LukeMC
Thanks for a honest answer of the reality that science does not have all the answers. I respect that even though we disagree on what the implications of the current evidence shows. There are actually some things that are outside the realm of science. As for the websites they were interesting especially the one on the eye. Though it seems to be a fallacious jump from "I noticed that the shape of the cells in the worm’s brain resembled the rods and cones in the human eye" to look at the similarities in this molecule to this is "concrete evidence of common evolutionary origin". Wouldn't similarities be expected if they are serving similar functions? I'm also wondering why this wasn't reported on more if it really has such significance (I know you can't really answer that one, your not the news agencies. Its just a question I was wondering). Regardless, the scientist were assuming evolution is true, as does the test itself, then when they find a similarity its no surprise that it means they are common ancestors. It also never mentioned what about all the other molecules that were examined and if they were similar. I would be interested in finding out how many other molecules were dissimilar, so we would have an idea of if the data was "cherry picked". Anyway, it was interesting yet overall I felt it overreached in its conclusion. Maybe I just don't understand the significance of the "molecular fingerprints."
As for the Flagellum the only thing I hadn't heard before was the idea of the "parts" of a IC system being the individual proteins and not the whole piece, such as the paddle, rotor, etc. While this is interesting and at first glance seems that it might undercut IC, I realized that it seems to cause even more problems for the evolutionist. Because now you have to account for every amino acid in a protein, not just the proteins themselves and their structure in a system. Questions like: how the DNA was mutated to allow its creation, redeployment, how would adding an amino acid randomly here or there actually improve the system/protien and not hinder it. What stops the "new" proteins from being incompatable with the existing system. What improvement would adding single amino acids and changing proteins around have on the cell for its survival. I could go on, but hopefully you get the picture. It does raise a good question though of the need to scientifically and clearly identify what is the irreducibly complex parts of the system being examined. If you want me to comment on something specific just let me know.
- this is a good question, but it is not a scientific question, so I don't want to get side tracked in this post, but there are many other questions that go into it. Such as, did some omnipotent being actually fiddle with DNA at random intervals, or where things created/designed in a certain way, even designed to evolve needs to be asked. Also is there a such thing as "sin/evil" and what its effects would be on the world. My belief in God and Jesus is not dependent on if evolution is true or not, true I might need to reinterpret certain passages, but there is room for other interpretations if evolution was proven correct. I have very little to lose, but it seems like for the Atheist, that your entire worldview would be turned upside down if evolution was shown to be false and there were some type of omnipotent being. I have no problem saying that intelligence and/or natural causes are at work, but for the atheist/materialist it seems that intelligent causes are thrown out a priori.
I'll probably comment more on the information later since "the angry atheist" commented on it....
Thanks for a honest answer of the reality that science does not have all the answers. I respect that even though we disagree on what the implications of the current evidence shows. There are actually some things that are outside the realm of science. As for the websites they were interesting especially the one on the eye. Though it seems to be a fallacious jump from "I noticed that the shape of the cells in the worm’s brain resembled the rods and cones in the human eye" to look at the similarities in this molecule to this is "concrete evidence of common evolutionary origin". Wouldn't similarities be expected if they are serving similar functions? I'm also wondering why this wasn't reported on more if it really has such significance (I know you can't really answer that one, your not the news agencies. Its just a question I was wondering). Regardless, the scientist were assuming evolution is true, as does the test itself, then when they find a similarity its no surprise that it means they are common ancestors. It also never mentioned what about all the other molecules that were examined and if they were similar. I would be interested in finding out how many other molecules were dissimilar, so we would have an idea of if the data was "cherry picked". Anyway, it was interesting yet overall I felt it overreached in its conclusion. Maybe I just don't understand the significance of the "molecular fingerprints."
As for the Flagellum the only thing I hadn't heard before was the idea of the "parts" of a IC system being the individual proteins and not the whole piece, such as the paddle, rotor, etc. While this is interesting and at first glance seems that it might undercut IC, I realized that it seems to cause even more problems for the evolutionist. Because now you have to account for every amino acid in a protein, not just the proteins themselves and their structure in a system. Questions like: how the DNA was mutated to allow its creation, redeployment, how would adding an amino acid randomly here or there actually improve the system/protien and not hinder it. What stops the "new" proteins from being incompatable with the existing system. What improvement would adding single amino acids and changing proteins around have on the cell for its survival. I could go on, but hopefully you get the picture. It does raise a good question though of the need to scientifically and clearly identify what is the irreducibly complex parts of the system being examined. If you want me to comment on something specific just let me know.
(June 18, 2009 at 3:10 pm)LukeMC Wrote: When you consider all options, is it really more likely that some onmipotent being fiddled with our DNA at random intervals while purposefully leading us towards the worldwide hostility and suffering we see to today- just because we can't explain our eyes fully at this present moment?
- this is a good question, but it is not a scientific question, so I don't want to get side tracked in this post, but there are many other questions that go into it. Such as, did some omnipotent being actually fiddle with DNA at random intervals, or where things created/designed in a certain way, even designed to evolve needs to be asked. Also is there a such thing as "sin/evil" and what its effects would be on the world. My belief in God and Jesus is not dependent on if evolution is true or not, true I might need to reinterpret certain passages, but there is room for other interpretations if evolution was proven correct. I have very little to lose, but it seems like for the Atheist, that your entire worldview would be turned upside down if evolution was shown to be false and there were some type of omnipotent being. I have no problem saying that intelligence and/or natural causes are at work, but for the atheist/materialist it seems that intelligent causes are thrown out a priori.
I'll probably comment more on the information later since "the angry atheist" commented on it....
"An unexamined life is not worth living." - Socrates
