RE: No God, but created?
September 12, 2013 at 12:42 pm
(This post was last modified: September 12, 2013 at 12:43 pm by orogenicman.)
(September 12, 2013 at 10:35 am)Jiggerj Wrote:(September 12, 2013 at 10:00 am)genkaus Wrote: Did it have "some kind of programming on learning how to adapt"? What gives you that idea? In all likelihood, all it had was the programming for imperfect replication and an error in one such replication resulted in existence of "adaptive programming". Not mind-boggling at all.
Imperfect replication that caused all of the things required for life as we know it: a heart, stomach, lungs, kidneys, liver, brain, how to process oxygen... Don't you find it odd that imperfect replication would randomly create all of the organs needed for life. Take away any one of the organs mentioned, and we don't exist.
Quote:Then you are just pushing the envelop one step back. Where did those supposed beings in another dimension come from?
The answer is still, we don't know. It does, however, move us away from the proposition that life started here and by means of only one cell 'accidentally' knowing how to split and transfer all of its information to the next cell.
Fish don't have lungs, yet they exist. Evolution is not random, in case you didn't know.
The idea that life started "accidentally" by one cell is an indication that you don't understand biology. Evolution occurs in populations, not in individuals, and is never accidental. A dog cannot give birth to a cat, and one cell doesn't arise from the primordial soup. An entire population of cells do in away akin to the notion of throwing together two different organic compounds will result in a third. Its biochemistry, dude. We just don't know all the stoichiometry yet.
'The difference between a Miracle and a Fact is exactly the difference between a mermaid and seal. It could not be expressed better.'
-- Samuel "Mark Twain" Clemens
"I think that in the discussion of natural problems we ought to begin not with the scriptures, but with experiments, demonstrations, and observations".
- Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)
"In short, Meyer has shown that his first disastrous book was not a fluke: he is capable of going into any field in which he has no training or research experience and botching it just as badly as he did molecular biology. As I've written before, if you are a complete amateur and don't understand a subject, don't demonstrate the Dunning-Kruger effect by writing a book about it and proving your ignorance to everyone else! "
- Dr. Donald Prothero
-- Samuel "Mark Twain" Clemens
"I think that in the discussion of natural problems we ought to begin not with the scriptures, but with experiments, demonstrations, and observations".
- Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)
"In short, Meyer has shown that his first disastrous book was not a fluke: he is capable of going into any field in which he has no training or research experience and botching it just as badly as he did molecular biology. As I've written before, if you are a complete amateur and don't understand a subject, don't demonstrate the Dunning-Kruger effect by writing a book about it and proving your ignorance to everyone else! "
- Dr. Donald Prothero
