• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

House Science Comm. member calls science "Lies straight from the pits of hell"

That's something that has mystified me. Why do so many Christians say other Christians aren't Christians, because they don't believe 100% the same?
 
RJKarl said:
That's something that has mystified me. Why do so many Christians say other Christians aren't Christians, because they don't believe 100% the same?
Click to expand...

I think it goes back the Reformation, if I recall. So, I think you can blame Martin Luther rather than George Bush on this one.
 
BigTreeDeac said:
Everybody should have given up when he said micro-evolution exists but macro-evolution not so much because "chromosomal mutations are rarely beneficial". That's how ALL evolution, micro and macro if you want to be part of the group of people that wrongfully separates the two, occur. Evolution is based in genetic mutation, so you cannot accept any form of evolution without accepting that chromosomal mutations happen and that a small percentage of them do not result in death and confer some advantage. And you certainly cannot believe in a species evolving as a species while disregarding the capacity for one species to evolve into another. They utilize the exact same mechanism, just on a different scale. Deny it all you want but it happened and will continue to happen so long as life exists on this tiny little planet we call home.

Also note Down's Syndrome isn't the result of a chromosomal mutation, it's a failure of chromosome 21 to segregate in one parent's sperm/egg resulting in a state of trisomy in the offspring. A Biology major at Wake should know that

Eta: I have no issue with faith or somebody questioning evolution (no matter how wrong such a stance is). I simply want to point out is is completely incongruous to accept that a single species evolves within itself while denying new species evolve from other species.
Click to expand...

It's not incongruous at all. Micro-evolution is not necessarily based on genetic mutations. It can also be based on traits that are already present in the gene pool. Idea--if all the existing foliage below giraffe height is eaten by the existing giraffes, then only the tallest giraffes survive. If the climate changes such that there's more snow on the ground in a particular locale, the whiter rabbits will be more difficult to see by their predators, and, eventually, all the rabbits be white. Etc., etc., etc. There's no mutation required for this form of micro-evolution. A scientist ought to know that.

Moreover, even assuming genetic mutation is a driver of micro-evolution, the point I was trying to make (perhaps inartfully) was that, while mutations generally are rarely beneficial, mutations that affect the structure of the chromosome are particularly bad (see, Down's Syndrome (which isn't the result of a mutation, but does demonstrate the consequences of alterations in chromosome structure)). Plus, I don't recall ever hearing a good theory (there's that word again) for exactly how it came to pass that we have 46 chromosomes and our supposed ancestors have 48. Considering the inability to mate, the logistics of any fusion scenarios seem about as plausible as a monkey typing the complete works of Shakespeare.
 
Last edited:
KickballDeac said:
There was no evidence of the theory of ether. It was speculation based on speculative properties of light. It was rightly rejected when experiments designed specifically to test for its existence failed. Pretty big difference in "kind" of evidence.

But whatever makes you happy. I know nothing you've read here is going to change your mind that it is just the THEORY of evolution and should be taken with a grain of salt. In fact, you're more likely to hold your beliefs even more strongly because they've been challenged in this thread, according to previous scientific experiments. http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2010/07/11/how_facts_backfire/
Click to expand...

Look, if you don't like the example of the ether there are plenty other theories out there that had evidence in their favor that have since been discredited. For crying out loud, we used to think the earth was flat because it looks flat. If there had been message boards back then, I'm confident there would have been people berating others for failing to accept the obviousness of it all.
 
Junebug said:
It's not incongruous at all. Micro-evolution is not necessarily based on genetic mutations. It can also be based on traits that are already present in the gene pool. Idea--if all the existing foliage below giraffe height is eaten by the existing giraffes, then only the tallest giraffes survive. If the climate changes such that there's more snow on the ground in a particular locale, the whiter rabbits will be more difficult to see by their predators, and, eventually, all the rabbits be white. Etc., etc., etc. There's no mutation required for this form of micro-evolution. A scientist ought to know that.

You are correct that selection of a trait doesn't involve mutation. What you may be failing to realize is that differences in pigmentation of a species result from genetic mutations. There are black rabbits and white rabbits of the same species because of a set of genetic alterations. Hence the evolution being selected by snow example is still being driven at its base by genetic mutations because otherwise there would be no color trait to select for. Giraffe height, likewise, is based in genetic differences so again what is ultimately being selected for is an alteration of some form because genetic alterations are the basis for phenotypic traits. If you gotta keep the two separate to maintain your faith, that is cool. I'll never agree with you on that though.

Moreover, even assuming genetic mutation is a driver of micro-evolution, the point I was trying to make (perhaps inartfully) was that, while mutations generally are rarely beneficial, mutations that affect the structure of the chromosome are particularly bad (see, Down's Syndrome (which isn't the result of a mutation, but does demonstrate the consequences of alterations in chromosome structure)). Plus, I don't recall ever hearing a good theory (there's that word again) for exactly how it came to pass that we have 46 chromosomes and our supposed ancestors have 48. Considering the inability to mate, the logistics of any fusion scenarios seem about as plausible as a monkey typing the complete works of Shakespeare.

Of course gross alterations to chromosomal structure are normally bad. In fact they are normally lethal. However they aren't lethal just because they happen, they are lethal because they cause alterations in the expression of the genes within the affected region. There are numerous instances of ancestral chromosomes fusing together (at least by sequence they appear to be fusions as we can't see it happening millions of years ago)without lethality because the alteration in gene expression wasn't severe enough or conferred some actual survival advantage. One way of understanding a change from 48 to 46 is that two chromosomes fused in the past, an event which did not result in death but rather resulted in a state which conferred an eventual selection advantage which caused it to eventually constitute the only chromosomal structure in a species. Fusion events can change promoter regions, add enhancer sequences near genes they previously were absent from which increase expression, add repressoir regions which inhibit expression, or change around chromatin packing which affects expression. All of this is to say there are a very rare subset of chromosomal alterations which are not lethal but cause an alteration in cellular/organismal functioning. A lot of these result in states which are not advantagous (see any number of genetic disorders) but a rare subset of them will confer some advantage which can be selected for. That is the best I can give you without spending a lot of time on this.
Click to expand...

I don't think we need to delve much further into this. I have no problem with people questioning evolution. My issue is separating what you know to be true from what perhaps you "hope" is not true when the two processes, IMO, are intertwined and thus inseparable. This is something we obviously disagree on so as is often the case when two highly educated people sit on opposite ends of an argument, neither of us is going to change our mind. I'm happy to try to answer any other questions you raise though.
 
Junebug said:
Until we start talking about evolution.
Click to expand...

Not at all, at least for me (I won't speak for others). But the stance that speciation on this planet was done by the snapping of a deity's fingers is no where near as plausible as our current understanding of evolution. If you can provide an equally plausible scenario to evolution I'd be happy to consider it. Until then, I and nearly all scientists will accept evolution as fact because it is the understanding we have developed from our observations.
 
BTD, check your inbox please. Thanks
 
"There is a considerable difference between the two, as everyone knows. A theory would certainly have a considerably greater amount of proof than a mere hypothesis, which is still waiting to be demonstrated convincingly.

Do you consider religion to be a hypothesis or a theory?
 
Junebug said:
Plus, I don't recall ever hearing a good theory (there's that word again) for exactly how it came to pass that we have 46 chromosomes and our supposed ancestors have 48. Considering the inability to mate, the logistics of any fusion scenarios seem about as plausible as a monkey typing the complete works of Shakespeare.
Click to expand...

There's a perfectly healthy man in China with 44 chromosomes :shrug
 
ONW said:
"There is a considerable difference between the two, as everyone knows. A theory would certainly have a considerably greater amount of proof than a mere hypothesis, which is still waiting to be demonstrated convincingly.

Do you consider religion to be a hypothesis or a theory?
Click to expand...

My statement was about scientific theory and scientific hypothesis. I am afraid religion and science don't particularly fit with each other's categories, or for the most part with each other's objects. Does religion meet scientific criteria for truth? No. So, from a scientific perspective, I am unsure as to what to call religion, but it is probably neither theory nor hypothesis.

If one tries to view religion, or better yet the existence of God, from a philosophical perspective, then for a long time it was held by many, following St. Thomas Aquinas, that reason supported the existence of God. I'll leave aside that some religious like St. Bernard, objected vigorously to the efforts to apply reason to the question of God's existence and argued that it was wrong to try to make God's existence in any way dependent on human opinion, or reason. Then David Hume, Dialog Concerning Natural Religion , applied very strict skepticism to the rational proofs of God's existence and found them all wanting.

The religious would probably say that there is plenty of evidence for the existence of God based on the experiences of the faithful but based on human experience and reason we cannot ultimately say with certainty whether or not God exists. In the end we can only believe.

As I have said before, Plato argued that justice is everyone minding their own business. So scientists do well to concern themselves with science, and philosophers with philosophy, while the religious concentrate on religion. There is no reason or necessity that all three must agree entirely. However, they can certainly learn from each other, and a single individual can try to understand any combination of the three, each in keeping with its own terms.
 
BigTreeDeac said:
If you gotta keep the two separate to maintain your faith, that is cool.
Click to expand...

I made this point earlier, but you seem to have missed it. I consider myself a Christian, but my skepticism of evolution isn't based on my faith in the least. I have no problem, from a religious standpoint, accepting that evolutionary speciation is the mechanism through which God created humans. As I stated, science attempts to answer the "how" where religion tries to answer the "who." These are totally separate inquiries. In fact, before I took anthro at Wake, I believed in evolution hook, line, and sinker. But the holes in the fossil record and the inability of anyone to provide a reasonable explanation of the logistics of the act of speciation convinced me that I should be a skeptic. Is evolution the best theory out there? Maybe; but it is still a theory and until we have better evidence in support of it we should treat it as such.
 
RJKarl said:
That's something that has mystified me. Why do so many Christians say other Christians aren't Christians, because they don't believe 100% the same?
Click to expand...

Depending on whose numbers you look at, there are anywhere from 20,000 to 40,000 Christian denominations in the world. I don't think that "so many" consider those who believe differently from the way they do to be non-Christians. But I think many Christians consider others to be wrong in their beliefs. If I'm not mistaken, the only belief commonly held across all of them is this:

Jesus Christ, crucified, dead, resurrected. After that, it is wide open.
 
Shorty said:
Depending on whose numbers you look at, there are anywhere from 20,000 to 40,000 Christian denominations in the world. I don't think that "so many" consider those who believe differently from the way they do to be non-Christians. But I think many Christians consider others to be wrong in their beliefs. If I'm not mistaken, the only belief commonly held across all of them is this:

Jesus Christ, crucified, dead, resurrected. After that, it is wide open.
Click to expand...

Uh, if you haven't read this thread, it appears that the resurrected bit is open for debate.
 
ChrisL68 said:
Uh, if you haven't read this thread, it appears that the resurrected bit is open for debate.
Click to expand...

Uh, I did read the thread. It may be up for debate among posters, some of whom are referencing unknown, modern theologians. But I think if you read the statement of faith for any Christian denomination, it includes a belief that Christ rose from the dead.
 
Shorty said:
Uh, I did read the thread. It may be up for debate among posters, some of whom are referencing unknown, modern theologians. But I think if you read the statement of faith for any Christian denomination, it includes a belief that Christ rose from the dead.
Click to expand...

Cool, that's my understanding too. I always thought the ressurection dealio was pretty much a dealbreaker.
 
Junebug said:
I made this point earlier, but you seem to have missed it. I consider myself a Christian, but my skepticism of evolution isn't based on my faith in the least. I have no problem, from a religious standpoint, accepting that evolutionary speciation is the mechanism through which God created humans. As I stated, science attempts to answer the "how" where religion tries to answer the "who." These are totally separate inquiries. In fact, before I took anthro at Wake, I believed in evolution hook, line, and sinker. But the holes in the fossil record and the inability of anyone to provide a reasonable explanation of the logistics of the act of speciation convinced me that I should be a skeptic. Is evolution the best theory out there? Maybe; but it is still a theory and until we have better evidence in support of it we should treat it as such.
Click to expand...

So you believe the only animals that ever existed have had fossils found of them? Of course there are holes in the fossil record because fossil formation is a very rare event and of course it is also very difficult to find fossils once they are formed. However the fossil record isn't even the main evidence a scientist uses to support evolution. It may be the main one an Anthropoligst uses but they aren't an evolutionary biologist so they are looking at it from a different angle.

The presence of vestigial organs is often cited. Humans, as bipeds, have no need for a tail for any type of balance yet sure as shit we not only have the bone structure to possibly form a tail but some humans are still born with a shortened version of it. Why would such a thing exist in us if not for our speciation from ancestors which had tails? The appendix, though now found to have some minor functions not critical to life and not related to its original function, has completely lost its capacity to breakdown cellulose (its true function) and yet it exists. Why would God create an organ which is prone to infection and can cause the death of his beloved children but has no real function? The answer is God wouldn't but evolution would as it is a hold over from less evolved ancestors. All of our cells have mitochondria. Why would our cells rely upoin co-opting a bacteria to produce energy if not for evolution? Seems a bit silly to make animals and then make them require a bacterial ancestor inside of them in order to live. It makes sense in the context of evolution because the process by which ATP is produced through oxidative phosphorylation would be nearly impossible to reproduce effectively in a single celled eukaryote so early eukaryotes provided safe harbor for a bacterial species (a survival advantage) and in turn the bacteria provided the cell with abundant energy from nutrients. Again I see no reason to set a system up like this if you are creating it. Parasites are a great example. Why would parasites exist in a world in which species were created and only evolve within themselves? Parasites provide nothing to the host, take away nutrients from the host, and in some cases can kill the host. Seems an odd thing for a loving being to create but evolution explains that. And before you counter with some concept of need for disease, etc note that very few parasites cause disease. Most live unnoticed by the host so they don't exist to cull the population. The presence of great stretches of intronic DNA is another example. Only a fraction of the DNA in a human cell codes for actual genes (even including the recent discovery of so called non-coding miRNA which derive from intronic sequences). The rest is more or less junk DNA as far as normal cellular functioning is concerned. Why does it exist? I'm glad you asked. There are multiple reasons it is thought to exist and have even expanded in humans as compared to lower organisms. The first is that during the normal replication of DNA base-pair mismatches occur at a natural frequency. Sometimes these are corrected to the original sequence, sometimes they are not, and sometimes they kill a cell. If all the DNA in a cell encoded a gene, then every mutation would happen in a gene with function thus essentially prohibiting extended life (such as that of a mammal) because deadly mutations would readily accumulate. However when a large portion of a cell's DNA consists of "irrelevant" basepairs then mutations in those regions have no impact on life. It is essentially a built in evolutionary mechanism to limit the amount of random, transcription induced mutations that happen in coding genes. It is also though the these random mutations in intronic regions are also what spur the evolution of new proteins over time both within a species and across it. A creator would simply make a system in which such mutations do not occur by engineering a high fidelity polymerase (they actually exist in nature and some have been designed by companies). I could provide you with many more examples but I fear none of this will do anything because it doesn't clear up the holes in a fossil record which by its very definition is riddled with holes. Be skeptical all you want but it seems you more deny evolution as a mechanism for speciation than are skeptical of it.

You will have to excuse me for an hour as I go to a lecture from a top scientist detailing the evolution of NK cells from lower verterbrates to humans.
 
ONW said:
"There is a considerable difference between the two, as everyone knows. A theory would certainly have a considerably greater amount of proof than a mere hypothesis, which is still waiting to be demonstrated convincingly.

Do you consider religion to be a hypothesis or a theory?
Click to expand...

...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top