</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />
Originally Posted by (harami,) "You may consider this the creative acts of God or just the natural course of existence as scientist like Gould support. But either way science no longer believes anything takes place by chance or random events. The dice are loaded. "
Unfortunately, for your argument, is the fact that the field of "stochasitic differential equations" is an extremely important (relatively new) field in math and the sciences. Probabalistic arguments are crucial to the endeavor to understand certain pheomenona. Quantum mechanics (a venerable science) is almost entirely probabilty based, for example. So, a great deal of science deals with probability based theory.
A mathematical modeler can easily rig the hypotheses (axioms of the modeling) to suit the outcomes desired by the modeler. So, mathematical models must always be subjected to close scrutiny. But this is not easy, since there is no "lab" in which to test the predictions, and the arheological/geological evidence is vague and subject to much interpretation. It is clear, even from the conversation on this board, that many people have their "agenda" or "faith" that they have to argue for. So, be aware of this in all discussions. By the way, chaos is an intriguing mathematical fad, but not without its applications. <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>
The 'fad' side of chaos is entertaining, but not the point. The applications in predictive models like the weather are far more important. Chaos is an important mathimatical model used to explain the variability in data that 'appears random and by chance, and does not fit well with the change in the variables. I was avoiding the complexity of complex mathimatical models in this arguement. What chaos demonstrated was events in time are not truely random or by chance. There is an underlying rythum to events, which is an important issue when debating 'Creation Science/Evolution'.
In archeology and geology the evidence is not vague or subject to a great deal of interpretation, this realm is statistics. Interpretation and statistics is of course necessary, but it isn't a free for all. The predictive models of sedimentology and the cyclic nature of strategraphy over time are well documented all over the globe. The chaos modeling works well to show the variations in these cycles over time. The progressive evolving complexity of life found in these sediments over a very long time is very obvious and not subject to much interpretation. Working as a geologist in Appalachia for more than twenty years gave me plenty opportunities to investigate first hand thousands of feet of sedimentary rocks.
</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />
Originally Posted by I have been to many seminars on cellular level biomechanics/biochemistry and have attended graduate level courses in bio-engineering (on the cellular level), and I can tell you that, when you become aware of the (unbelievable!!) intricate way in which cells and the human body react on a cellular level, you will become increduluous with the complexity and subtlety. You will wonder how a multi-step process could possibly evolved, when all steps are needed for the completion of the task: a deletion of any step would be counter productive. You will begin to wonder how such an elaborate and delicate dance of interwoven activities and chemical balances and resoponses could possibly arisen "by chance". <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>
As I have pointed out before these events do not occur totally by 'chance'. First, and most important, is early life formed and evolved with in the constrants of the nature of organic chemistry. There are only certain ways proteins can bond to each other on the road to complex DNA. Those combinations that were successful became the first one celled life forms.
Yes, life is also very complex today, but also very believable. The vaste amount of fossil evidence from precambrian to cambrian deposites in Western Canada is important, because it points back to a simpler time when the different life forms that were simpler models of today's species differentiated. The evolutionary relationship from the simple to the complex becomes clearer today now that we have this evidence.
</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />
Originally Posted by I tend to agree with Warren, who makes many good points. DNA coding/decoding must go on incessantly in the cell. One must surely be in complete awe of the complexity and "well designed" nature of life, the more one knows about it. How life got to this point is the question that is bedeviling, and cannot be answered by mere mortals, as I see it.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>
I believe the steps in evolution leading to the apparent 'bedeviling' complexity of present life forms has been well documenting. Because I believe in God I don't question the existence of a cause, but I do question the anthropomorphic 'well designed' nature of life or even the need to argue the question of 'Inelligent Design'. I believe that the design is inherent within the nature of existence and can be well explained with or without a God as a source.
The question as to whether the more complex unanswered questions can be settled by science is answered usually in a matter of time.