Be the first pioneers to continue the Astronomy Discussions at our new Astronomy meeting place...
The Space and Astronomy Agora
|Re: The Death Of Darwin
Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response To
Posted by bzrd on July 15, 1999 17:45:28 UTC
: : : : : What does any of this have to do with Astronomy?
: : : : : Your statement about mamillian geneology is not only inappropriate for this forum, it is also patently false.
: : : : : How about asking an Astronomy/God question since THAT is the title and subject of this forum, not evolution.
: : : : : You'll find the evolution debate in many OTHER forums on the Net, but it is not on track for this one.
: : : : Hmmmm... the top of my screen says "Astronomy Net Forum on God and Science... So, how does Darwinian theory account for the complexity of the mammalian genome?...
: : : : : : ::: : : : Considering that there are probably several people reading this board who have a strong background in biology, and since YOU brought it up, why don't you explain what your data is to back this claim up? Who told you Darwinian theory can't account for this?
: : Actually there is quite a bit that Darwinian theory can't account for. Though I am not a biologist I don't feel particularly intimidated by any who may be reading this. On the other hand, if I say anything that is incorrect, I would not be at all offended if they would point it out. The basis of the theory is natural selection working on random variation in the genome. Scince there are a limited number of mutations that occur in a given population, coupled with the fact that most would not be "selected", then the element of time becomes problematic when trying to account for the genetic complexity of the higher taxa. Darwin's dillemma (sort of has a ring to it) is further exacerbated by the fact that scince the mutations occur by random, most would be of no benefit (if not lethal) to the organism.
: :::::::::: : Some mutations ARE indeed lethal to the organism. I can't say that I agree that time presents a problem for this. I rather think time would represent a greater opportunity for a solution. This "Darwin's dillema" you refer to doesn't seem like such a dillema based on what I've heard you say so far. It's like saying there are problems with getting machines to fly, without saying what those problems specifically are. Machines do of course fly, once the problem is solved, just as Darwin theory becomes understandable once the idea that it's impossible is seen for what it is. A misnomer based on an unwillingness to consider that what was once believed is now know not to be true. We used to believe machines could NOT fly.
: However, back to the original question. Where is you data regarding this mammilian geneology and who told you it was a problem for Darwinian theory? If you please. I will need to understand what you mean by this if I am to comment on why I believe it is not so. What problem do you speak of?
: And then where do we go from here on our search for the proof of the existence of God based on the mythologies we've discussed so far?
: May I suggest a pure logic experiment since I concede that virtually ALL mythologies propound the Creator(s) in some form or another. This is essentially why the mythology exists. To explain that which is unknowable in terms that are comfortable for whoever chooses to accept which particular mythology suits their emotions. Or in some cases it is of course taught in childhood and never expanded upon in favor of a broader view once the child leaves the nest. Lets look at the dillemma this way. There are only a certain number of mutations that would occur in a given generation of organisms. And given the simplicity of the early forms of life, (by the way are we not finding more and more that these organisms were actually complex?) Darwin's theory would dictate that the genome would become increasingly complex. This is based on the observence of micro-evolution which does indeed occur and is easily demonstrated. It is a well known fact that bacteria will become resistant to a given antibiotic over time. On the face this would seem to support macro-evolution. However, with the advances in bio-molecular science, this adaptation has found to be more often than not, the result of a loss of genetic information. How can you be so sure that each species of organism doesn't have a finite genetic ability to adapt to environmental pressures?
Unless otherwise specified, web site content Copyright 1994-2022 John Huggins All Rights Reserved
Forum posts are Copyright their authors as specified in the heading above the post.
"dbHTML," "AstroGuide," "ASTRONOMY.NET" & "VA.NET"
are trademarks of John Huggins