[quote=BorisTheFerret;504483]
Quote:
Quote by: Simonius  The fossils merely show a diversity of life, they do not prove that one species developed from another. Such a conclusion might be reasonable, but it is hardly concrete and proven. Episodic creation or design would fit with the fossil record just as logically as evolution.
Rubbish. The fossils do not just show diversity of life, if you take them in the context of their varying ages you see clear progression down thousands of different branches, involving hundreds of thousands of different species. Furthermore, comparison of the DNA patterns of animals alive today, with the DNA patterns of the animals from which evolution says they evolved, demonstrates uncanny similarities wherever you would expect to find them if looking from an evolutionary angle. We're talking about long DNA sequences, the odds of which being repeated by chance are so long as to be effectively nil.
You're saying all of that's a coincidence, that all species were put on the earth at essentially the same time by God, and that it's just a matter of chance that all the fossils which evolution predicts date from within the last 50 million years, are indeed younger than 50 million years, and that all the fossils which evolution predicts date from 200 million years, do date from 200 million years.
Evolution explains the development of species observable in the fossil record as well as in DNA. Creationism does not. Simple as.
And taking a religious story as the starting point, then working backwards with the express aim of vindicating that story, all the while ignoring any evidence which contradicts the creation story (which IS what you're doing), is NOT scientific. You can't take a religious story and dress it up as scientific theory. That's what ID does, and it's been universally and irrevocably debunked by the scientific community. |
The idea you expressed about DNA patterns and that we can use that evidence to link new beings with those in the past is interesting. Assuming that the fosil still contains the orginal DNA and is not just a meneral filling in of some imprint left behind.
Humans for example have close DNA matches with hairless earthworms, and as I recall, with dolpins. Which if so ( do not want to dig up any webpage links at the moment ) we could come to vision that humans and earthworms have a identity bondage that would suggest that worms and people evolved from the same ancestor "being" relative to our family trees.
A mushroom's DNA has no evolutionary link to anything else before or after it. Suggesting it is a somewhat alienated oddity in those evolution charts. However DNA is a instuctional blueprint for growth and the strand is made out of a combination of chemicals in correct order and for a pre-established and intended purpose.
The very idea that DNA is a "pattern" would suggest "design". And it is a key factor in organizing projected growth which gowth would have to reach an intelligent formation in order to survive as a living creature.
All this would suggest that the random formation of just the right chemicals to make up a DNA strand is a miracle. Unless it was in some other way oganized.
We do see a progessive momentum that does not repeat individualism and always causes a slight change. And so the notion that a god created everything all at once is nil. Like you said. However, in this post you are debating me and my explaination about creation, and not those other people and their pottery age explainations. Amimals do not reproduce clones in the natural processes of reproduction, and those changes could rightly be called an evolution. But the patterns reproduced do come close to what came before, which you also agree with, otherwise evolutionary charts could not be created. As data collecting via experience adds more "knowledge" to the DNA that is passed on, plus the fact that two different DNA doners would produce a combination from those two souces to effect a change relative to both individuals who donated. Reproduction with modifications to the pattern, but it is still one on-going pattern that is bridging those generational bridges.
So I cannot debate what other people claim who call their self "Creatonists" because such shoes do not fit my feet.
In other words we have within a given speices the ability to mix a diverstiy of individualisms from a wider gene pool then in the past. As we mix people from China with white people and with Africans and with Indians we can come up with all kinds of new "products" from that mixed gene pool. But any attempt to do the same thing with other primates would fail. Because the dna patterns cannot croos breed no matter how close you think the DNA matches up with our own. At some point diverstiy cannot unite to cause a evolutionary effect.
Because the established oganizational fields that the single cell organismes in our body are supervised by cannot survive in the organizatonal fields which other primate micros use as their envrionment. And so we have those organizational fields which represent what might be termed as metaphysical environments. And the quest would be to find out if those fields are subject to evolutionary changes that could manfiest as new and different kinds of environments.
The evolution of environments becomes the focus point for trying to comprehend any concept about evolution. As well as the more invisable organizational fields that likewise dominate the realities of living beings composed of single cell cultural establshiments as a lager body or unit of individualism.
Like ant cultures leaving chemical trails to organized the collective activities of their group we use knowledge and words. But that is novel of us. Chemical communication and chemical control is foundational to biologoical understanding. If we digest some chemicals that can even effect our thought systems, creating new doors of perception, as Huxley pointed out. The regulated release of harmones is also evidence of that.
Chemistry and creationism must go hand and hand. So I ask "can thoughts that are energized with emotions trigger chemicals that control behaviorism or body activities"? I think your answer would be "yes".
Assuming the answer is yes I would propose that Mind is the source point as an influence over the chemical creation of activity. At least, I would propose this would be a worthy avenue for more exploration, so that we can bridge the gap between mere philosophy and sound science.
Downloading an idea from out of the blue is useless if it cannot find applications to how we currently precieve our reality. That is where religions have failed. In the application of their ideals so that they can merge and become a part of the nitty gitty or everyday reality. Reality is the standard that we must find agreement with and from, to have harmonic residence. The descent of that opinon must be modified if our reality is to evolve to the next dimensional level to create (recreate) the landscapes of such an envronment. I doubt if we can raise our consciousenss to the level where we can overcome our chemical dependancy but on the other hand, anything is possible if you accept the open envelope theory. Pure consciousness verses chemically controlled consciousness is a new field of potental research which nowadays borders on being an unlawful pursuit, other then when limited to debates and explainations.
But I must point out that I am debating a wanna-be theory which I have not yet fully stated due to the distracton of defending it before getting around to fully presenting it. (theory meaning a layman's explaination, in my case).
Note: due to limited time on my part this post was not edited for misspellings and so you will just have to deal with it as is.