The "missing link" is probably no longer missing... [Archive]

Baddad

21-05-2009, 06:08 PM

Good One Chris, :)

Its been a long time coming that find.

I once had a customer that wanted to convince me to his way of thinking. He wanted me to read a book that argued against evolution.:argue:

The main point in it was that the complexity of evolving from fish or chimps or whatever was too great. Not possible for so many intricacies to have occurred at random.:screwy:

The strength of his belief was unreal. I had to excuse myself after responding that I respected his beliefs, but I simply did not agree with him.:fight:

Creationists had it so simple until the paleontologists came. As with science. That was simple too until Einstein entered the picture.:einstein:

Good links there Chris.:thumbsup:

Cheers Marty

dpastern

21-05-2009, 07:23 PM

yeah well...several US states are already introducing legislation that schools must teach the creationist way of evolution, rather than the Darwinian way. I always find it amusing, since the US constitution forbids religious interference with the government, why are so many religious nuttos in power making these sorts of decisions?

The evidence against creationism is totally overwhelming - no sane mind could consider it, or at least should. Sadly, like love, religion is usually blinding. This is a fantastic find that shows nature at its best. I had a disagreement with my boss @ work today - who believes that keeping the mind and body strong will ward off viruses like the flu etc, and that the flu pandemic early in the 20th century would never happen again. It's only a matter of time before nature and viruses evolve into a strain that is totally resistant to our antibiotics. It's not a matter of if, but when.

Dave

Darth Wader

21-05-2009, 07:41 PM

Was going to bite my tongue, but I can't resist. I was sent to a religious school and the answer to Darwin's theories there was "perhaps god's day is equal to a greater amount of time to man." Wow, how totally misguided. It still makes me furious that this was the extent of evolution I was taught in school - in religious studies, complete with around half an hour of nonsensical debate - that's it.

I think teaching creationism is taking a huge step backward in the development of our species and it will be a cold day in hell (excuse the pun!) before I send my kids to a school which teaches these fairy-tales.

Needless to say I am not a very spiritual man:lol:

Miaplacidus

21-05-2009, 07:45 PM

Sure, a deity-implying "theory" of origins is just as valid as a deity-redundant theory of evolution, and obviously deserves to be presented as a legitimate alternative in all school science classes.
As too, so I assume, are aboriginal creation myths and Hesiod's "Theogony".

One in, all in...

marki

21-05-2009, 08:16 PM

Wade I am not sure how old you are but private schools now whether they be catholic, anglican, uniting church, islamic etc must teach evolution as part of any biology, human biology or lower school biological science course or they will not receive funding from the relevent state Govt's. No funding, no school. The curriculum is set and students must be able to succeed in public examinations in fact they must do better then the public system kids or the school will lose prestige and thus enrollments (League tables are very important). I teach science in a catholic school and although I don't teach biology I know my collegues go all out in teaching evolution as an explaination to the origin of species on this planet. To not teach the relevent curriculum is considered good reason for termination of employment. What the religious education teachers teach is up to them but we do not skimp on the science where I work and the kids are not dumb.

Mark

Robh

21-05-2009, 08:29 PM

In an attempt to diffuse some potential conflicts ...

One needs to make a distinction between the fundamentalist Christian right (as seen in many states in the US) and the beliefs of the greater religious body of Christians. The fundamentalists take a literal interpretation of Genesis in the Bible and are responsible for a lot of the angst involved with evolution- the so called young Earth creationists. They do not accept any form of evolution and are the instigators of the intelligent design argument.
Evolutionary creationists take a metaphorical approach to Genesis. The Earth was not literally created in 7 days etc. God is seen as the cause of the universe and is its sustainer. Evolution may simply be a mechanism used by God. So, for the believers there is no conflict between evolution and creationism. It is no more fanciful to think that God began it all with the Big Bang than to believe it happened by random chance.
You cannot use science to disprove God's existence.
You believe or you don't believe!

Regards, Rob.

Miaplacidus

21-05-2009, 09:29 PM

Well said, Rob.

The issue isn't what people choose to believe (being a closet mystic myself) but rather what deserves to be included in school science curricula.

Peace be upon you all.

Brian.

PS Reminds me of that joke about a kid who gets both explanations: the "Adam and Eve created in God's image" theory from Mum, Darwinian evolution "up from the apes" from Dad. Obviously confused, the kid asks his mother to rationalize the apparent contradiction. She explains: "I was talking about my side of the family, your father was talking about his".

:)

marki

21-05-2009, 09:34 PM

Brian, creationism or any other mystic system of belief does not belong in a science classroom as there is nothing remotely scientific about it nor could it be unified with scientific theories. It belongs in religious education classes being taught by those who are versed in the subject. If it were to be introduced into the science classroom it would be ridiculed and certainly never taken as a serious explaination. In fact it would have the exact opposite effect that christian and other believers would hope for. I have never understood why people would want it be part of any science curricula. I doubt it would make it any more valid:shrug:. I think Rob nailed it. You either believe or you don't, thats your right.

Mark

TrevorW

21-05-2009, 09:51 PM

I would have thought if god created humans he'd have done a better job

Robh

21-05-2009, 10:49 PM

Mark is right.
Religious beliefs are not resolved through scientific method and therefore do not belong in the Science classroom. Scientific problems are not resolved by religious beliefs. One is a matter of scientific method, the other a matter of faith. Even though separated, the two can live happily side by side.

Rob.

Stuart78

21-05-2009, 11:15 PM

Yeah but if we evolved from it then what did it evolve from????:shrug:

Miaplacidus

21-05-2009, 11:50 PM

Er, well, thanks Rob and Mark. I'm glad you agree with me.

(l'm going to have to find a sarcastic emoticon somewhere. Otherwise people might really think I genuinely believe we should be teaching Hesiod is science classes...)

I did say closet mystic, you know.

Jen

21-05-2009, 11:58 PM

Try this emoticon :rolleyes: hehe :thumbsup:

Miaplacidus

21-05-2009, 11:59 PM

Oh, Jen, why O why didn't I think to consult with the emoticon queen first?

Thanks for that.

Jen

22-05-2009, 12:03 AM

:lol::lol: your welcome lol :thumbsup:

marki

22-05-2009, 12:14 AM

Sheesh you could have just said so it would have saved me a rant:doh::)

Mark

Enchilada

22-05-2009, 12:33 AM

Looking a the despicable behaviour of some people in Society these days, you wonder if relating to animal kingdom to missing links of humankind is just a wee bit arrogant. Other simian species are so much better behaved.
Stuff evolution or religious dogma - they probably both got it absolutely wrong! :sadeyes:

aka. Monkeys, in the end, are far better and more evolved than humans! :thumbsup:

marki

22-05-2009, 01:23 AM

It goes a little like this. All life forms on this planet found to date have a basic code consisting of 4 deoxyribonucleic acids (DNA), Adenine and Guanine (the purines) and Cytosine and thymine (the pyramidines). In some very old and primative types of bacteria thymine can be substituted by uracil but it is rare to find this in DNA. These four bases combine (A - T) and (C - G) and when grouped in long chains with the nucleotides covalently joined through 3', 5' phosphodiester bonds serve as the carrier of genetic information. The sequence of the chains is very important and determines what the organism will be. As an organism is exposed to all sorts of environmental factors such as chemicals and radiation the sequence of DNA can change by a transition mutation (purines or pyramidines substitute eachother) or transversion mutation (a purine is substituted for a pyramidine) or a frameshift mutation (the insertion or deletion of one or more bases in the chain). Now mutations are fairly rare in normal conditions for example a gene can be copied 100000 time or more before an error occurs but it does happen. This can be accelerated by exposure to certain factors (e.g. UV radiation). If the mutation is advantagous (ie allows the organism to out perform its rivals) it will flourish and reproduce in greater numbers whilst those less apt will fade into history. Over time (millions of years) new species will come into being and it is believed the more complex organisms (ie mammals) are the product of many mutations and enviromental pressures over the eons (ie eat or be eaten). Why do we believe this? As stated at the begining, all life on this planet use the same 4 bases to code with the difference being the order of code. Species that are related will have slight changes to the code but can still be linked to one another as much of the coding may be identical. This along with the fossil record, though incomplete (yes even with this find) shows ongoing changes which produce a map back to our ancestors. But where did this creature evolve from??? If you went back far enough probably a single celled prokaryote (yes even further then Berts flat worms) that once dwelled in the primordial soup (salty water) that existed as Earth became a nursery for life. Where did they get their DNA from??? The purines and pyramidines are nitrogenous organic compounds (cyclic) and the precursors of these have been found in metorites as well as dense gas clouds in space. It would not be difficult for the precursors to react in the correct conditions and form the basis of the genetic code. But do remember like all things in science, the theory of natural selection and evolution is just that, a theory based on collected evidence which suggests this may be the case. It will probably change and evolve itself as better methods of analysis and technology advances. I know they had to re-write "Bergy's Manual of Determining Bacteriology" as the links between species determined by visual grouping did not hold up to the scrutiny of DNA testing.

Hope this helps

Mark

Enchilada

22-05-2009, 02:10 AM

Faith, right or wrong, for some, says otherwise.
Knowing does not equate to knowledge,
nor does science relate to belief. :scared:

What about the RNA - the real / true key to the evolutionary process?

leinad

22-05-2009, 03:00 AM

Very interesting. Makes me wonder, how beautiful it is that we have evolved(if we have), and what is the next step in the evolution process? If there is one? Immortality? That in itself could turn into a theological debate.

cruiser

22-05-2009, 09:34 AM

Latest update:
http://www.smh.com.au/world/science/fossils-pop-star-arrival-born-of-a-new-thirst-for-pr-20090521-bh81.html

At least some scientists are asking questions too.

Diamond Rose

22-05-2009, 12:55 PM

Scientific scepticism?

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2009/05/21/ida-real-story

marki

22-05-2009, 06:51 PM

Just trying to keep it simple. Ribonucleic acid is mainly used to carry the code from the DNA to ribosomes during transcrition/translation (mRNA and tRNA) and uracil replaces the thymine in the chain. These form a triplet code which can then be read off to produce protien chains. Only certain viral particals use RNA as their code carrier (HIV being one of them). Are you suggesting evolution is mainly driven by mutation caused by viral infection?

As for the religion Vs science argument well that is a complete waste of time. One deals in absolutes and truths and the other does not (apparently :)). Science cannot disprove the existence of god nor can the religious prove the existence of god so what is there to argue about? Unfortunately science is often used to bolster belief systems and this is never a good thing. Bottom line is many of our grand parents and great grand parents fought and died in wars so that we could live in a country which allowed us to believe what we want to and for that I am very greatful. If you believe in god, thats cool if you don't thats cool as well.

Mark

marki

22-05-2009, 07:02 PM

I would agree with that. You only have to observe the antics of some of the larger biotechnology companies to realise that science is very self serving for some. In the light of day what have they found? A little dinosour with an opposable thumb:P. Exciting find yes but hardly conclusive in the history of humankind. As I said in my first post bacteria grouped by visual observation and deemed to be related on physical simularities has proven to be false in a number of cases. It was only after the DNA of these organisms was sequenced that the mistakes were found. Could it be the same for this little creature :shrug:. I imagine they would be hard pressed to find any usable DNA after 47 million years so we will probably never know. Bet it's gonna start some heated arguments though.

Mark

dpastern

22-05-2009, 07:17 PM

+1. Science class teaches science. Creationist evolution is religious propaganda, nothing more and nothing less and will never belong in a Science class. Period.

I find it a bit rich for some to say it's up to the individual to choose to 'believe', since the Christian beliefs (i.e Church) have been proven to slaughter anyone else who didn't see things their way (Crusades, persecution and murder of at least Six million "witches", forced adapation of the Christian belief - the Irish are a perfect example here). You can deny what I've said, you can censor it, but it *doesn't* change the truth. No other religion has been so forceful onto others in terms of 'convert to our religion or die'. For that matter, the Roman Catholic church has had more paedophiles in its ranks than probably exist outside of the church, and worse still, the Vatican chose to ignore it and cover it up, as far back as the 60s. Disgraceful.

Dave

Miaplacidus

22-05-2009, 08:19 PM

I know my name is Brian, and that I'm not the messiah, and that I'm probably just a very naughty boy, but I am beginning to object to having my name linked inextricably with beliefs which I categorically DO NOT hold.

Just for the record, I do not believe that religious beliefs have any place in a science class. You may or may not believe in the scientific method, systematic doubt, falsifiable hypotheses, deductive reasoning that follows observation (and not religious beliefs that guide it), and you may even believe that all this constitutes some religious conviction all on its own. Nonetheless, it is the only belief system that belongs in a science class room, and it is the only belief system that has measurable benefits for mankind.

Nya nya na nya nya...

leinad

22-05-2009, 08:33 PM

How about the missing link to LB1 ?
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/01/090120144508.htm

marki

22-05-2009, 10:17 PM

Whether it be big or small, that looks very much like a homo sapien skull to me.

Mark

Enchilada

22-05-2009, 11:55 PM

Basically, knowledge in more recent years, says it is a real possibility. The true "acceleration of evolution" is not known, as is the true origin of RNA. Protein manufacture is the key with immunity to resist germs, as with the article that appeared in Science Daily "
"Evolution Is Driven By Gene Regulation (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/08/070809172213.htm)", "Dead Gene Comes Back To Life In Humans (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/03/090305204321.htm)" and "New Mode Of Gene Regulation Discovered In Mammals (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/07/080709144215.htm)" (It seems "hammerhead ribozyme" is more critical than once thought.)

Weaknesses in species could not only be natural selection or environment; but viral infections causing biological catastrophe - followed by rapid periods of evolution. (far too detailed here to discuss I think!) :thumbsup:

Exactly my point. Science and faith have no actually equivalence. This is why debates like these cannot be investigated by avenues like faith. :help:

marki

23-05-2009, 12:32 PM

Some good articles there. The only problem I have is that virus particles are very destructive to the host cell and the organism they invade. Only a retro virus will incorparate itself into the DNA of an organism and would have to disrupt an active coding region ( insert between start - stop sequences) to alter gene regulation and expression. My real question would be "could the organism survive such a change for long enough to pass on its altered DNA :shrug:. I guess that depends on where the viral DNA ends up. It would then have to be incorperated into the gamets of a sexually reproducing organism to be passed on. Very interesting all the same, so many questions, so much to learn :).

Mark

Enchilada

23-05-2009, 11:30 PM

Yes, I think. Almost certainly. It would only take one or several organisms to survive to pass on the "defect", while the vast genome population is summarily sacrificed. This leaves a niche for evolution or some other species to fill in the gap from the opportunity of the other species' widespread demise - either replacing it altogether or co-existing. Based then on natural selection or environment, one newly and significantly or slightly evolved species prevails.

More interesting is RNA / DNA can even 'evolve' during the organism's lifetime, and could be passed on to the next generation.

Very profound, methinks! :)

Note: Intelligent design has no answer to this. The process has been generally documented and observed, while it is rarely discussed because of its profound implications. Why people ever want to believe it is beyond me, when the biological processes are so outstandingly beautiful and complex - and logical. Thinking about it, the doubt reminds me of the meta-philosophy of the Björk song "Human Behaviour";

"If you ever get close to a human
And human behaviour
Be ready, be ready to get confused
There's definitely, definitely, definitely no logic
To human behaviour
But yet so, yet so irresistible
And there's no map
and a compass
wouldn't help at all
They're terribly moody
And human behaviour
Then all of a sudden turn happy
But, oh, to get involved in the exchange
Of human emotions
Is ever so, ever so satisfying
Oh oh, and there's no map
Human behaviour, human
Human, human behaviour, human
Human, human behaviour, human
Human behaviour, human." :thumbsup:

marki

24-05-2009, 12:58 AM

If my distant memories of my molecular biology and gentics lectures serves me (it was a very long time ago :P) you can expect numerous mutations to occur in a very short period of time but these are mostly reversed by the SOS mechanism in cells. Remember much of the genetic material is non coding so it would have to occur in an active region which is why the idea of interupting gene expression/regulation is very interesting. I think the main effect of mutated RNA would simply mean defective construction of protien chains which would be recognised as rubbish and be promptly broken down. At worst it would mean an inability to perform some function, at best the ability to perform a new fuction depending on the nature of the resulting protien chain. If the mutation of DNA was isolated to a few cells then it would have little effect excepting cancer or HIV etc. Outside of this I do not think mutation would be a major factor of evolution in an organisms life time as many cells would need to be affected by change (hmmmm strains of Dr jeckyl and Mr hyde or the hulk :D). What really counts is when the altered DNA is past onto the next generation (remember that in sexually reproducing organisms there is a process of mixing genes at the time the gamets are formed) where the mutation is evident in all cells thus the trait is inherited by the offspring. Hmm I think I will have to dig out the old text books and files again, its been far to long but I do love this stuff:thumbsup:.

Mark

Enchilada

24-05-2009, 01:26 AM

I think the point you say here is absolutely true - but it is not zero probability. If 99.9999% is killed - 0.0001% is all that is needed to change it. :)

Proteins variations are also interesting. I.e. Muscle proteins, for example, can be grossly different from one species to another. If I can recalled, cell sheath proteins is monkeys are different than humans. This accounts for their overall strength of monkeys per unit muscle than us humans.

marki

24-05-2009, 01:37 AM

Absolutely, there is always a chance for sure. Perhaps I can de-evolve so I can have a bit of that monkey strength, it sure would be helpful in getting my LX200 on that bloody wedge :D. What do they say 2 or 3x stronger than a human? Sure could do with the longer arms too as it would help with collimation. Hmmm I wonder have we really become more advanced?

Mark

Enchilada

24-05-2009, 03:19 AM

:rofl:

Enchilada

24-05-2009, 06:50 AM

Is there any 'evidence' for evolution in The Bible? :help:
Also is there any 'evidence' of human differences in the biological or genetic level? :help:
(The latter I know of is the ages of people in Genesis being able to live for +800 years or more. I forgotten the reason why humans these days don't live as long, but it was something God did for the wickedness of those before Noah and the Great Flood?)

(Answers here no debate please, as it if forbidden I think in the rules TOS!!)

CoombellKid

24-05-2009, 08:41 AM

Ummmm.... I dont think that is totally true. In the 150 years (give or
take) since Darwin wrote his book. It's held up to science pretty well.
In fact I dont know of any science yet that has disproved any of his
theory. But in the last 150 years what have we learned. The earth
wasn't made/hand crafted/whatever in 7 days 12,000 years ago. I
think all the proof of that is pretty consistant with science. And the
evolutionary step of sand to man and rib to woman is just a tad
stretched. these are just a couple... I'm sure there are many more.

Oh yeah! the land isn't flat, we orbit the sun. It was religion that
proposed this thoeries and Science that put everyone right.

regards,CS

dpastern

24-05-2009, 09:36 AM

+1 CoombellKid.

Hell, even scientists were imprisioned by the Church for falseties (Gallileo anyone?). The church ruled with an iron fist, anyone who didn't agree was tortured and usually killed. It's like the Borg in Star Trek - lower your shields and prepare to be assimilated.

I look at some of the religious propaganda (because that's all it really is) and laugh. According to the Vatican, if you don't worship their God, and you don't repent, you go to hell. Since the bible says that worshipping another God(s) other than God is a sin, then 80% of the world's population is going to Hell. What a lovely forgiving God, and what a lovely forgiving religion (please note the sarcasm in my text).

Thankfully I'm a rather easy fellow to please - I'm a chaos anarchist druidic pagan. I worship mother nature. Man can keep arguing with her all he likes, and she'll keep kicking our you know whats. Time and time again. The whole idea of science is to constructively prove, with evidence, a belief. Science doesn't rely on false beliefs, social or peer pressure, etc. It's generally quite accurate without the need to resort to religious mumbo jumbo.

And, I firmly believe that religion has no place in a public school, as an alternative to scientific theories. To do so is anachronistic. One thing I've learnt about religion is that it's all about *control and power*. Nothing more.

I'd like to thank the mods for allowing this thread to have a relevant modicum of common sense in the discussions, and some area to grow in terms of how to approach the debate.

Dave

theodog

24-05-2009, 10:16 AM

All this talk of schools and religion got me thinking (and I work in the school industry).
My evidence: Teenagers.:doh:
Even parents disclaim responsibility for them sometimes.
I think it would be a good move for the creationists to, at least, allow teenagers evolution from Ida. At least this would give their gods some peace from arkward questions from all the parents and teachers.:)

I look at the news, and around society, and sometimes wonder if Ida is ahead or behind us on the evolutionary path?
Are neanderthals really extinct?
Is it so many generations ago since H. erectus walked the earth?
:shrug:

GeoffW1

24-05-2009, 10:32 AM

Hi,

I'd like to second that. I did fear one or two posts here seemed to be getting quite heated earlier but our mods chose forbearance.

It must be very hard to pick where the dividing line is, similar to being a touch judge. :whistle:

Then again they have the third umpire and the video replay. ;)

Cheers

dpastern

24-05-2009, 11:05 AM

Sadly, yes. Homo neanderthalis was a separate (but related) species to mankind. DNA is different between them and Homo sapiens. It also appears that Homo sapiens hunted and ate their competitors, i.e. cannibalism.

Dave

Davros

24-05-2009, 01:03 PM

Ohh now we are talking my talk. Postgrad Quals in Palaeoanthropology has me very interested in this. latest thinking is that Neaderthals were bred out by us. They were not a seperate species as such, as interbreeding was possible. An interesting point is that up until the arrival of Homo sapiens, sapiens (modern man) on the scene there were always at least two seperate populations of Homo or Australapithecene if you go back far enough. We are alone on this earth for the first time.
The new species is certainly a very interesting creature but i think they are drawing a long bow by calling it the 'missing link'. Time will tell, it always does.

marki

24-05-2009, 02:34 PM

Please note that in none of my comments have I backed the creation story as viable alternative to the theory of evolution simply because it is not. You are incorrect in assuming Dawins theory is complete or absolutely correct as many assumptions have been made based on visual observations and inferences. The advent of DNA sequencing has shown that all is not as it appears. If there was overwhelming evidence for this theory it would be Dawins Law not theory. Even as a law it would be open to change if evidence was found to bring it into question. Dirty words in science include "proof" and "facts" because you can never prove anything beyond all doubt and if we beat our fists on the table expounding scientific fact we begin to work in absolutes. If that was to happen we may as well wear robes, set up temples and sacrifice those not deserving to live to the great God Science. The moment you shut down to scientific equiry and discard scientific method then it's pretty much the end of the discipline altogether. Remember The physics crowd were discouraging students from studying physics at the turn of the last centuary as Newton had already worked it all out :rofl:. I will always arc up to suggestions of proof or fact as my training as a scientist demands I be sceptical and critical about everything and that has been the basis of my comments on this thread. In the end all we have is the method of investigation itself. Right now the theory of evolution through natural selection its the best we have but it does not mean it is the best explanation we will ever find. It is always best to keep an open mind as many of the fixed ideas that have been entrenched in science history are the cause of much mirth today.:thumbsup:

Ps. I can imagine the grin on Chris's face when he started this thread:). Looked like the Cheshire Cat I'll bet :D.

Mark

marki

24-05-2009, 02:43 PM

Yes I remember reading some articals about this where the researchers found both species living side by side in the same settlement. I think (long time ago so don't quote me;)) they found something similar in the NW WA :shrug:.

Mark

Robh

24-05-2009, 04:55 PM

Yes. I thought Mark had made his position quite clear earlier in the thread. We were all pretty much in agreement that religious matters should be kept out of scientific argument as they were not subject to scientific proof.

Rob

marki

24-05-2009, 05:16 PM

Thanks Rob :thumbsup:. I think I might throw a curve ball here to better illustrate what I am trying to say in regards to evolution theory or any scientific theory that is based on a single focal point (ie missed the forrest because of all the trees, wouldn't be the first time) .

You will need to suspend your disbelief for a moment but suppose as our polar icecaps melt away due to global warming ( :rofl:) a group of highly intelligent (yet somehow fragile but totally ethical) intrepid reseachers found an ancient spaceship with the door wide open sitting on top of a glacier directly over the magnetic north pole. After a moment of confusion and and heated debate they tentively enter the ship and find fully preserved male and female Homosapiens inside dressed in some strange tight fitting metallic body suits (shades of Arthur I know:)). How could evolution theory be used to explain such a thing? We would naturally assume that we ourselves are alien to this planet and killed off all of the neanderthal's using our superior technology (more likey they died due to all the new germs we carried with us;)). All I am saying is unless we have the full story all we can ever do is speculate and apply the method and develop theory on what we see (thats why science is fun, it doesn't mean we are right). This is very evident in both evolution theory as well as cosmology with all it's fudge factors and I suspect many of the accepted theories will very likely change as technology develops and affords greater power (as has often been the case). As always we are missing a large part of the story and need to keep open minds so we can deal with the curve balls that are constantly thrown at us.

Mark

KenGee

24-05-2009, 05:32 PM

Mark it could just mean that future time travelers got into a spot of bother during one of their visits to the past....LOL.

marki

24-05-2009, 05:56 PM

LOL :D:D:D. Wonder how the physics people would deal with that one.

Perhaps I should have added " when the intrepid researchers inspecected the strange clothing of the aliens they found lables with strange hyroglyphics embroided on them. The captain tore one off and sent it too CIA agents who had it analysed by the worlds most powerful super duper computer:P:D. After 6 months of number crunching the computer finally spat out the analysed text. The agents gathered around to read the results.

" This suit is a product of ACME Pty. Ltd. Wash in warm soapy water and hang to dry. ACME warrents this suit impervious to all light sabre stikes by Jedi Knights and Sith lords for a period of one millennium"

That should take care of that one as we all know it happended long long ago in a galaxy far far away :D.

Mark

Mark

GrahamL

24-05-2009, 06:49 PM

Well it can't mark because you are loading the debate with a
"What If " without giving any basis for enquiry as to why evolution therory should be challenged .. I thinks its great that the religion over the years has always looked to the skys with a view to try and make sense of what we see..even better ..that most who take the time to
enjoy this most complete and humbling look into where we are ,
have been , and going to .. are able to reconcille there faith entirely in regard .. whatever that faith or lack thereof may be.

marki

24-05-2009, 07:29 PM

Nightstalker as I have stated on several of my posts on this thread I firmly believe religion should never be discussed along with science as in the end it is a very personal belief and am a little confused as to your reference :shrug:.

The problem I have with evolution as an all encompassing proven theory is that it has become entrenched as the only possible solution when there may well be other answers which is why I injected the "what if". Remember embrassing scientific theory as fact can be just as dangerous as dogmatic faith (wittness the nazi era). I have given my reasons for why I am not totally convinced in my posts below but I will attempt to restate them more clearly here.

Since the advent of DNA sequencing bacterial taxonomy has had to be revisited as a number of the organisms placed in a certain catergory based on physical simularities did not belong there. My point here is that even if an organism has different DNA to another, they may have very similar characteristics which would have them seen as related if only visual characteristics are considered. Simularly it is also possible for organisms having very little in common physically to be linked genetically as was the case with the bacteria. To add to that as Enchilada pointed out is the confusion that can be caused by the expression and regulation of genes which may very well mask simularities and differences in DNA if the grouping is done by physical characteristics alone. Much of the evidence gathered in support of evolution is based on the incomplete fossil record. Fossils do not easily yield testable DNA to make these visual assumptions confirmable so we cannot check our sums so to speak. This for me is enough to fire my skeptism gene and science has made a few bloopers in the past.

I am simply stating the requirements of applying the scientific method. Work in a methodical way to gather as much testable evidence as possible to support or reject a hypothesis. To do this you must keep an open mind (be prepared to be wrong) and try as hard as you can to detect all possible sources of error (there is always error). I am not disputing evolution as the likely cause as to how we come to be as I am reasonably convinced that it is the case. But have I missed something? More than likely and that is why I am trying to add some skeptisism to this debate. Is it done and dusted? No :thumbsup:.

Mark

Robh

24-05-2009, 08:27 PM

An interesting point. There is no more futile argument than an opponent who simply repeats the thoughts of a higher authority. I'm not trying to hijack this thread but it is analogous to the entrenched support of the Big Bang Theory. There is a collection of evidence to support it but there are also major gaps or holes that have yet to be filled. Too many people accept a higher authority as the last word on the subject. I'm not saying their opinions should not be respected but you have to question all assumptions made without the strictest evidence. Historically, science itself is a dynamic and evolving system and we should be ready to change direction whenever new information arises.

Regards, Rob

marki

24-05-2009, 08:33 PM

Great minds think alike Rob :D. You don't happen to be a science teacher as well do you? I think the biggest problem is many people do not understand the nature of science or scientific method (which I am trying to defend here) but would prefer cling to facts and truths rather than accept uncertainty. I spend so much time trying to drum this into my students, everything is open to change simply because it must be as a direct consequence of scientific thinking itself. Nothing is proved only evidence gathered to suggest a possible explaination.

Mark

Robh

24-05-2009, 10:20 PM

Did a science degree years ago but ended up as a maths/computing teacher with a spattering of science. The irony is my two daughters have absolutely no interest in it and are absorbed in the Visual Arts.

Rob.

Jen

24-05-2009, 11:21 PM

:doh: ouch you guys make my head hurt :lol:

Karls48

25-05-2009, 02:12 AM

It is very interesting to read views of two teachers and reflect on what sort of benefits the “education” has given me. Beside of literacy and basic mathematics – not much. Probably greatest lesson the school teach me is not to trust any authority. I think that about half of things that I learn in History, Biology and Physics classes some forty-five years ago are not true today. I think that there is a need for Philosophy to be included in curriculum in schools at very early age and to be given same importance as the Maths and Physics. The schools should teach how to think not what to think.
I have to say that I wish I had teachers like marki and Robh.
Back to “Missing link”. I don’t realty understand why everyone who contributed to this tread takes Evolution v Creations in Christianity context. After all every religion I’m aware of is a political system with main purpose of controlling the population. Unfortunately it seems that Science is becoming new religion. I was atheist from age five (long story as to why) but some years ago I come to conclusion that me being atheist is hypocritical because I cannot (to my satisfaction) disprove existence of some sort of Creator. Because of that I would describe myself as agnostic. Evolution is very plausible explanation as how the all-living things come to existence. But there is one big problem. The first organism that can be considered as Life is supposed to start in primordial sea by action of ultraviolet radiation and electrical discharges acting on chemical compounds contained in seawater. There have been many experiments trying to create Life by mimicking conditions that existed when first Life appear on the Earth. Although experiments did created from inorganic compounds all sorts of complex organic molecules, none (to my knowledge) did produced something that can reproduce itself and therefore can be considered Life.
I do not propose that some sort of Creator has created Life. I’m simply saying that so far – we don’t know.