Hey, can you elaborate on this? I'm genuinely interested to see your views on the proof/plausibility of Christ as opposed to evolution.The case for Christ is much stronger in my experience, and if Genesis worked for him, it works for me.
Hey, can you elaborate on this? I'm genuinely interested to see your views on the proof/plausibility of Christ as opposed to evolution.The case for Christ is much stronger in my experience, and if Genesis worked for him, it works for me.
I thought this post was actually pretty good, but if you want people to respond to your points one at a time, post them one at a time. If you don't want to defend every reason at once, be direct yourself.Oh, and for anyone looking to megaquotepost this post.
don't
I'd be happy to take this further, but not like that. One point at a time please.
Similar story here: your story seems somewhat interesting but it seems like you want to defend yourself preemptively from anyone asking for details. (e.g.: What points were poignant? What points were counter productive? Have you read _?)My point is, i think we would have to look much much deeper as to why some people that where once very deeply rooted in one set of beliefs, change, and why some do not. Now please no one come at me with any "well maybe you didnt look hard enough Jesus" bs. I just saved you some time and headache with that warning
So far. It's possible that a more accurate theory could be developed further down the line, but for now evolution is the most sensible interpretation of the data we possess.Is the theory of evolution the best explain of biological diversity and the origin of the human species?
Yes, if you believe in evolution and they don't (or vice-versa) that symbolizes a disconnect in mentality. To draw a parallel, you probably wouldn't vote for someone who doesn't share your views on how to fix the economy, this is a similar situation.Is it reasonable to allow a candidates views on evolution to affect your vote?
This one depends heavily on how you interpret the main chronicle of your Religion. Most Religious texts are sufficiently expansive that you can interpret them in many different ways. Some of these interpretations can coexist with evolution, some can't.Can the theory of evolution be reconciled with religious beliefs?
The Bahaii actually believe that there can be some truth in many different religions, and that the different pursuits of religious truth matter.I'm just wondering. Everyone believes in their own religion, which is fine and dandy and everyone has the right to believe. It just sucks that the majority of the believers are wrong, eh? Only one of the religions, if any, can hit the jackpot! I just find it weird how we can all believe wholeheartedly in what we believe in, while standing next to someone else who wholeheartedly believes in something completely differently, without constantly considering that one of the two of us has to be wrong.
The easiest way to describe evolution is: change through time. You can also throw the word genetic before change, but it's not really needed. Those three words are enough. I don't like the concept of "superior traits" when trying to explain evolution in a basic way. If you're trying to use such a very basic definition, you're more than likely trying to explain evolution to someone who doesn't have very much scientific knowledge. If this is the case then the person is very likely to misinterpret "superior traits" as those who are biggest, strongest, fastest et cetera. Then you have to go on and explain natural selection to them.It is often easy to describe evolution as the things that don't have the superior traits die, like the slowest antelope getting eaten by the lion. But in reality, evolution could just work if an organism with a specific trait has more children on average, not even requiring death of the competitor genes. Over time the success of that gene becomes dominant, simply because of the shear amount of time we are talking about for evolution to work.
Again, I would use different wording. Using the word Dominant might give the person a misunderstanding of genetics. Recessive genes/alleles can also become the most favorable/fit, even if there are dominant alleles for that loci. I know you used the word dominant to describe the success of the gene but yeah...Over time the success of that gene becomes dominant, simply because of the shear amount of time we are talking about for evolution to work.
I mentioned this before, but on the contrary, I'd say that views are everything. verbatim has put it quite concisely. How you view a candidate's record is inevitably coloured by how your worldview clashes with said candidate's. Look at the simultaneous worship and vilification of Ronald Reagan, for instance.Cartoons! said:Views are cheap.
It wasn't in the OP, I posted it in the election thread and it was quoted on the first page.I didn't see that one. Where was it in your OP?
There isn't "proof", But when these sequences look exactly like the genomes of retroviruses it is pretty suggestive that that's what happened.Long story short, there's no proof that those lines of code came from viral infections. Viral infections of a certain type sure can alter genes. And if they alter sex cells they sure can be passed on. But there's no proof that's what happened. Its just an assumption.
Junk DNA isn't the same as ERV's Junk DNA is any part of the DNA that doesn't code for proteins where ERV's are specific sequences that make up only a fraction of the noncoding DNA.However, as we study the human genome, we keep finding that those lines of code that we had simply assumed were "junk genes", and labeled ERVs, actually serve vital purposes in sustaining our lives.
http://www.sciscoop.com/2004-10-13-33731-304.html
http://www.abc.net.au/catalyst/stories/s898887.htm
http://www.theweek.co.uk/health-science/48877/genetics-breakthrough-how-junk-dna-actually-useful
etc...
So its just as likely that those parts of our genes are not remnants of long past viruses, but more likely just like any other part of our DNA that keeps us alive.
just gonna be serious for a second to say that i don't think you'll find any real anti-evolution people on this forum, considering it's mainly comprised of young, white males who do not believe in a god[youtube]T7HBMWfRqSA[/youtube]
The link to this is on the first page but it got ignored. I would really like to know what some of the anti-evolution people think of this.
What of the myriad shared ERVs found in incongruous species? That video made it pretty clear that the chances of just one pair of ERVs being found in two species was pretty low. Humans and gorrillas share sequences that sure do look like ERVs, that aren't shared between Humans and chimps. Humans share some with dogs and mice and all kinds of other animals too.There isn't "proof", But when these sequences look exactly like the genomes of retroviruses it is pretty suggestive that that's what happened.
Evolution says that all species share a common ancestor. This is exactly as you would expect.What of the myriad shared ERVs found in incongruous species? That video made it pretty clear that the chances of just one pair of ERVs being found in two species was pretty low. Humans and gorrillas share sequences that sure do look like ERVs, that aren't shared between Humans and chimps. Humans share some with dogs and mice and all kinds of other animals too.
what?incongruous
As an engineering student, this is not my field of expertise. Whatever I have to say on the subject, and especially my opinion on it, is likely to be deeply flawed due to my lack of special knowledge on the matter. This is something everybody who's not a biologist should admit. I know the basic stuff, but never looked into the deeper explanations and such. So I pass the question on to the scientific community, the biologists in particular. These are the guys who know what there is to know about evolution.Is the theory of evolution the best explain of biological diversity and the origin of the human species?
Big yes. As far as my experience goes, people don't disagree with evolution because of "healthy sceptisism" (compare this to theorymoning about an unreleased Pokémon's performance in OU). They do because it implies their worldview is wrong. I've never heard about anybody who went out and said: "I don't believe in evolution because of [insert rational arguments and valid facts], but I'm unable to come up with a better explanation myself." (again, think crime scene, where an investigator expresses doubt about the current murderer hypothesis, but don't know who else to suspect). Opponents of evolution are usually just that because they have conflicting interests themselves. And those conflicting interests are usually based in religious dogma.Is it reasonable to allow a candidates views on evolution to affect your vote?
Yes, but it would stop any literal interpretation of scripture dead in its tracks. It's fully possible that YHWH/Rod/Ptah/Brahma/Arceus created the world full of creatures that would later evolve, but if the scriptures say otherwise, then the scriptures are wrong and should not be taken literally as factual truth. If the infailability of scripture is "broken" by facts contradicting it, then there is no way to decide what other parts of scripture might be wrong, other than testing it empirically. You can't claim, for instance, "The Shruti is 100% scientifically correct and absolutely true, except for that part about evolution because that was proven wrong.".Can the theory of evolution be reconciled with religious beliefs?
Many of the matching "ERVs" don't make any sense from an evolutionary standpoint. From an genetic standpoint chimps are much more similar to humans than gorrilas. But gorrilas share several "ERVs" with humans that neither of us share with chimps. Same goes for dogs and mice and fish and birds and all kinds of creatures that we "shouldn't" share those with. Some evolutionary biologists have suggested that these are instances of multiple viral infections affecting sex cells in different species at different points in time that just randomly happened to have infected at the same exact spot in a chain of DNA god knows how long.what?
No, you're right. I guess I was just trying to snappy, and brought a lot of assumptions to the question that I didn't make clear in my answer. I just meant there isn't always a correlation between one's professed worldview, and their actions, which reflect their actual worldview, and why the question of evolution wouldn't define how I vote.I mentioned this before, but on the contrary, I'd say that views are everything. verbatim has put it quite concisely. How you view a candidate's record is inevitably coloured by how your worldview clashes with said candidate's. Look at the simultaneous worship and vilification of Ronald Reagan, for instance.
I think the post I was addressing was deleted? The context was the level of control God would have over the workings of the universe. My point was that we don't really have free will (whatever that means), and that seemingly random events are foreordained. I'm not a philosopher or a theologian though, so consider those points orphaned.Also I don't see how free will and chance are relevant to each other... One says (in a crude sense) you have control over your life, while the other says (again, in a crude sense) you don't.
The evolutionary explanation for this would be as follows. I will use the example of an ERV shared by dogs and humans but not chimpanzees. The ERV originated in a species that is a common ancestor of both dogs and humans, since chimps are closer to humans than dog this will also be an ancestor of chimpanzees. This explains why the ERV occurs in humans and dogs but it doesn't explain why it doesn't occur in chimps. The explanation is that at some point after the divergence of the lineages of chimps and humans a deleterious mutation spread through the chimp population which removed this section of DNA.Many of the matching "ERVs" don't make any sense from an evolutionary standpoint. From an genetic standpoint chimps are much more similar to humans than gorrilas. But gorrilas share several "ERVs" with humans that neither of us share with chimps. Same goes for dogs and mice and fish and birds and all kinds of creatures that we "shouldn't" share those with. Some evolutionary biologists have suggested that these are instances of multiple viral infections affecting sex cells in different species at different points in time that just randomly happened to have infected at the same exact spot in a chain of DNA god knows how long.
Perhaps I didn't make myself clear enough. What I meant to say, was that the trueness(?) of evolution is a question strictly confined to the field of biology. The answer to the question "Did life, as we know it, evolve?" can't be found in areas like quantum physics, carpentry, plumbing or engineering. It's up to the biologists, the people who study the facts found in biology, to draw the conclusion. Note that you don't have to be a biologist by profession, but the more you specialize on the relevant subject, the more weight your words are likely to hold (and, by extension, the more likely you are to be a biologist, but again, you don't have to to claim that you understand biology).@Cobraroll: isn't that the most obscene confirmation bias yet reported in this thread? "Among people who devote their lives to study of evolution, almost all believe evolution to be true." That's equally as profound as "most theologians say God exists."
The majority of theologians believe in god because one who does not believe in god is not likely to identify as a theologian. There are plenty of philosophers and philosophers of religion who do not believe in god. In fact the majority, 72.8% of philosophers do not believe in god. http://commonsenseatheism.com/?p=5552@Cobraroll: isn't that the most obscene confirmation bias yet reported in this thread? "Among people who devote their lives to study of evolution, almost all believe evolution to be true." That's equally as profound as "most theologians say God exists."