Mammalian and Octopus eyes- a second look
chris thompson
octopus eyes are an example of convergent evolution. However, this
paper:
http://genome.cshlp.org/content/14/8/1555.full.pdf+html
(free pdf, open access)
seems to suggest that the mechanisms for forming a camera eye were
present in the last common ancestor of Bilateria.
A creationist would likely exclaim "AHA! Common design!"
How would you refute that?
I admit I do not understand much of this paper. I would appreciate
explanations from people more conversant in molecular biology.
Chris
John Harshman
So far, based wholly on the abstract and a quick skim of the discussion,
it seems to me that they mean only that convergence is easier when
starting from a similar point, and that most of the genes that were
recruited in building a camera eye in both taxa were already present.
And in fact the great majority of the genes they mention are also
present in, for example, insects.
There's no doubt about convergence at the morphological level.
Creationists would certainly make much of it, but they would be required
to misunderstand the paper in order to do so. Of course, they're good at
that. Common design doesn't explain why the eyes are so different, and
why the same genes in vertebrates and cephalopods are so different from
each other in sequence, and why those genes (when present) in animals
without camera eyes have sequences that fit the phylogeny.
Now what's interesting is that small subset of genes that appear to have
been lost in all the sampled genomes except those of organisms with
camera eyes. What were they doing in the common ancestor?
Walter Bushell
John Harshman <jhar...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> Creationists would certainly make much of it, but they would be required
> to misunderstand the paper in order to do so.
<snort!>< . . .
--
The Chinese pretend their goods are good and we pretend our money
is good, or is it the reverse?
r norman
I can't refute common design nor all the other strange ruses
creationists might cite. But I can comment on the paper which is,
indeed, rather technical.
The authors look at genes that are actually expressed in cells that
form an octopus eye and look for homologs in other animals, especially
in genes that are expressed in cells that form the vertebrate
(specifically human) eye. If homologous genes are found in both
protostome animals (including roundworms, insects, and molluscs) and
deuterostomes (us) then they should be present in the common ancestor
which goes all the way back to the original bilateria maybe some 600
or 700 million years ago. There are a lot of such common genes. These
are supposedly "eye" genes because there are very few genes in common
between octopus eye and human connective tissue.
The real problem is that there are also a lot of common genes with
tunicates that don't have compound eyes and with insects that don't
have compound eyes and roundworms that don't have compound eyes.
Another real problem is that nowhere do they associate their gene set
specifically with "compound eye" as opposed to "a complex visual
receptor" which requires rather specific combinations of features
first to form a complex organ composed of many different tissue types
(something absent in "connective tissue"), second to form a visual
receptor which requires a special package of genes, third to form a
sensory organ composed on neuronal tissue which in itself requires a
complex set of specific genes, fourth to form a sensory organ capable
of forming neural circuits that can detect spatial and temporal
pattern and motion and signal those features to the central nervous
system, again requiring a special package of genes. It is very likely
that the common ancestor of the bilateria did have the ability to form
complex organs composed of many different tissue types. That common
ancestor probably also was able to form complex sensory organs
including visual receptors. And that common ancestor probably had a
complex nervous system where spatial and temporal patterns were
encoded and signaled to the central nervous system. That is a
characteristic, for example, of the sense of touch as well as the
sense of vision and is the hallmark of nervous system processing of
information essential for the ability of the animal to interpret
events in the environment and so repond appropriately.
In other words, the common ancestor had the ability to form complex
sensory organs building from a complex package of genes. These genes
are shared widely in the animal kingdom and are expressed in a
particularly rich way in the most complex sense organs. There is
absolutely no indication that the common ancestor had the ability to
produce a compound eye. Saying that the common genes "may be
responsible for the convergent evolution of the camera eye" is rather
an enormous stretch. But that is what the authors propose. Saying
that the common genes "may be responsible for the homologous
production of a complex sensory organ" would be a reasonable deduction
from the data but not worth much for its obvious nature.
Nashton
> The conventional wisdom (as far as I know) is that mammalian and
> octopus eyes are an example of convergent evolution. However, this
> paper:
>
> http://genome.cshlp.org/content/14/8/1555.full.pdf+html
>
> (free pdf, open access)
>
> seems to suggest that the mechanisms for forming a camera eye were
> present in the last common ancestor of Bilateria.
Sure it was;)
>
> A creationist would likely exclaim "AHA! Common design!"
>
> How would you refute that?
The spin doctors in here will show you, just wait.
>
> I admit I do not understand much of this paper.
Not really surprised.
I would appreciate
> explanations from people more conversant in molecular biology.
Don't know about being "conversant", but it doesn't seem that hard to
understand.
>
> Chris
>
Frank J
wrote:
> The conventional wisdom (as far as I know) is that mammalian and
> octopus eyes are an example of convergent evolution. However, this
> paper:
>
> http://genome.cshlp.org/content/14/8/1555.full.pdf+html
>
> (free pdf, open access)
>
> seems to suggest that the mechanisms for forming a camera eye were
> present in the last common ancestor of Bilateria.
>
> A creationist would likely exclaim "AHA! Common design!"
>
> How would you refute that?
You don't. If you try to refute "common design" you're taking the
bait, and doing just what the scam artists want you to do. What one
needs to do instead, is alert the *audience* that "common design" and
common descent are not mutually exclusive, and that if someone thinks
that two lineages originated independently they need to defend that on
it's own terms, *without* any reference to "design" or "weakness" in
the explanation preferred by 99+% of scientists who believe that life
is designed. As a minimum, the one proposing "common design" must take
an educated guess as to whan the two lineages originated from that
"common design." If they refuse to do that, they are playing games.
TomS
<d5d3d4c5-5741-4daa...@o21g2000prn.googlegroups.com>, Frank J
stated..."
>
>On Feb 26, 12:10 pm, chris thompson <chris.linthomp...@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>> The conventional wisdom (as far as I know) is that mammalian and
>> octopus eyes are an example of convergent evolution. However, this
>> paper:
>>
>> http://genome.cshlp.org/content/14/8/1555.full.pdf+html
>>
>> (free pdf, open access)
>>
>> seems to suggest that the mechanisms for forming a camera eye were
>> present in the last common ancestor of Bilateria.
>>
>> A creationist would likely exclaim "AHA! Common design!"
>>
>> How would you refute that?
>
>You don't. If you try to refute "common design" you're taking the
>bait, and doing just what the scam artists want you to do. What one
>needs to do instead, is alert the *audience* that "common design" and
>common descent are not mutually exclusive, and that if someone thinks
>that two lineages originated independently they need to defend that on
>it's own terms, *without* any reference to "design" or "weakness" in
>the explanation preferred by 99+% of scientists who believe that life
>is designed. As a minimum, the one proposing "common design" must take
>an educated guess as to whan the two lineages originated from that
>"common design." If they refuse to do that, they are playing games.
When I hear "common design", I tend to wonder about whether there is
common design because of "common purpose" or because of "common
constraints".
Is the human body most similar to the bodies of chimps and other apes
because the designers purposes were similar?
Or is it because the designers were constrained by the materials they
were working with?
>
>>
>> I admit I do not understand much of this paper. I would appreciate
>> explanations from people more conversant in molecular biology.
>>
>> Chris
>
>
--
---Tom S.
"... the heavy people know some magic that can make things move and even fly,
but they're not very bright, because they can't survive without their magic
contrivances"
Xixo, in "The Gods Must Be Crazy II"
Frank J
> "On Sun, 27 Feb 2011 05:27:11 -0800 (PST), in article
Good point as usual, but what %, or should I say "ppm", of those who
fall for the "common design" nonsense think of that?
>
>
>
> >> I admit I do not understand much of this paper. I would appreciate
> >> explanations from people more conversant in molecular biology.
>
> >> Chris
>
> --
> ---Tom S.
> "... the heavy people know some magic that can make things move and even fly,
> but they're not very bright, because they can't survive without their magic
> contrivances"
> Xixo, in "The Gods Must Be Crazy II"- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
John Harshman
[expressed]
> in common
> between octopus eye and human connective tissue.
>
> The real problem is that there are also a lot of common genes with
> tunicates that don't have compound eyes and with insects that don't
> have compound eyes and roundworms that don't have compound eyes.
You seem to have used "compound" when you meant "camera", fairly
consistently. Unfortunate brain fart. For anyone who may be confused:
insects have compound eyes. Octopodes and vertebrates have camera eyes.
The interesting part is the hundred-and-some genes found in octopus and
human, but not in the other invertebrates assayed, and expressed in the
eyes of both.
Glen Davidson
wrote:
Cephalopod eyes develop from invaginations of the skin, mammal
(vertebrate, actually) eyes grow in part from the front of the brain.
The receptors of the two are completely different. It would be highly
unlikely that the similarities--along with these and other
considerable difference--would come from anything other than
convergent evolution.
As others have pointed out, it's hardly shocking that genes (not
mechanisms) were similarly used by both. ID Creationists have indeed
tried to make something of these "deep homologies," but, of course,
they seem to be due to similar resources being available, with
evolution acting upon the more promising material in both cases.
If eyes were designed, why such huge differences in how they develop?
Presumably, the Designer could have put an essentially vertebrate eye
into cephalopods, or vice versa, with some minimal changes. At the
very least, why not similar receptors? In particular, human designers
typically transfer the best of their technology to any camera that
appropriately use that technology. Evolution just uses whatever is
available, and since receptors from vertebrates weren't available to
cephalopods, and vice versa, both lines simply had to evolve them from
what they had available--in some cases these were ancestral genes that
both had inherited.
Glen Davidson
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p
John Harshman
The latter: the designers were constrained by the need to have both
humans and chimps descend from the same population of apes, and by the
fact that the only tools available to them were mutation, natural
selection, and genetic drift.
Glen Davidson
wrote:
>
> - Show quoted text -
That last sentence may not be correct, since I don't see evidence in
the article that receptors share genes. I wouldn't be surprised if
they did, I just didn't read that they do (nor the whole article).
It does appear that they credit at least much of the similarities
between cephalopod and vertebrate eyes to there existing a primitive
eye in our shared common ancestor--from which convergent evolution of
the camera eye occurred. That would certainly explain well why so
many genes are shared by our camera eyes. Nor should anyone suppose
that it is unlikely that our common ancestor would have a primitive
eye--some single eukaryotic cells have eye spots.
One reason to recognize that convergent evolution of the camera eye is
probable is that one cephalopod, the nautilus, does not have the
camera eye, rather a pinhole eye. While it's not so difficult to see
how both a pinhole eye and a camera eye might evolve from a "primitive
eye" (which possibly was a pinhole eye, at least for all I know), I
wouldn't expect a pinhole eye to evolve from a camera eye (I'm not
saying it's impossible, of course).
Glen Davidson
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p
r norman
Oops, there is rather a difference between "compound" and "camera".
You are quite right about my error.
I don't share your interest in those genes. They started with some
2388 genes (actually, ESTs) but only about 1000 of these are shared
across the bilateria meaning the large majority of genes needed to
make an octopus eye are not found in other animals. Similarly, they
found several thousand genes expressed in human eyes from which they
selected (somehow) 1200 for the analysis. Of these, some 850 or so
are shared with octopus while some 750 or so are shared with
protostomes without a camera eye. Less than half the genes are shared
and the majority are unique. What makes you think that the
camera-building business is in the shared genes and not in the
thousands of genes that are specific to each?
So verterates share a few more genes with octopus that do insects and
nematodes. It is also true that the tunicate shares more genes with
octopus than do the insects and nematodes but tunicates do not have a
camera eye. So is the conclusion that the camera eye was lost in
nematodes, insects, and tunicates? Or is it more reasonable to expect
that when you are talking about a thousand gene difference in eyes
that a hundred here and there doesn't matter very much?
My impression is that the core set of genes that made the bilateria
such a success is the development of a gene package that is a basic
building block set for constructing complex organs and integrated into
a functional whole with a really capable endocrine/nervous system to
organize and coordinate it all. Once you have the right building
blocks, you just asemble them together in different ways to get vastly
different morphologies. Or you assemble them together in different
ways to get what looks like very similar (convergent) morphologies.
The common genes are the package of building blocks. The specific
genes that evolution uses to construct all the different species we
see today or the assembly instructions. The paper describes genes
(rather ESTs) involved in the building blocks and, out of several
thousand blocks, about a thousand more or less (give or take say 10%)
are widely shared. The convergent evolution deals with the assembly
details but, of course, is constrained to use the blocks that are
available, hence the shared gene set.
My use of the term "building block" derives from a teaching metaphor I
use of Lego building blocks. Once you have the basic rectangular
blocks with interlocking ability, you can build anything you want by
putting the pieces together differently. The term is potentialy
misleading because it makes you think solely of structural genes. My
"blocks" include mostly "functional" genes involved in regulation of
other genes or involved in specifying whether cells adhere to specific
other cells or how they bend and twist and migrate in development.
They are not necessarily the structural proteins you find in the final
organ -- those are also part of the building block set. But the really
important parts of the "building block" is the ability to connect or
disconnect the structural proteins in specific locations. My blocks
are "programmatic building blocks". That is, the real virtue of Lego
blocks is their design in being able to attach to each other firmly
yet not permanently in a tremendous variety of orientations and
combinations. Ordinary wood building blocks are the same
"structurally" in being rectangular pieces but don't have the proper
connectivity. There are good reasons why Lego blocks are superior
building tools to classical wooden blocks or to Tinkertoys or to
Lincoln Logs or to Erector sets (the children's building toys of my
era). So Lego blocks took over the market, just as the bilateria
package of building tools took over the biota.
r norman
Clearly the designers didn't just have to build bodies, they had to
build genomes. The only way the team could get it all done in time
was to cut and paste with minor touchups. Naturally, the cut and
paste tools available at the time were relatively primitive and
introduced some alterations from the original (you can't call them
"errors" because creation was perfection, by definition) but the
designers were well aware that these minor details had no significant
effect on the outcome and so were left as features. That they had the
side effect of confounding hubristic non-believers to think in terms
of evolution was all the better.
Actually, creation could not be absolute perfection: only The Creator
could be perfect. So tiny little imperfections were incorporated to
impress on impressionable human minds they they were, indeed,
distinctly lower than the angels.
John Harshman
Nothing, and in fact I have no such impression.
> So verterates share a few more genes with octopus that do insects and
> nematodes. It is also true that the tunicate shares more genes with
> octopus than do the insects and nematodes but tunicates do not have a
> camera eye. So is the conclusion that the camera eye was lost in
> nematodes, insects, and tunicates? Or is it more reasonable to expect
> that when you are talking about a thousand gene difference in eyes
> that a hundred here and there doesn't matter very much?
Something else. Now it may be that you can attribute this loss in all
but vertebrates and cephalopods to chance, but it might also be that
they were conserved because they were easily recruited when convergently
building a camera eye. Hard to say, since all we have here are ESTs
without any idea of what they actually do.
> My impression is that the core set of genes that made the bilateria
> such a success is the development of a gene package that is a basic
> building block set for constructing complex organs and integrated into
> a functional whole with a really capable endocrine/nervous system to
> organize and coordinate it all. Once you have the right building
> blocks, you just asemble them together in different ways to get vastly
> different morphologies. Or you assemble them together in different
> ways to get what looks like very similar (convergent) morphologies.
> The common genes are the package of building blocks. The specific
> genes that evolution uses to construct all the different species we
> see today or the assembly instructions. The paper describes genes
> (rather ESTs) involved in the building blocks and, out of several
> thousand blocks, about a thousand more or less (give or take say 10%)
> are widely shared. The convergent evolution deals with the assembly
> details but, of course, is constrained to use the blocks that are
> available, hence the shared gene set.
Sure. Still, it's interesting that the expression pattern in the
vertebrate eye is much more similar to that of the cephalopod eye than
to the other random tissue they compared to.
r norman
<jhar...@pacbell.net> wrote:
That other random tissue is human connective tissue which has
absolutely none of the complexity of a real organ, let alone the
complexity involved in a specialized neural sensory system.
Basically, the problem is that it really isn't a very good paper
although it has an awful lot of detail and was certainly an awful lot
of work.
John Harshman
I'm not sure you should say it isn't a good paper, considering the
amount of work that would be necessary to improve it much. I agree that
connective tissue was an odd choice for comparison. Figuring out what
ESTs mean can take an incredible number of samples of different tissues
in different organisms at different stages.
Nashton
> That other random tissue is human connective tissue which has
> absolutely none of the complexity of a real organ, let alone the
> complexity involved in a specialized neural sensory system.
This is patently false. From bone to blood to ligaments, their is
enormous complexity.
The neural sensory system (if your referring to the PNS), is quite
rudimentary in its structure, serving the sole purpose of accommodating
and facilitating propagation of impulses via successive membrane
depolarization.
Steven L.
"TomS" <TomS_...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:308820724.000...@drn.newsguy.com:
God was "constrained"???
This is where the wink-wink, nudge-nudge about religion comes in.
Logically, the ID proponents ought to be able to accept that the
Intelligent Designer was constrained by the limits of the medium and the
constraints imposed by the environment. But that doesn't sound
consistent with the Abrahamic notion of what the Designer was.
-- Steven L.
Friar Broccoli
> On 2/26/11 1:10 PM, chris thompson wrote:
>
> > The conventional wisdom (as far as I know) is that mammalian and
> > octopus eyes are an example of convergent evolution. However, this
> > paper:
>
> >http://genome.cshlp.org/content/14/8/1555.full.pdf+html
>
> > (free pdf, open access)
>
> > seems to suggest that the mechanisms for forming a camera eye were
> > present in the last common ancestor of Bilateria.
>
> Sure it was;)
.
> > A creationist would likely exclaim "AHA! Common design!"
>
> > How would you refute that?
>
> The spin doctors in here will show you, just wait.
If it was common design wouldn't all or most or the genes in the
Octopus and human eye be the same?
Also, could you explain why the designer put our retina in backward,
while insuring that the Octopus retina was supplied with blood vessels
and nerves from behind?
chris thompson
More interesting, in my opinion, would be this: why are the same genes
present in insects, who have compound eyes, as in mammals and
cephalopods, who have camera eyes?
Chris
r norman
They only have about 770 in common with octopus instead of the 870
mammals have. The question is: what are those extra 100 doing?
However there is a difference of about 15 between mouse-octopus and
human-octopus and, last I checked, both mice and humans have camera
eyes. So those 100 are questionable in terms of making a camera eye.
And tunicates share 834 eye genes with octopus and they don't have
camera eyes at all.
What we really do share with octopus is the ability to produce a
rather large complex brain and the ability to produce well organized,
complex sensory organs. There is every indication that the bilateria
ancestor had the ability to produce some kind of brain and a variety
of sense organs. Insects, with compound eyes, have reasonably well
developed and complex brains (albeit rather small) and highly
organized sense organs. That is why the same genes are present in my
opinion.
jillery
Apparently we share our design with all vertebrates. A Wikipedia
article makes this point:
"This difference may be accounted for by the origins of eyes; in
cephalopods they develop as an invagination of the head surface
whereas in vertebrates they originate as an extension of the brain."
Of course this raises the question why the difference in embryological
development. On that point I confess I have no idea.
Friar Broccoli
Thanks very very much for this clarification.
I didn't read the paper and have no intention of doing so. If Chris
didn't understand most of it, I'll just get lost, but I would like to
ask a few ignorant questions:
1) of our roughly 30,000 genes approximately how many are devoted to
the eye?
2) in your conversation with Harshperson you mentioned that we have
more eye genes in common with octopus than we do for connective
tissue. What is the approximate percentage in each case? Hopefully
part of your answer here will agree with 1) :-).
3) Presumably the *simplest* explanation for this is that the Last
Common Ancestor of Molluscs and Craniates had a simple light detection
system which was continuously retained (in modified form) to both us
and the octopus. Correct? Any reason to doubt this?
TomS
<hpednTXRpfmDQPfQ...@earthlink.com>, Steven L. stated..."
My impression is that the concept of "design" means working within
constraints. To design something means that one uses contrivances to
change something, from the way that it is presented, to something else,
using the properties of the material and the laws of nature. There
is no point to resorting to "intelligent design" if one is not
working within limits. An omnipotent god just creates things, with
no intermediaries.
But we can't make this kind of objection to "Intelligent Design",
because its advocates don't tell us what they are talking about. The
only thing that one can do is to ask.
jillery
> "TomS" <TomS_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
>
> news:308820724.000...@drn.newsguy.com:
>
>
>
>
>
> > "On Sun, 27 Feb 2011 05:27:11 -0800 (PST), in article
So it all reverts back to what one accepts as God's motives?
r norman
wrote:
That difference in embryological development is exactly the primary
evidence that the two eyes developed quite independently; hence
convergent evolution. The paper says: "There is no clear explanation
of how the elaborate camera eyes of humans and octopuses evolved from
the prototype eye. In other words, there is a gap between the
evolution of genes expressed in the camera eye and the evolution of
morphological structures of the camera eye....It is of particular
interest to examine the convergent evolution of human and octopus
camera eyes from the viewpoint of gene expression, in order to
understand the diversification of these organs....Thus, we focus on
the gene expression profiles to explain the evolutionary process of
camera eyes."
That gap between genes and morphology is exactly the problem. It is
why developmental biology is not molecular biology. I don't think
studying the pattern of gene expression in an adult eye provides a
handle on this problem. I think that in development a particular gene
winks on and off causing another dozen to switch, again temporarily,
causing another hundred to switch on or off, also temporarily, all
while the eye is being built. Then, after all that is done, a bunch
of genes are all at work to keep the finished product working smoothly
and in good repair. The developmental process will not be indicated
by looking only at that last set.
I should not have said that the paper was "not very good", a criticism
John rightly laid on me. It is very good at starting off the process
of filling in that gap. It just isn't very good at really bridging
the gap between genes and morphology. That will require probably
another decade of hard work, at least.
r norman
1) The paper says: "BodyMap is the project for identifying the genes
expressed in human cells categorized by tissues... we obtained ~1800
genes that were expressed in human eyes (retina, cornea, etc.)." In a
different location, they refer to the "13,303 gene set expressed in
human eye." That last number refers to genes from NEIbank and MGC as
well as BodyMap. In yet another location, they refer to 3809 genes
from BodyMap. So there are certainly several thousand genes expressed
in the eye.
For octopus, the produced a library of cDNA sequences from octopus
eyes and ended up with some 2824 "nonredundant sequences" to study. Of
these, 1052 were matched to a protein. Of those one thousand
proteins, only 691 were proteins with a known function.
2) The authors used 3809 human eye genes from Body Map and 2430 human
connective tissue genes from BodyMap compared with the 1052 genes from
octopus that corresponded to a protein. They found "162 genes are
commonly expressed between octopus and human eyes whereas only 44
genes are commonly expressed between octopus eyes and human connective
tissue." I do not understand this at all because of the 1052 genes
involved there are 111 for enzymes and 39 for ribosomal protein and
both octopus eyes and human connective tissue do glycolysis and Kreb's
cycle and protein synthesis and all the basic cell biochemistry in
common. Certainly there are more than 44 genes shared! But that is
what the paper says. Note: these numbers only indicate commonly
expressed genes among those associated with known proteins. That
includes only about 1/3 of the total genes expressed in the cells.
I don't claim to have cleared up any confusion with this information.
I only repeat what the authors write which, to my mind, only adds
confusion.
3) The last common ancestor of the bilateria almost certainly did have
a nice central nervous system with an anterior enlargement called a
brain and specialized sense organs include photoreceptors that could
be called eyes. These are features of all bilateral animals.
For many decades, people have understood that there are basically two
distinctly different types of photoreceptor cells: those derived from
ciliated cells (like vertebrate rods and cones) and those derived from
cells with microvilli instead of cilia (the "rhabdomere" type
receptor) found in the protostomes like insects and molluscs. This
led to the notion that photoreceptors evolved independently in
protostomes (the insect and mollusc line) and deuterostomes (the
echinoderm and chordate/vertebrate line). However it turns out the
some clams and scallops have ciliary photoreceptors and some starfish
have microvilli photoreceptors. But the really big change was the
finding that the gene, Pax6, is a master control gene for producing
eyes and is widely conserved across all bilateral animals, protostome
and deuterostome. The mouse PAX6 can trigger eye development in the
fruit fly! That forces the conclusion that the production of eyes
must have been present in the ancestral bilateria.
Unfortunately Pax6 is not expressed in the octopus. That is just one
of those flukes that constantly appear in biology: Pax6 is found in
the non-camera eyes of scallops and the camera eyes of squid so the
impression is that Pax6 should be there doing its thing. Also, Pax6
does a whole bunch of things other than control eyes: it is involved
in producing specialized olfactory neurons and is also found in the
pancreas as well as many parts of the nervous system.
My impression is that you will never find a regulatory or control gene
that has "this one specific function and only this", like "build an
eye". In order to connect genes with phenotype you need an ensemble
of genes all interacting together in the proper pattern and sequence
and no one specific gene has one specific function. It is like
saying "what is the specific function of this particular flip-flop or
NAND circuit in the CPU of this computer?" Well, it depends on what
the computer happens to be doing at the moment. There is a specific
function but it is a very technical thing involved in the low-level
details of the internal working of the computer. Similarly, the
"function" of a gene has a very technical meaning in the low-level
details of the internal working of the cell but really cannot be
related to the overall morphology or phenotype of the finished
organism. What we do, instead, is say that "disruptions of Pax6 cause
really severe malformations of the visual system as its most
immediately noticeable effect". Therefore we call it the "eye control
gene" even though it has all sorts of other important functions in
other tissues that are just less evident on casual inspection.
There is no "camera eye" gene or gene set that can be found shared by
cephalopod molluscs and vertebrates. There are regulatory genes that,
put together in the proper packages, produce complex structures. Those
we share with all animals. How we put them together in different
packages varies enormously across the animal kingdom.
r norman
wrote:
>On Feb 27, 6:24 pm, "Steven L." <sdlit...@earthlink.net> wrote:
You don't dare even ask about God's motives. If you try, as Job did,
you get back this answer from God, Himself:
Who is this that darkeneth counsel
by words without knowledge?
Gird up now thy loins like a man;
for I will demand of thee, and answer thou me.
Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth?
Declare, if thou hast understanding.
...
Hast thou perceived the breadth of the earth?
Declare if thou knowest it all.
...
Hast thou an arm like God?
Or canst thou thunder with a voice like him?
...
Cast abroad the rage of thy wrath:
and behold every one that is proud, and abase him.
Look on every one that is proud, and bring him low;
and tread down the wicked in their place.
We are merely proud, proud and ignorant, in questioning the might and
power and glory of God. In other words, shut up and believe! Don't
ask so many questions!
Friar Broccoli
> On Mon, 28 Feb 2011 05:12:24 -0800 (PST), Friar Broccoli
>
>
>
>
>
nominated.
Friar Broccoli
> On Mon, 28 Feb 2011 05:12:24 -0800 (PST), Friar Broccoli
.
> Unfortunately Pax6 is not expressed in the octopus. That is just one
> of those flukes that constantly appear in biology: Pax6 is found in
> the non-camera eyes of scallops and the camera eyes of squid so the
> impression is that Pax6 should be there doing its thing. Also, Pax6
> does a whole bunch of things other than control eyes: it is involved
> in producing specialized olfactory neurons and is also found in the
> pancreas as well as many parts of the nervous system.
I want to double check what the phrase: "Unfortunately Pax6 is not
expressed in the octopus." means.
Do you mean:
- Pax6 is not present in the octopus
- Pax6 is not expressed anywhere in the body of an octopus
- Pax6 is not expressed in the eye of an octopus?
The reason this seems important to me is that since Pax6 is tangled up
with so many functions it would be very difficult for the octopus to
just dump it, which in turn means it would take a long time to get rid
of it, which in turn should mean that squid and octopus have been
separated for at least several hundred million years (which doesn't
seem right to me).
TomS
<h5lnm610na0krkevb...@4ax.com>, r norman stated..."
I am not questioning that God is the Creator.
I was asking about how "common design" accounts for features of the
world of life.
If a person claims that such-and-such cannot be explained by a
naturalistic process like evolution, it is fair to point out that
the "alternative" does not do any better.
If we ask why the Mona Lisa has a smile, it is not a response to
say that it is because it was "intelligently designed" that way.
It is true that Leonardo Da Vinci was an intelligent designer. But
to point that out is not a response to the question about the
enigmatic smile.
Ernest Major
<51df4e2b-153d-402f...@u24g2000prn.googlegroups.com>,
Friar Broccoli <eli...@gmail.com> writes
old fossil squid are known, from which I think we may infer that squid
and octopus have been separated at least that long.
* The paper says that pax6 is not known from octopuses. That does not
necessarily mean that it is absent. It turns out that it has
subsequently been found in Octopus bimaculoides.
--
alias Ernest Major
r norman
You caught me taking a shortcut -- the easy way out.
The paper in question says "Pax6 expression has not yet been observed
in the octopus. However the expression of Pax6 in the camera eye of
the squid, a member of the same phylum, supports the prediction that
Pax6 controls the development of the octopus eye." That is all I know
about the octopus and Pax6.
That quote also shows the characteristics of the molecular biologist:
mentioning that the squid is in the same phylum as the octopus when it
is far more telling that the squid is in the same class, the
cephalopods, and event the same subclass and cohort, the Neocoleoidea,
which includes only the decapods (squd and cuttlefish) and octopods
but not the nautilus and the ammonites. A real "biologist" would pick
the smallest containing clade, especially when the authors already
specified "Within molluscs, it has been shown that the scallop, ear
shell, and squad all express Pax6" showing that we already know it is
in the phylum.
Googling "octopus pax6" produces 16,000 results but the few dozen I
perused all assume that, since it is found in squid, it must also
therefore be in octopus. I can't find any specific publication that
specifies that it is or isn't present in octopus.
OK, I actually did some searching.
The NCBI (US National Center for Biotechnology Information) database
produces zero hits for "Octopus AND pax6". Searching "Sepia AND pax6)
produces one hit (Sepia is a squid). "Cephalopoda AND pax6" produces 4
of which all 4 are for squid. One of the papers shows that the squid
Pax6 can induce eye development in the fruit fly. It also mentions
that Pax6 is involved in olfactory systems, too. The fact is that
olfaction is really a very important primitive sense and it could be
that the real reason for Pax6 being so widespread and conserved has to
do with smell, not vision!
There are 21 hits for PAX6 in the gene database including 10 species
of mammal (9 placental, 1 marsupial), one bird, 3 amphibian (all
Xenopus), 2 teleost fish, 1 cephalochordate (the lancelet,
Branchiostoma), 1 urochordate (the tunicate, Ciona), and one
hemichordate (the enteropneust, Saccoglossus). These are all
deuterostomes. The are also 2 entries for protostomes, both for the
fruit fly, Drosophila).
There is talk about an octopus genome but I can't find it except for
the mitochondrial DNA. I could only find two mollusc genomes, both
gastropods.
I think the general supposition is that octopus must have Pax6 but its
expression was missed.
r norman
As I said, the answer is "shut up and don't ask so many questions."
The Mona Lisa has a facial expression, call it a smile if you want,
because that is how Leonardo painted it. The apparently shared
features of biological organisms, including the strange similarities
even in the junk DNA regions of the genomes, are there because that is
how the designer/creator produced them. End of story. Goddidit. What
else do you need to know?
You may not like this reasoning. I certainly don't. But how can you
argue with it?
r norman
Do you have a reference for that last statement? The best I could
find was a paper about Pax6 in sepia where some octopus material was
used in part of the preparative details. It doesn't say definitively
that Pax6 is present in octopus that I could tell.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19683074
Christopher Denney
> On 28 Feb 2011 10:16:50 -0800, TomS <TomS_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >"On Mon, 28 Feb 2011 10:06:22 -0700, in article
>
> >>On Mon, 28 Feb 2011 07:22:57 -0800 (PST), jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com>
Don't.
How does the saying go?
Never argue with a IDiot, for he will drag you down to his level, then
beat you with experience.
Ernest Major
<r_s_n...@comcast.net> writes
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/237784125
It refers to a paper, unpublished as of 27 Mar 2009. Neither the title,
nor the authors in combination, gives any hits in Google Scholar.
I suppose that it could be a pseudogene. But running BLAST on the
sequence finds the pax6 genes of 3 other Octopus species (berrima,
ornatus, kauma) and several other octopi, referring to a 2004 paper -
Strugnell et al, Neotenous origins for pelagic octopuses, Current
Biology 14(8): R300-R301 (2004).
[I'm not sure why the original GenBank search didn't these up.]
--
alias Ernest Major
r norman
<{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
Thank you. It had to be there but why didn't it show up in the
expression? I guess it is one of those things just used temporarily
and then discarded when its job is done.
John Harshman
Wasn't the expression in question from an adult octopus? Pax6 would
presumably be expressed to trigger eye formation, in the early embryo.
To find it in an EST, you would have to check at just the right stage.
jillery
> On Mon, 28 Feb 2011 07:22:57 -0800 (PST), jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com>
Of course, questioning God's motives is not the same thing as assuming
what those motive are.
jillery
<snip to point>
> >>> > When I hear "common design", I tend to wonder about whether there is
> >>> > common design because of "common purpose" or because of "common
> >>> > constraints".
>
> >>> > Is the human body most similar to the bodies of chimps and other apes
> >>> > because the designers purposes were similar?
>
> >>> > Or is it because the designers were constrained by the materials they
> >>> > were working with?
>
> I was asking about how "common design" accounts for features of the
> world of life.
>
> If a person claims that such-and-such cannot be explained by a
> naturalistic process like evolution, it is fair to point out that
> the "alternative" does not do any better.
>
> If we ask why the Mona Lisa has a smile, it is not a response to
> say that it is because it was "intelligently designed" that way.
> It is true that Leonardo Da Vinci was an intelligent designer. But
> to point that out is not a response to the question about the
> enigmatic smile.
Above you split "common design" into "common purpose" and "common
constraints". Which category do you place Mona Lisa's smile and
why?. Also, the word "purpose" can be understood at least two ways;
1. its current function, and 2. the intent of its designer. Which do
you mean here? Or do you mean something else?
chris thompson
Seconded.
Chris
Nashton
>
> More interesting, in my opinion, would be this: why are the same genes
> present in insects, who have compound eyes, as in mammals and
> cephalopods, who have camera eyes?
>
> Chris
>
Actually, Chris, this argument works more in favor for my world view
than yours.
Nashton
> On Feb 27, 6:51 am, Nashton<n...@na.ca> wrote:
>> On 2/26/11 1:10 PM, chris thompson wrote:
>>
>>> The conventional wisdom (as far as I know) is that mammalian and
>>> octopus eyes are an example of convergent evolution. However, this
>>> paper:
>>
>>> http://genome.cshlp.org/content/14/8/1555.full.pdf+html
>>
>>> (free pdf, open access)
>>
>>> seems to suggest that the mechanisms for forming a camera eye were
>>> present in the last common ancestor of Bilateria.
>>
>> Sure it was;)
>
> .
>
>>> A creationist would likely exclaim "AHA! Common design!"
>>
>>> How would you refute that?
>>
>> The spin doctors in here will show you, just wait.
>
> If it was common design wouldn't all or most or the genes in the
> Octopus and human eye be the same?
Most of the components necessary to propagate action potentials evoked
by light interacting with photosensitive biological structures to their
respective cns are present.
And why would the genes be the same given their divergent niches?
>
> Also, could you explain why the designer put our retina in backward,
> while insuring that the Octopus retina was supplied with blood vessels
> and nerves from behind?
These are minute details, given the different environments of the
animals in question.
Last time I checked, octopuses were marine animals.
>
Nashton
> Actually, creation could not be absolute perfection: only The Creator
> could be perfect. So tiny little imperfections were incorporated to
> impress on impressionable human minds they they were, indeed,
> distinctly lower than the angels.
When you and your God like science are capable of producing living,
breathing organisms from dirt, we'll compare the results.
Just don't forget to get back to me in....never.
>
John Harshman
We can take this challenge seriously when your God produces living,
breathing organisms from dirt. Let me know when you want to schedule the
demonstration.
jillery
Did you know most marine animals with eyes have a "backwards" retina?
Did you know there are insects who share our environment with no
retina at all? ISTM the environment isn't all that particular about
retinas. So what's your point?
Nashton
Look around you.
TomS
<aaa314b8-8123-40ad...@t19g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, jillery
stated..."
I meant those as helps to the advocate of Intelligent Design. It is
an open-ended question, and giving the purpose or the constraints
are just two of many possible answers that could be given.
To continue with the Mona Lisa example, one might say that Leonardo
was following a convention of his time, or that the smile is just the
way that 21st-century observers look at the painting, or that the
model for the painting just happened to look that way, or ...
What I am stressing is that "it's intelligently designed" is not
an answer to the question, even though it might be true.
So, too, "it was created by God" is not an answer to "why are chimps
our close neighbors in comparative anatomy", even if it is true.
TomS
<aaa314b8-8123-40ad...@t19g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, jillery
stated..."
>
I meant those as helps to the advocate of Intelligent Design. It is
an open-ended question, and giving the purpose or the constraints
are just two of many possible answers that could be given.
To continue with the Mona Lisa example, one might say that Leonardo
was following a convention of his time, or that the smile is just the
way that 21st-century observers look at the painting, or that the
model for the painting just happened to look that way, or ...
What I am stressing is that "it's intelligently designed" is not
an answer to the question, even though it might be true.
So, too, "it was created by God" is not an answer to "why are chimps
our close neighbors in comparative anatomy", even if it is true.
Friar Broccoli
>> On Feb 27, 6:51 am, Nashton<n...@na.ca> wrote:
>>> On 2/26/11 1:10 PM, chris thompson wrote:
>
>>>> The conventional wisdom (as far as I know) is that mammalian and
>>>> octopus eyes are an example of convergent evolution. However, this
>>>> paper:
>
>>>>http://genome.cshlp.org/content/14/8/1555.full.pdf+html
>
>>>> (free pdf, open access)
>
>>>> seems to suggest that the mechanisms for forming a camera eye were
>>>> present in the last common ancestor of Bilateria.
>
>>> Sure it was;)
>
>> .
>
>>>> A creationist would likely exclaim "AHA! Common design!"
>
>>>> How would you refute that?
>
>>> The spin doctors in here will show you, just wait.
.
>> If it was common design wouldn't all or most or the genes in the
>> Octopus and human eye be the same?
.
> Most of the components necessary to propagate action potentials evoked
> by light interacting with photosensitive biological structures to their
> respective cns are present.
Obviously.
> And why would the genes be the same given their divergent niches?
An excellent question, implying as it does that the Designer will use
different genes for animals in different niches.
However, long before you asked this question, Chris replied to me
here:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/f67599a36271f6f5
pointing out that this doesn't happen.
Many of the same genes used by the octopus are also used by insects
whose many many niches are very different from both octopus and man.
>> Also, could you explain why the designer put our retina in backward,
>> while insuring that the Octopus retina was supplied with blood vessels
>> and nerves from behind?
.
> These are minute details, given the different environments of the
> animals in question.
The Designer puts the vertebrate retina in backward so the
photoreceptors are screened from incoming light by blood vessels and
nerve fibers and you call it a "minute detail". Do you understand
how
the human eye is organized?
> Last time I checked, octopuses were marine animals.
As are whales, dolphins etc, but the genes for (and structure of)
their
eyes are completely unlike octopus genes and as similar to ours as
those used by dogs and cats.
I cannot exclude the possibility of Design, but the evidence is
clear,
if life is Designed, the method used was descent with modification.
Friar Broccoli
.
Did that: saw a huge variety of dogs which descended from wolves who
all look pretty similar. Also saw some horses who are clearly related
to Zebra's but cannot breed with many of their species.
Lots of indications of evolution but not a sign of any new animals
popping spontaneously out of dirt.
John Harshman
I see organisms that you allege to have descended from an individual
(the first male humans only, as far as I know) produced from dirt. But I
don't see any evidence of that. No, you need to show an actual creation
event, not hearsay. Please present that evidence.
jillery
> "On Mon, 28 Feb 2011 14:39:38 -0800 (PST), in article
I agree in this context "common design" implies "intelligent design"
implies "God as Designer". But go back to Frank J's post to which you
responded; "common design" and "common descent" are not mutually
exclusive. So the issue is how to distinguish between them. My point
is that for anybody to make that distinction on an assumption of God's
intent is silly. To restate Frank J's point, refuting common design
is taking the creationist bait.
Better to argue the merits of "common descent", which is easy enough
to do. In the case of example given by the OP, we have two types of
nearly identical camera eyes. They are nearly identical in function,
in theory of operation, and in many, but not all, of the genes that
control their development and function. Yes, creationists argue that
these similarities show "common design". But creationists ignore the
differences.
One difference pointed out is the backward retina. This is a
fundamental design feature that isn't reasonably explained by invoking
differences in their "purpose". However, it is explained by "common
descent". Mammals and octopus have an early common ancestor, from
which they inherited a common subset of genes. Both mammals and
octopus use these genes to create similar but not identical results.
It is that dissimilarity that suggests common descent and contingent
evolution.
As Friar Broccoli pointed out, the evidence shows that if God designed
life, He did so using common descent. In that case, invoking God is
unnecessary to explain life's variation.
Steven L.
"na...@na.ca" <na...@na.ca> wrote in message
news:ikiln6$15h$1...@speranza.aioe.org:
No, modern organisms were procreated by their parents. Louis Pasteur
successfully refuted the notion of spontaneous generation taking place
in modern times.
We do have theories of abiogenesis on the primordial earth occurring due
to naturalistic processes. Creationists have put forward no theory of
abiogenesis having a supernatural causation.
-- Steven L.
TomS
<c25a8758-a1ef-472a...@z3g2000prz.googlegroups.com>, jillery
stated..."
Frank J and I agree a lot. That is one of the things where I agree
with him. And I think I agree with you, too.
I try to think of ways of pointing out that the advocates of ID
have nothing to say.
>
>Better to argue the merits of "common descent", which is easy enough
>to do. In the case of example given by the OP, we have two types of
>nearly identical camera eyes. They are nearly identical in function,
>in theory of operation, and in many, but not all, of the genes that
>control their development and function. Yes, creationists argue that
>these similarities show "common design". But creationists ignore the
>differences.
>
>One difference pointed out is the backward retina. This is a
>fundamental design feature that isn't reasonably explained by invoking
>differences in their "purpose". However, it is explained by "common
>descent". Mammals and octopus have an early common ancestor, from
>which they inherited a common subset of genes. Both mammals and
>octopus use these genes to create similar but not identical results.
>It is that dissimilarity that suggests common descent and contingent
>evolution.
>
>As Friar Broccoli pointed out, the evidence shows that if God designed
>life, He did so using common descent. In that case, invoking God is
>unnecessary to explain life's variation.
>
In any case, it is insufficient.
Unless, like a detective, one can specify the the method, motive, and
opportunity for the intelligent agent, one has not given a case.
Nashton
Doesn't matter, because life itself seems to have popped out of dirt.
Lots of indications that we can't do it. Perhaps in the future? I doubt
it, but for the time being, there is as much proof that life began in a
divine fashion or that life arose spontaneously from dirt.
Nashton
As soon as you present the evidence that life arose spontaneously
without Divine help.
Sorry, but my version of events is just as good as yours.
Unless *you* can present the evidence that it can be done, and even at
that point you would have to produce evidence that the conditions were
such that facilitated the creation of living organisms.
Live with it. (pun intended)
Nashton
>
>
> "na...@na.ca" <na...@na.ca> wrote in message
> news:ikiln6$15h$1...@speranza.aioe.org:
>
>> On 2/28/11 11:00 PM, John Harshman wrote:
>> > Nashton wrote:
>> >> On 2/27/11 2:16 PM, r norman wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> Actually, creation could not be absolute perfection: only The Creator
>> >>> could be perfect. So tiny little imperfections were incorporated to
>> >>> impress on impressionable human minds they they were, indeed,
>> >>> distinctly lower than the angels.
>> >>
>> >> When you and your God like science are capable of producing living,
>> >> breathing organisms from dirt, we'll compare the results.
>> >>
>> >> Just don't forget to get back to me in....never.
>> >
>> > We can take this challenge seriously when your God produces living,
>> > breathing organisms from dirt. Let me know when you want to schedule
>> the
>> > demonstration.
>> >
>>
>>
>> Look around you.
>
> No, modern organisms were procreated by their parents.
I see.
Louis Pasteur
> successfully refuted the notion of spontaneous generation taking place
> in modern times.
Yes, he did. In fact, he proved that without Divine intervention, life
cannot arise.
>
> We do have theories of abiogenesis on the primordial earth occurring due
> to naturalistic processes.
Theories are wonderful, aren't they?
Any facts?
Creationists have put forward no theory of
> abiogenesis having a supernatural causation.
It's all over scripture.
It's an axiom of a world view that is accepted by billions.
Science has its axioms. One (God and the material world) should not be
confused or conflated with the other, because God created the material
world.
>
>
>
>
> -- Steven L.
>
>
RHeishman
I don't think any of us has the answers to how life originated. We
have theories, we have doubts, we have questions. And I think that
it's going to be like that until life ends.
The bible, in my personal opinion, explains it. However, it's not easy
to understand. I also believe that science has a lot of the answers.
The bible is much more symbolic and science is more specific in terms
and evidence. Fact is, science has validated a lot of what is in the
bible. Or very close to proving a lot of what is in the bible to be
factual.
I like to listen and consider both sides. Bottom line,I do believe
there is a "creator". What or who that creator is, we don't know. The
bible refers to the creator as "one God", the alpha and the omega.
The beginning and the end.
I hope that our opinions can be shared and respected.
Friar Broccoli
.
I will go along with that if you will recognize the clear evidence
that the life which popped out of the "dirt" did so as single celled
organisms more than 3 billion years ago.
After that the evidence clearly shows that the rest of Design was
carried out using descent with modification.
Arkalen
What examples are you thinking of ?
John Harshman
But do you admit it's no better? That's at least a first step. If you
will admit you have no evidence for your claim of the sort that you
demand for my claim, we can proceed.
> Unless *you* can present the evidence that it can be done, and even at
> that point you would have to produce evidence that the conditions were
> such that facilitated the creation of living organisms.
Can you present such evidence for your scenario?
> Live with it. (pun intended)
You call that a pun?
John Harshman
unless they can earn respect. I can't think of anything in the bible
that science has validated, unless you count archaeology as science and
as validated a few historical features like the existence of the
Hittites. But I wouldn't say that was "a lot".
As for Genesis, though, it's all nonsense.
RHeishman
Sir, I don't have to meet your demands. So if you don't want to
respect my opinions, that's fine and it is your choice.
I can't think of anything in the bible
> that science has validated,
Sodom and Gomorah
Science has proven it's existence
Science has also explained the burning bush, in Exodus, and how it is
very possible that it happened.
Also, all the prophecies full-filled in the old testimony.
unless you count archaeology as science and
> as validated a few historical features like the existence of the
> Hittites. But I wouldn't say that was "a lot".
>
> As for Genesis, though, it's all nonsense.
That's your opinion.
Tell you what, you create an earth from nothing. Create life from
nothing.
Get back to me when you have done that. Then I will accept your
opinion and in your words, "respect" your opinion.
Burkhard
As far as I know, here are still several contenders for the title? And
none of them uncontroversial.
But I woudl grant you that John's claim was at best hyperbole, I'd say
archaeology has validated to bible to the extend that one would expect
of a document written at around that time, and in that cultural
context (i.e. roughly comparable to the Illiad)
> Science has also explained the burning bush, in Exodus, and how it is
> very possible that it happened.
That's about the worst that can happen for religion, no? It makes a
miracle that has a narrative role into a mere physical event, one of
the things that just happen (or something that you think happened
when under the influence of certain drugs, which is I think is one of
the scientific theories)
> Also, all the prophecies full-filled in the old testimony.
Which have the twofold problems that
a) they are rather under specific and
b) the NT autros knew of them when wiritng down their accounts.
again, you change good narrative into bad science, I feel.
John Harshman
On this we can agree. I'm only saying that if you want me to respect
your opinions (and you state this as your hope), you will have to back
them up with something. There's no requirement that you do so; I just
won't respect your opinions in that case.
>> I can't think of anything in the bible
>> that science has validated,
>
> Sodom and Gomorah
> Science has proven it's existence
If you mean that the ancient city of Sodom existed, then yes. (Not so
sure about Gomorrah.)
> Science has also explained the burning bush, in Exodus, and how it is
> very possible that it happened.
Nonsense. What's been advanced is a speculative natural explanation for
a bush that appeared to be burning. But if it's natural, it's hardly
interesting, is it? Only if it's a miracle is there any point to it.
> Also, all the prophecies full-filled in the old testimony.
Such as? Some prophecies were inserted after the fact; others are vague
enough that they could be fulfilled any time you like.
> unless you count archaeology as science and
>> as validated a few historical features like the existence of the
>> Hittites. But I wouldn't say that was "a lot".
>>
>> As for Genesis, though, it's all nonsense.
>
> That's your opinion.
Yes, but my opinion is backed up by real, empirical evidence.
> Tell you what, you create an earth from nothing. Create life from
> nothing.
> Get back to me when you have done that. Then I will accept your
> opinion and in your words, "respect" your opinion.
My, aren't we getting feisty? You want me to respect your opinion, but
in order for you to respect mine, I have to be God. Doesn't that sound a
little unreasonable to you? We have very good evidence that the universe
is 13.5 billion years old, the earth about 4.5 billion, and life at
least 3.5 billion. Various sorts of life appeared gradually, sprinkled
mostly through the last 600 million years. Humans are descended from
African apes, and our lineage split from that of chimpanzees about 6
million years ago. None of this fits the Genesis story. If you would
like to discuss any of these assertions, I can indeed back them up.
Robert Camp
Please provide a reference for this. Keep in mind that any scientific
explanation of such a phenomenon would be framed exclusively in terms
of natural processes. As such, it would be quite the opposite of a
validation of the Biblical version of the burning bush.
> Also, all the prophecies full-filled in the old testimony.
Which ones would those be?
> unless you count archaeology as science and
>
> > as validated a few historical features like the existence of the
> > Hittites. But I wouldn't say that was "a lot".
>
> > As for Genesis, though, it's all nonsense.
>
> That's your opinion.
> Tell you what, you create an earth from nothing. Create life from
> nothing.
> Get back to me when you have done that. Then I will accept your
> opinion and in your words, "respect" your opinion.
You see, this is where you run into that "respect" problem. The above
responses are far from respectable. They are petulant non-sequiturs.
If you wish to be respected, you'll have to respect others rights to
offer their opinions in clear, concise terms. That includes blunt
assessments of things you may hold dear. If you cannot confront such
arguments with equanimity and a desire to measure your own perspective
against them, your damaged sensitivities might earn you a bit of
sympathy, but I'm guessing not much respect.
RLC
Nashton
> I will go along with that if you will recognize the clear evidence
> that the life which popped out of the "dirt" did so as single celled
> organisms more than 3 billion years ago.
>
> After that the evidence clearly shows that the rest of Design was
> carried out using descent with modification.
>
I'll go with that if you recognize that all that there is to know about
heredity, morphogenesis, the intricate and for the most part, unknown
relationship between pheno and genotype have been thoroughly elaborated
and revealed to us via scientific research.
IOW, if you agree that there may be evidence in the future that points
us to a completely different or many different directions in the study
of biology, I will go along with your proposal.
Friar Broccoli
will see so many more respondents that you will feel overwhelmed by
the volume.
I am a second or third stringer in here. Both Harshman and Burhard
are well respected regulars in this group, so if you just can't handle
the volume, no one will think less of you if you confine your replies
to one or both of those gentlemen.
Nashton
> If you wish to be respected, you'll have to respect others rights to
> offer their opinions in clear, concise terms. That includes blunt
> assessments of things you may hold dear. If you cannot confront such
> arguments with equanimity and a desire to measure your own perspective
> against them, your damaged sensitivities might earn you a bit of
> sympathy, but I'm guessing not much respect.
>
> RLC
>
Oh please Robert, can you not respect me also? I'll be honored!
Nashton
No, none of us do.
We
> have theories, we have doubts, we have questions.
And I think that
> it's going to be like that until life ends.
You may be right but for the purposes of this discussion, what matters
is that science cannot duplicate the process.
> The bible, in my personal opinion, explains it.
Oh yes.
However, it's not easy
> to understand.
On what level?
I also believe that science has a lot of the answers.
Science has many answers to many questions and the pursuit of knowledge
is a hallmark of mankind.
> The bible is much more symbolic and science is more specific in terms
> and evidence. Fact is, science has validated a lot of what is in the
> bible. Or very close to proving a lot of what is in the bible to be
> factual.
The Bible happens to be rich in symbolism but very specific in most
regards.
> I like to listen and consider both sides. Bottom line,I do believe
> there is a "creator". What or who that creator is, we don't know. The
> bible refers to the creator as "one God", the alpha and the omega.
> The beginning and the end.
The only way to know Him is via the Bible. Many disagree and everyone
has the free will to go down any road they wish. Nobody ought to be
condemned, scorned or ridiculed for his beliefs.
> I hope that our opinions can be shared and respected.
>
You must be new here. There is the greatest collection of clueless net
goons you will find in any ng and I've been posting on the Usenet for
decades. There is no such thing as respect here, you're either an
atheist or your a "cretinist."
Kermit
> On 2/27/11 2:16 PM, r norman wrote:
>
> > Actually, creation could not be absolute perfection: only The Creator
> > could be perfect. So tiny little imperfections were incorporated to
> > impress on impressionable human minds they they were, indeed,
> > distinctly lower than the angels.
>
> When you and your God like science are capable of producing living,
> breathing organisms from dirt, we'll compare the results.
>
> Just don't forget to get back to me in....never.
>
>
So, if you understand but science doesn't, that should mean that you
can have your god replicate this event at will, yes? Because
apparently
you think that understanding is confirmed by replicating a process,
so
you must have concluded this from personal example. Cool!
Do you live in the Pacific Northwest? Maybe we can get together and
you can have your god create a living fig tree from the soil. I'll
bring
some in a one gallon container. Oh - ask him to make it able to
tolerate
cold winters, 'kay?
Kermit
Steven L.
"na...@na.ca" <na...@na.ca> wrote in message
news:ikjcqu$ruc$1...@speranza.aioe.org:
A world view is not a "theory" in the scientific sense.
A scientific theory is a hypothesis that is well supported by
*evidence*, not faith or philosophy.
-- Steven L.
Kermit
> >news:ikiln6$15h$1...@speranza.aioe.org:
>
> >> On 2/28/11 11:00 PM, John Harshman wrote:
> >> > Nashton wrote:
> >> >> On 2/27/11 2:16 PM, r norman wrote:
>
> >> >>> Actually, creation could not be absolute perfection: only The Creator
> >> >>> could be perfect. So tiny little imperfections were incorporated to
> >> >>> impress on impressionable human minds they they were, indeed,
> >> >>> distinctly lower than the angels.
>
> >> >> When you and your God like science are capable of producing living,
> >> >> breathing organisms from dirt, we'll compare the results.
>
> >> >> Just don't forget to get back to me in....never.
>
> >> > We can take this challenge seriously when your God produces living,
> >> > breathing organisms from dirt. Let me know when you want to schedule
> >> the
> >> > demonstration.
>
> >> Look around you.
>
> > No, modern organisms were procreated by their parents.
>
> I see.
>
> Louis Pasteur
>
> > successfully refuted the notion of spontaneous generation taking place
> > in modern times.
>
> Yes, he did. In fact, he proved that without Divine intervention, life
> cannot arise.
No, he established that scum grew on boiled broth only if it was
contaminated with airborne particulates. This does not determine that
God miraculously fills the air with bacteria.
>
>
>
> > We do have theories of abiogenesis on the primordial earth occurring due
> > to naturalistic processes.
>
> Theories are wonderful, aren't they?
> Any facts?
Yes. always. Unlike myths and poetry, theories are testable models
that
fit a set of related data - also known as facts. Early replicating
molecules
do not leave traces as durable as hard fossils, but we go on the
assumption
that chemistry worked then as now. When we learn enough about the
early Earth we will be more confident in the model for the process of
abiogenesis.
>
> Creationists have put forward no theory of
>
> > abiogenesis having a supernatural causation.
>
> It's all over scripture.
No, theories are testable and explain data. How would we test your
bible?
To the degree that Creationism is falsifiable, it has been falsified.
> It's an axiom of a world view that is accepted by billions.
Roughly a billion Muslims, a billion Hindus. Why should I favor your
untestable model over any other?
>
> Science has its axioms. One (God and the material world) should not be
> confused or conflated with the other, because God created the material
> world.
Or not. Have any evidence?
>
>
>
> > -- Steven L.
Kermit
David Hare-Scott
> I can't think of anything in the bible
>> that science has validated,
>
> Sodom and Gomorah
> Science has proven it's existence
> Science has also explained the burning bush, in Exodus, and how it is
> very possible that it happened.
> Also, all the prophecies full-filled in the old testimony.
>
>
> unless you count archaeology as science and
>> as validated a few historical features like the existence of the
>> Hittites. But I wouldn't say that was "a lot".
>>
>> As for Genesis, though, it's all nonsense.
>
> That's your opinion.
Would you accept that when read as a factual account of the origin of the
earth and life it is nonsense but when read as mythology and a teaching for
simple people it is not?
My view is that the bible is history, fantasy, poetry, philosophy, myth and
religious teaching that has been much worked over by many editors and
translators none of whom were much concerned with its scientific accuracy.
To use such a document to inform you of the explanation of something as
complex as the origins of life is doomed to fail.
> Tell you what, you create an earth from nothing. Create life from
> nothing.
> Get back to me when you have done that. Then I will accept your
> opinion and in your words, "respect" your opinion.
That is a particularly silly requirement but I think (hope) you know that.
David
jillery
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 1, 6:36 am, Nashton<n...@na.ca> wrote:
> >> On 2/28/11 11:00 PM, John Harshman wrote:
>
> >>> Nashton wrote:
> >>>> On 2/27/11 2:16 PM, r norman wrote:
>
> >>>>> Actually, creation could not be absolute perfection: only The Creator
> >>>>> could be perfect. So tiny little imperfections were incorporated to
> >>>>> impress on impressionable human minds they they were, indeed,
> >>>>> distinctly lower than the angels.
>
> >>>> When you and your God like science are capable of producing living,
> >>>> breathing organisms from dirt, we'll compare the results.
>
> >>>> Just don't forget to get back to me in....never.
>
> > .
>
> >>> We can take this challenge seriously when your God produces living,
> >>> breathing organisms from dirt. Let me know when you want to schedule the
> >>> demonstration.
>
> >> Look around you.
>
> > Did that: saw a huge variety of dogs which descended from wolves who
> > all look pretty similar. Also saw some horses who are clearly related
> > to Zebra's but cannot breed with many of their species.
>
> > Lots of indications of evolution but not a sign of any new animals
> > popping spontaneously out of dirt.
>
> Doesn't matter, because life itself seems to have popped out of dirt.
Seems? Can you give any examples?
> Lots of indications that we can't do it.
We can't. So what?
> Perhaps in the future? I doubt it,
You are entitled to your opinion.
>but for the time being, there is as much proof that life began in a
> divine fashion or that life arose spontaneously from dirt.
Both of those claims are yours, which makes your statement above
rather meaningless.
jillery
> >news:ikiln6$15h$1...@speranza.aioe.org:
>
> >> On 2/28/11 11:00 PM, John Harshman wrote:
> >> > Nashton wrote:
> >> >> On 2/27/11 2:16 PM, r norman wrote:
>
> >> >>> Actually, creation could not be absolute perfection: only The Creator
> >> >>> could be perfect. So tiny little imperfections were incorporated to
> >> >>> impress on impressionable human minds they they were, indeed,
> >> >>> distinctly lower than the angels.
>
> >> >> When you and your God like science are capable of producing living,
> >> >> breathing organisms from dirt, we'll compare the results.
>
> >> >> Just don't forget to get back to me in....never.
>
> >> > We can take this challenge seriously when your God produces living,
> >> > breathing organisms from dirt. Let me know when you want to schedule
> >> the
> >> > demonstration.
>
> >> Look around you.
>
> > No, modern organisms were procreated by their parents.
>
> I see.
>
> Louis Pasteur
>
> > successfully refuted the notion of spontaneous generation taking place
> > in modern times.
>
> Yes, he did. In fact, he proved that without Divine intervention, life
> cannot arise.
Actually, Pasteur proved that complex life can't arise spontaneously.
Only creationists continue to make the claim that it can.
> > We do have theories of abiogenesis on the primordial earth occurring due
> > to naturalistic processes.
>
> Theories are wonderful, aren't they?
> Any facts?
>
> Creationists have put forward no theory of
>
> > abiogenesis having a supernatural causation.
>
> It's all over scripture.
Scripture is wonderful, isn't it?
Any facts?
> It's an axiom of a world view that is accepted by billions.
Reality isn't subject to a vote.
> Science has its axioms. One (God and the material world) should not be
> confused or conflated with the other, because God created the material
> world.
Oops. Your last phrase just conflated the two axioms your first
phrase said not to.
Arkalen
snip
r norman
On the other hand, anybody with experience in tissue culture knows
that HeLa cells appear spontaneously in cultures despite the greatest
efforts.
jillery
Yes, Pasteur provided a limited proof. He probably didn't anticipate
the one-sided demands of modern creationists :) However, the larger
point to which I refer is that scientists recognize that even bacteria
are too complex to arise directly from abiogenesis. First life on
Earth was almost certainly much simpler.
William Morse
> Nashton wrote:
>> On 2/28/11 11:00 PM, John Harshman wrote:
>>> Nashton wrote:
>>>> On 2/27/11 2:16 PM, r norman wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Actually, creation could not be absolute perfection: only The Creator
>>>>> could be perfect. So tiny little imperfections were incorporated to
>>>>> impress on impressionable human minds they they were, indeed,
>>>>> distinctly lower than the angels.
>>>>
>>>> When you and your God like science are capable of producing living,
>>>> breathing organisms from dirt, we'll compare the results.
>>>>
>>>> Just don't forget to get back to me in....never.
>>>
>>> We can take this challenge seriously when your God produces living,
>>> breathing organisms from dirt. Let me know when you want to schedule the
>>> demonstration.
>>
>> Look around you.
>
> (the first male humans only, as far as I know) produced from dirt. But I
> don't see any evidence of that. No, you need to show an actual creation
> event, not hearsay. Please present that evidence.
>
been happening over the last few thousand years is that God has been
practicing microcreation - a few flagella here and there, some
antibiotic resistant bacteria just for fun, tweaking the adult size of
some fish, changing the color of moths for a lark, that sort of thing.
John Harshman
from dirt, that would be fine.
RHeishman
Yep, we have evidence based on science that you and I put our faith
and trust in.
And not one thing you said has proven that God wasn't behind it.
If you want to relate yourself to apes and monkeys, that's up to you.
But you still should to show me how Earth just was able to appear,
with all the exact right ingredients and conditions to support what we
have today.
You can back up all you want, but you still can't prove that God
doesn't exist. I am not going to tell you I can prove God exist, I am
going to tell you that
I have faith and trust that God does exist.
And I can still enjoy science just as much as you can, and still
believe in God. Fascinating isn't it?
RHeishman
Absolutely, and I think that we have to be able to respect both.
>
> Science has many answers to many questions and the pursuit of knowledge
> is a hallmark of mankind.
I totally agree.
>
> > The bible is much more symbolic and science is more specific in terms
> > and evidence. Fact is, science has validated a lot of what is in the
> > bible. Or very close to proving a lot of what is in the bible to be
> > factual.
>
> The Bible happens to be rich in symbolism but very specific in most
> regards.
>
> > I like to listen and consider both sides. Bottom line,I do believe
> > there is a "creator". What or who that creator is, we don't know. The
> > bible refers to the creator as "one God", the alpha and the omega.
> > The beginning and the end.
>
> The only way to know Him is via the Bible.
Absolutely.
Many disagree and everyone
> has the free will to go down any road they wish. Nobody ought to be
> condemned, scorned or ridiculed for his beliefs.
I couldn't have said it better myself.
>
> > I hope that our opinions can be shared and respected.
>
> You must be new here. There is the greatest collection of clueless net
> goons you will find in any ng and I've been posting on the Usenet for
> decades. There is no such thing as respect here, you're either an
> atheist or your a "cretinist."
I'm not new to the newsgroups. I was a regular in another one about a
year ago and I got tired of the goons and senseless bashing. One of
them I see made his way in this newsgroup, Keegan. He totally trashed
the other newsgroup and I got tired of arguing with idiots.
So hopefully I will come across a few in this newsgroup who can share
and express opinions without the childish behavior.
jillery
Depending on what you mean by "it", yes. Or no. :)
Arkalen
however, humans are apes and the Earth was formed by the accretion of
dust and gases around the newly-formed Sun. If you "put your faith" in
science and evidence you'll agree with this; if you "enjoy" science I
assume you'll have looked the question up, seen why scientists reached
the conclusions they did on what evidence and you won't need faith to
agree with it.
God's existence or lack thereof has little to do with the question.
Friar Broccoli
> On 3/1/11 2:37 PM, Friar Broccoli wrote:
>
>> I will go along with that if you will recognize the clear evidence
>> that the life which popped out of the "dirt" did so as single celled
>> organisms more than 3 billion years ago.
>
>> After that the evidence clearly shows that the rest of Design was
>> carried out using descent with modification.
.
> I'll go with that if you recognize that all that there is to know about
> heredity, morphogenesis, the intricate and for the most part, unknown
> relationship between pheno and genotype have been thoroughly elaborated
> and revealed to us via scientific research.
I assume you mean here that we don't understand all the details of
gene expression and the like - which is obviously the case.
> IOW, if you agree that there may be evidence in the future that points
> us to a completely different or many different directions in the study
> of biology,
Since, I wouldn't be completely surprised to wake up one morning and
hear on the news that a group of scientists had found evidence that,
for example, we are all characters in a video game, I can go along
with this too.
> I will go along with your proposal.
While I started this silly game of: I'll believe X, if you'll believe
Y; even if I wanted to I would be unable to change my beliefs in the
absense of evidence showing the change was justifiable. And although
your standards of evidence are clearly different than mine, I'm sure
the same is true for you.
However I was surprise to see your apparent willingness to at least
consider the possibility that "descent with modification" of living
organisms may form part of an accurate description of reality.
- Is this something you have always thought possible?
- Did watching Tony defend a geocentric solar system cause you to
doubt the wider religious argument?
- Did watching Ray declare that species are fixed, while never
providing supporting arguments, cause you to reconsider?
If you are considering changing part of your position, could you tell
me what your motivation is.
RHeishman
And if that "theory" is true, which it is almost impossible to
prove.
No one can prove God is or isn't responsible for the creation of
earth.
As far as humans being apes, sorry but I do consider us to be more
intelligent than
the ape. Now, if you want to consider yourself in that category that
is perfectly fine and totally up to you.
We still have Apes roaming the earth and we have human beings.
While both may have similar characteristics and features, I do not
consider myself to be among the ape family tree.
And also keep in mind, that little thing they consider the "missing"
link that has yet to be found.
Thought to be found, but then realized that we still have not found
that missing link.
I do believe Science has made significant discoveries and has many
theories, possibly many that are correct and others that
are merely nothing more than well educated guesses; however, I still
think there is a "creator" behind the grand scheme of it all
and there is much more that we do not understand and may possibly
never understand.
John Harshman
True. It's impossible to show that God wasn't behind it, provided God
works in undetectable ways. God could have personally created all your
living room furniture, using Ikea (or whatever) as his agent. If you
want to believe that, fine, but it doesn't change the furniture or where
it came from.
> If you want to relate yourself to apes and monkeys, that's up to you.
It isn't that I want to. It's that all the evidence points to that. Do
you have evidence to the contrary?
> But you still should to show me how Earth just was able to appear,
> with all the exact right ingredients and conditions to support what we
> have today.
It didn't just appear. That's (apparently) your scenario. And you
understand the the initial earth had quite different conditions from
what we have today, which is the product of life. Right?
> You can back up all you want, but you still can't prove that God
> doesn't exist.
Indeed I can't, and I'm making no attempt to.
> I am not going to tell you I can prove God exist, I am
> going to tell you that
> I have faith and trust that God does exist.
That's fine. Where does this faith and trust come from?
> And I can still enjoy science just as much as you can, and still
> believe in God. Fascinating isn't it?
What's fascinating is that you can make this claim while simultaneously
appearing to claim that you are not related to apes and monkeys. What
did you mean by that?
RHeishman
I find it interesting that people believe our ancestors were apes and/
or monkeys.
Yet, we still have apes and monkeys roaming the earth today.
Are you suggesting some evolved and transformed, and others just
missed that boat?
>
> > But you still should to show me how Earth just was able to appear,
> > with all the exact right ingredients and conditions to support what we
> > have today.
>
> It didn't just appear. That's (apparently) your scenario. And you
> understand the the initial earth had quite different conditions from
> what we have today, which is the product of life. Right?
Sure I understand that; however, I find it highly unlikely that it all
just "happened" without a cause or reason behind it.
When you look at the earth, all the environments, all the animals and
plants, and other conditions and you see how
everything has it's purpose. It just makes sense to me, that we have
something much bigger in the background behind it all and that it just
didn't happen by accident.
Other wise, I would think by now science could reproduce it. We can
clone, but we can't reproduce the creation of life?
>
> > You can back up all you want, but you still can't prove that God
> > doesn't exist.
>
> Indeed I can't, and I'm making no attempt to.
>
> > I am not going to tell you I can prove God exist, I am
> > going to tell you that
> > I have faith and trust that God does exist.
>
> That's fine. Where does this faith and trust come from?
Many things, personal experiences. Complex and very difficult for me
to really sit here and explain. Maybe when I have more time I will.
I also believe there is evidence, things like Near Death Experiences.
I do believe that the NDE is evidence there is something else after we
die, something much larger and complex, that we simply do not
understand.
>
> > And I can still enjoy science just as much as you can, and still
> > believe in God. Fascinating isn't it?
>
> What's fascinating is that you can make this claim while simultaneously
> appearing to claim that you are not related to apes and monkeys. What
> did you mean by that?
I believe that the Apes and Monkeys are a species, and humans are a
species and I simply do not believe the two are directly related.
It's as simple as that.
If Apes and Monkeys "evolved" into modern man today, then please
explain why we still have Apes and Monkeys today.
I believe that there was an evolution of man, and that early man
millions of years ago had similar features that may look like an Ape
or monkey, but I don't believe that Apes and Monkeys are direct
descendent's of man.
And who is to say that evolution was not part of creation? We simply
do not know. You do know that the bible itself does make a reference
to what some theologians think is the dinosaurs?
Friar Broccoli
.
I see room for negotiation here: Would you accept the assembly or a
prion from dirt, running in a computer simulated mud puddle?
John Harshman
Well, it's impossible if you think evidence is irrelevant, as you seem to.
> No one can prove God is or isn't responsible for the creation of
> earth.
True, since there is no test for responsibility. But what we can prove
(to the extent that anything empirical is capable of proof) is that if
he created it, he did so 4.5 billion years ago, by crashing together a
lot of smaller bits that were floating around the early solar system.
> As far as humans being apes, sorry but I do consider us to be more
> intelligent than
> the ape.
You are intent on providing counter-evidence to your claim, I'm afraid.
First, there is no "the ape"; there are a number of species, two of
which are our closest living relatives. Yes, we're smarter than the
other apes, but each species has its own special characteristics.
Orangutans are more orange than the other apes, but we don't exclude
them for that reason. Same with intelligence. It's relationships that
matter here, not isolated characteristics.
> Now, if you want to consider yourself in that category that
> is perfectly fine and totally up to you.
Is there a reason you don't want to be related to an ape? And if so,
does what you want determine what's true?
> We still have Apes roaming the earth and we have human beings.
> While both may have similar characteristics and features, I do not
> consider myself to be among the ape family tree.
Why not? Have you ever looked at the evidence?
> And also keep in mind, that little thing they consider the "missing"
> link that has yet to be found.
> Thought to be found, but then realized that we still have not found
> that missing link.
"Missing link" is a newspaper term that has no meaning in science. The
fossil record of hominids is fairly good, and connects you pretty well
with some animals you would probably consider quite apelike, such as
Ardipithecus ramidus. Further, the fossil record isn't the most
important source of evidence that you are an ape; for that, we should
look at comparisons between your genome and that of other primates.
> I do believe Science has made significant discoveries and has many
> theories, possibly many that are correct and others that
> are merely nothing more than well educated guesses; however, I still
> think there is a "creator" behind the grand scheme of it all
> and there is much more that we do not understand and may possibly
> never understand.
We can never rule out a creator, but we can rule out a great many sorts
of creation. Your ideas of what is correct and what is speculation are
uninformed. You really are an ape, and the evidence is overwhelming.
That doesn't say you weren't created, but it does say you were created
in the ordinary way, by having parents, and their parents having
parents, and so on way, way back, to the point where those parents
looked rather like chimpanzees, and considerably beyond.
>> If you "put your faith" in
>> science and evidence you'll agree with this; if you "enjoy" science I
>> assume you'll have looked the question up, seen why scientists reached
>> the conclusions they did on what evidence and you won't need faith to
>> agree with it.
>>
>> God's existence or lack thereof has little to do with the question.
You really should have read that part.
John Harshman
least a step in the right direction.
John Harshman
Exactly. Every species catches its own boat. And the boats go to
different places. "If we come from monkeys, why are there still
monkeys?" is perhaps the most legendarily ignorant of all creationist
canards. Even Answers in Genesis puts that one on a list of arguments
you should never use. Think of it this way. Many Americans are descended
from English colonists. So why are there still English?
So, do you have any evidence to the contrary, I say again?
>>> But you still should to show me how Earth just was able to appear,
>>> with all the exact right ingredients and conditions to support what we
>>> have today.
>> It didn't just appear. That's (apparently) your scenario. And you
>> understand the the initial earth had quite different conditions from
>> what we have today, which is the product of life. Right?
>
> Sure I understand that; however, I find it highly unlikely that it all
> just "happened" without a cause or reason behind it.
Well, of course there was a cause. That's the way things work in this
universe. You mean a purpose. Would you agree that lots of things happen
without a purpose? If so, why not that particular thing?
> When you look at the earth, all the environments, all the animals and
> plants, and other conditions and you see how
> everything has it's purpose.
Really? What is the purpose of malaria?
> It just makes sense to me, that we have
> something much bigger in the background behind it all and that it just
> didn't happen by accident.
> Other wise, I would think by now science could reproduce it. We can
> clone, but we can't reproduce the creation of life?
There are lots of things we can't do, but I see no logical connection
between our ability to do something and there being a purpose behind it.
I can't produce a hurricane. Does that mean there's a purpose behind
every hurricane?
>>> You can back up all you want, but you still can't prove that God
>>> doesn't exist.
>> Indeed I can't, and I'm making no attempt to.
>>
>>> I am not going to tell you I can prove God exist, I am
>>> going to tell you that
>>> I have faith and trust that God does exist.
>> That's fine. Where does this faith and trust come from?
>
> Many things, personal experiences. Complex and very difficult for me
> to really sit here and explain. Maybe when I have more time I will.
> I also believe there is evidence, things like Near Death Experiences.
> I do believe that the NDE is evidence there is something else after we
> die, something much larger and complex, that we simply do not
> understand.
Most research on NDE finds them to be just something that happens as the
brain shuts down. Not good evidence. Personal conviction likewise isn't
evidence. But you are free to believe on any basis. We just have a basic
conflict of epistemology.
>>> And I can still enjoy science just as much as you can, and still
>>> believe in God. Fascinating isn't it?
>> What's fascinating is that you can make this claim while simultaneously
>> appearing to claim that you are not related to apes and monkeys. What
>> did you mean by that?
>
> I believe that the Apes and Monkeys are a species, and humans are a
> species and I simply do not believe the two are directly related.
> It's as simple as that.
Apes and monkeys aren't a species; they're close to 300 species, one of
them being Homo sapiens. And are you saying you don't believe it because
you don't believe it? Forgive me if I don't find that a convincing argument.
> If Apes and Monkeys "evolved" into modern man today, then please
> explain why we still have Apes and Monkeys today.
If wolves evolved into dogs, please explain why we still have wolves.
This is a seriously stupid argument, and you need to abandon it.
> I believe that there was an evolution of man, and that early man
> millions of years ago had similar features that may look like an Ape
> or monkey, but I don't believe that Apes and Monkeys are direct
> descendent's of man.
Nor does anyone else, if you really meant to say "descendants" there. Do
you have any evidence for your beliefs? Have you ever looked at the
evidence for the contrary point of view, i.e. that humans and other
primates are related?
> And who is to say that evolution was not part of creation? We simply
> do not know.
That question can't be answered. All we can say is that if there was
creation, it clearly involved evolution of humans and other apes from a
common ancestor.
> You do know that the bible itself does make a reference
> to what some theologians think is the dinosaurs?
Yes. And those theologians are wrong. I also fail to see the relevance.
Friar Broccoli
.
> No simulations. Has to be real dirt. But I would accept a prion as at
> least a step in the right direction.
No simulations!!?? From this it follows that Christian gentlemen will
be required to get their hands dirty. I don't think so.
Robert Camp
What amazes me is that some people think belief has anything to do
with it.
> Yet, we still have apes and monkeys roaming the earth today.
> Are you suggesting some evolved and transformed, and others just
> missed that boat?
Assuming your fascination with science allows you to evaluate and
assimilate new evidence, I recommend you look into this subject a bit.
Even a simple Wikipedia page will demonstrate to you how much of what
you think you know is misinformation.
> > > But you still should to show me how Earth just was able to appear,
> > > with all the exact right ingredients and conditions to support what we
> > > have today.
>
> > It didn't just appear. That's (apparently) your scenario. And you
> > understand the the initial earth had quite different conditions from
> > what we have today, which is the product of life. Right?
>
> Sure I understand that; however, I find it highly unlikely that it all
> just "happened" without a cause or reason behind it.
Why do you find this unlikely?
> When you look at the earth, all the environments, all the animals and
> plants, and other conditions and you see how
> everything has it's purpose. It just makes sense to me, that we have
> something much bigger in the background behind it all and that it just
> didn't happen by accident.
Why does this make sense to you? What is it that suggests to you the
agency of "something much bigger?"
> Other wise, I would think by now science could reproduce it. We can
> clone, but we can't reproduce the creation of life?
This argument suggests that if and when science can create life you
will revise your position. Is that what you mean to say?
<snip>
> > > And I can still enjoy science just as much as you can, and still
> > > believe in God. Fascinating isn't it?
>
> > What's fascinating is that you can make this claim while simultaneously
> > appearing to claim that you are not related to apes and monkeys. What
> > did you mean by that?
>
> I believe that the Apes and Monkeys are a species, and humans are a
> species and I simply do not believe the two are directly related.
> It's as simple as that.
And if I said that my belief was that angels pushed the planets in
their orbits, and it's as simple as that, would you give any credence
to my claim that I enjoy and am fascinated by science?
> If Apes and Monkeys "evolved" into modern man today, then please
> explain why we still have Apes and Monkeys today.
Start here: http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-answers/topic/arguments-we-dont-use
After you realize even fundamentalist Christians disdain that argument
it might be a good time to do as I suggested and start consulting some
legitimate sources on the subject.
RLC
r norman
You fail to account for the fact that dirt in Eden was highly
carbonaceous and was, in fact, better called "clean". After the fall,
dirt became dirty and was then mostly composed of clayey types of
minerals and so is no longer suitable for spontaneous creation of
living things.
Mark Isaak
> On Mar 1, 7:20 pm, RHeishman <ospre...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> [...]
>> Also, all the prophecies full-filled in the old testimony.
>
> Which have the twofold problems that
> a) they are rather under specific and b) the NT autros knew of them
> when wiritng down their accounts.
Plus, in the Old Testament, "prophecy" did not mean, "Hey, guys, isn't it
great that I can predict the future!" A prophecy was a warning; its
intent was to get people to change their ways (or else ...). A fulfilled
prophecy meant that the prophecy failed. To the best of my knowledge,
there is only one successful prophey (by Jonah) in all the Old Testament.
--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) earthlink (dot) net
"It is certain, from experience, that the smallest grain of natural
honesty and benevolence has more effect on men's conduct, than the most
pompous views suggested by theological theories and systems." - D. Hume