read some micro biology papers. There are millions being spent on explaining it. Browse some titles and read the ones that interest you.
I read through the piece and I think its interesting but have a few problems with it. The first is as a chemist I'm wondering what in particular does he see that makes him skeptical regarding macroevolution chemically? The chemistry of DNA and RNA is relatively well understood how data is stored and transmitted, proteins synthesized along with how mutations occur. Given that all life on Earth beyond the viral level, which is questionable if those are alive, uses the essentially the same mechanisms to transmit genetic data and run metabolic processes I would be curious to see what he doesn't understand as those processes have pretty much remained the same. How the cells in your body synthesize proteins and divide is pretty much the same as an amoeba. The second thing that bothers me is something that is often brought up by critics of Evolution, or global warming, is that they argue it politically rather than scientifically. Even ardent evolutionists will concede there are many things that we don't understand about evolution and that there is still much to be studied but critics often portray there as being an orthodoxy regarding evolution that enforces a thought police mentality. While Dr. Tour goes to some pains to state that he is on friendly terms with evolution proponents and follows the science when he writes something like this: [rquoter]In the last few years I have seen a saddening progression at several institutions. I have witnessed unfair treatment upon scientists that do not accept macroevolutionary arguments and for their having signed the above-referenced statement regarding the examination of Darwinism. (I will comment no further regarding the specifics of the actions taken upon the skeptics; I love and honor my colleagues too much for that.) I never thought that science would have evolved like this. I deeply value the academy; teaching, professing and research in the university are my privileges and joys. Rice University, from the administration, has always been gracious and open. The president of Rice University, David Leebron, has even written to the faculty that a, “…core value of our university is free and open inquiry. We encourage robust debate on the difficult issues of the day, and we welcome people with many points of view to our campus to better understand those issues and the differences that can divide us. That can and does mean that we sometimes provide a forum for opinions that may be controversial — or even on occasion reprehensible — to many or a few. While we cannot and will not censor the expression of divergent opinions, we do expect those opinions be expressed with civility and with respect for other points of view.” Hence, by my observation, the unfair treatment upon the skeptics of macroevolution has not come from the administration level. But my recent advice to my graduate students has been direct and revealing: If you disagree with Darwinian Theory, keep it to yourselves if you value your careers, unless, of course, you’re one of those champions for proclamation—I know that that fire exists in some—so be ready for lead-ridden limbs. But if the scientific community has taken these shots at senior faculty, it will not be comfortable for the young non-conformist. When the power-holders permit no contrary discussion, can a vibrant academy be maintained? Is there a University (unity in diversity)? For the United States, I pray that the scientific community and the National Academy in particular will investigate the disenfranchisement that is manifest upon some of their own, and thereby address the inequity.[/rquoter] He is making a political argument and not a scientific one and a rather hyperbolic political argument when he uses terms like "be ready for lead-ridden limbs." Has he considered that one reason why there seems to be such a preponderance towards evolution is because the counter side hasn't produced a scientifically valid theory to oppose it? He himself cites the problems with ID and creationist views. I say this all the time and will keep on saying it. A minority viewpoint isn't necessarily more correct than the majority view. Both have to be subject to evidence and proof and by nature the burden is on the minority viewpoint if it seeks to overthrow an established view. Finally I find his last paragraph very troubling. [rquoter]But then again, one who is far more qualified than I am, and further seasoned by fire, believed differently. Viktor Frankl (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viktor_Frankl), a former Auschwitz inmate wrote in The Doctor and the Soul, that the source for much of the 20th Century’s inhumanity has come from the very origins being discussed here. “If we present a man with a concept of man which is not true, we may well corrupt him. When we present man as an automaton of reflexes, as a mind-machine, as a bundle of instincts, as a pawn of drives and reactions, as a mere product of instinct, heredity and environment, we feed the nihilism to which modern man is, in any case, prone. “I became acquainted with the last stage of that corruption in my second concentration camp, Auschwitz. The gas chambers of Auschwitz were the ultimate consequence of the theory that man is nothing but the product of heredity and environment—or as the Nazi liked to say, ‘of Blood and Soil.’ I am absolutely convinced that the gas chambers of Auschwitz, Treblinka, and Maidanek were ultimately prepared not in some Ministry or other in Berlin, but rather at the desks and lecture halls of nihilistic scientists and philosophers [emphasis added].” If Frankl is correct, God help us.[/rquoter] This comes to the crux of why I think there is such resistance to Evolution among religious circles. I am not an expert on this and I certainly want to hear an opposing view on this but my impression among those who strongly have faith, particularly Judoe-Christian faith, is that the idea that Man evolved from lower organisms diminishes the idea of the divinity of Man and reduces us from creatures endowed with soul to merely a product of happenstance no better than a dog or parmaceum. To me that seems a very shalllow view of humanity and life itself. From my own faith philosophy Man inherently isn't different from animals but all are within the same continuity of being (and non being) so from that point I don't find the idea of evolution troubling at all. From my own understanding of the Bible though the idea that our physical bodies have evolved from other organism doesn't seem like that should be a problem or even that at some point we came from inorganic compounds. In the Bible it says that God fashioned man from the clay and the mud and from dust we return to dust. To me that would seem perfectly inline with prevailing evolution and the origin of life theory. The idea that our physical bodies developed from other organism doesn't address the issue of whether we have a soul or a divine spark. We could still have all of that.
Aside from Casey, is there anyone else here (particularly one of the scientists) suggesting that we know HOW inanimate objects became animate? My understanding is we do not know that. Casey is the only one in this thread telling me otherwise. Am I missing something?
1. He qualified it all by saying he's not an expert. He titled it his view as a layperson. 2. I thought he was pretty fair, here. I realize I'm biased because I know him. 3. The last paragraph you find troubling is a quote from a man who was at Auschwitz. It was him that spoke of nihilistic scientists...a point i'd say carries a hellua lot of weight given the context he came from. The point is that, from that Nazi mindset, if you were born Jewish....you were less than a man. Tour is just saying that if Frankl is right, then it's troubling. I'm not sure how you can argue against that. People have abused this ideology of nihilism in the very way that others have abused religion to suggest that they're special and called on by God to visit violence on everyone else. 4. The Bible doesn't suggest man is divine. It suggest man was created in the image of God...generally accepted to mean with the same ability to create. It suggests we've fallen away from God because we've chosen to live life on our terms, by our rules. It suggests that the gap between us and God can't be made up by us....and that Jesus bridges that gap. (it's a little more complex than that if you wanna get all theological ). But I have no problem with the idea of evolution...it doesn't affect my faith one iota....you see Jim Tour said the exact same thing. So however he arrives at his conclusions, if you take him at his world (and me at mine) his difficulties with it aren't a product of defense of his faith. Because his faith is unshaken, either way....evolution is irrelevant to it.
Well of course there is "something" behind it. I think even atheists can agree on that, that there is something that drives everything that goes on. Not at all a conscience god that looks over what happens and decides what is right and wrong, but just the flow of evolution as that something. My theory is that "driver" of evolution, if defined somehow, would just completely go over our brains as incomprehensible. It just wouldn't make sense. Our brains were built to eat, sleep, hunt, have sex, not to understand what our purpose on life is.
Yes he did but I think he was stating as a layperson on Evolution but he did state he is an expert in chemistry. I am a layperson in both so I am curious to hear what his specific objections are. When I have more time I might do a google search on some of his writings. He is making a very fair political argument but that isn't a scientific argument. Just crying about that majority viewpoint shutting out the minority viewpoint doesn't prove the validity of the minority viewpoint. Perhaps there is a good reason why a particular viewpoint is the minority. He cited that statement though in a piece regarding Evolution so it seems obvious to me that he is relating the sentiment in that statement in regard to the scientific acceptance of Evolution. He isn't just putting that statement out there without reason but is relating that to a fear that Evolution dehumanizes humanity. I will definately concede to you and Dr. Tour a far greater knowledge of the Bible than to me and I'm glad you don't see a problem with the idea of evolution and the Bible. I am though troubled in regard to how Dr. Tour brings up that particular statement in a discussion of Evolution. To me he is either stating an unrelated point or he is stating that his faith does lead to a problem with evolution and that he sees something dehumanizing about it.
judoka - 1. i don't know enough about his concern from a chemistry standpoint to comment. and i think the point of this article on that page (given its context) isn't to get down to the finer points, but to communicate generally his thoughts on it. given that he's outspoken about his faith, you can imagine how often he gets questions like this given his profession. 2. i don't think he's making a scientific argument. it sounds like he's speaking from experience, actually...at least second-hand experience among those in his profession. 3. i think science CAN be dehumanizing. i think religion can be too, though. there are people who have made very dehumanizing arguments on the foundation of eugenics and genetics, for example. it seems to me that he's simply stating that evolution CAN be used for that as well. Being brutally frank, Charles Darwin made some pretty unsavory arguments that tilted towards eugenics, talking about "the inferior members of society" and "the better men." He suggested that vaccinations had allowed the weak to survive. Evolution and genetics go hand in hand....and this is where "mad science" enters the picture, from my viewpoint....where mankind is separated into good and bad by genetics....and hey, wouldn't it be ok if we just let the weak die away so the "better men" get passed on? See Social Darwinism. Darwin said things like (from Descent of Man): "The children, moreover, that are born by mothers during the prime of life are heavier and larger, and therefore probably more vigorous, than those born at other periods. Thus the reckless, degraded, and often vicious members of society, tend to increase at a quicker rate than the provident and generally virtuous members. Or as Mr Greg puts the case: 'The careless, squalid, unaspiring Irishman multiplies like rabbits: the frugal, foreseeing, self-respecting, ambitious Scot, stern in his morality, spiritual in his faith, sagacious and disciplined in his intelligence, passes his best years in struggle and in celibacy, marries late, and leaves few behind him. Given a land originally peopled by a thousand Saxons and a thousand Celts---and in a dozen generations five-sixths of the population would be Celts, but five-sixths of the property, of the power, of the intellect, would belong to the one-sizth of Saxons that remained. In the eternal "struggle for existence", it would be the inferior and less favoured race that had prevailed---and prevailed by virtue not of its good qualities but of its faults.'" and Obscure as is the problem of the advance of civilization, we can at least see that a nation which produced during a lengthened period the greatest number of highly intellectual, energetic, brave, patriotic, and benevolent men, would generally prevail over less favoured nations. and The surgeon may harden himself whilst performing an operation, for he knows that he is acting for the good of his patient; but if we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit, with an overwhelming present evil. We must therefore bear the undoubtedly bad effects of the weak surviving and propagating their kind; and There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands, who from a weak constitution would formerly have succumbed to small-pox. Thus the weak members of civilized societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly any one is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed. So my faith is unshaken by this debate...because it's irrelevant to it. But the implication that some are weak and some are strong and that we should tilt some policy in favor of building up the strong (which is a political tilt, i realize...though founded on some notion of science) is frightening and it should be to everyone. And when you ask me to counter THAT against how the God I understand from the Bible and my own experience feels about mankind, it is as polar opposite as can possibly be imagined. So it's not the science that he's talking about...it's the implications of how that science fits in our lives and how we choose to interpret it that he's talking about. And again, it's been the justification of a helluva lot of evil (as has religion, I know).
rhad - good points. but i think it's impossible for us to pretend that each one of us doesn't view everything through own lenses...with our own assumptions...with the baggage of our own lives. i think that lack of objectivity is evident in discussions about evolution by people who believe that Creation can only mean literally what we read from Genesis. but it's not limited to those fundamentalist Creationists.
Naturally. The point was that it's seductively easy to not see that within the guise of "skepticism".
link I thought the article MadMax posted was balanced and relevant. I have a problem with scientist trying to be so all for certain dictatorially sure that they alone are critical thinkers and they are so absolute in their assumptions about origins. Here is an article from Scientific American that shows what I mean, I have bolded the parts I wanted to comment on and placed my comments in italics. Modern cells are like microscopic cities: They have power plants (mitochondria), trash dumps (lysosomes), local government (the nucleus, with DNA serving as the legal charter), and many other activities going on inside their boundaries. They also have a border patrol in the form of a double-layered membrane that uses a series of protein-powered pumps, pores and channels to let nutrients in and keep other chemicals and substances out. But, cells were very different when life began 3.5 billion to four billion years ago. Rather than small metropolises, they were more like a purse that carried instructions—consisting of just a membrane with genetic information inside. They lacked the structures and proteins that now make them tick. (this is not a scientific statement but an assumption based upon a predetermined conclusion concerning evolution- thus the scientists are about to use their intelligence to design an experiment to support the assumption- I call this the Intelligent Design Experiment) The question is: How then were they able to take in the nutrients necessary to survive and reproduce? Harvard Medical School researchers report in Nature that they have built a model of what they believe the very first living cell may have looked like, which contains a strip of genetic material surrounded by a fatty membrane. (Again the Intelligent Design Experiment is a method to design an experiment to defend macro-evolution in this case with respect to cell development; this means the scientists are designing an experiment toward a desired outcome to prove what they have already concluded) The membranes of modern cells consist of a double layer of fatty acids known as phospholipids. But in designing a membrane for their cell, scientists worked with much simpler fatty acids that they believe existed on a primeval Earth, when the first cell likely formed. (that is exactly what I just said, they designed the experiment to fit what they already believed) The key, says study co-author Jack Szostak, a Harvard geneticist, was to develop one porous enough to let in needed nutrients such as nucleotides, the units that make up genetic material, or DNA but strong enough to protect the genetic material inside and keep it from slipping out after replicating. (I would say the key is the intervention of their intelligence and control of the experiment- not any process set up honestly in a framework of random events with regard to macro evolutionary transitions- they need to consider some statistical help from a mathematician here to understand the scope of the number of random events that would lead to the formation of a membrane for starters) In an attempt to duplicate an early cell (this is how scientists use a bias of macroevolution and run it backwards to assume the earliest cell evolved when there is no scientific observation to support that inanimate compounds evolved into animate compounds), scientists put fatty acids that were likely membrane candidates (this ruins the experiment being based upon any random occurance) and a strip of DNA into a test tube (makes me wonder who held the first test tube 4 billion years ago ) of water. While in there, the fatty acids formed into a ring, or membrane, around the genetic segment. The researchers then added nucleotides—units of genetic material—to the test tube to determine whether they would penetrate the membrane and copy the DNA inside it. (more intelligent intervention, that was a good idea BTW) Their findings (I assume it is in line with the conclusions they held when they started): the nucleotides did enter the cell, latch onto and replicate the DNA over 24 hours. ( they would have shown reason and logic just to state that they have better understanding of how cells function today in laboratory experimentation.) What scientists now must figure out, Szostak says, is how the original and copycat DNA strands separated and this early cell divided or reproduced. "We're trying to solve a whole series of problems, step by step," he says, "and build up to replicating an evolving system." (this is an admission that they are trying hard to validate macro evolution at the level of micro biology- hardly the honest scientific questioning I hoped for) David Deamer, a biomolecular engineer at the University of California, Santa Cruz, says he believes the team is on its way to making a prototype of a primitive cell that has "essentially all the basic properties of life." Congratulations! Get this in an fifth grade science textbook and we can assume the next generation will be more sure than ever that this is just what happened 4 billion years ago. I can't prove it didn't happen this way, and I can't prove it did.... and neither can scientists. This is one way to attempt to validate what they already believe. It is circular reasoning- Same as saying their must be a creator because there is a creation. There must have been a first cell because everything else evolved. I think micro-evolution; variation, mutation , adaptation, is proven. Macro-evolution is missing alot more than transitional fossils.
shasta, can you answer this question: Aside from Casey, is there anyone else here (particularly one of the scientists) suggesting that we know HOW inanimate objects became animate? My understanding is we do not know that. Casey is the only one in this thread telling me otherwise. Am I missing something?
