Posted on 05/06/2005 7:36:09 PM PDT by DouglasKC
A very important implication of DNA study is its proof of the unique individuality of every person. I wonder why this has not become an important part of pro-life discussions. They would then not be discussing something abstract called life, but a singular, irreplacable person which begins to exist when the DNA does. Individual worth has been undermined by Marxist thought that considers people as faceless members of classes, and you can see that this is often the basis of what democrats say.
How about, advance it as a theory?
You have just shown us all how much you understand about science. Please read, and understand, the following:
the·o·ry (the¯'?-re¯, thîr'e¯)
n., pl. -ries.
1. A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.[Late Latin theo¯ria, from Greek theo¯ria¯, from theo¯ros, spectator : probably thea¯, a viewing + -oros, seeing (from hora¯n, to see).]2. The branch of a science or art consisting of its explanatory statements, accepted principles, and methods of analysis, as opposed to practice: a fine musician who had never studied theory.
3. A set of theorems that constitute a systematic view of a branch of mathematics.
4. Abstract reasoning; speculation: a decision based on experience rather than theory.
5. A belief or principle that guides action or assists comprehension or judgment: staked out the house on the theory that criminals usually return to the scene of the crime.
6. An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.
http://www.answers.com/topic/theory
faith (fa¯th)
n.
1. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.
2.Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. See synonyms at belief, trust.
3. Loyalty to a person or thing; allegiance: keeping faith with one's supporters.
4. often Faith Christianity. The theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God's will.
5. The body of dogma of a religion: the Muslim faith. 6. A set of principles or beliefs.
http://www.answers.com/topic/faith
Now, do you see the difference????????
DNA has little to do with the unique individuality of every person. Unless you believe identical twins are the same person.
Huh?
Actually, that's what non-ID evolutionists must believe, since they don't consider the possibility of a Creator; hence everything happens just because.
Evolution does not even attempt to explain where something once came from nothing. It explains the progress- this turned to this which turned to that- but not where Life began. And Evolution does not rule out God.
Notwithstanding, historical events are factual and true when the witness to the events describes them accurately. And I believe quite literally.
""It's not opinion," says Brady, "it's a literal fact which the good Bishop arrived at through careful calculation (which he then describes), in fact,"he continues, "he has determined the actual time of creation as having occurred on the 23rd of October, 4004 BC at 9 am."
So what has that to do with all the known science that says chemical bio-logical evolution is impossible for thousands of good reasons, based on what we have known since the 60's and upward to present?
Besides, perhaps you should get more involved in finding out what many scholars that are practicing Christains and Jews have to say about the 4000BC interpretation. That is no longer adheard to. There are many well written thesis on how easily the creation could be quadrupled or more without anyway affecting those ancient manuscripts or comprimising them.
But that is not the issue. Take the religion out of it as any free thinker should. The issue is soley on the ever growing numbers of scientist in many branches of science that have come forth and with solid explainations, e.g. cell bio-chemistry, just to name one dicipline, and publicaly indicate they see no way evolutioary processes in their many forms, yea tons of changes to try to cover up facts, could possibly have happened. That is the pure simple fact of the matter. OK. Do you think I assume you have adequate background in chemistry, physics etc., think some particular form of polyethene could just come into being from raw organic hydrocarbons and non hydrocarbons, and be formed into lets say a hoola hoop? Don't offer some stupid ass remark or you will be just showing your lack of what is being discussed as so often has been the case in these debates.
Stephen C. Meyer Article: The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories By: Stephen C. Meyer Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington January 26, 2005
On August 4th, 2004 an extensive review essay by Dr. Stephen C. Meyer, Director of Discovery Institute's Center for Science & Culture appeared in the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington (volume 117, no. 2, pp. 213-239). The Proceedings is a peer-reviewed biology journal published at the National Museum of Natural History at the Smithsonian Institution in Washington D.C.
In the article, entitled "The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories", Dr. Meyer argues that no current materialistic theory of evolution can account for the origin of the information necessary to build novel animal forms. He proposes intelligent design as an alternative explanation for the origin of biological information and the higher taxa.
Due to an unusual number of inquiries about the article, Dr. Meyer, the copyright holder, has decided to make the article available now in HTML format on this website. (Off prints are also available from Discovery Institute by writing to Keith Pennock at Kpennock@discovery.org. Please provide your mailing address and we will dispatch a copy).
PROCEEDINGS OF THE BIOLOGICAL SOCIETY OF WASHINGTON 117(2):213-239. 2004
The origin of biological information and the higher taxonomic categories Stephen C. Meyer
Introduction
In a recent volume of the Vienna Series in a Theoretical Biology (2003), Gerd B. Muller and Stuart Newman argue that what they call the "origination of organismal form" remains an unsolved problem. In making this claim, Muller and Newman (2003:3-10) distinguish two distinct issues, namely, (1) the causes of form generation in the individual organism during embryological development and (2) the causes responsible for the production of novel organismal forms in the first place during the history of life. To distinguish the latter case (phylogeny) from the former (ontogeny), Muller and Newman use the term "origination" to designate the causal processes by which biological form first arose during the evolution of life. They insist that "the molecular mechanisms that bring about biological form in modern day embryos should not be confused" with the causes responsible for the origin (or "origination") of novel biological forms during the history of life (p.3). They further argue that we know more about the causes of ontogenesis, due to advances in molecular biology, molecular genetics and developmental biology, than we do about the causes of phylogenesis--the ultimate origination of new biological forms during the remote past.
In making this claim, Muller and Newman are careful to affirm that evolutionary biology has succeeded in explaining how preexisting forms diversify under the twin influences of natural selection and variation of genetic traits. Sophisticated mathematically-based models of population genetics have proven adequate for mapping and understanding quantitative variability and populational changes in organisms. Yet Muller and Newman insist that population genetics, and thus evolutionary biology, has not identified a specifically causal explanation for the origin of true morphological novelty during the history of life. Central to their concern is what they see as the inadequacy of the variation of genetic traits as a source of new form and structure. They note, following Darwin himself, that the sources of new form and structure must precede the action of natural selection (2003:3)--that selection must act on what already exists. Yet, in their view, the "genocentricity" and "incrementalism" of the neo-Darwinian mechanism has meant that an adequate source of new form and structure has yet to be identified by theoretical biologists. Instead, Muller and Newman see the need to identify epigenetic sources of morphological innovation during the evolution of life. In the meantime, however, they insist neo-Darwinism lacks any "theory of the generative" (p. 7).
As it happens, Muller and Newman are not alone in this judgment. In the last decade or so a host of scientific essays and books have questioned the efficacy of selection and mutation as a mechanism for generating morphological novelty, as even a brief literature survey will establish. Thomson (1992:107) expressed doubt that large-scale morphological changes could accumulate via minor phenotypic changes at the population genetic level. Miklos (1993:29) argued that neo-Darwinism fails to provide a mechanism that can produce large-scale innovations in form and complexity. Gilbert et al. (1996) attempted to develop a new theory of evolutionary mechanisms to supplement classical neo-Darwinism, which, they argued, could not adequately explain macroevolution. As they put it in a memorable summary of the situation: "starting in the 1970s, many biologists began questioning its (neo-Darwinism's) adequacy in explaining evolution. Genetics might be adequate for explaining microevolution, but microevolutionary changes in gene frequency were not seen as able to turn a reptile into a mammal or to convert a fish into an amphibian. Microevolution looks at adaptations that concern the survival of the fittest, not the arrival of the fittest. As Goodwin (1995) points out, 'the origin of species--Darwin's problem--remains unsolved'" (p. 361). Though Gilbert et al. (1996) attempted to solve the problem of the origin of form by proposing a greater role for developmental genetics within an otherwise neo-Darwinian framework,1 numerous recent authors have continued to raise questions about the adequacy of that framework itself or about the problem of the origination of form generally (Webster & Goodwin 1996; Shubin & Marshall 2000; Erwin 2000; Conway Morris 2000, 2003b; Carroll 2000; Wagner 2001; Becker & Lonnig 2001; Stadler et al. 2001; Lonnig & Saedler 2002; Wagner & Stadler 2003; Valentine 2004:189-194).
Read more here:
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2177&program=CSC%20-%20Scientific%20Research%20and%20Scholarship%20-%20Science
To suggest that advances in the understanding of cell biology contradict evolution is ludicrous. Genetic analysis is helping in terms of categorizing the organizational hierarchy of species.
For most people, a computer is magic and was created by an "intelligent designer". But it still follows the physical laws of the environment it is placed in. Why should life be any different -- even if it is designed?
Would it be offensive to suggest that FR's ID crowd is the twin of DU's "Bush stole the Election" crowd ?
Both are like the crazy uncle that comes down to dinner without pants, yet there isn't much of a fuss made.
"I have been struck by how many of the medical doctors I have encountered in the past ten years, have been Christians.
Many of them in world class medical facilities."
Strange why you would be bothered by the fact a Christian might want to practice medicine to help others. Not sure what your point is. How about world class bio-chemists and scientist that that are bible believing Christians. Would that strike you as perculiar? Because there are many many thousands of them.
Ya think? :-)
****Evolution does not even attempt to explain where something once came from nothing. It explains the progress- this turned to this which turned to that- but not where Life began. And Evolution does not rule out God.
It most certainly does attempt to explain it. If you have high schoolers, take a look at their textbook. It even talks about a single cell developing from some gook. And that's what I was taught in school. That we came from nothing. The goo to you theory is what I have heard it called.
I cite Bishop Usher as a counter-example of the same technique.
You have a choice, either God always was and always will be, or some form of matter and energy always was, and accidently evolved into the complexity of all that we are and all that we see, with no purpose.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.