evolution question

by outsmartthesystem 165 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  cofty

  Think of the even more remarkable way in which an egg and a sperm cell from a human mother and father combine to make a blueprint for creating a potential Leonardo da Vinci from the food and drink consumed by a mother during her pregnancy. If that is not a supreme miracle that far transcends scientific knowledge then what is? - Prodigalson

  All you are saying is that there is some stuff you don't understand so it must be miraculous. What part of embryology is it that baffles you?

  By the way "blueprint" is a very bad analogy for DNA
• 

  atrapado

  Hi all, so I wanted to comment for a while but seems like a never ending argument quoting Hassan:

  "The more insistent a person is about the accuracy of his or her observations, the more likely it is that his or her sense of reality is distorted."

  Goes both ways. For example I believe in a creator (God), for many reasons. Does that make me correct of course not. I rather not get into this debate into great detail but think about this there are things creation cannot explain and there are thing evolution cannot explain. I personally haven't seen an absolute truth.

  When you consider the DNA and its complexity and how it got to the state where it currently is. I cannot but wonder how little we know of how it got where it is. Either through evolution or creation.

  I have worked on some hard problems and tried to solve them using an algorithm. Take for example NP-hard problems some of those problems are to complex that using our current computers (some could be solved using quantum computing) cannot be solved with a direct approach. Sometimes randomization algorithms are good enough to solve them but not always.

  However the complexity of how our DNA got to where it is just from natural selection and millions+ of random modifications of the DNA becomes such a complex problem that any attempts to model what exactly happen or how it got there are no more than good educated guesses. For example I have worked with other engineers and scientists and we model a problem then we all revised and are ready to test our experiment. At times our experiments turns out exactly how we predicted but most of the time it doesn't, we failed to take a component in consideration we miscalculated something or just the non-deterministic nature of the problem doesn't always allow us to predict it successfully.

  My conclusion just because something is possible doesn't mean it will happen. Consider for example the infinite monkey theorem can those monkeys eventually write a full Shakespearean play. If you consider that will take them longer than the age of the universe then sure is possible but not likely.

  Even from an experiment of 100years you cannot accurately extrapolated it to millions of years. Since we don't know all the details(maybe some cosmic radiation came and modified life’s DNA long ago that cause it not to be random who knows) the best we can do is guess, speculate. Maybe in a few millions years when we have a lot more data from our current time we'll be able to have a stronger case or a weaker case against evolution. I am not saying it doesn't exist but I don't know how much it can explain.

  The more we learn the more we realize how ignorant we are as human beings. I like the elephant analogy use by one scientist I used to work with. Sometimes our knowledge can be compare to a pinhole the size of a needle. And having an elephant up close we are trying to determine what is in front of us and all the data we collect is very small chunks at a time.

  Just food for though. I am not on a debating mood which will go nowhere.
• 

  cofty

  The more insistent a person is about the accuracy of his or her observations, the more likely it is that his or her sense of reality is distorted

  In the context of science I would argue that your quote is badly out of context. I insist absolutely and intransigently that the earth is not flat. Does my certainty make it likely that I am wrong?

  I personally haven't seen an absolute truth.

  All living things descended from a common ancestor through unguided evolution. This is an absolute truth.
• 

  NewChapter

  See this is the beauty of science. It is an acknowledgement of what we DON'T know. The difference is, science doesn't get a default. When we come to grasp how much we don't know we think, "there is so much more to learn". Sometimes (this is a generalization) when a believer looks at it he thinks, "there is so much we don't understand--must be god". And there is the dead end.

  To quote my favorite singer/songwriter:

  "Throughout history,

  every mystery

  ever solved

  has turned out to be:

  Not Magic.

  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V0W7Jbc_Vhw
• 

  cofty

  Tim Minchin is hilarious. He did the Royal Variety Performance recently in front of Prince Charles and Camila. He manged to keep it clean but with loads of genius inuendo!

  Sorry back on topic....
• 

  atrapado

  NewChapter I agree with you that when we don't understand it we claim god. He is our shelter. Another thing is that a lot of times we just want to believe (I guess we are afraid to be alone in this universe with no guidence). Like when I used to side with the WT even though there was a lot of evidence against it.
• 

  atrapado

  When I studied artificial intelligence at school one of the things I found interesting was that originally they want it to define it us humanlike behavior. However that created so many problems because the human nature is not rational. And all those years that I though we were rational.
• 

  NewChapter

  Tim Minchin is hilarious. He did the Royal Variety Performance recently in front of Prince Charles and Camila. He manged to keep it clean but with loads of genius inuendo!

  Cofty, I got to see him in Chicago a few months back. There were only 240 in the audience (small venue). He was just great. Oh--and he didn't keep things clean. He sang the pope song and the audience screamed the lyrics along with him. He said he never knew how that song would be taken in different venues, but apparently in Irish Catholic Chicago, it's just fine.

  NC
• 

  gubberningbody

  Actually, the problem with the use of the term "magic", is two-fold.

  First, when people actually believed in "magic", they actually thought they did understand what was going on, the only problem was that they were wrong. (as far as we believe at the moment)

  Secondly, we all believe in "magic" if we apply the same rules we measure others with to ourselves. There are currently things we believe to be true, which are false.

  If we say we believe, for example that random point mutations can generate the novelty we see in the biodiversity available on this planet without being able to demonstrate the truth of our contentions, then how is this any different from believing in magic?

  Abra-cadabra becomes "millions of years of random mutations coupled with natural selection" followed up with an irrelevant "And here's the cat to prove it".

  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=peLD2vlxRM0

  But here IS the cat.
• 

  NewChapter

  Abra-cadabra becomes "millions of years of random mutations coupled with natural selection" followed up with an irrelevant "And here's the cat to prove it".

  I think you are being intentionally obtuse. You have broke down this argument in a ridiculous way, unless you are quoting a particular scientists, and then I'd like to see support. Just because science acknowledges that it doesn't have 100% accurate knowledge, does not mean that you get to claim, by default, that there is a god factor. Science works tirelessly to falsify everything it knows--every theory is rigorously tested and as new understanding is gained, the process starts all over again. No theory is safe--if it were it would be religion. I'd like to see you try to "prove" your theory by using the scientific method. Which would mean you would do all in your power to disprove your theory. If it holds, then great. You don't get to prove your point by attempting to disprove ours---and god never wins by simple default.

  NC