[Ash]

Evolution is undeniable. It is happening right in front of your eyes. The antibacterial resistance in bacteria that I mentioned is an undeniable example of it. If it is not, then what is antibacterial resistance caused by? We can physically examine the chromosomes of bacteria, and see that in a disease resistant population the frequency of the allele of a gene coding for the resistance will be present, while it won't be present in non-resistant population.

That alone is proof that adaptation, and evolution, occur. Absolute proof. You can disbelieve facets of the science of evolution, but denying evolution as a whole, is turning a blind eye to something which is absolutely occurring.

The only proof that antibiotic resistance provides is absolute evidence of a living organism adapting itself to its environment to improve survival. The same way cells in our own body have several genetic checking mechanisms that we're only beginning to understand (at a miniscule level) that prevents cancerous cells from developing in our bodies every minute of every day we're alive (and these extraordinary phenomena are just drops in the ocean of the complexity and wonder of our human body).

These genetic wonders are not evolutionary - they're survival mechanisms. Evolution explains the more permanent genetic changes that occur over generations, like dark skin colour in Sub-Saharan Africans, Polynesians and Dravidians in response to consistent generational exposure of high UV-sunlight.

So evolution is a given - but what I've been trying to say is it's not a self-sufficient explanation of the origins of the universe, nor can it provide answers as to what we are doing here and why we are here.

[Ben_Edict]

The only proof that antibiotic resistance provides is absolute evidence of a living organism adapting itself to its environment to improve survival. The same way cells in our own body have several genetic checking mechanisms that we're only beginning to understand (at a miniscule level) that prevents cancerous cells from developing in our bodies every minute of every day we're alive (and these extraordinary phenomena are just drops in the ocean of the complexity and wonder of our human body).

These genetic wonders are not evolutionary - they're survival mechanisms. Evolution explains the more permanent genetic changes that occur over generations, like dark skin colour in Sub-Saharan Africans, Polynesians and Dravidians in response to consistent generational exposure of high UV-sunlight.

So evolution is a given - but what I've been trying to say is it's not a self-sufficient explanation of the origins of the universe, nor can it provide answers as to what we are doing here and why we are here.

Ash, we should be careful when mixing different applications of the word "evolution". When the evolution theory is meant, it is all about the biosphere, the evolution of living beasts. What you call the "struggle for survival" is just another word for that biological evolution. Those organisms, that adapt best to environmental challenges and changes, will survive and hand down their experience (intellectually and emotionally) and their successful mechanisms (biologically, genetically) to the successive generations. Sometimes change will be abrupt - and then most organisms have no time to adapt, which is probably the cause for the demise of the dinosaurs, to mention just one popular example.

The word "evolution" on a cosmic is simply another term for development and does not necessarilly describe something "organic". The cosmis evolution is ruled not by the laws of survival and adaption, but by the laws of physics.

No serious scientist claims, that we have fully understood the evolution/development and the origin of the universe. We know a lot of bits and pieces, but lack knowledge about fundamental questions. Who would deny that. Lack of knwoledge does not rule out the validity of the approach. It simply shows, that we need more research, more understanding, more daring theories, which then can be proven or not.

God is exactly NOT the Deus ex Machina, which hopps out of the box and turns some screws, until everything seems a perfact fit. Such an image of God (which I do not see in your argument, but whcih seem prevalent in some fundamentalist circles) is heresy. It is just a prjection of human wishes for certainty onto an antropomorphic God. It does deep unjustice to God.

Ben

[*isteve]

Yep, evolution. Remember when all the evidence pointed to the world being flat? Yet the Bible even said that it was not flat but actually an orb. Remember when all the evidence pointed to the earth being the center of the solar system?

Actually the pre-Christian Greeks knew the earth was round and did experiments to prove it and measure its diameter using objects floating on the sea at different distances. They were surprisingly accurate.

Most of that knowledge was lost towards the end of the Roman empire and throughout the (early Christian) Dark Ages. (Following edited for completeness). Only a core of esoteric knowledge of classical history and mathematics was maintained and jealously guarded by the church and the masons (who built for the church). Science was almost entirely moribund for more then a millennium. It barely advanced in all that time. Only the rediscovery of Greek classical knowledge in Europe following the fall of the Ottoman Empire which led to the renaissance from the 14th century onwards began to turn the tide, but just as the Church slowly accepted aspects of the Greek version of the universe (with Earth at the centre) where it conformed to scriptural prejudice, they remain stubbornly resistant to anything that challenged this view until well into the 17th century when Galileo's support for the Copernican theory of the heliocentric solar system led to his arrest by the inquisition for heresy and house arrest until his death.

So does the earth go round the sun or vice versa? Perhaps you agree that the evidence all points to the opposite view. Well, check out all the evidence that supports Darwin. Its overwhelming.

Perhaps the effects of dark-age superstition have not quite worn off.

If science is bunk and scientists are stupid, how does your computer work? Dont understand? Well, I know plenty of people who know exactly how it works on a theoretical and practical level. So just because you dont understand something does not mean it isnt true or that people who do understand it are wrong.

As for climate change, its a model. Several in fact. Models based on complex maths and different evidence. Whats interesting is that so many agree at least on the principles. However it would be impossible for them all to agree on the severity. The truth is it may be a lot worse than predicted.

[GeneV]

So evolution is a given - but what I've been trying to say is it's not a self-sufficient explanation of the origins of the universe, nor can it provide answers as to what we are doing here and why we are here.

On that we are in 100% agreement. Science attempts to describe the physical world--nothing else.

[*isteve]

On that we are in 100% agreement. Science attempts to describe the physical world--nothing else.

Nothing else? It's amazing how many things that were once attributed to the divine have since proved to be entirely explainable within the realm of the physical world. We dont need miracles to explain the Sun, the Moon, computers or aircraft. Why do we need them to explain stuff we have yet to understand? Insecurity?

Will we ever have all the answers? Perhaps it depends on whether the question makes sense in the first place.

[Rupert]

Nothing else? It's amazing how many things that were once attributed to the divine have since proved to be entirely explainable within the realm of the physical world. We dont need miracles to explain the Sun, the Moon, computers or aircraft. Why do we need them to explain stuff we have yet to understand? Insecurity?

Will we ever have all the answers? Perhaps it depends on whether the question makes sense in the first place.

Funny you guys have all the answers, some which make sense, no doubt, but still can't explain how your boys are always fouling up if they are so damn smart? If they are continually identifying various fossils, such as the lizard as the "Missing Link" it just yells out "AGENDA"...and that is not science. An awful lot of "scholarly science" turns out to be pure BS, and you guys don't want to own up to it. Evolution is so full of holes that it won't hold piss....just the crap you want to sell us....and we are not all that interested, are we?
Regards!

[GeneV]

Nothing else? It's amazing how many things that were once attributed to the divine have since proved to be entirely explainable within the realm of the physical world. We dont need miracles to explain the Sun, the Moon, computers or aircraft. Why do we need them to explain stuff we have yet to understand? Insecurity?

Will we ever have all the answers? Perhaps it depends on whether the question makes sense in the first place.

So do you believe it is the goal of science to determine the purpose or meaning of our existence?

[Votesh]

These genetic wonders are not evolutionary - they're survival mechanisms. Evolution explains the more permanent genetic changes that occur over generations, like dark skin colour in Sub-Saharan Africans, Polynesians and Dravidians in response to consistent generational exposure of high UV-sunlight.

So evolution is a given - but what I've been trying to say is it's not a self-sufficient explanation of the origins of the universe, nor can it provide answers as to what we are doing here and why we are here.

Drug resistance in bacteria is a permanent genetic change over generations. I am a biologist that has studied evolutionary biology, you don't have to explain things to me.

I doubt anyone, especially a scientist, has ever stated that evolution is a "self-sufficient explanation of the origins of the universe". That is the realm of physics and not biology. Why does there have to be an answer to "what we are doing here and why we are here". The assumption that there has to be as answer to those questions is a presupposition that is completely erroneous.

[Laurentiu Cristofor]

So do you believe it is the goal of science to determine the purpose or meaning of our existence?

I think an answer to this question would lead to another philosophical discussion based on the follow-up question "what is purpose?"

[Votesh]

Can you still not provide a link to this lizard story of yours?
That seems to be all you can talk about, yet you can't even provide a link.

An awful lot of scholarly science doesn't actually turn out to be BS, especially when compared to the vast amounts of scientific knowledge constantly being accrued due to ongoing research. Why don't you show us the holes and explain them to us if they are so apparent?

Funny you guys have all the answers, some which make sense, no doubt, but still can't explain how your boys are always fouling up if they are so damn smart? If they are continually identifying various fossils, such as the lizard as the "Missing Link" it just yells out "AGENDA"...and that is not science. An awful lot of "scholarly science" turns out to be pure BS, and you guys don't want to own up to it. Evolution is so full of holes that it won't hold piss....just the crap you want to sell us....and we are not all that interested, are we?
Regards!

[GeneV]

I think an answer to this question would lead to another philosophical discussion based on the follow-up question "what is purpose?"

I meant it more in the sense that the post from Ash I was answering meant it, and I don't think science answers that question. However, considering that question on its merits is a whole 'nuther thing.

[*isteve]

So do you believe it is the goal of science to determine the purpose or meaning of our existence?

No I do not believe that is the purpose of science. Science is simply a philosophy for understanding the universe, not our role in it, though that may become plain once we understand more about the origin of the universe at the moment of the big bang. However, it often stumbles upon something profound and throws religious dogma into turmoil. Some examples include the Earth orbiting the Sun (since accepted), the age of the Earth (largely accepted) and the theory of evolution (not accepted in Texas). I suspect if life is found on other planets, that will have implications as well.

But each scientist follows his or her own purpose within the framework of knowledge and philosophy that science provides. Science in itself has no higher purpose other than to understand. Its up to humanity to decide what purpose to persue once armed with knowledge and there religion has a role.

I will turn the question around. If the purpose of religion is to understand the purpose and meaning of existance, why does it also consider it has a role to explain the what and the how? The universe is there for us to see, its not hidden away. Its just very mysterious and hard for most to understand but it is utterly amazing.

Most religious scholars I know personally do not have any problems with science, only its application. Its right that religion should consider matters of purpose, morality, social cohesion and spiritual wellbeing. For example, it is right that religion should have an opinion on the morality of genetic engineering, but it would be pointless to deny that genetics exists. It clearly works. However, if you accept it exists, then you have also to accept Darwin because genetics has absolutely underlined and reinforced evolutionary theory.

There is no real conflict between the two, they could even be seen as complimentary. One philosophy for the brain and one for the soul, intellect and emotion, ying and yang.

Perhaps they will converge once we reach a sufficient level of understanding, but we are only just stepping out on the road. However, one does not and cannot prove or disprove the other. They are orthogonal philosophies. Arguably both serve a purpose, but it is not the same purpose.

The vast majority of Christians and Jews accept the old testament as allegory - a simplification of events that tell a story. All religions however ancient tell of the origins of the world, but we regard most of them as stories. To accept this, and to accept scientific advances, does not make you less of a Christian, at least according to the Pope or most Bishops I know. It does not dilute the message of Jesus (or Mohammed). Some people have an issue with that, but here despite my lack of faith I side with the majority of Christians. Evolution can work just fine as part of God's great design, as indeed can the Big Bang.

[Laurentiu Cristofor]

I meant it more in the sense that the post from Ash I was answering meant it, and I don't think science answers that question. However, considering that question on its merits is a whole 'nuther thing.

You mean, this part:

So evolution is a given - but what I've been trying to say is it's not a self-sufficient explanation of the origins of the universe, nor can it provide answers as to what we are doing here and why we are here.

I understood. But some questions have no simple answers. The answer to why am I here now can regress for a long time - because, because, because - we're both going to be dead before I get back in time to 1900. There is a chain of causality however, and science can help explain the transitions. Origins of the universe is similar in scope. What are we doing here is just a matter of observing the facts, so this is an answerable question.

[MoiVous]

Having read through this thread (long isn't it?) two things come to mind - and for the record I'm a scientist (medical these days) too

• We often argued with creationists at university and quickly realised that it was a no win situation - you can't win an argument against folk relying on faith as they don't rely on measurable criteria to support creationism - its all about faith.
  And those arguing against you will select the facts they want to discredit your measured theory and conveniently ignore those in support. So I gave up argument with religious/creationist types years ago and won't enter into it here.
  
• Douglas Adams had it right in his skit with the Philosophers arguing with Deep Thought about finding the ultimate question after the ultimate answer had been delivered. Deep Thought pointed out that rather than arguing about it they could go on the chat show circuit to argue about the existence or non-existence of God and be on the gravy train for life - a bit like this thread except theres no gravy in this thread that I can find
  
• BTW the answer to the ultimate answer to the question of life the universe and everything is 42 - a number Adams plucked from the air

No more to say - I'm not on the chat show circuit......

Cheers

[Rupert]

Can you still not provide a link to this lizard story of yours?
That seems to be all you can talk about, yet you can't even provide a link.

An awful lot of scholarly science doesn't actually turn out to be BS, especially when compared to the vast amounts of scientific knowledge constantly being accrued due to ongoing research. Why don't you show us the holes and explain them to us if they are so apparent?

My friend, if you are unable to Google one of the biggest blunders in evolutionary science....since their last debunked "Missing Link" why on earth do you think I would want to provide you with anything? You are obviously learning impaired and I feel no obligation to tutor you.
Regards!