Volconvo is a debate forum for the discussion of political, religious, and news-based topics.

justastranger · Apr 7, 2004, 10:18 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<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>

Each of those intricate pathways were not always in existance and perhaps did not always work and moreover, there are many that may have worked but no longer do. I believe that only around 3% of the genome actually codes for proteins that go into the human body. Many of the genes that no longer work appear to be "outdated" forms of genes that made proteins that are either no longer needed or that are made in a different way. The genome is constantly changing; adding and subtracting.
Each link in the chain of say, supressing of our immune systems due to production of cortisol, is an individual link and it is probable that each link came into existance one at at time. It is known that more complex organisms (predominantly larger organisms with longer lifespans and less frequent breeding) have a whole lot more "junk" DNA than say, bacteria. My point is that our ancestors, whoever and whatever they were always had extra DNA that coded for nothing in particular at the time. They retained it anyway because they were not under enough pressure as to cause them to shed it. It is highly conceivable that hypothetically, a virus inserts a gene containing a production code for arabanose sugar. The new chemical (the sugar) in the organism triggers a gene that only works in the presence of that sugar. Suddenly you have the first two links of a chain, just by chance.
The genetic information had previously been unused, but became utilized due to some change in environment or due to some other genetic change. Changes continue to occur, early organisms continue to swap and compile masses of DNA that really doesn't do a thing for them, at the time. Don't look at the chain as a whole, discover the links and the methods of nature tend to be obvious and logical. Just an idea.

justastranger · Apr 7, 2004, 10:23 pm

on another note- and more related to the original question- I believe that we have designed ourselves to fit nature and nature has selected the best fit and everything evolves along with changing enviromental conditions. We are "designed" to follow natural "laws". I think a more pertinent question would be where do all these natural laws come from? Why are there different types of quarks and neutrinos? Why do we need three types of electron? Why are space and time inter-related. Why does a neg. charge attract a pos. charge. Because they do. The universe is the way it is, because it is, and nature does its best to live up to those expectations. help somebody attack this so I can consolidate what I'm trying to say.

Apr 10, 2004, 06:15 pm

I have not read any posts on this thread so I might be repeating something already said, but here goes. If you look at the development of living organisms from a chemistry/biology point of view, life seems an inevitable result. Given the right circumstances, chemicals, energy, temperature etc. life will develop and start evolving anywhere the conditions are right. Is there an intelligent design to this process? I doubt it, it just is.

shunyadragon · Apr 16, 2004, 09:51 pm

The following is a very good website documenting the scientific foundation of evolution and responding to the 'Creation Science' advocates.

http://wiki.cotch.net/wiki.phtml?title=Main_Page

lostkiwi · Apr 17, 2004, 03:42 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Warren,)
Was Life Designed to Evolve? <hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Yes, but designed by what? To evolve into what? This is where things can get tricky. Natural selection is the process by which random mutations are organized into a designed life form. The fact that random mutation is the engine of change in Evolution (by natural selection) means that there is no goal other than successful reproduction of the organism. If a gene can't see into the next generation how can it see some end result billions of years down the road?

We are not the end result of evolution just another step along a never-ending path. Evolution is happening right now, recognition of this however relies more on Taxonomy then any other science. It depends on the definition of Species more than their obvious change. A good example of this would be modern Canines, a Terrier and a Great Dane will never have a chance to reproduce with each other in nature yet they are still defined as the same species.

shunyadragon · Apr 17, 2004, 07:09 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (lostkiwi,)
<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Warren,)
Was Life Designed to Evolve? <hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Yes, but designed by what? To evolve into what? This is where things can get tricky. Natural selection is the process by which random mutations are organized into a designed life form. The fact that random mutation is the engine of change in Evolution (by natural selection) means that there is no goal other than successful reproduction of the organism. If a gene can't see into the next generation how can it see some end result billions of years down the road?

We are not the end result of evolution just another step along a never-ending path. Evolution is happening right now, recognition of this however relies more on Taxonomy then any other science. It depends on the definition of Species more than their obvious change. A good example of this would be modern Canines, a Terrier and a Great Dane will never have a chance to reproduce with each other in nature yet they are still defined as the same species.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Design is not a real good word for describing the origins or the way existence developed through time, because it has too many anthropomorphic connotations. But since it was used in this thread it is the way I will approach the debate.

Design to me is more in the nature of existence that was determined by the perameters and constraints of existence we interprete as the laws of nature in science from our point of view. It may be interpreted as the diliberate intent of a creator, if you believe in a theistic view. Unfortunately the evidence is lacking to 'prove' anything about the origins of existence and whether ther is a guiding hand of God through time. I believe in God, but not the mechanical 'clockmaker God' of traditional Christian theology.

It is important for everyone to realize that regardless of what we believe, it is from our limited point of view whether we are interpreting the nature of existence form the religious or scientific point of view, or possibly both.

gluadys · Apr 18, 2004, 09:16 pm

Quote:

Originally posted by Warren
I maintain that (1) and (2) constitute a positive case for life being designed to evolve. While these reasons may be insufficient as proof, or even to generate a widespread consensus, they are sufficient to form a working hypothesis.

I'm not so sure. A working hypothesis is one that makes specific predictions that, at least in principle, can be tested by observation and/or experiment.

What specific predictions do you think are suggested by the concept of life being designed, and what observations or experiments would disprove or support them?

ruiner · Apr 20, 2004, 10:56 am

It is indeed probable that our universe has been created by a fallible intelligence. It is likely that our universe is one big experiment. If anyone can figure out the point of the experiment please tell.

Samildanach · Apr 20, 2004, 11:29 am

Entertainment.

shunyadragon · Apr 20, 2004, 08:03 pm

Quote:

Originally posted by justastranger,
on another note- and more related to the original question- I believe that we have designed ourselves to fit nature and nature has selected the best fit and everything evolves along with changing enviromental conditions. We are "designed" to follow natural "laws". I think a more pertinent question would be where do all these natural laws come from? Why are there different types of quarks and neutrinos? Why do we need three types of electron? Why are space and time inter-related. Why does a neg. charge attract a pos. charge. Because they do. The universe is the way it is, because it is, and nature does its best to live up to those expectations. help somebody attack this so I can consolidate what I'm trying to say.

Some of your statements are a little anthropomorphic, but I agree with The universe is the way it is, because it is, . . .. But nature does not do its best to live up to . . . anything. Nature is also 'the way it is, because it is.'

This is the best view regardless if you believe in God or do not believe in God. There are a lot of splinters when you try to force square pegs into round holes.

Apr 7, 2004, 10:18 pm	#21 (permalink) (top)
justastranger Sedimentary Rock Posts: 13	</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'> Each of those intricate pathways were not always in existance and perhaps did not always work and moreover, there are many that may have worked but no longer do. I believe that only around 3% of the genome actually codes for proteins that go into the human body. Many of the genes that no longer work appear to be "outdated" forms of genes that made proteins that are either no longer needed or that are made in a different way. The genome is constantly changing; adding and subtracting. Each link in the chain of say, supressing of our immune systems due to production of cortisol, is an individual link and it is probable that each link came into existance one at at time. It is known that more complex organisms (predominantly larger organisms with longer lifespans and less frequent breeding) have a whole lot more "junk" DNA than say, bacteria. My point is that our ancestors, whoever and whatever they were always had extra DNA that coded for nothing in particular at the time. They retained it anyway because they were not under enough pressure as to cause them to shed it. It is highly conceivable that hypothetically, a virus inserts a gene containing a production code for arabanose sugar. The new chemical (the sugar) in the organism triggers a gene that only works in the presence of that sugar. Suddenly you have the first two links of a chain, just by chance. The genetic information had previously been unused, but became utilized due to some change in environment or due to some other genetic change. Changes continue to occur, early organisms continue to swap and compile masses of DNA that really doesn't do a thing for them, at the time. Don't look at the chain as a whole, discover the links and the methods of nature tend to be obvious and logical. Just an idea.

Apr 16, 2004, 09:51 pm	#24 (permalink) (top)
shunyadragon Hot Lava Location: Hillsborough, NC Posts: 940	The following is a very good website documenting the scientific foundation of evolution and responding to the 'Creation Science' advocates. http://wiki.cotch.net/wiki.phtml?title=Main_Page The empty cup contains the most Frank A Doonan Turn weapons into peace and friendship with gifts of jade-silk www.shunyadragon.com I do not know, therefore I think . . .

Apr 17, 2004, 03:42 am	#25 (permalink) (top)
lostkiwi Molten Ash Posts: 60	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Warren,) Was Life Designed to Evolve? <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Yes, but designed by what? To evolve into what? This is where things can get tricky. Natural selection is the process by which random mutations are organized into a designed life form. The fact that random mutation is the engine of change in Evolution (by natural selection) means that there is no goal other than successful reproduction of the organism. If a gene can't see into the next generation how can it see some end result billions of years down the road? We are not the end result of evolution just another step along a never-ending path. Evolution is happening right now, recognition of this however relies more on Taxonomy then any other science. It depends on the definition of Species more than their obvious change. A good example of this would be modern Canines, a Terrier and a Great Dane will never have a chance to reproduce with each other in nature yet they are still defined as the same species.

Apr 17, 2004, 07:09 pm	#26 (permalink) (top)
shunyadragon Hot Lava Location: Hillsborough, NC Posts: 940	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (lostkiwi,) </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Warren,) Was Life Designed to Evolve? <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Yes, but designed by what? To evolve into what? This is where things can get tricky. Natural selection is the process by which random mutations are organized into a designed life form. The fact that random mutation is the engine of change in Evolution (by natural selection) means that there is no goal other than successful reproduction of the organism. If a gene can't see into the next generation how can it see some end result billions of years down the road? We are not the end result of evolution just another step along a never-ending path. Evolution is happening right now, recognition of this however relies more on Taxonomy then any other science. It depends on the definition of Species more than their obvious change. A good example of this would be modern Canines, a Terrier and a Great Dane will never have a chance to reproduce with each other in nature yet they are still defined as the same species.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Design is not a real good word for describing the origins or the way existence developed through time, because it has too many anthropomorphic connotations. But since it was used in this thread it is the way I will approach the debate. Design to me is more in the nature of existence that was determined by the perameters and constraints of existence we interprete as the laws of nature in science from our point of view. It may be interpreted as the diliberate intent of a creator, if you believe in a theistic view. Unfortunately the evidence is lacking to 'prove' anything about the origins of existence and whether ther is a guiding hand of God through time. I believe in God, but not the mechanical 'clockmaker God' of traditional Christian theology. It is important for everyone to realize that regardless of what we believe, it is from our limited point of view whether we are interpreting the nature of existence form the religious or scientific point of view, or possibly both. The empty cup contains the most Frank A Doonan Turn weapons into peace and friendship with gifts of jade-silk www.shunyadragon.com I do not know, therefore I think . . .

Apr 20, 2004, 11:29 am	#29 (permalink) (top)
Samildanach Pragmatist Location: UK London Posts: 1,979	Entertainment. I wouldn't recommend sex, drugs and insanity for everyone, but its always worked for me. Never think that war, no matter how necessary, nor how justified, is not a crime." (Ernest Hemingway)

Apr 7, 2004, 10:23 pm	#22 (permalink) (top)
justastranger Sedimentary Rock Posts: 13	on another note- and more related to the original question- I believe that we have designed ourselves to fit nature and nature has selected the best fit and everything evolves along with changing enviromental conditions. We are "designed" to follow natural "laws". I think a more pertinent question would be where do all these natural laws come from? Why are there different types of quarks and neutrinos? Why do we need three types of electron? Why are space and time inter-related. Why does a neg. charge attract a pos. charge. Because they do. The universe is the way it is, because it is, and nature does its best to live up to those expectations. help somebody attack this so I can consolidate what I'm trying to say.

Apr 10, 2004, 06:15 pm	#23 (permalink) (top)
dave654 Guest Posts: n/a	I have not read any posts on this thread so I might be repeating something already said, but here goes. If you look at the development of living organisms from a chemistry/biology point of view, life seems an inevitable result. Given the right circumstances, chemicals, energy, temperature etc. life will develop and start evolving anywhere the conditions are right. Is there an intelligent design to this process? I doubt it, it just is.

Apr 20, 2004, 10:56 am	#28 (permalink) (top)
ruiner Igneous Magma Posts: 180	It is indeed probable that our universe has been created by a fallible intelligence. It is likely that our universe is one big experiment. If anyone can figure out the point of the experiment please tell.