Why is evolution not considered order of biochemistry?
BURT
evolution. It is possible that the changes are not all mutations but
are part of the order inherent in bio chemistry itself.
Can anyone really say that man mutated into superiority?
Mitch Raemsch
Will in New Haven
> I believe random mutation should be questioned as the driving force of
> evolution. It is possible that the changes are not all mutations but
> are part of the order inherent in bio chemistry itself.
Mutations are part of the working out of the laws of physics.
Chemistry, etc are all elaborations of physics.
> Can anyone really say that man mutated into superiority?
What superiority?
--
Will in New Haven
Dakota
Natural selection acting upon random mutations is the driving force. I'm
not sure that the term "superiority" is appropriately applied to mankind.
Michael Young
the term "molecular machinery," as much of biochemistry is very much
akin to an extremely complex machine consisting of tiny molecules.
Like all machines, biochemistry is prone to make "manufacturing
mistakes," and due to the speed of metabolism the rate of these
mistakes being made is actually quite often. The errors in the
biochemical order are the mutations; and perfect biochemical order, in
which no mistakes are made, would result in no mutations and therefore
no evolution whatsoever.
What you seem to be asking is, "How do you know that the changes
occurring are not simply part of the programmed biochemistry of the
organism like everything else?" This question seems to imply a kind of
planning. Not sentient planning involving awareness, of course, but at
least an inherent planned change to develop in the future, one that is
ingrained in DNA perhaps. Naturally, molecules hold no such capacity;
their activity is restricted solely to the laws that govern biophysics
and chemistry. Organization of DNA is responsible for genes, which are
responsible for molecular and proteomic synthesis, which drive further
DNA replication. It would make no sense for a machine to replicate
itself with preprogrammed errors, random or planned, as this involves
a great deal of energy to go through the process, and as such
"risking" it by having a flawed replication that may not work
correctly could waste such energy. Furthermore, there has been, to my
knowledge, no scientific evidence to show anything of what your
statement implies, but there has been a great deal of evidence showing
mutations are the cause of genetic changes.
r norman
Those of us who have it know what.
Those of you who do not tend to deny its existence.
Michael Young
> Those of you who do not tend to deny its existence.
Contribute to the discussion or don't bother at all. This post has no
substance whatsoever.
Will in New Haven
> On Sun, 30 May 2010 13:00:48 -0700 (PDT), Will in New Haven
>
> >On May 30, 2:56�pm, BURT <macromi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> I believe random mutation should be questioned as the driving force of
> >> evolution. It is possible that the changes are not all mutations but
> >> are part of the order inherent in bio chemistry itself.
>
> >Mutations are part of the working out of the laws of physics.
> >Chemistry, etc are all elaborations of physics.
>
> >> Can anyone really say that man mutated into superiority?
>
> >What superiority?
>
> Those of us who have it know what.
> Those of you who do not tend to deny its existence.
There is no reason to believe in any general superiority of any
species. If it helps to make you feel special, you are welcome to
believe it. When you _proclaim_ it, be ready for people to call you on
your bullshit.
bobsyo...@yahoo.com
"BURT" <macro...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:9e777817-4779-4695...@v29g2000prb.googlegroups.com...
Not with a straight face.
Burkhard
Rather opportunistic posting: I just happen to get this book
announcement today
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Biocommunication-Natural-Editing-G%C3%BCnther-Witzany/dp/9048133181
which seems to be along similar lines, at least in the sense that he
thinks random mutations are not quite random, and not quite as
important.
(here is an article by the same author:
http://www.mitdenker.at/life/acta_bio.pdf
Lots of red warning lights (the author is a philosopher, and not even
there apparently mainstream) but I did not have time to look at it
more in depth. If any of the sciency people here knows him./ has an
opinion about it, could save me some work :o)
Greg G.
>
> >On May 30, 2:56�pm, BURT <macromi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> I believe random mutation should be questioned as the driving force of
> >> evolution. It is possible that the changes are not all mutations but
> >> are part of the order inherent in bio chemistry itself.
>
> >Mutations are part of the working out of the laws of physics.
> >Chemistry, etc are all elaborations of physics.
>
> >> Can anyone really say that man mutated into superiority?
>
> >What superiority?
>
> Those of us who have it know what.
> Those of you who do not tend to deny its existence.
I thought your reply was funny, even if MY and WiNH didn't.
Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc talk-origins@moderators.isc.org
If by "superiority" you mean "greater reproductive fitness" and by
"man" you mean "successive ancestors of modern humankind", then yes.
"Bio chemistry" is just how atoms interact inside living things, which
is quite simple when you look at even ten or twenty atoms, but the
number of atoms in a human being is... let's see whether Google knows:
(click) well, a figure of 10^22 is offered
(10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, I think). Depending on Body Mass
Index, of course.
Chemistry does not "know" how to achieve evolution. Mutation is not
"the driving force of evolution", exactly - if there is any "driving
force of evolution", the difference in reproductive fitness between
different members of a population is that - but basically that
variation in a species is created and maintained by mutations.
Another interesting "use" of mutation naturally in the human body
apparently is described here:
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Somatic_hypermutation>
Desertphile
<young...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 30 May 2010 16:53:53 -0400, r norman <r_s_n...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 30 May 2010 13:00:48 -0700 (PDT), Will in New Haven
> > <bill....@taylorandfrancis.com> wrote:
> >
> > >On May 30, 2:56�pm, BURT <macromi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >> I believe random mutation should be questioned as the driving force of
> > >> evolution. It is possible that the changes are not all mutations but
> > >> are part of the order inherent in bio chemistry itself.
> > >
> > >Mutations are part of the working out of the laws of physics.
> > >Chemistry, etc are all elaborations of physics.
> > >
> > >> Can anyone really say that man mutated into superiority?
> > >What superiority?
> > Those of us who have it know what.
It's a joke, clown. Lighten the fuck up. The statement, written
under the PRETENSE of "asking a question" was: "Can anyone really
say that man mutated into superiority?" Generally it is only
Creationists and children who believe "man" is "superior." There
is no metric for what constitutes "superiority" until one states
exactly, and in what circumstances, that "superiority"
constitutes.
Of course penguines are The Best Birds.
--
http://desertphile.org
Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water
"Why aren't resurrections from the dead noteworthy?" -- Jim Rutz
Michael Young
> under the PRETENSE of "asking a question" was: "Can anyone really
> say that man mutated into superiority?" Generally it is only
> Creationists and children who believe "man" is "superior." There
> is no metric for what constitutes "superiority" until one states
> exactly, and in what circumstances, that "superiority"
> constitutes.
>
> Of course penguines are The Best Birds.
Easy there. All kinds of yahoos come on here saying all sorts of
insane things, and I responded to your comment assuming you were
totally serious. You can't fault me for that, undeniably some of the
people who pop around here actually hold your (jesting) "sentiments,"
if you will, themselves. I apologize for not picking up on the
sarcasm, inflection of speech is kinda hard via text, but there's no
need to start chucking swears around. I'll try to keep a better eye
out next time.
BURT
> On Sunday 5/30/10 1:56 PM, BURT wrote:
>
> > I believe random mutation should be questioned as the driving force of
> > evolution. It is possible that the changes are not all mutations but
> > are part of the order inherent in bio chemistry itself.
>
> > Can anyone really say that man mutated into superiority?
>
> > Mitch Raemsch
>
> Natural selection acting upon random mutations is the driving force.
That is status quo. I say the order is not random but present in
biochemistry from its very beginning. This biochemical order unfolded
creating evolution.
You cannot rule out order behind evolution and you would be a moron to
attempt to.
Mitch Raemsch
BURT
But which comes first: the chicken or the egg?
Is it biochemical order first then mutation?
Because it is clearly not what people think. It is not all mutation.
Mitch Raemsch
Dakota
In sexual reproduction, combining genetic elements from each parent
result in offspring that are different from either. If biochemical order
is the specifying factor, how is it that subsequent offspring of a
mating pair differ from each other? If there is no randomness in the
process, what term would you use to explain the differences?
r norman
I don't in any way claiim that humans are superior to any species. I
only claim that some of us humans are superior to some of you!
r norman
<deser...@invalid-address.net> wrote:
>Of course penguines are The Best Birds.
I think these French varieties are definitely inferior to the good ol'
American penguin.
r norman
<young...@gmail.com> wrote:
I thought my contribution was entirely consistent with the spirit of
talk.origins. In that spirit, substance has no place whatsoever in
the merit of a post!
I must add you to my entire family (plus a long list of others
including all my students) who never laugh at my absolutely hilarious
jests.
r norman
talk-o...@moderators.isc.org" <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:
>BURT wrote:
>> I believe random mutation should be questioned as the driving force of
>> evolution. It is possible that the changes are not all mutations but
>> are part of the order inherent in bio chemistry itself.
>>
>> Can anyone really say that man mutated into superiority?
>
>If by "superiority" you mean "greater reproductive fitness" and by
>"man" you mean "successive ancestors of modern humankind", then yes.
>
>"Bio chemistry" is just how atoms interact inside living things, which
>is quite simple when you look at even ten or twenty atoms, but the
>number of atoms in a human being is... let's see whether Google knows:
>(click) well, a figure of 10^22 is offered
>(10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, I think). Depending on Body Mass
>Index, of course.
That seems awfully small. The human body is made almost entirely of
carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen, with some phosphorus, sulfur, and
a smidgeon of other atoms. The salts in your body are mostly sodium,
potassium, and chloride. The weighted average is probably somewhere
around 10. Probably even lower since you are about 2/3 water with an
average atomic weight of 18/3 = 6. That means that 6 x 10^23 atoms
would have a mass of about 10 grams, probably even less.
So if you have a mass of well under 1 gram, you might have 10^22
atoms. If you are pushing 100 kg like me (well, not quite but close
enough) you would have more than 10^27 atoms.
Mike Dworetsky
|A smiley is the best defence. It is often difficult to tell, as you point
out, the difference between a joke and a creationist screed. Smileys
help... :-)
--
Mike Dworetsky
(Remove pants sp*mbl*ck to reply)
J. J. Lodder
I am a smiley snob, I never use any.
(acquired in alt.usage.english,
where this is de rigeur)
It should be obvious from what I write
whether or not I am a creationist,
without me adding any smileys.
Jan
Burkhard
So are your YEC or OEC then? (smiley omitted as requested by poster)
John McKendry
Your Google Groups profile says you're new here, so you can be forgiven
for not knowing all the players, but you need to pay attention to the
From: line. The person who wrote "Those of us who have it know what..."
is not the person who wrote "Lighten the fuck up", and it would be a
real shame if you don't learn the difference. The person who wrote
"Those of us who have it..." is Richard Norman, a retired professor
of biology who tends to get a little playful. The person who wrote
"Lighten the fuck up" is desertphile, a guy who likes to argue and
insult people.
It can be very hard to tell feigned stupidity from the real thing
on this newsgroup; even the old-timers get it wrong from time to time.
Take some time to learn the players, is my advice. And don't assume
that it's as simple as Creationist = stupid, evolutionist = smart.
John
J. J. Lodder
I am the snob, so it's your fault
if you can't find out for yourself,
Jan
Frank J
>
> - Show quoted text -
Or a "don't ask, don't tell what the designer did when or how" IDer?
(ditto about the smiley)
Frank J
> On May 30, 1:11�pm, Dakota <ma...@NOSPAM.com> wrote:
>
> > On Sunday 5/30/10 1:56 PM, BURT wrote:
>
> > > I believe random mutation should be questioned as the driving force of
> > > evolution. It is possible that the changes are not all mutations but
> > > are part of the order inherent in bio chemistry itself.
>
> > > Can anyone really say that man mutated into superiority?
>
> > > Mitch Raemsch
>
> > Natural selection acting upon random mutations is the driving force.
>
> That is status quo. I say the order is not random but present in
> biochemistry from its very beginning. This biochemical order unfolded
> creating evolution.
It is often said (thougn not often enough IMO) that mutations are only
"random" with respect to the selection that acts on them. They are not
random in the sense of an ideal gas (which doesn't exist anyway) but
are follow, as you say, laws of chemistry.
The problem is that ~99% of what is discussed (& known?) about
evolution is on the "selection side". But the "mutation side" is
equally important because without it selection would have nothing to
work on. It's unfortunate that the word "mutation" has acquired a
negative connotation (i.e. "mutants") to non-biologists, especially
since anti-evolution activists never miss an opportunity to bait-and-
switch definitions, as they do with "theory" and other key terms.
>
> You cannot rule out order behind evolution and you would be a moron to
> attempt to.
And no one does except anti-evolution activists trying to promote
unreasonable doubt.
If you haven't already, read "The Origins of Order" by Stuart
Kauffman. If that's too technical (lots of math - ~700 p. of small
print) start with his follow-up book "At Home in the Universe."
Kauffman makes it clear that his ideas are only hypotheses, and that
some or all may be wrong, and that he merely attempts to add detail to
- not replace - current theories. Nevertheless, his ideas were
provocative enough to send anti-evolution activists into damage
control mode. They clumsily tried to have it both ways with Kauffman.
Depending on what misleading point they were trying to make, Kauffman
was either a "Darwinist" or a "fellow dissenter."
>
> Mitch Raemsch
sasam
>
> I am a smiley snob, I never use any.
> (acquired in alt.usage.english,
> where this is de rigeur)
>
> It should be obvious from what I write
> whether or not I am �a creationist,
> without me adding any smileys.
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
Smiley value rise
for who still lacks in humor size
through caring guidance by the wise
:-)
Sam
J. J. Lodder
> I believe random mutation should be questioned as the driving force of
> evolution.
You can, if you want to.
You can even insist that every mutation
was contrived by god himself,
if you are willing to bind your god to the laws of physics.
> It is possible that the changes are not all mutations but
> are part of the order inherent in bio chemistry itself.
Evolution without mutations is only micro-evolution.
> Can anyone really say that man mutated into superiority?
Snipping superiority, yes.
Many mutations (whatever their cause)
were necessary to for Hss to come into existence.
Jan
sasam
>
> I thought my contribution was entirely consistent with the spirit of
> talk.origins. �In that spirit, substance has no place whatsoever in
> the merit of a post!
I just KNEW it!
All this time spent on TO for no other reason but to serve the jesting
appetite of our academic overlords.
(Adding a smiley will probably be taken as an insult).
Sam
J. J. Lodder
> On May 31, 12:03 pm, nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) wrote:
> >
> > I am a smiley snob, I never use any.
> > (acquired in alt.usage.english,
> > where this is de rigeur)
> >
> > It should be obvious from what I write
> > whether or not I am a creationist,
> > without me adding any smileys.
> >
> > Jan
>
> Smiley value rise
> for who still lacks in humor size
> through caring guidance by the wise
>
> :-)
Try for a haiku next time,
Jan
Michael Young
> �Your Google Groups profile says you're new here, so you can be forgiven
> for not knowing all the players, but you need to pay attention to the
> From: line. The person who wrote "Those of us who have it know what..."
> is not the person who wrote "Lighten the fuck up", and it would be a
> real shame if you don't learn the difference. The person who wrote
> "Those of us who have it..." is Richard Norman, a retired professor
> of biology who tends to get a little playful. The person who wrote
> "Lighten the fuck up" is desertphile, a guy who likes to argue and
> insult people.
>
> �It can be very hard to tell feigned stupidity from the real thing
> on this newsgroup; even the old-timers get it wrong from time to time.
> Take some time to learn the players, is my advice. And don't assume
> that it's as simple as Creationist = stupid, evolutionist = smart.
>
> John
Not reading the from line was my mistake, I realized it after I had
already posted the previous message. Nothing against Rich at all, now
that I know it was just ribbing the creationism. I try not to make
assumptions, but being human I do sometimes (although quick to correct
them if wrong). Thanks for the advice John, I'll try to keep it in
mind.
Ron O
What is the difference?
Ron Okimoto
Dick C.
4300b6...@e21g2000vbl.googlegroups.com:
>> Those of us who have it know what.
>> Those of you who do not tend to deny its existence.
>
> Contribute to the discussion or don't bother at all. This post has no
> substance whatsoever.
It seemed fine to me.
johnbee
"Mike Dworetsky" <plati...@pants.btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:jvydnUKtpM-
> |A smiley is the best defence. It is often difficult to tell, as you
> point
> out, the difference between a joke and a creationist screed. Smileys
> help... :-)
>
> --
The bloke was writing deliberate crap? Blimey, I thought it was more
sensible than most of the stuff on here.
BURT
> BURT <macromi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > I believe random mutation should be questioned as the driving force of
> > evolution.
>
> You can, if you want to.
> You can even insist that every mutation
> was contrived by god himself,
> if you are willing to bind your god to the laws of physics.
>
> > It is possible that the changes are not all mutations but
> > are part of the order inherent in bio chemistry itself.
>
> Evolution without mutations is only micro-evolution.
No. It is reverse. More evolution comes from order than randomness.
Mitch Raemsch
Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc talk-origins@moderators.isc.org
r norman wrote:
> On Sun, 30 May 2010 17:30:03 -0700 (PDT), "Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc
> talk-o...@moderators.isc.org" <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:
>
> >BURT wrote:
> >> I believe random mutation should be questioned as the driving force of
> >> evolution. It is possible that the changes are not all mutations but
> >> are part of the order inherent in bio chemistry itself.
> >>
> >> Can anyone really say that man mutated into superiority?
> >
> >If by "superiority" you mean "greater reproductive fitness" and by
> >"man" you mean "successive ancestors of modern humankind", then yes.
> >
> >"Bio chemistry" is just how atoms interact inside living things, which
> >is quite simple when you look at even ten or twenty atoms, but the
> >number of atoms in a human being is... let's see whether Google knows:
> >(click) well, a figure of 10^22 is offered
> >(10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, I think). Depending on Body Mass
> >Index, of course.
>
> That seems awfully small.
It does, doesn't it? Whoops. I was having so much fun converting it
to billion billion billions that it didn't occur to me that it should
have several more zeroes.
Of course we start out substantially smaller than, broadly speaking,
we end up.
Upon further examination, my figure comes from
<http://user.cyberlink.ch/~koenig/sunrise/simon3.htm>
"Typhonian O.T.O.. Some Qabalistic Considerations"
Oh dear.
To quote.
"The number of atoms in a human being is in the region of 10�� and
oddly if we were to multiply this figure again by 10 we would be in
possession of the number of atoms in the average star. (10 to the
power 44) Liber AL stresses that an integral part of the new wave of
evolving consciousness is the recognition of our own Stariness. Every
man and every woman is a star."
Whoops again.
"The Tree of Life has 10 regular Sephiroth and 22 paths."
Oh I see...
"Incidentally the pi constant is only exact in a Euclidean geometry
framework"
Er, disagree...
r norman
talk-o...@moderators.isc.org" <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:
Isn't the internet a wonderful source of information?
BURT
>
> - Show quoted text -
Biochemical order creates the difference in offspring not mutation at
inception.
Mitch Raemsch
BURT
If no one does then why did Einstein have to reject the world's idea
that evolution's order is random?
No. Many scientists either dumb and or atheist say it is randomness
and mutation.
Mitch Raemsch
>
> If you haven't already, read "The Origins of Order" by Stuart
> Kauffman. If that's too technical (lots of math - ~700 p. of small
> print) start with his follow-up book "At Home in the Universe."
>
> Kauffman makes it clear that his ideas are only hypotheses, and that
> some or all may be wrong, and that he merely attempts to add detail to
> - not replace - current theories. Nevertheless, his ideas were
> provocative enough to send anti-evolution activists into damage
> control mode. They clumsily tried to have it both ways with Kauffman.
> Depending on what misleading point they were trying to make, Kauffman
> was either a "Darwinist" or a "fellow dissenter."
>
>
>
>
>
> > Mitch Raemsch- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
William Morse
You're a mass of prejudice.
William Morse
A joke is an inversion of expected reality, a creationist creed is an
expectation of inverted reality.
Greg G.
> >> |A smiley is the best defence. �It is often difficult to tell, as you point
> >> out, the difference between a joke and a creationist screed. �Smileys
> >> help... �:-)
>
William Morse
> I believe random mutation should be questioned as the driving force of
> evolution. It is possible that the changes are not all mutations but
> are part of the order inherent in bio chemistry itself.
Well, first, the driving force of evolution is excess reproduction
coupled with inherited variation. Mutations are a major source of
variation. But the sequence space available for variation is subject to
biochemical constraints, so these may influence the observed course of
evolution.
> Can anyone really say that man mutated into superiority?
I assume you mean as opposed to man appearing without some pre-existing
biochemical disposition. This would lead us to a discussion of niches,
and whether given life evolving in an earth like environment, it is
likely that intelligence would appear as a niche that would be selected
for.
Yours,
Bill Morse
Matchstick
@y18g2000prn.googlegroups.com>, macro...@yahoo.com says...
>
> But which comes first: the chicken or the egg?
Egg.
Why do people still think this one is an insolvable question ?
--
The wages of sin are death... but the hours are good and the perks are
fantastic
richardal...@googlemail.com
> I believe random mutation should be questioned as the driving force of
> evolution
It has been and still is. There is a considerable scientific
literature on the subject,
>. It is possible that the changes are not all mutations but
> are part of the order inherent in bio chemistry itself.
Yes.
However, unless you can express such a proposition in such a way that
it can be tested using the tools of science it is useless as a
scientific proposition.
>
> Can anyone really say that man mutated into superiority?
Nobody with any ability to evaluate the worth of Homo sapiens
objectively would call the species "superior".
RF
>
> Mitch Raemsch
Stuart
> I believe random mutation should be questioned as the driving force of
> are part of the order inherent in bio chemistry itself.
Doesn't seem to be. How would that work? What biochemical mandate that
a change has to take place?
>
> Can anyone really say that man mutated into superiority?
Only to the extent that we are here and previous hominids are not.
>
Stuart
Ron O
This depends on you knowing the intent. You'd have to be a mind
reader to tell the difference unless you had past experience with the
poster.
Ron Okimoto
J. J. Lodder
Frank J
> On May 31, 4:17锟絘m, Frank J <f...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 30, 9:34锟絧m, BURT <macromi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> Mitch Raemsch
>
> Please address all the points you ignored and then we can discuss your concept of "order," "randomness," and what "atheist" think.
Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc talk-origins@moderators.isc.org
Ohyes. On a /good/ day, you get your information and then you do the
"I wonder if that's right" bit.
William Morse
You're a mass of prejudice
But Sasam's was positive, mine is critical. I like Sasam's better, even
apart from it being better written.
sasam
>
> >>>> On May 31, 12:03 pm, nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) wrote:
> >>>>> I am a smiley snob, I never use any.
> >>>>> (acquired in alt.usage.english,
> >>>>> where this is de rigeur)
>
> >>>>> It should be obvious from what I write
> >>>>> whether or not I am �a creationist,
> >>>>> without me adding any smileys.
>
> >>>>> Jan
> >>>> Smiley value rise
> >>>> for who still lacks in humor size
> >>>> through caring guidance by the wise
>
> >>>> :-)
> >>> Try for a haiku next time,
> >> You're a mass of prejudice.
>
> > Not bad, for a middle line,
>
> > Jan
>
> Avowed smiley snob
> You're a mass of prejudice
> Rosencrantz judges
>
> But Sasam's was positive, mine is critical. I like Sasam's better, even
>
> - Show quoted text -
Jan is not abnormally prejudiced - if you look at his message history
- perhaps less than most of us. He bravely kept his own when
confronted with the accusation of creationism. He is a thinker and not
prone to be anti-science.
If someone calls himself a snob you can be quite certain that he
probably is not.
In light of thinkers usually being sensitive I need to apologize to
Jan for a previous mail where I implied philosophers to be off their
rockers (concerning the notion that we can't be certain of anything).
I'll do so.
Sam
Kermit
But... surely they're right?
> I'll do so.
>
> Sam
Kermit
sasam
>
> - Show quoted text -
Truth diverts from common sense.
Rene Descartes made sure to build his epistemological work on the one
foundation that was certain to him, namely "I exist".
This the ultimate question.
Sam
J. J. Lodder
William Morse
The line "You're a mass of prejudice" is from _Rosencrantz and
Guildenstern are Dead_, which I thought Jan might be familiar with. It
seemed apropos in the context of Jan's post, but that might be just my
own sense of humor.
> If someone calls himself a snob you can be quite certain that he
> probably is not.
I disagree, What you might be certain of is that the person is aware of
the likelihood of hypocrisy. Which is a good thing to be aware of.
Nick Keighley
> �It can be very hard to tell feigned stupidity from the real thing
> on this newsgroup; even the old-timers get it wrong from time to time.
> Take some time to learn the players, is my advice. And don't assume
> that it's as simple as Creationist = stupid, evolutionist = smart.
it's the way to bet though...
Nick Keighley
> On May 31, 4:17 am, Frank J <f...@verizon.net> wrote:
> > On May 30, 9:34 pm, BURT <macromi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > On May 30, 1:11 pm, Dakota <ma...@NOSPAM.com> wrote:
> > > > On Sunday 5/30/10 1:56 PM, BURT wrote:
> > > > > I believe random mutation should be questioned as the driving force of
> > > > > evolution. It is possible that the changes are not all mutations but
> > > > > are part of the order inherent in bio chemistry itself.
no. Do you seriously believe that man is some how inherent in the
biochemistry? Are oak trees inherent in the biochem?
Evolution is driven by random mutation and selection.
> > > > > Can anyone really say that man mutated into superiority?
No evolutionary biologist (or fellow traveller) ever said that. At
least learn what your opponents are saying...
> > > > Natural selection acting upon random mutations is the driving force.
>
> > > That is status quo. I say the order is not random but present in
> > > biochemistry from its very beginning. This biochemical order unfolded
> > > creating evolution.
you can say 'til you go blue in the face
> > It is often said (thougn not often enough IMO) that mutations are only
> > "random" with respect to the selection that acts on them. They are not
> > random in the sense of an ideal gas (which doesn't exist anyway) but
> > are follow, as you say, laws of chemistry.
aren't some caused by radiation? Isn't this essentially random?
> > The problem is that ~99% of what is discussed (& known?) about
> > evolution is on the "selection side". But the "mutation side" is
> > equally important because without it selection would have nothing to
> > work on. It's unfortunate that the word "mutation" has acquired a
> > negative connotation (i.e. "mutants") to non-biologists, especially
> > since anti-evolution activists never miss an opportunity to bait-and-
> > switch definitions, as they do with "theory" and other key terms.
I like telling people they're mutants just to see their reaction
> > > You cannot rule out order behind evolution and you would be a moron to
> > > attempt to.
>
> > And no one does except anti-evolution activists trying to promote
> > unreasonable doubt.
>
> If no one does then why did Einstein have to reject the world's idea
> that evolution's order is random?
I thionk you are confusing what Einstein said about certain bits of
physics I don't believe he expresed an opinion on evolution. Unless
you have a quote?
> No. Many scientists either dumb and or atheist say it is randomness
> and mutation.
nope, left my decoder ring in the other coat. The dumb atheist
scientists actaully say its mutation and SELECTION. Mutation and
randomness would be an pleonasm.
> > If you haven't already, read "The Origins of Order" by Stuart
> > Kauffman. If that's too technical (lots of math - ~700 p. of small
> > print) start with his follow-up book "At Home in the Universe."
>
> > Kauffman makes it clear that his ideas are only hypotheses, and that
> > some or all may be wrong, and that he merely attempts to add detail to
> > - not replace - current theories. Nevertheless, his ideas were
> > provocative enough to send anti-evolution activists into damage
> > control mode. They clumsily tried to have it both ways with Kauffman.
> > Depending on what misleading point they were trying to make, Kauffman
> > was either a "Darwinist" or a "fellow dissenter."
snip the bits you aren't responding to
Vend
It's not clear what you mean by "biochemical order". Can you
elaborate, please?
Nick Keighley
> On May 30, 1:11 pm, Michael Young <youngms...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Order of biochemistry is just that: order. Biochemistry often involves
> > the term "molecular machinery," as much of biochemistry is very much
> > akin to an extremely complex machine consisting of tiny molecules.
> > Like all machines, biochemistry is prone to make "manufacturing
> > mistakes," and due to the speed of metabolism the rate of these
> > mistakes being made is actually quite often. The errors in the
> > biochemical order are the mutations; and perfect biochemical order, in
> > which no mistakes are made, would result in no mutations and therefore
> > no evolution whatsoever.
>
> > What you seem to be asking is, "How do you know that the changes
> > occurring are not simply part of the programmed biochemistry of the
> > organism like everything else?" This question seems to imply a kind of
> > planning. Not sentient planning involving awareness, of course, but at
> > least an inherent planned change to develop in the future, one that is
> > ingrained in DNA perhaps. Naturally, molecules hold no such capacity;
> > their activity is restricted solely to the laws that govern biophysics
> > and chemistry. Organization of DNA is responsible for genes, which are
> > responsible for molecular and proteomic synthesis, which drive further
> > DNA replication. It would make no sense for a machine to replicate
> > itself with preprogrammed errors, random or planned, as this involves
> > a great deal of energy to go through the process, and as such
> > "risking" it by having a flawed replication that may not work
> > correctly could waste such energy. Furthermore, there has been, to my
> > knowledge, no scientific evidence to show anything of what your
> > statement implies, but there has been a great deal of evidence showing
> > mutations are the cause of genetic changes.
>
> But which comes first: the chicken or the egg?
egg
> Is it biochemical order first then mutation?
you can't really have mutation until you have some sort of complex
reproducing molecule. An aperiodic crystal as it used to be called.
Mutation is our name for imperfect reproduction.
> Because it is clearly not what people think. It is not all mutation.
no, there's selection as well
Kermit
I don't remember Einstein saying anything about evolution. Do you have
a link or quote?
>
> No. Many scientists either dumb and or atheist say it is randomness
> and mutation.
"Random" can mean many things, all related in the sense of "not
selected" or "not predictable".
In evolutionary context, "Random" means that the mutations which
happen show no mathematical or otherwise predictable correlation to
the needs of the organism.
For example, in a population of rabbits, the same number of mutations
which increase the thickness or density of fur show up in any
generation whether the climate is getting warmer or colder. The
environmental conditions then *select which ones are more likely to
reproduce, but the mutations themselves do not provide or respond to
the needs of the organisms.
Of course the chemical nature of the mutations are determined by the
ordinary laws of chemistry; certain molecular changes are possible but
not others. But the *chemistry of mutations do not determine whether
the population of rabbits gets thicker or thinner fur; natural
selection does, The colder or warmer climate interacts with the
phenotype, not the molecule.
The laws of biochemistry are analogous to the rules of grammar and
spelling. They will not tell you how a culture will develop, nor what
its literature will say. They will only tell you how words will be
spelled and something about sentence structure.
Sufficiently deep understanding of biochemistry will tell you how
instructions for building bodies can be coded, but it won't tell you
anything about which instructions will be coded.
>
> Mitch Raemsch
>
>
>
> > If you haven't already, read "The Origins of Order" by Stuart
> > Kauffman. If that's too technical (lots of math - ~700 p. of small
> > print) start with his follow-up book "At Home in the Universe."
>
> > Kauffman makes it clear that his ideas are only hypotheses, and that
> > some or all may be wrong, and that he merely attempts to add detail to
> > - not replace - current theories. Nevertheless, his ideas were
> > provocative enough to send anti-evolution activists into damage
> > control mode. They clumsily tried to have it both ways with Kauffman.
> > Depending on what misleading point they were trying to make, Kauffman
> > was either a "Darwinist" or a "fellow dissenter."
>
> > > Mitch Raemsch- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
Kermit
BURT
>
> - Show quoted text -
No way. That is self evident. It is order in the chemistry of life.
That is not hard and doesn't need further definition. But please
elaborate on what you don't understand about the term.
MItch Raemsch
BURT
wrote:
So eggs sudenly appeared?
Oh really?
> > Is it biochemical order first then mutation?
>
> you can't really have mutation until you have some sort of complex
> reproducing molecule. An aperiodic crystal as it used to be called.
> Mutation is our name for imperfect reproduction.
>
> > Because it is clearly not what people think. It is not all mutation.
>
> no, there's selection as well- Hide quoted text -
BURT
No I don't. What I know is that because of disbelieving randomness he
really did have a personal problem with evolution. For the most part
he is quoted talking about quantum mechanics. But he was also looking
at evolution's randomness as being wrong.
Mitch Raemsch
> Kermit- Hide quoted text -
Burkhard
eventually our modern chicken evolved. Eggs are much much older than
chicken, and have been laid by non-chickens long before the first
kikeriki was heard
BURT
>
> - Show quoted text -
So the junglefowl came first before its egg? Did God create an egg for
the beginning of all life?
Mitch Raemsch
Vend
Obviously, there is some order in chemical reaction, otherwise we
wouldn't be able to study chemistry.
But there is also some randomness involved. You seem to deny this
randomness.
sasam
> So the junglefowl came first before its egg? Did God create an egg for
> the beginning of all life?
>
> Mitch Raemsch- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
The reproductive process followed natural laws of cause and effect
from very primitive beginnings. The egg developed out of this long
natural process - and the fowl and chicken followed long after.
Pre-programed restricted thinking about these matters is damaging to
faith's cause and wood on the fire for the atheist cause.
If you go from the metaphysical Ontological Argument's standpoint that
God exists - fine. He is thus seen as the very first cause of
causality itself. It can be stated that we have no sound sensory
empirical basis to make this assertion (to appease our physicalist
friends). The positivist statement - that there exists nothing outside
of our sensory world - is also a metaphysical assumption on the same
level as our statement that "God exists".
Given this assumption as true - your "inherent order" intralise the
post-first cause (taking God as the first cause) as containing the
total order of the universe inherently unchangeable (or with limited
freedom of change) in creation itself. This is ultimate determinism
and we then all have no choice whatsoever about our future path. You
surely can not pin down physical attributes as established at the very
beginning and ignore the rest i.e. paths, actions, behaviours,
tendencies, collisions etc. as being subject to randomness.
Taken the assumption "God exists" as true there is also another way of
looking at it. It can be argued that a First Cause of Everything can
not exist unless it also exists simultaneously with all the future
causes and effects. In other words - creation is a never ending
process that everything is intrically unescapably part of. We see the
last effect as unconnected to the first cause due to a long series of
random unrelated causes in-between. (i.e. the eye originally was not
for seeing). This can be reasoned to be accurate out of our
perspective. Would we - however - have been able to escape this
process, stand back and objectively witness what is unfolding
everywhere (and at all instances simultaneously) - we may percieve
that the last effect is totally connected to the first cause - in
other words - creation is happening. Whether instantaneous or ad
infinitum would not be relevant in this wider frame of reference. This
creation model will provide for random causes and effects according to
nature's laws.
Sam
BURT
> On Jun 5, 3:50 am, BURT <macromi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > So the junglefowl came first before its egg? Did God create an egg for
> > the beginning of all life?
>
> > Mitch Raemsch- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> The reproductive process followed natural laws of cause and effect
> from very primitive beginnings. The egg developed out of this long
> natural process - and the fowl and chicken followed long after.
>
> Pre-programed restricted thinking about these matters is damaging to
> faith's cause and wood on the fire for the atheist cause.
>
> If you go from the metaphysical Ontological Argument's standpoint that
> God exists - fine. He is thus seen as the very first cause of
> causality itself. It can be stated that we have no sound sensory
> empirical basis to make this assertion (to appease our physicalist
> friends). The positivist statement - that there exists nothing outside
> of our sensory world - is also a metaphysical assumption on the same
> level as our statement that "God exists".
Where does order of biochemistry come from then?
Without God there would be no order in the universe
because that is all it is made of.
Well from where does the first egg come?
Its a valid question.
I say it is order in biochemistry.
Mitch Raemsch
Free Lunch
wrote in talk.origins:
>On Jun 5, 5:08 am, sasam <f...@absamail.co.za> wrote:
>> On Jun 5, 3:50 am, BURT <macromi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> > So the junglefowl came first before its egg? Did God create an egg for
>> > the beginning of all life?
>>
>> > Mitch Raemsch- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> > - Show quoted text -
>>
>> The reproductive process followed natural laws of cause and effect
>> from very primitive beginnings. The egg developed out of this long
>> natural process - and the fowl and chicken followed long after.
>>
>> Pre-programed restricted thinking about these matters is damaging to
>> faith's cause and wood on the fire for the atheist cause.
>>
>> If you go from the metaphysical Ontological Argument's standpoint that
>> God exists - fine. He is thus seen as the very first cause of
>> causality itself. It can be stated that we have no sound sensory
>> empirical basis to make this assertion (to appease our physicalist
>> friends). The positivist statement - that there exists nothing outside
>> of our sensory world - is also a metaphysical assumption on the same
>> level as our statement that "God exists".
>
>Where does order of biochemistry come from then?
>Without God there would be no order in the universe
>because that is all it is made of.
Your assertion is groundless.
Your opinion is of no value because it is not based on logic, knowledge
and evidence.
BURT
>
> - Show quoted text -
creator of order.
I said biochemistry. This is maximum order period.
Mitch Raemsch
BURT
> On Sat, 5 Jun 2010 19:45:48 -0700 (PDT), BURT <macromi...@yahoo.com>
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
You mean to say you don't know anything.
I am addressing order in the universe and where it came from.
Show me where I am wrong.
Mitch Raemsch
JacobSmith
-----------------------------------
REPLY:
The theory comes down to this:
[Evolution of early reproductive proteins and enzymes
is attributed in modern models of evolutionary theory
to ultraviolet light. UVB light causes thymine base pairs
next to each other in genetic sequences to bond together
into thymine dimers, a disruption in the strand that
reproductive enzymes cannot copy. This leads to
frameshifting during genetic replication and protein
synthesis, usually killing the organism. As early
prokaryotes began to approach the surface of the
ancient oceans, before the protective ozone layer
had formed, blocking out most wavelengths of UV light,
they almost invariably died out. The few that survived
had developed enzymes that verified the genetic
material and broke up thymine dimer bonds,
known as base excision repair enzymes.
Many enzymes and proteins involved in modern
mitosis and meiosis are similar to excision repair
enzymes, and are believed to be evolved modifications
of the enzymes originally used to overcome UV light.]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultraviolet
Big problem in saying "evolved modifications of
the enzymes originally used to overcome UV light."
(1) Some animals, including birds, reptiles, and
insects such as bees, can see near-ultraviolet light.
(2) Butterflies use ultraviolet as a communication
system for sex recognition and mating behavior.
(3) Many insects use the ultraviolet wavelength
emissions from celestial objects as references
for flight navigation. This is intelligent design.
(4) Reptiles need long wave UV light to metabolize
calcium for bone and egg production.
So, it is either UVB or some other form of radiation,
i.e., LIGHT, or the protective ozone layer, yes? Yes.
The Bible: In the beginning was the Word, and the
Word was with God, and the Word was God. The
same was in the beginning with God. All things were
made by him; and without him was not any thing made
that was made. In him was life; and the life was the
LIGHT of men. And the LIGHT shineth in darkness;
and the darkness comprehended it not.
Or, In the beginning God created the heaven
and the earth. And the earth was without form,
and void; and darkness was upon the face of
the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon
the face of the waters. And God said, Let
there be LIGHT: and there was LIGHT.
And God saw the LIGHT, that it was good:
and God divided the LIGHT from the darkness , , ,
Suggested solution: Chicken and egg; Plato: they
both always existed. This is the "middle" truth. Or,
the Joseph Smith, Jr. reality check:
"God himself was once as we are now,
and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned
in yonder heavens! That is the great secret.
If the veil were rent today, and the great God
who holds this world in its orbit, and who upholds
all worlds and all things by his power, was to make
himself visible,--I say, if you were to see him today,
you would see him like a man in form--like yourselves
in all the person, image, and very form as a man;
for Adam was created in the very fashion, image
and likeness of God, and received instruction from,
and walked, talked and conversed with him, as one
man talks and communes with another."
. . .
"he was once a man like us; yea, that God himself,
the Father of us all, dwelt on an earth, the same
as Jesus Christ himself did . . ." "To lay down my
life as my Father did, and take it up again." . . .
"God had materials to organize the world out
of chaos--chaotic matter, which is element,
and in which dwells all the glory. Element had
an existence from the time he had. The pure
principles of element are principles which can
never be destroyed; they may be organized
and re-organized, but not destroyed. They
had no beginning, and can have no end" . . .
"The mind or the intelligence which man
possesses is co-equal with God himself."
http://www.academic-genealogy.com/thelordjesuschristjewsjosephgentilesheathenstinneyelijah.htm
Much, much later, [Albert Einstein,
14 March 1879–18 April 1955),
theoretical physicist, philosopher
and author who is widely regarded
as one of the most influential and
best known scientists and intellectuals
of all time. He is often regarded as
the father of modern physics. ] He
[deduced from his equations of
special relativity what has been
called the twentieth century’s
best-known equation: E = mc2.]
Compare Joseph Smith, Jr.
(December 23, 1805 – June 27, 1844)
"Element had an existence from the time
he had. The pure principles of element
are principles which can never be destroyed;
they may be organized and re-organized,
but not destroyed. They had no beginning,
and can have no end"
Respectfully yours,
Tom Tinney, Sr.
Who's Who in America,
Millennium Edition [54th] through 2004
Who's Who In Genealogy and Heraldry, [both editions]
Family Genealogy & History Internet Education Directory
http://www.academic-genealogy.com/
BURT
>
> - Show quoted text -
The ultra violet light found with original biochemistry is part of the
order of the beginning of biochemistry. The different kind of light
effects order of life evolution.
Mitch Raemsch
bpuharic
<tins...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>So, it is either UVB or some other form of radiation,
>i.e., LIGHT, or the protective ozone layer, yes? Yes.
>The Bible: In the beginning was the Word, and the
>Word was with God, and the Word was God. The
>same was in the beginning with God. All things were
>made by him; and without him was not any thing made
>that was made. In him was life; and the life was the
>LIGHT of men. And the LIGHT shineth in darkness;
>and the darkness comprehended it not.
>
it would have been nice of god to tell us about UV light instead of
waiting for you parasites to discover it ex post facto after it had
been discovered by scientists
the bible is useless when applied to nature.
that's why creationism had led nowhere for 2000 years
Vend
Are you going to provide an argument or just make assertions?
Nick Keighley
<snip>
> > > But which comes first: the chicken or the egg?
>
> > egg
>
> So eggs sudenly appeared?
laid by proto-chickens. Ultimately back to jungle fowl.
In reality the line from jungle fowl to chicken is a continuum (or a
set of discrete steps so fine as to closely approximate a continuum).
You can't say that egg layer is not a chicken yets its young is a
chicken. You need a precise definition of "chicken" and there probably
isn't one to be had. So its a silly question and the best answer I
think to that silly questions is "egg".
> Oh really?
<snip>
Nick Keighley
> On Jun 4, 4:29 pm, Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
> > On 4 June, 19:44, BURT <macromi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > On Jun 4, 7:34 am, Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nos...@hotmail.com>
<snip>
> > > > > But which comes first: the chicken or the egg?
>
> > > > egg
>
> > > So eggs sudenly appeared?
>
> > > Oh really?
>
> > Nope, they were laid by Grey Junglefowl, the species from which
> > eventually our modern chicken evolved. Eggs are much much older than
> > chicken, and have been laid by non-chickens long before the first
> > kikeriki was heard
>
> So the junglefowl came first before its egg?
same answer as the jungle fowl. Eventually back to proto-birds which
were dinosaurs.
> Did God create an egg for the beginning of all life?
I don't believe god had anything to do with it. Abiogenesis (the
origin of life) is still an area of active research (we don't know)
Nick Keighley
> On Jun 5, 7:49�pm, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
> > On Sat, 5 Jun 2010 19:45:48 -0700 (PDT), BURT <macromi...@yahoo.com>
<snip>
> > >Well from where does the first egg come?
> > >Its a valid question.
> > >I say it is order in biochemistry.
>
> > Your opinion is of no value because it is not based on logic, knowledge
> > and evidence.
>
> You mean to say you don't know anything.
>
> I am addressing order in the universe and where it came from.
> Show me where I am wrong.
it's difficult to refute arm-wavey arguments. My neice used to have an
invisible pony. How do you argue with that?
Nick Keighley
> On Jun 5, 5:08 am, sasam <f...@absamail.co.za> wrote:
> > On Jun 5, 3:50 am, BURT <macromi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > So the junglefowl came first before its egg? Did God create an egg for
> > > the beginning of all life?
>
> > The reproductive process followed natural laws of cause and effect
> > from very primitive beginnings. The egg developed out of this long
> > natural process - and the fowl and chicken followed long after.
>
> > Pre-programed restricted thinking about these matters is damaging to
> > faith's cause and wood on the fire for the atheist cause.
>
> > If you go from the metaphysical Ontological Argument's standpoint that
> > God exists - fine. He is thus seen as the very first cause of
> > causality itself. It can be stated that we have no sound sensory
> > empirical basis to make this assertion (to appease our physicalist
> > friends). The positivist statement - that there exists nothing outside
> > of our sensory world - is also a metaphysical assumption on the same
> > level as our statement that "God exists".
>
> Where does order of biochemistry come from then?
well each living thing is a (rough) copy of its parents. So my
biochemical ordering reflects that of my parents. Back to the earliest
eurcaryocyte and what preceeded that. Ultimately biochemistry is the
chemistry of big carbon compounds and that amounts to chemistry.
Chemistry is the physics of atoms. And that's mostly the Qunatum
Mechanics of electrons. I'm not sure where QM came from. Or if it is
a meaningful question.
> Without God there would be no order in the universe
> because that is all it is made of.
there is no empirical evidence for the existence of god hence
questions about the nature of god are outside of science.
<snip>
> Well from where does the first egg come?
it's a specialisation of the gametes of sexually dimorphous life
forms. You'd have look where sex was invented and when the sexually
reproducing parties specialised the gametes into low mass / high
mobility and high mass / low mobility. I'm not qualified to
speculate.
> Its a valid question.
> I say it is order in biochemistry.
eggs are encoded into the biochem? I thought it was man? Clever stuff
your biochem.
Free Lunch
wrote in talk.origins:
This should be a clue to help you answer your question below.
>You mean to say you don't know anything.
No, I don't say that at all. What I said is that you have expressed an
opinion that is based on ignorance.
>I am addressing order in the universe and where it came from.
You are making a claim, one that you have not supported.
>Show me where I am wrong.
You invented your claim without evidence, logic or knowledge. You are
just repeating an old just-so story.
Free Lunch
<nick_keigh...@hotmail.com> wrote in talk.origins:
But that is at the request of theists. They don't want scientists to
look at the alleged capabilities of their god or show that their god
does not affect sunrise or lightning storms.
BURT
> On Sat, 5 Jun 2010 19:59:27 -0700 (PDT), BURT <macromi...@yahoo.com>
Then address the origin of order.
Mitch Raemsch
>
> >Show me where I am wrong.
>
> You invented your claim without evidence, logic or knowledge. You are
> just repeating an old just-so story.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc talk-origins@moderators.isc.org
There are maybe a few hundred distinct types of atoms that can exist
in the universe for any length of time. Having been formed, for the
sake of argument, randomly, it is the natural behaviour of these atoms
to fit together neatly, and thus "order" arises.
Thus, for instance, neat, regular shaped snowflakes appear, with
complicated regular beauty on a microscopic scale.
Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc talk-origins@moderators.isc.org
Sure, why wouldn't they?
r norman
talk-o...@moderators.isc.org" <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:
>BURT wrote:
An awful lot more order was involved in the coming together of
subatomic particles to form those 90 some odd kinds of atoms in the
first place.
Nick Keighley
> On Sun, 6 Jun 2010 06:35:43 -0700 (PDT), Nick Keighley
<snip>
> >> Without God there would be no order in the universe
> >> because that is all it is made of.
>
> >there is no empirical evidence for the existence of god hence
> >questions about the nature of god are outside of science.
>
> But that is at the request of theists. They don't want scientists to
> look at the alleged capabilities of their god or show that their god
> does not affect sunrise or lightning storms.
I'm pretty happy with the NOMA stuff. I don't personnally believe a
god like his exists but I see little point in arguing about it.
Kicking it out of science is enough for me.
I think he has a pretty confused idea about what order is
<snip>
Mark Isaak
> On Jun 5, 5:08 am, sasam <f...@absamail.co.za> wrote:
>> [...]
>> If you go from the metaphysical Ontological Argument's standpoint that
>> God exists - fine. He is thus seen as the very first cause of
>> causality itself. It can be stated that we have no sound sensory
>> empirical basis to make this assertion (to appease our physicalist
>> friends). The positivist statement - that there exists nothing outside
>> of our sensory world - is also a metaphysical assumption on the same
>> level as our statement that "God exists".
>
> Where does order of biochemistry come from then? Without God there
> would be no order in the universe because that is all it is made of.
You must be talking about a different universe, then, because there is
also disorder in the one I live in.
> [...]
> Well from where does the first egg come? Its a valid question.
No it is not. "Egg" is too poorly defined.
> I say it is order in biochemistry.
God is reputedly able to create merely by saying. When did you start
thinking of yourself as god?
--
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
Free Lunch
wrote in talk.origins:
You are the one who claimed that a god was necessary. Back it up or you
will be admitting that your claim was indefensible.
BURT
>
> - Show quoted text -
I believe after discovering the nature of the 4 sizes of atoms Murray
Gell-Mann was able to predict the last atom that is full in the outer
shell or largest 4th shell. He said this is atom number 120. Limit of
4 electron shells set the limit on atom number. No larger shell means
no larger atom.
Where then does the order of the atom come from? It doesn't come from
man.
MItch Raemsch