The Origins of Life

[geffaz]

JEEPS! did you see harry hills (tv burps) take on britains most hounted?

it was absolute mint lol!

[The Flying Tench]

I ticked 'intelligent design', which can include, of course, belief in evolution (and does, in my case). My understanding is that this lobby is winning increasing support from the scientific community whereas 7 day creation was always a bit of a 'head in the sand' thing.

 

Some will know of the conversion to deism (though not theism) of the renowned atheistic philosopher Anthony Flew a couple of years ago. As a non scientist (apart from a dodgy engineering degree years ago) I was interested in his reasons:

 

a) primarily DNA research (I think it was this that led to his conclusion that naturalistic explanations of the first reproducing organism were unconvincing)

 

'fine tuning' arguments concerning the 'big bang'.

 

I don't really understand a), but from what I have read I thoroughly agree about !

[jeepster]

do you want a 'darwin' car badge tenchy? (if i may be so bold as to call you tenchy!)

 

 

geffaz, i didn't see harry hill, would have liked to though!

[geffaz]

lots of scooby doo gags and first victim of the 24h licencing laws ! (when the guys on his back and they ar trying to lift him and he,s going leave me, leave me, get off, get away! in a gruff almost glaswegian voice lol!

yeah you would of loved it lol

gave me a proper chuckle

Edited January 31, 2006 by geffaz

[The Flying Tench]

Now if you believe in intelligent design, no-one's back should ache. Clearly not true.

 

Reply: Vagabond, you're a professional scientist and I'm not, but I wonder if you're not using the phrase 'intelligent design' in a slightly different way from many scientific philosophers. Yours would be a valid argument against creationism, but as I understand it the notion of God in 'intelligent design' is very broad and could include, for example, the kind of eternal life force in which Einstein believed. I don't think Einstein would have felt that his God guaranteed straight backs!

 

If you believe in creationism, you must accept the image of a somewhat spiteful creator that deliberately left the majority of us with dodgy backs.

 

Reply: a valid argument not just against creationism but against any religion believing in a loving, personal God in my view. This argument comes in many forms, and it rattles me! When I look at the number of eggs that fish have, and the fact that the system for survival assumes that most of the young fish will not survive, it doesn't seem the kind of approach I'd expect! The christian response, of course, is the doctrine of the 'Fall', but it's a 'sticky wicket' for christians I'll willingly concede. Needless to say there are counterbalancing arguments in my view, but that's another matter.

 

Evolution (and its limitations) is thus the only rational explanation for a chronic backache - not a serious enough handicap to put us in danger of extinction, but damned painful nonetheless.

 

And of course most scientists who believe in intelligent design also believe in evolution.

 

BUT the big news is that MY DOG has DISPROVED DARWINIANISM in that he is a great example of SURVIVAL OF THE UNFITTEST!

[jeepster]

me and your dog both!

 

 

i never thought a man of the cloth could make me chuckle, but you did it tenchy

[Vagabond]

I ticked 'intelligent design', which can include, of course, belief in evolution (and does, in my case).

 

Thats enough of my levity re Chevin - back to topic.

 

The problem with "intelligent design" is that the majority of organisms that have ever existed on earth are now extinct.

 

Very few of the more complex creatures have been well enough "designed" to survive for millions of years (Sharks, Crocodiles and Coelacanths are a few exceptions)

 

The trial and error of evolution provides a more rational explanation as to why some creatures/plants survive for aeons and others do not.

 

You can extend the argument to ecosystems too - put simplistically - why "design" a system where the function of cats is to keep the mice down, and the function of mice is to provide food for cats?

 

This looks like being a very interesting thread - I would be particularly interested to hear how anyone can reconcile intelligent design with the hit or miss of evolution.

 

One point re evolution which might help debate - it is not really "the survival of the fittest" rather "the elimination of the unfit and the unlucky"

 

ie if (say) climatic conditions change, then the "unlucky" (species not adapting swiftly enough to the new environment) perish. If the environmental change had been slower, they might have adapted in time - but were "unlucky" in the speed of the change.

 

PS I was typing this whilst you were posting your earlier answer at 10.32 I have to make an early start tomorrow and will be away most of the day - will continue tomorrow evening.

Edited January 31, 2006 by Vagabond

[gozzer]

I notice nearly 10% have picked "other" as their option, could they elaborate on this?

 

(If they mean "a bit of the other" then I can see what they mean)

[deanbmw]

Fair point Vagabond.

The problem of going from a collection of compounds (even complex organic compounds like proteins and lipids) to a functional cell with the ability to replicate is still a sticky point but I firmly believe that eventually we will understand the incrememental processes that allowed it to happen without some form of supernatural intervention.

As with many ideas, just because we don't understand the minute detail of every aspect of it, doesn't mean that the overall concept is wrong.

 

Humans evolved elsewhere and came to earth - Utter rubbish !

I supose we also brought all of our primate relatives with us, buried a fairly decent fossil record for a bit of a laugh, errased all signs of the technologies that allowed us to get here from another world and yet somehow found the problem of re-tweaking our DNA so that we didn't end up squinting in the brighter light of our new planetary home utterly intractable ?

 

My thoughts on religious indocrination in schools are probably best left out of a family forum.

The idea that humans came from else where may seem utter rubish, but no more rubbish than some thing sitting on a cloud and made a man from some dust and woman from his rib and thats just the christian side of it.

As for the primate relatives may be they were already here, may be their dna was put here as well.

May be mankind was a accdent here on earth but to think that life only exsits on our tiny blue and green planet, in a universe far far bigger than we can only imagine seems a little nieave.

But till mankind sorts its self out on a global scale we may never know, if you was the creator or the answer to life, the universe and everything in it, would you want to come to this place or would ya think stuff em.

[chappers]

There is no theory of evolution, just a list of creatures Chuck Norris allows to live.