Confronting Friends and Family

[Aractus]

Eh.. no..

http://news.softpedia.com/news/Why-the-P...3673.shtml

That's an interesting theory, I'll have to have a look at it.

Guessing what your point was about the DNA of the Amoeba. Polyploidy?

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB141.html

That isn't my point, or for that matter my agenda. I'm simply stating that evolution is MORE involved - has MORE driving forces than something that is only driven by DNA mutations and splicing. Just because we share a universal system doesn't mean we're defined by it. DNA can't do anything in its own interests apart from the greater interests of the creature it's a part of. Thus the view of the "selfish gene" (Dawkins) is necessarily wrong. Darwin's view is also too narrow to be considered correct.

For instance, DNA is a tool, but we aren't able to precisely define exactly what its function is - some view it as a "program" others view as a "blueprint" still others see it differently yet again. Scientists marvel at the way in which it is replicated. But it isn't self-replicating; its simply a coded index that requires copying take place using a 3rd-party mechanism. The cycle is inherently co-dependant, you can't expect DNA to do anything at all on its own, and you can't expect proteins to do their functions without it.

Furthermore you can not map out the creature from the DNA, it is not possible. They do have a relationship to each other, but that relationship is not "one way". The space of their systems are different to each other, but they overlap. Put another way, DNA alone does not determine how the creature develops, nor does the creature determine what DNA it needs. I’ll even prove this point - that creatures can develop significant physical changes without altering their DNA. It is in fact a requirement of their ability to be adaptable to their immediate environment. And just as environmental factors can change the way that a creature develops, so too the creature can develop exactly the same even with substantial modifications to its DNA. Look how similar we are as a species to each other with such diverse DNA, for instance.

---

Abiogenesis, for example. The concept that inorganic matter can become organic matter [basically non-living material becoming living material]. The most common crux of the "AHA, THE FOUNDATION OF EVOLUTION IS FLAWED" argument the creationists typically dredge up, was proven to actually happen under controlled laboratory environment testing. Now with that piece of the puzzle on the board we now have to determine when/if Earth ever was in such a state, though it's not very far-fetched to say it would be.

I'm not really interested in that argument, and I don't know why you brought it up. But since you did, why did you explain it in such a crude way? Do you really think we're too "dumb" to comprehend science?

Crystallography is the basis for what eventually leads to what you think is the origin of life. The basic ability of non-organic matter to arrange itself and replicate itself. This theory is typically separate from the theory of evolution because it doesn't share much in the way of how it works and the space in which the mechanisms take place. Just like you don't talk about crystallography using quantum mechanics because it gets you nowhere (there's no "map" that leads from one to the other). There isn't a clear "map" for how you get from crystallography to biology either, the two follow different rules and operate in their own spaces.

Crystals are very simple, and organic matter is far more complicated. No scientist in the world can tell you exactly what point chemistry ends and biology/life begins. To quote Christian de Duve on the subject: "life is either a reproducible, almost commonplace manifestation of matter, given certain conditions, or a miracle. Too many steps are involved to allow for something in between." And Carl Sagan, "the origin of life must be a highly probable circumstance; as soon as conditions permit, up it pops!" We don't have a theory yet that demonstrates this point, but it is necessary to natural evolution that life begins on its own as a direct result of the natural laws of chemistry.

As for scientists becoming very bull-headed about certain theories, that's hardly surprising at all; science has become a bit of a celebrated thing, and to be shown you are wrong can be very damaging to one's ego. Christians, I am sure, are used to that, given how even to this day they continue to have to be dragged kicking and screaming into accepting evolution as fact; ...

Science is about theory, not fact. Evolution is a theory, it's a good theory, but an incomplete one and I've pointed out some of the present problems in it. Even though scientists are loathe to admit it, you can't create something as complicated as a heart through random chance mutations in DNA code alone (let alone more complicated structures still). There has to be another driving force. Now, I'm not even trying to tell you that the driving force is God, that isn't my agenda at all. I'm just saying that whatever it is it isn't random chance genetic mutations. If you can figure it out and demonstrate it correctly, then you'll probably win a Nobel Prize, and it would be the most significant advance in science since the theory of General Relativity. Even Einstein was clearly wrong in his view of QM - yes he was free to criticise it, but his extreme view without evidence was a clear indication of his own personal bias on the matter.