Quote:
Originally Posted by nightstalker
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.
|
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
.
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
.
Mark