimplified. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 11-21-05, 08:32 PM GazSalem
quote: Originally posted by jusork:
quote: Originally posted by GazSalem: The instance evolutionary biologists give of "useful mutation" is the disease known as sickle cell anemia. In this, the hemoglobin molecule, which serves to carry oxygen in the blood, is damaged as a result of mutation, and undergoes a structural change. As a result of this, the hemoglobin molecule's ability to carry oxygen is seriously impaired. People with sickle cell anemia suffer increasing respiratory difficulties for this reason. However, this example of mutation, which is discussed under blood disorders in medical textbooks, is strangely evaluated by some evolutionary biologists as a "useful mutation." They say that the partial immunity to malaria by those with the illness is a "gift" of evolution. Using the same logic, one could say that, since people born with genetic leg paralysis are unable to walk and so are saved from being killed in traffic accidents, therefore genetic leg paralysis is a "useful genetic feature." This logic is clearly totally unfounded.
The loss of a leg would prevent people from being hit by a vehical while walking down the street, so yes, technically it would be a useful genetic feature. Sickle cell anemia is useful, though, because in places where malaria is widespread, it actually keeps people from dying from it. So the difference is that people can easily avoid getting hit by being careful, while malaria is harder to avoid.
Dont you think that a complete healthy person with no respiratory problems is better than a one who has some respiratory problem but is immune to Malaria. There is cure for malaria, so this form of mutation doesnt serve much and infact causing a more difficult life. So this mutation is also in substance not good.
11-21-05, 08:39 PM newnickname
quote: The direct effect of mutations is harmful: Since they occur randomly, they almost always damage the living organism that undergoes them.
A random event need not be a harmful one; there is no 'since' to it. "They almost always damage" is roughly what the theory of evolution says - it implies that sometimes they don't. Sometimes the random variations are useful. Most often they are harmful.
quote: Mutations add no new information to an organism's DNA
This is wrong. Yes they do. The random recombinations of DNA do add information. Much of it is gibberish - garbled nonsense, but every so often something useful can occur. One more time; we have seen this happen.
quote: In order for a mutation to be transferred to the subsequent generation, it has to have taken place in the reproductive cells of the organism
No it needs to have occured in the DNA of the organism as it was created by the combination of its parents' DNA. This DNA information is carried in every cell of the organism. (And of course injuries to the eye, for example, will not be passed on. That's an argument against the ancient theory of Lamarckism, not Darwinism.)
quote: They say that the partial immunity to malaria by those with the illness is a "gift" of evolution.
No; they simply do the math. 'For parents who each carry the sickle cell trait, the chance that their child will also have the trait -- and be immune to malaria -- is 50 percent. There is a 25 percent chance that the child will have neither sickle cell anemia nor the trait which enables immunity to malaria. Finally, the chances that their child will have two copies of the gene, and therefore sickle cell anemia, is also 25 percent. This situation is a stark example of genetic compromise, or an evolutionary "trade-off."' (From one of those earlier links).
No scientist would call it a 'gift'. That's religious language that Harun Yahya has put into the mouths of his opponents.
If you really want to learn about evolution, and how people who accept the idea view it, then why not have a look at some mainstream scientific sources? If I wanted to learn about Islam, I wouldn't base my information on what some crank anti-Islamist said.
11-21-05, 09:23 PM GazSalem
quote: Originally posted by newnickname:
quote: The direct effect of mutations is harmful: Since they occur randomly, they almost always damage the living organism that undergoes them.
A random event need not be a harmful one; there is no 'since' to it. "They almost always damage" is roughly what the theory of evolution says - it implies that sometimes they don't. Sometimes the random variations are useful. Most often they are harmful.
quote: Mutations add no new information to an organism's DNA
This is wrong. Yes they do. The random recombinations of DNA do add information. Much of it is gibberish - garbled nonsense, but every so often something useful can occur. One more time; we have seen this happen.
quote: In order for a mutation to be transferred to the subsequent generation, it has to have taken place in the reproductive cells of the organism
No it needs to have occured in the DNA of the organism as it was created by the combination of its parents' DNA. This DNA information is carried in every cell of the organism. (And of course injuries to the eye, for example, will not be passed on. That's an argument against the ancient theory of Lamarckism, not Darwinism.)
quote: They say that the partial immunity to malaria by those with the illness is a "gift" of evolution.
No; they simply do the math. 'For parents who each carry the sickle cell trait, the chance that their child will also have the trait -- and be immune to malaria -- is 50 percent. There is a 25 percent chance that the child will have neither sickle cell anemia nor the trait which enables immunity to malaria. Finally, the chances that their child will have two copies of the gene, and therefore sickle cell anemia, is also 25 percent. This situation is a stark example of genetic compromise, or an evolutionary "trade-off."' (From one of those earlier links).
No scientist would call it a 'gift'. That's religious language that Harun Yahya has put into the mouths of his opponents.
Why learn about evolution from Harun Yahya? He mostly copies the half-truths and misleading rhetoric of US creationists in any case: The arguments presented both in the conferences and the books are very similar to ICR´s; indeed, ICR remains the most important source of material for Turkish creationists. (ICR = 'Institute For Creation Research').
If you really want to learn about evolution, and how people who accept the idea view it, then why not have a look at some mainstream scientific sources? If I wanted to learn about Islam, I wouldn't base my information on what some crank anti-Islamist said.
quote:
I went to ICR Website, but wasnt able to find evidence of stuff being copied. And I am looking at theory of evolution from the perspective of any theist, so it doesnt make any difference.
However, I like your idea of suggesting a mainstream source. Do you have any particular website in mind.
The loss of a leg would prevent people from being hit by a vehical while walking down the street, so yes, technically it would be a useful genetic feature. Sickle cell anemia is useful, though, because in places where malaria is widespread, it actually keeps people from dying from it. So the difference is that people can easily avoid getting hit by being careful, while malaria is harder to avoid.
Dont you think that a complete healthy person with no respiratory problems is better than a one who has some respiratory problem but is immune to Malaria. There is cure for malaria, so this form of mutation doesnt serve much and infact causing a more difficult life. So this mutation is also in substance not good.
Don't you think a completely intact person with all four limbs is better than a person who has three but (lucky for them Wink) won't get hit by a car while walking across the street?
The point is that the sickle cell anemia mutation prevents malaria. That doesn't mean sickle cell anemia is worth having or that it made the person's life better. It just means that although you'll probably die from the disease, you'll also not get malaria. That doesn't happen in places where there's no malaria to be immune from though. In those instances, there's no benefit from sickle cell anemia, it's just a simple non-beneficial disease. But in places where malaria is common, the disease has a benefit (even though you'll probably die from what's making you immune from malaria).
11-21-05, 11:45 PM babthrower jusork said:
"...in places where malaria is common, [sickle-cell anemia]has a benefit (even though you'll probably die from what's making you immune from malaria)."
As long as the lesser evil allows even a slight reproductive advantage -- e.g. the opportunity to have one extra offspring, and that offspring survive -- it conveys an advantage.
Each year, malaria attacks about 400 million people, two to three million of whom succumb to the illness. Most malaria victims are children.
If the sickle cell mutation allows an individual to survive malaria long enough to reproduce, it provides an advantage even if the individual does not long survive reproducing him/herself.
11-22-05, 07:17 AM GazSalem
quote: Originally posted by babthrower: As long as the lesser evil allows even a slight reproductive advantage -- e.g. the opportunity to have one extra offspring, and that offspring survive -- it conveys an advantage. QUOTE][QUOTE]
Although what you said makes sense in way, but I thank God that I am not suffering from sickle cell anemia. I have suffered from Malaria a couple of times but I was cured by medicines (with no mutation effects). If it was mutation, I wouldnt be enjoying a healthy life now.
I wonder who do Atheist thank when they feel lucky. Theists normally thank God for all the blessings.
11-22-05, 12:02 PM babthrower Originally posted by GazSalem:
"I wonder who do Atheist thank when they feel lucky. Theists normally thank God for all the blessings."
Ummm, now luck is a whole nother topic. I guess theists think that some god/ess has favored them, Lady Luck or someone.
Atheists just think, "Well, something unfolded in the natural way as predetermined, and it happened to be a preferred outcome, from my point of view. So whoopee!" Big Grin
11-22-05, 12:02 PM frankvan
quote: I wonder who do Atheist thank when they feel lucky. Theists normally thank God for all the blessings.
What do theists do when the disasters outnumber he blessings? When the tsunami has wiped out your village and all of your children? When Katrina has drowned you grandmother?
11-22-05, 12:17 PM VelvetVoice Read Job in the OT. Satan asked to test him, and Job lost everything: his home, his seven children, the farm and cattle, and then was afflicted with boils and sores all over his body. The wife and friends told him to curse God and die, yet he did no such thing. God says "Who was there when I created the world? Who was My counselor?" Job said "am I to accept good things from God and not the bad? Who am I that God should look upon me?"
Faith, like love, is inexplicable. You need the eyes of God to see the unseeable. LOL, don't run me out of this forum.
11-22-05, 01:24 PM GazSalem
quote: Originally posted by frankvan:
quote: I wonder who do Atheist thank when they feel lucky. Theists normally thank God for all the blessings.
What do theists do when the disasters outnumber he blessings? When the tsunami has wiped out your village and all of your children? When Katrina has drowned you grandmother?
quote:
Theists(atleast muslims), Thank Allah irrespective if a situation is good or bad. In the begining, out of emotion, they might cry, as "Why?" to God. But as they gain more control they beleive that whether its good or bad situation, it is a test by the Almighty Allah. They keep on praying, hoping for ease. The holy Quran say, "After every difficulty there is ease". So belief in God gives you hope in times of trouble. You dont feel helpless, no matter how worse the situation may be.
11-22-05, 01:40 PM FredPuli That's what is so appealing about faith. It is identical to fatalism. Nobody with faith can bring themselves to doubt the existence a God who has , for example, singularly failed to permit the discovery of medicines and treatments that would have saved millions of devout people from suffering whilst simultaneously allowing His son to cure people of identical conditions by miracles, apparently as proof of his son's divine paternity.
It is a good job that God gave us scientists, even heathen ones, to bring us to a state where we could help our own sick without the need of a return of His son to perform more cures, isn't it?
11-22-05, 01:40 PM babthrower So let's see if I've got this right.
"Theists ... thank Allah irrespective if a situation is good or bad. ... they beleive that whether its good or bad situation, it is a test by the Almighty Allah."
So that is why you pray in thanksgiving if you see children die of starvation. That is why you give joyful thanks to your god if your cities are bombed by your enemies. That is why tears of happiness roll down your cheeks, and you praise god if your child is born with a terrible defect and dies in pain.
I am content that predetermined forces have made me an atheist. Theism is just too bizarre for me to handle. Eek Confused
11-22-05, 02:14 PM GazSalem
quote: Originally posted by FredPuli: Example, singularly failed to permit the discovery of medicines and treatments that would have saved millions of devout people from suffering whilst simultaneously allowing His son to cure people of identical conditions by miracles, apparently as proof of his son's divine paternity.
It is a good job that God gave us scientists, even heathen ones, to bring us to a state where we could help our own sick without the need of a return of His son to perform more cures, isn't it?
Theist(atleast Muslims), give in there best try and then pray. Muslims have been encouraged by to aquire knowledge of science etc. The holy prophet said that you should travel vast distances to aquire more education. Muslim nations have produced great mathematicians, scientists etc. Religion has never been a stumbling block but has encouraged aquisition of knowledge.
Do you think that if a muslim is sick he doesnt go to a doctor? He goes to a doctor. Islam says when needed go to the expert. He goes to doctor and takes medicines. And then prays to Allah.
11-22-05, 02:42 PM GazSalem
quote: Originally posted by babthrower: So let's see if I've got this right.
"Theists ... thank Allah irrespective if a situation is good or bad. ... they beleive that whether its good or bad situation, it is a test by the Almighty Allah."
So that is why you pray in thanksgiving if you see children die of starvation. That is why you give joyful thanks to your god if your cities are bombed by your enemies. That is why tears of happiness roll down your cheeks, and you praise god if your child is born with a terrible defect and dies in pain.
I am content that predetermined forces have made me an atheist. Theism is just too bizarre for me to handle. Eek Confused
quote:
Muslim do not have thanksgiving day. Perhaps a chrisitan can answer this one better. But I they are not celebrating over someone being killed etc. They just thankful to the blessing of God like good home, good food, love etc.
In times of misery, we do make efforts,like the South Asia Earthquake, muslims not only donated money but actively helped in recovery. And after making efforts we pray and ask Allah for mercy. Prayers bring us to peace and calmness. And once in peace we thank Allah.
I think it is more or less same way for other thiests.
11-22-05, 03:04 PM frankvan
quote: So belief in God gives you hope in times of trouble. You dont feel helpless, no matter how worse the situation may be.
That may be true for some people. As for me, I would feel far more helpless if my entire life was dependent on the whim of some inscrutable deity and whether or not I praised him often enough.
11-22-05, 04:12 PM jusork
quote: Originally posted by babthrower: jusork said:
"...in places where malaria is common, [sickle-cell anemia]has a benefit (even though you'll probably die from what's making you immune from malaria)."
As long as the lesser evil allows even a slight reproductive advantage -- e.g. the opportunity to have one extra offspring, and that offspring survive -- it conveys an advantage.
Each year, malaria attacks about 400 million people, two to three million of whom succumb to the illness. Most malaria victims are children.
If the sickle cell mutation allows an individual to survive malaria long enough to reproduce, it provides an advantage even if the individual does not long survive reproducing him/herself.
I think that's what I was saying. What are you disagreeing with again?
11-22-05, 04:31 PM babthrower Originally posted by jusork:
"I think that's what I was saying. What are you disagreeing with again?"
Heck, I wasn't disagreeing at all. I thought it was a good point.
However I thought it needed to be spelled out more: A tiny heritable mutation, if the individual reaches breeding age, will pass the trait into the gene pool.
It is not necessary that the trait be wholly beneficial, or prolong life much beyond breeding age.
11-22-05, 04:35 PM juanruiz
quote: heritable
heritable?
This message has been edited. Last edited by: DorianGreyed,
Posts: 6506 | Location: British Columbia, Canada | Registered: 06-11-02
Ah! Thanks then. That does help actually. +++++++++++++++++++++ 11-22-05, 04:46 PM bik74
quote: Originally posted by babthrower: So let's see if I've got this right.
"Theists ... thank Allah irrespective if a situation is good or bad. ... they beleive that whether its good or bad situation, it is a test by the Almighty Allah."
So that is why you pray in thanksgiving if you see children die of starvation. That is why you give joyful thanks to your god if your cities are bombed by your enemies. That is why tears of happiness roll down your cheeks, and you praise god if your child is born with a terrible defect and dies in pain.
I am content that predetermined forces have made me an atheist. Theism is just too bizarre for me to handle. Eek Confused
No BAB when some is sick or suffering... we do no thank Allah. We ask for help & do our best to remove the pain (whatever that is). Everyone is tested in a different way. Some are tested with wealth & some without. Some are tested with health & some without.
Chapter 2 of Quran 30. Behold, thy Lord said to the angels: "I will create a vicegerent on earth." They said: "Wilt Thou place therein one who will make mischief therein and shed blood?- whilst we do celebrate Thy praises and glorify Thy holy (name)?" He said: "I know what ye know not." .
I do not want to slam the Quran on anyone. I know its not liked. But indeed God knows what we do not. Just because we cant answer what has happened to our life or someone elses life... why doubt HIM. Peace be with you.
11-22-05, 05:18 PM bik74 Whatever the case is Islam is entering into peace, surrendering oneself GOD, submitting to His will..... So while we try to do things as they seem right.. decisions & results are left for God. Submitting ourself to whatever God wants.
Speaking ideally.
11-22-05, 05:45 PM FredPuli Ancient joke:
Q. How do you make God laugh?
A. You tell Him your plans.
Well, that's one way of looking at it. Smile
11-22-05, 06:10 PM bik74
quote: Originally posted by FredPuli: Ancient joke:
Q. How do you make God laugh?
A. You tell Him your plans.
Well, that's one way of looking at it. Smile
Interesting we do believe that God can be pleased & God can get angry at us. More funny would be actually 'negotiating with God'.
11-22-05, 07:09 PM frankvan
quote: Originally posted by juanruiz:
quote: heritable
heritable?
What's wrong with "heritable" ? Confused
11-22-05, 09:28 PM GazSalem
quote: Originally posted by babthrower: Originally posted by jusork:
A tiny heritable mutation.
quote:
What exactly is is heritable mutation? Mutation in reproductvie parts?
11-22-05, 10:22 PM newnickname Mutations do not need to occur in the reproductive parts to be heritable. A heritable mutation is one that occurs when the DNA of an organism is originally put together - when the parents' DNA joins, and that can be passed on. This DNA information is carried in all the cells of an organism. If the mutation affects the 'reproductive parts' it may not be heritable, as it could cause infertility.
11-23-05, 01:57 AM babthrower
quote: Originally posted by GazSalem:
What exactly is is heritable mutation? Mutation in reproductvie parts?
quote: Originally posted by newnickname: If the mutation affects the 'reproductive parts' it may not be heritable, as it could cause infertility.
quote:
In reproduction, mainly the male sperms only enters the female body. So if some things is to be inherrited from that male, something to the effect should be there in male sperms. Sperms should have some information about the desired mutation of off-spring.
11-23-05, 09:38 AM newnickname Yes. The DNA pattern of an organism is carried in all the cells of an organism. All the cells carry all the information; all the cells are built using the information. The sperm cells carry the same information that all the other cells do. This information comes from the 're-shuffling' of DNA that occurs when two parents have a child.
This is why kids tend to look like their parents. Importantly, the children are not exact copies - there is always some variation. That's part of what drives evolution.
It's not a 'desired' mutation. There's no conscious thought involved (as far as we can see - there may be divine influence undetectable by scientific methods, if you believe in that kind of thing).
There can be mutations to the DNA of reproductive cells (eggs and sperm) alone, and these might cause the offspring to be significantly different, or not, to the parents. These mutations can be caused by imperfections in cell division and creation, or by environmental problems, like radiation. (Radiation can break down DNA - the repaired DNA can be different; 'imperfect'.) Again, this new DNA information would exist in all cells of the offspring, and would be passed on to its offspring.
Most mutations are neutral or harmful in effect. Some increase the chances of the organism surviving and reproducing successfully. Those advantageous mutations tend, therefore, to spread throughout a population.
(Mutations from cell division glitches, or environmental causes, in cells not involved in reproduction would not be passed on. They would not be 'heritable'. Uninheritable, in fact.)
This message has been edited. Last edited by: newnickname, 11-23-05 10:19 AM
11-23-05, 12:20 PM babthrower An example of a non-heritable mutation might be a cancer. A cell's DNA may be damaged by some random event, such as exposure to radiation. Suppose it is a cell in the spleen. The damage is reproduced in the spleen alone when the cell divides. The person can reproduce sexually while harboring this c ancer but the offspring will not be born with cancer of the spleen. The parent's egg or sperm were not damaged.
11-23-05, 12:49 PM VelvetVoice
quote: Interesting we do believe that God can be pleased & God can get angry at us. More funny would be actually 'negotiating with God'.
Actually, some Jews thought it was just fine to argue with God. They would question His actions, and expected God to answer to them. Read Hyam Maccoby's 'The Mythmaker'. If you want to do an anti-Paul thread, this is your book. Of course, expect me to refute it.
11-23-05, 12:58 PM juanruiz
quote: Read Hyam Maccoby's 'The Mythmaker'.
I've heard of that book. Never read it, though. Understand it is anti-Pauline, and I could never tolerate that.
11-23-05, 01:22 PM babthrower Originally posted by Gaz:
"Muslim do not have thanksgiving day. Perhaps a chrisitan can answer this one better. But I they are not celebrating over someone being killed etc...."
My post, which said:
"So that is why you pray in thanksgiving if you see children die of starvation,"
was not about the feast day, Thanksgiving. It meant the act of giving thanks.
Gaz had said:
"Theists ... thank Allah irrespective if a situation is good or bad. ... they beleive that whether its good or bad situation, it is a test by the Almighty Allah."
Now I'm really puzzled.
In prior posts, we have established:
-- god does not need our praise
-- god does not need us to tell him what we want because he already knows
-- god will not necessarily give us what we pray for because it might not be good for us
-- god always gives us what is good for us
-- what is good for us may not always be pleasant
-- when we get something pleasant, it is a test
-- when we get something unpleasant, that too is a test
-- god knows in advance, at the time he gives us something, whether we will pass the test or not.
All this leaves me with just one question:
why the hell bother praying?
11-23-05, 03:54 PM bik74
quote: Originally posted by juanruiz:
quote: Read Hyam Maccoby's 'The Mythmaker'.
I've heard of that book. Never read it, though. Understand it is anti-Pauline, and I could never tolerate that.
Huh...
11-23-05, 04:04 PM bik74
quote: Originally posted by babthrower:
why the hell bother praying?
Puzzling.... Well its not neccessry that certain decision of God is not based on our actions. Indeed they may or they may not be. You have to understand this... being muslims , we belive in 'One God, His prophets AND afterlife etc etc'. Afterlife is the life of eternity (as per our belief). So perhaps as you say whats gonna happen is gonna happen. The real test is how we go through each test. The result is indeed in HIS hands & He may have allready decided what He is going to do with is on earth... but HIS Dicision with what He is ging to do with us in Afterlife is still pending. So if we suffer..... what to do 'swear, question God OR be patient & ask God for help'. Indeed our good actions are to be compared agaisnt our bad actions on the day of judgement. Lets not limit a good action to worship or charity. Peace.
11-23-05, 04:06 PM bik74 Going further... when someone says we muslims should thank GOD in every situation. Well i guess the better statement would be that in times of misery or pain, we should be patient & thank God for not making it worse. That indeed would be a very good form of faith.
11-23-05, 05:41 PM juanruiz
quote: Huh...
Inside joke.
11-23-05, 09:01 PM newnickname
quote: Actually, some Jews thought it was just fine to argue with God.
In GEN 18:20-33, Abraham succesfully negotiates with God, persuading him to go easy on Sodom and Gomorrah if he finds as few as ten "righteous people" there. (At that time, it seems, God was not omniscient and omnipresent, having to go to the city to check on this.)
One theory is that in original versions Abraham was another deity (Greek and Roman deities argue[d] all the time), later demoted to human status when monotheism became the thing.
This message has been edited. Last edited by: DorianGreyed,
Posts: 6517 | Location: Grayson, Georgia, USA | Registered: 06-03-02
One theory is that in original versions Abraham was another deity (Greek and Roman deities argue[d] all the time), later demoted to human status when monotheism became the thing.
Interesting to note the similarity of the names of the Patriarch Abraham and the Hindu creator-god Brahma. Also interesting is that the name of Abraham's wife is Sarai and Brahma's consort is named Sarai-Svati. +++++++++++++++++++++ 11-23-05, 09:52 PM Hawk
quote: Originally posted by newnickname:
It's not a 'desired' mutation. There's no conscious thought involved (as far as we can see - there may be divine influence undetectable by scientific methods, if you believe in that kind of thing).
quote:
Creatures like humans are very complex in structure. Good Mutations are in general quite rare, but must have happend a lot in order to create millions of complex creations. It is hard to consider these as random events especially considering the fact that the species being mutated had no awareness and control over the mutation process.
11-23-05, 10:37 PM newnickname "The fact that the species being mutated had no awareness and control over the mutation process" would reinforce the idea that these are random events, wouldn't it, rather than making it harder to consider them random?
The scientific view is that they did happen 'a lot'; although beneficial mutations are relatively infrequent, they have happened over billions of years.
Of course, if you find it hard to believe that the mutations are really random, and choose to see a divine guiding hand (undetectable by scientific methods), then why not? That seems to be how most theistic scientists (or scientific theists) reconcile what we can observe of the processes of evolution with their religion.
11-24-05, 01:41 AM babthrower People buy lottery tickets. If the tickets are drawn randomly as they ought to be, most people lose their money. But some people win, even though the odds are tremendously high, for each individual player, against their winning.
Because the odds are against him/her does not lead logically to the conclusion that no one can win.
11-24-05, 08:39 AM Hawk
quote: Originally posted by newnickname: "The fact that the species being mutated had no awareness and control over the mutation process" would reinforce the idea that these are random events, wouldn't it, rather than making it harder to consider them random?
quote:
I agree that in the begining of mutation these events seems to be random but as it ends up creating such complex being, it appears that there must be some one directing these events. There are too many complex creatures on earth, which makes me doubt that all these events were completely random. Random events in general do not show systematic pattern, while the structure of creatures even from artistic view does show a well planned creation.
It is similar example posted earlier, about creating Eifel tower by shaking iron ores.
11-24-05, 09:40 AM newnickname A common misunderstanding of evolution is that it is entirely random. It isn't really. The mutations are random, but there is also 'natural selection'. Useful variations are preserved and passed on through DNA, and can be built on - the process has been cumulative over billions of years (maybe part of not being able to grasp evolution is not being able to imagine 'billions of years'). Less useful variations are not passed on so effectively. There's a kind of natural filter that keeps some variations, and adds to them - without any conscious thought.
People often use 'shaking iron into an Eiffel tower', 'shaking a jar full of watch parts' or 'hurricane through a junk-yard' analogies to dismiss evolution. Those analogies aren't accurate representations of what happens.
Suppose you have a jar full of watch parts, but some of those parts are chemically disposed to get together? Suppose, whenever two parts usefully get together, that combination is preserved, and can be added to (rather than being shaken apart again), suppose you're not aiming particularly for a watch (or a tower or a jumbo jet) anyway? Suppose you have billions of years to shake the thing? Maybe you begin to see how it might work.
What we're actually talking about is organic chemistry, and random mutation plus natural selection, with heritability and preservation of useful traits - not jumbled metal parts (or the ore) from a deconstructed object. The analogy doesn't work.
If you chose to see the hand of god in the basic rules of the universe that allow complex chemistry, no one could argue with you. Arguing that random events do not show systematic patterns (how do casino owners get rich?) and that things just look well-planned (really?) is not very convincing.
11-24-05, 10:36 AM babthrower Returning to the box-of-watches analogy, suppose that after each shake, which was caused, by the way, by an earthquake, 'someone' decided that this particular result was not getting any closer to building a watch, and restored it to its previous arrangement. Thus, only improving 'shakeouts' survived.
This is what happens in nature, not by any purposive 'someone', but by the effect of the environment. Unless the new arrangement gives the bio-unit an advantage, it likely does not replicate.
Level one: box of watch parts Level two: reorganized box, no closer to being a watch Level three: level two arrangement scrapped Level four: another earthquake, and another organization. This time, two parts which end up ajacent to each other, two toothed wheels, "catch in, and apply to each other" (in the words of William Paley, the Anglican Doctor of Divinity who came up with the watchmaker analogy.)*
This accident is not scrapped.
These shakings occur millions of times. Each time, the destructive outcomes are scrapped.
This is why the watchmaker analogy is faulty. It ignores the following attribute of evolution:
Only neutral or favorable outcomes are retained.
* Paley did not write this analogy (of the self-assembling watch) as a response to Darwin's theory of natural selection, by the way. Paley wrote in 1802. Darwin wasn't published until 1859.
11-24-05, 12:35 PM Hawk I understand,if a desired/useful arrangement is retained (via natural selection), complex beings may be formed over a very large frame of time. However what is said as "Natural selection" by athesits/agnostics is beleived "Selection by God" by the theist. So I beleive athesit/agnostics also beleive in God, its just that they call it Nature!
11-24-05, 01:29 PM newnickname
quote: However what is said as "Natural selection" by athesits/agnostics is beleived "Selection by God" by the theist.
That's kind of what I've been saying, about the invisible divine influence that many have faith in. If a dice comes up six you can choose to believe that God caused it, or just that it's natural for a dice to come up six sometimes.
Belief in 'nature' rather than a 'deity' is different, not necessarily just a different term for the same thing. Nature doesn't demand that you kill unbelievers, not eat certain foods, mutilate your body, beat your kids, sacrifice animals or whatever.
It's a kind of Occam's razor belief - that's just how things are; what we can observe, no more. Belief in a god adds a whole lot of stuff that needs to be taken on faith.
11-24-05, 02:51 PM Hawk
quote: Originally posted by newnickname: If a dice comes up six you can choose to believe that God caused it, or just that it's natural for a dice to come up six sometimes.
quote:
Yeah, but in our case nature is selecting some combinations of numbers that are favorable. Nature is favoring a particular selection. Nature is perhaps not blind, otherwise it wont be favoring some events (by retaining good mutations and rejecting others).
Nature has decided as what you should and what you shouldnt eat. For example you can eat both animals and plants because you are given a set of omnivorous teeth and a digestive system to support these things. You cant/may eat certain things as they are poisonous/harmful.
So Nature has sort of governed a lot of things for you
