Richard Dawkins (The God Delusion)

[JLMACN]

^^gracias...

5000

 

[n9newunsixx5150]

From my readings of the Bible, there are plenty of inconsistencies,

God is so merciful that if you are looking for inconsistencies, you will find them (oblivious to the possibility of reconciliation).

especially between the God of the Old Testament and the God of the New Testament.

This isn't a problem with God, it is a problem with the box you are trying to put God in.

 

[ThaG]

God is so merciful that if you are looking for inconsistencies, you will find them (oblivious to the possibility of reconciliation).




This isn't a problem with God, it is a problem with the box you are trying to put God in.

This was said about something else but your post made me think it is 100% applicable to religion:

"Religion is a black hole for reason and a desert for civilization"

 

[n9newunsixx5150]

This was said about something else but your post made me think it is 100% applicable to religion:

"Religion is a black hole for reason and a desert for civilization"

Which has less impact once one realizes that, "Non-religion is a black hole for reason and a desert for civilization".

A more accurate statement would be, "Desire can be a black hole for reason and a desert for civilization"


Though a more complete understanding was given to us long ago:

"A man must elevate himself by his own mind, not degrade himself. The mind is the friend of the conditioned soul, and his enemy as well." -Bhagavad-Gita, 6.5

 

[ParkBoyz]

The Natural Limits of Evolution
http://www.geocities.com/athens/oracle/5862/creation.html

 

[ThaG]

Which has less impact once one realizes that, "Non-religion is a black hole for reason and a desert for civilization".

A more accurate statement would be, "Desire can be a black hole for reason and a desert for civilization"


Though a more complete understanding was given to us long ago:

"A man must elevate himself by his own mind, not degrade himself. The mind is the friend of the conditioned soul, and his enemy as well." -Bhagavad-Gita, 6.5

Hare Krishna

 

[ThaG]

The Natural Limits of Evolution
http://www.geocities.com/athens/oracle/5862/creation.html

B.A. Bible/Biology

I would like to know which respected univeristy has a Bible/Biology major????????

I would also like to know and why it's not listed after his "degree"....

 

[n9newunsixx5150]

Hare Krishna

Haribol!

Jaya Prabhupada!

 

[Cmoke]

i just bought this book today after watching some interviews. I like this guys respect for ppls beliefs and the search for actual TRUTH. should be a good read

 

[ThaG]

now this is something written by an idiot for idiots and cited by another idiot...

and I'll show you why:

Is it possible to be scientifically-minded and not believe in evolution? Well, it is important to distinguish between micro-evolution and macro-evolution. Micro-evolution (or horizontal evolution) which involves variations within biological "kinds" (such as the varieties of dogs, cats, horses, cows, etc.) is truly scientific, but macro-evolution (or vertical evolution) which teaches that variations in nature can occur and did occur across biological "kinds" (especially from simpler kinds to more complex ones) has never been scientifically proved even though it is almost universally taught and taken for granted as being a scientific fact. But, as we shall see, not only is macro-evolution not scientifically proven but it actually contradicts well-established facts and laws of modern science

1. "kind" is a creationstic term, not a scientific one

2. There is plenty of evidence for macro-evolution - fossils and comparative genomics, anatomy and morphology. So much evidence that it is considered as rigorously proven as any hypothesis in natural sciences can be (that's why it's a theory)

again we have lies, lies, and nothing but lies coming from the "deeply respected" "scientists-creationists"

The famous nineteenth century naturalist Charles Darwin assumed that because micro-evolution ocurrs in nature then macro-evolution must also be possible, but the modern scientific evidence from genetics supports only the possibility of micro-evolution, or limited biological variation, occurring naturally in living things. For example, no matter how many different races or varieties of dogs come into being they will always remain dogs and not change or evolve into some other kind of animal. Even the formation of an entirely new species of plant or animal from hybridization will not support Darwinian evolution since such hybridization does not involve any production of new genetic information but merely the recombination of already existing genes. Modifications and/or recombinations of already existing genes or traits have been shown to occur in nature but never the production of entirely new genes or traits. This is true even with genetic mutations. For example, mutations in the gene(s) for human hair may the change the gene(s) so that another type of human hair develops, but the mutations won't change the gene(s) for human hair so that feathers, wings, or entirely new traits develop. Mutations may even cause duplication of already existing traits (i.e. an extra finger, toe, etc. even in another part of the body!), but none of these things qualify as new traits. Most biological variations, however, are not from mutations but simply from new combinations of already existing genes.

The theory of macro-evolution, on the other hand, teaches that there are no biological limits to variation and change. For example, macro-evolution teaches that over millions of years something like a dog evolved into an ape and then something like an ape evolved into a human being. But, unless the environment or Nature has the ability to perform genetic engineering such macro-evolutionary changes, as proposed by Darwin, are not possible - millions of years or no millions of years!

yes, Nature has the ability to do "gene-engineering" - by horizontal gene transfer and gene duplication

I will dismiss the ridiculous claims about the hairs and feathers because obviously the author has know clue how similiar they are (in fact they are homologous), not only that, he has no idea how a hair develops. I am sure the three letter Fgf are absolutely foreign to him

One thing: the master regulators of development in virtually all multicellular organisms are the Hox, ParaHox and NK clusters of homeodomain trasncription factors. This is an example of macroevolution in action. The three clusters are homologous to each other and all genes code for homeodomain TFs. Cnidarians have single Hox and ParaHox clusters, the NK cluster is present in all triploblast animals. Sequence comparison clearly indicates that Hox and ParaHox arose from a single ProtoHox cluster that consisted of foru genes. The ParaHox cluster lost one gene and further cis-duplication created more genes in each of the clusters. All animals except vertebrates have only one copy of each cluster and they are generally preferentially expressed in different germ layers (Hox in Ectoderm, NK in mesoderm and ParaHox in endoderm) - just as expected for clusters that were present in diploblasts and later duplicated further in triploblasts.

In vertebrates 4 Hox clusters and 4 ParaHox clusters and many other genes tha are present in 4 diverged copy which is a strong evidence that atwo successive whole-genome duplication events happened in the past. Comparative genomics studies allow us to think with a great confidence these happened in a short period of time approximately 400 milions of years ago and they allowed the rapid evolution of chordates after that.

BTW Hox genes are a unique example of colinear expression of genes where all genes in the cluster are expressed in different parts of the body with the 3' end genes being expressed most anteriorly.

To interprete this evidence (and I'm presenting only part of it due to laziness and lack of time) as if God did it is pure insanity.

If you accept micro-evolution, you have to also accept that comparative genomics and Evo-Devo studies clearly show macro-evolution is also a fact as mutations - in this case whole-genome, cis and trans duplication events - provide a sufficient and satisfactory explanation for the differences observed

 

[ThaG]

It is true that natural selection occurs in nature, but natural selection itself is not a creative force. Natural selection can only work with biological variations that are possible and which have survival value. Natural selection does not produce or generate biological variations. It is a passive process in nature. When a biological change or variation occurs which helps an animal to survive in its environment then that variation will be preserved and be passed on to offspring. That is called "natural selection". There is, of course, no conscious or active selection on the part of nature as some think. The term "natural selection" is simply a figure of speech. Evolutionists believe that random or chance mutations in the genetic code, caused by random environmental forces such as radiation, will produce entirely new traits and variations which natural selection can then act upon.

yes

However, there is no scientific evidence whatsoever that the environment has the ability to generate entirely new genes for entirely new traits in species. It would require genetic engineering to accomplish such a feat. Evolutionists argue that given enough time random changes (mutations) in the genetic code caused by environmental forces, such as radiation, can perform such genetic eningeering.

yes

However, mutations are accidents in the sequential molecular structure of the genetic code and they are almost always harmful, as would be expected from accidents. Of course, just like some earthquakes that don't do any damage to buildings, there are also mutations that don't do any biological harm. But, even if a good mutation does occur for every good mutation there will be hundreds of harmful ones with the net result over time being disastrous for the species.

wrooooong

millions of different sequences can code for the same functional unit

the genetic code is degenerate

=>

most mutations are neutral

new genes arise by duplications and divergence of old genes or, very rarely, (although that obviouly happened much more frequently in the distant past due to the simplicity of life forms then and the lack of the intricate mechanisms of repair and control over the genetic material) by chance from random sequences

Protein domain shuffling also plays a huge role

I've given this example before:

all kinases in the human genome (more than 500, playing crucial role in every process in the cell) are homologous to each other and arose by duplication, divergence and domain shuffling

http://www.cellsignal.com/reference/kinase/kinome.jsp

 

[n9newunsixx5150]

Gee, I like that Einstein quote in my sig.

 

[ThaG]

For those who are not read-up on their biology, a little information on genes would be helpful here. What we call "genes" are actually segments of the DNA molecule. DNA, or the genetic code, is composed of a molecular string of various nucleic acids (chemical letters) which are arranged in a sequence just like the letters found in the words and sentences of a book. It is this sequence of nucleic acids in DNA that tells the cells of our body how to construct (or build) various proteins, tissues, and organs such as nose, eyes, brain, etc. If the nucleic acids in the genetic code are not in the correct sequence then malfunctioning, or even worse, harmful proteins may form causing serious health problems and even death.

the author is clearly one of these people....

"may form" is the key phrase here

There is no law in science that nucleic acids have to come together in a particular sequence. Any nucleic acid can just as easily bond with any other. The only reason for why nucleic acids are found in a particular sequence in the DNA of the cells of our bodies is because they are directed to do so by previously existing DNA. When new cells form in our bodies the DNA of the old cells direct the formation of the DNA in the new cells.

true

The common belief among evolutionists is that, if given millions of years, radiation and other environmental forces will cause enough random changes (mutations) to occur in the sequential structure of the genetic code of a species so that entirely new sequences for entirely new genes will develop which in turn will program for the formation of entirely new biological traits, organs, and structures that natural selection can then act upon.

true to a certain extent

nothing entirely new just appears out of nowhere, already existing structures are being gradually modified

but it's not a belief, because that's what's been happening on this planet for the last several billions of years

Would it be rational to believe that by randomly changing the sequence of letters in a cookbook that you will eventually get a book on astronomy? Of course not! And if the book were a living being it would have died in the process of such random changes.

wroooong

See above about mutations and biological information

Such changes as transforming one book into another or the DNA of one species into the DNA of another, especially one more complex, simply cannot occur by random or chance alterations. It would require intelligent planning and design to change one book into another or to change the DNA of a simpler species into the DNA of a more complex one. Yes, the raw materials and chemicals to make new genes exist in all species, but random forces of the environment (i.e. radiation, etc.) simply have no ability to rearrange those chemicals and biological materials into entirely new genes or into an entirely new genetic code.

yeah, it requiers intelligent plannig and 4 years of studying the Bible at a Christian college to write a ridiculous rejection of evolution and to become a laughing stock

Furthermore, a half-evolved and useless organ waiting millions of years to be completed by random mutations would be a liability and hindrance to a species - not exactly a prime candidate for natural selection. In fact, how could species have survived over, supposedly, millions of years if their vital (or necessary) organs were still in the process of evolving!

the concept of the "half-evolved" organ exists only in the heads of the creationists desperately trying to refute evolution

the brain of a fish is probably "half-evolved" compared to ours

Yet, it works fine for fish, and if no animals with more complex brains are present around it is not just "half-evolved" but rather a space shuttle compared to a plane from WWI

Usually the definition of a biological "kind" means a natural species but this may not always be the case. The key to keep in mind here is that in order for evolution in nature to occur from one biological "kind" to another biological "kind" entirely new genes would have to be generated and not just merely modifications and/or recombinations of already existing genes. We do know that environmental forces may cause mutations that may trigger the duplication of already existing genes but such duplication of already existing genes is not the same as new genetic information.

1. There's no such thing as a biological "kind"

2. If the deeply respected Mt. Ranganathan has been so ingenious that he came with a definition for it, he would have done us a big favour if he shared it with us

As he, unfortunately, didn't do it, I will assume that he considers humans and apes different "kinds"

A comparison of the two genomes will not reveal any genes that are not present in one of the two groups and that are not homologous to a gene that's present in both

Sure, some small RNAs are likely to be found, but they are smal and don't code for proteins, thus they can evolve very fast

 

[ThaG]

At the very foundation of evolutionary theory is the belief that life originally evolved from nonliving matter. This belief is known as spontaneous generation. This evolutionary theory was successfully refuted by the experiments of the brilliant creationist and scientist Louis Pasteur in the late nineteenth century. All empirical and scientific evidence to this day demonstrates that life can only come from pre-existing life. Even in the laboratory, scientists with all their intelligence, planning, sophisticated equipment and technology have not been able to create a single living cell from nonliving matter. They haven't even come close. What scientists have done is genetically engineer, or alter, already existing forms of life, and by doing this scientists have been able to produce new forms of life, but, again, they did not produce any of these new life forms from non-living matter. It is truly remarkable how so many in our society, even those who are well educated, erroneously believe that scientists have created life in the laboratory.

Evolution is true, no matter how life originally arose, evolutionary theory deals with the evolution of life, not with it origin (although evolutionary mechanisms obviously governed the process, as everything else in the universe)

Scientists have been trying to do that for less than 50 years, and most of that time they didn't even know what they were doing

Nature had 9 billions years to do that (because the panspermy theory can never be rejected completely and there are certain reasons to thinkit might be true - the existence of Deinococcus radiodurans)

Scientists can't reproduce the process because they don't know how it happened. Nature doesn't have to know how things happen, they just happed out of random sampling of trillions and trillions of trials

BTW a proposal has been made for synthesis of an artificial cell and this is certainly achievable with the tools we have today

Another point to keep in mind is that genetic engineering would never help support any argument for evolution because, unlike evolution, genetic engineering is not a process left to chance, but, rather, genetic engineering is a highly complex procedure which involves intelligent design, planning, and very sophisticated technology.

true, true

but again, we can't reproduce the evolution of life, because it happened in an infinite amount of time compared to our lifespans

you can't want us to make artificial life and then say "Oh, you engineered it, it doesn't count"

it is extremely hypocritic to do so

 

[ThaG]

What happens many times in genetic engineering is that scientists transplant a gene from one organism into the DNA, or genetic code, of another organism which does not possess that gene, and, thereby, they alter the organism receiving the foreign gene. But, again, in all of the cases involving genetic engineering scientists begin with already existing genes from already existing organisms or parts of organisms. But, even if scientists, through intelligent planning and sophisticated technology, ever produced a living organism from scratch (that is without the use of already existing organisms or parts of organisms)it would still not prove that such an event can happen by chance. Ultimately, however, life may be more than just having the right chemical framework and structure since even a dead cell, shortly before it decays, possess all of the proper and necessary chemical structures intact but, alas, has no life.

How do you define a dead cell?

Cell death in its various forms (apoptosis, necrosis) is a gradual process and it doesn't "just happen" in seconds

comebody has to get his B.A revoked

In fact, even billions times billions of years would not even begin to scratch the odds of just a single protein molecule coming into existence by chance much less the millions of protein molecules that make up even the simplest cell. And just having a partial cell will not do. As was mentioned earlier, a partially evolved cell cannot wait millions of years to become complete because it would be highly unstable and quickly disintegrate in the open environment, especially without the protection of a complete and fully-functioning cell membrane. You must have the whole cell with its millions of orderly and sequentially arranged parts come into existence all at once or not at all. This is just the problem for evolutionists who not too long ago put so much faith in pre-biotic soups in some pre-historic period of the earth's history. What is interesting is that all of the cell's machinery is necessary for producing even a single part. For example, you cannot get DNA without RNA and enzymes, but then you cannot get RNA and enzymes without DNA. Darwin just had no idea! He'd turn over in his grave now if he knew all this.

more of the same bullshit

who told you life has to start with a cell

no scientist cliams this

lies, lies, lies, and nothing but lies, designed to mislead the simple-minded

all that is needed is self-replicating molecules

then you can start evolving further

self-replicating molecules have been synthesized numerous times

 

[ParkBoyz]

now this is something written by an idiot for idiots and cited by another idiot...

I guess, but only an idiot will argue with a website, so I'm not sure of how credible your opinion is..

 

[ThaG]

Now, let's examine the relation of DNA to protein molecules. Protein molecules are made up of chains of amnino acids that are also arranged in a sequence. The sequence of the various nucleic acids in DNA ultimately determines the sequence of the various amino acids in protein. DNA also directs its own replication (or duplication). Of course, once you have a complete, fully-functioning, and living cell the biological and chemical machinery then exists for new cells to come into being via the process of reproduction, but that does not provide us the answer to how the original DNA, RNA and protein molecules of the first cell arose when there was no such biological and chemical machinery in existence. Mere undirected laws of chemistry will never, never provide the universe with even a single protein molecule, much less an entire cell with billions of protein molecules, DNA, RNA, etc. It is not even scientific to consider such a thought! People think that if we find a planet somewhere out in space that can support life then life will just come into existence. However, just because we have the conditions to support life doesn't necessarily mean that those conditions will produce or create life from non-living matter. The real scientific fact is that the very intricacy, complexity, and organizational structure of the cell points to an intelligent Power (God) for its original cause.

see above

you're an absolute idiot if you think life started with an eukaryotic cell

that's a claim only a creationist can make

it is true that we have only a vague idea how translation and the genetic code evolved and it is a very complex problem which we're still far from solving

what we're pretty sure is that this happened at a later stage of evolution of primitive cells so what is said here is absolutely irrelevant

I won't talk about PNAs

 

[ThaG]

I guess, but only an idiot will argue with a website, so I'm not sure of how credible your opinion is..

I'm tired of reading nonsense anyway

try at least to read what I posted

there's a minimal chance that some knowledge might enter your empty head

 

[ParkBoyz]

You must be tired of life period..

First response by The G: Today, 05:21 PM

Lat response so far: Today, 06:09 PM

^Almost an hour of responding to a website... In addition to being a 1 dimensional troll, you're also a low-life. I dare you to post in any thread and give us your general knowledge on anything in this world besides Darwanism. Darwinism is this kid's life, lol! He can tell us how inorganic matter sequenced its self into different gene codes and explain the secrets behind life, but he can barley spell most of the words he types, how ironic. Do you have autism or what?

 

[ThaG]

I speak on things I am expert in

if more people did the same (for example - not claiming they know more about biology than biologists), the world would be a better place

I have the right to take such websites and post by people like you as insults to my work and me personally