Otaku
Active Member
You know, some of us think that many candidates have silly, beliefs that fly in the face of good science. They believe that random mutations, over time, will somehow increase the information contained in the genome and allow complicated new structures to develop... instead of what they normally do: cause the degeneration of the species. Extreme circumstances can make a harmful mutation "beneficial", but that's because it kills less off the population than something it mitigates. For example, sickle cell anemia in humans. In areas where malaria is still a problem, the condition is much more common in the human population. The sickle cells aren't as vulnerable to malaria, so it provides increased disease resistance. You still all all the problems of sickle cell anemia, but basically malaria kills more than the sickle cells do.
"Micro" evolution is something we witness, but its the "macro" that is lacking: one species, clearly accounted for, changing into another. I didn' witness how blind cavefish became blind cavefish. However, given that they has so many in common with sighted fish, and live in what one might consider an unusual habitat, it seems pretty certain that enough sighted fish happened into underground rivers and lakes to create a sustainable population. In such an environment, their eyes were totally useless, and so when a mutation occurred that was a loss of information, how the body creates a working eyeball, was lost it didn't affect those fishes' survival rates. Indeed, either the mutation was a dominant trait (or the circumstances that led to it were so common) that it became the norm or some aspect of lacking eyes made it preferable to having them. I mean, if the remaining tissue needs less nourishment and/or is less prone to damage or disease, it would be benefit the now blind fish more than useless eyes would. That is "micro-evolution". So is the change of a moth from white to black to white again when the genetic information for both colors is already present and its the environment changing. I am sure we all remember this example from high school: industrial pollution had stained all the normally white birch trees black and so the white moths were easier for birds to spot. Ergo more black moths survived and the population shifted the dominant color. When the pollution issue was addressed, the trees slowly went back to being mostly white, and now the population has once again shifted to where white is the dominant color. That kind of "evolution" is not in doubt.
Macro-evolution, on the other hand, is different. The fossil record lacks the needed transitory forms to even come close to "proving" this. As stated, it requires a faith that DNA can improve itself. That somehow, the carefully coded information that a creature's DNA contains can, by accident, include what is needed to add a new, useful feature. Not only does the mutation need to, as stated, add more information, but any significant mutation required to explain the "microbes to man" approach has to add more and more complicated structures. That is to say, several "lucky accidents" have to exist in the genome simultaneously for a complicated structure to emerge, let alone to function in a useful capacity. On their own, such changes would "neutral" at best: neither aiding the creatures survival nor hurting it anymore than the nutrients needed to keep such a structure. More than like, such incomplete structures would be detrimental to the creatures survival.
Origins "science" is not operational science. Many of the greats of science, founders of their disciplines, had the same "kooky" beliefs about origins that I have. That doesn't make me right, but using the same style of logic, that "most modern scientist believe" something different doesn't make me wrong, either. One has to examine and interpret the data. All data is open to interpretation. Extreme examples are that hey, has it occurred to "you" (whoever is reading this) that this is an elaborate hoax? Maybe its just a dream where inconsistencies are being "ironed out" by "dream logic": this post is not being made. You can go even further and trust nothing/next to nothing you know: you might be a brain in a jar somewhere, hooked to a machine simulating your life as part of some research project in a more technologically advanced culture. There are even schools of belief that teach that the "real world" is not but an illusion anyway. I don't subscribe to that, so I must examine the data I have. I cannot prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that "God" or even something simpler but filling a similar role is real. However, at the same time it is a logical fallacy to claim he does not exist. It is much like the belief/disbelief in extra-terrestrials: it is possible they are just a little further out than we can observe right now.
Secular humanism is grounded in the belief that the natural is all there is. Any account of the supernatural is pure fabrication or has to have a "natural" explanation. There are no miracles because there never has been a miracle: any testimony to the contrary is a lie because there are no miracles and never has been a miracle.
And all this is still separate from one of the earlier comparisons of Christianity to Islam. One should probably notice that the U.S. was basically set up as a theocracy by Christian terms. Remember, just because some people calling themselves "Christian" forced people to convert doesn't mean thats how the actual faith works. No, instead they went with a representative government that acknowledged God as Creator and that as such, people had certain inalienable rights. If one does not appeal to God for such rights, to whom does one appeal? Popular vote? "Reason"? Doing so would have produced a vastly different USA, and looking at history, it would not have been a "better" one.
*reads rant*
Oh yeah, and given my wonderfully inadequate connection speed, if anyone reading this feels like telling me, is there a serious Chuck Norris endorsement or was it a joke? If it was serious, I find this a bit disappointing, but then again I was leaning towards Huckabee until quite recently and the thread was a month old...
"Micro" evolution is something we witness, but its the "macro" that is lacking: one species, clearly accounted for, changing into another. I didn' witness how blind cavefish became blind cavefish. However, given that they has so many in common with sighted fish, and live in what one might consider an unusual habitat, it seems pretty certain that enough sighted fish happened into underground rivers and lakes to create a sustainable population. In such an environment, their eyes were totally useless, and so when a mutation occurred that was a loss of information, how the body creates a working eyeball, was lost it didn't affect those fishes' survival rates. Indeed, either the mutation was a dominant trait (or the circumstances that led to it were so common) that it became the norm or some aspect of lacking eyes made it preferable to having them. I mean, if the remaining tissue needs less nourishment and/or is less prone to damage or disease, it would be benefit the now blind fish more than useless eyes would. That is "micro-evolution". So is the change of a moth from white to black to white again when the genetic information for both colors is already present and its the environment changing. I am sure we all remember this example from high school: industrial pollution had stained all the normally white birch trees black and so the white moths were easier for birds to spot. Ergo more black moths survived and the population shifted the dominant color. When the pollution issue was addressed, the trees slowly went back to being mostly white, and now the population has once again shifted to where white is the dominant color. That kind of "evolution" is not in doubt.
Macro-evolution, on the other hand, is different. The fossil record lacks the needed transitory forms to even come close to "proving" this. As stated, it requires a faith that DNA can improve itself. That somehow, the carefully coded information that a creature's DNA contains can, by accident, include what is needed to add a new, useful feature. Not only does the mutation need to, as stated, add more information, but any significant mutation required to explain the "microbes to man" approach has to add more and more complicated structures. That is to say, several "lucky accidents" have to exist in the genome simultaneously for a complicated structure to emerge, let alone to function in a useful capacity. On their own, such changes would "neutral" at best: neither aiding the creatures survival nor hurting it anymore than the nutrients needed to keep such a structure. More than like, such incomplete structures would be detrimental to the creatures survival.
Origins "science" is not operational science. Many of the greats of science, founders of their disciplines, had the same "kooky" beliefs about origins that I have. That doesn't make me right, but using the same style of logic, that "most modern scientist believe" something different doesn't make me wrong, either. One has to examine and interpret the data. All data is open to interpretation. Extreme examples are that hey, has it occurred to "you" (whoever is reading this) that this is an elaborate hoax? Maybe its just a dream where inconsistencies are being "ironed out" by "dream logic": this post is not being made. You can go even further and trust nothing/next to nothing you know: you might be a brain in a jar somewhere, hooked to a machine simulating your life as part of some research project in a more technologically advanced culture. There are even schools of belief that teach that the "real world" is not but an illusion anyway. I don't subscribe to that, so I must examine the data I have. I cannot prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that "God" or even something simpler but filling a similar role is real. However, at the same time it is a logical fallacy to claim he does not exist. It is much like the belief/disbelief in extra-terrestrials: it is possible they are just a little further out than we can observe right now.
Secular humanism is grounded in the belief that the natural is all there is. Any account of the supernatural is pure fabrication or has to have a "natural" explanation. There are no miracles because there never has been a miracle: any testimony to the contrary is a lie because there are no miracles and never has been a miracle.
And all this is still separate from one of the earlier comparisons of Christianity to Islam. One should probably notice that the U.S. was basically set up as a theocracy by Christian terms. Remember, just because some people calling themselves "Christian" forced people to convert doesn't mean thats how the actual faith works. No, instead they went with a representative government that acknowledged God as Creator and that as such, people had certain inalienable rights. If one does not appeal to God for such rights, to whom does one appeal? Popular vote? "Reason"? Doing so would have produced a vastly different USA, and looking at history, it would not have been a "better" one.
*reads rant*
Oh yeah, and given my wonderfully inadequate connection speed, if anyone reading this feels like telling me, is there a serious Chuck Norris endorsement or was it a joke? If it was serious, I find this a bit disappointing, but then again I was leaning towards Huckabee until quite recently and the thread was a month old...
Last edited:
