Hashishi

Merkabah, if you'd like to 'debunk evolution' then please provide an alternative explanation consistent with the argument for a designer to any of the following examples in support of macroevolution. It's in my own words and from my own research so please take the time to answer with your own words and having done your own research. Also, to the biology majors amongst us, please go easy on me!

The recurrent laryngeal nerve:

This is a nerve which connects the laryngeal muscles to the brain. That's a pretty direct route: throat to brain in n-centimetres, right? In all mammals it takes this same route from your neck into your chest, looping around the aorta and another artery before doubling back up to the muscles in the neck it controls.

Why? Because in a common ancestor aeons ago that was the shortest route. Subsequent generations inherited this set-up even as natural selection spaced apart their muscles and organs and trapped it on the wrong side of the aorta. Evolution works in steps, and to change this 'circuitry' would be one huge and impossible leap for it to take. Clearly, from a creationist perspective, there is no rhyme or reason to it. The only retort that can be offered is along the lines of 'God was having a bad day' or 'He did it for shits and giggles', which is not the sort of behaviour one expects from an omnipotent and omniscient entity.

The Giant Panda:

The Giant Panda is an impossibly strange animal unless one applies the principles of macoevolution to explain its biological features. It is a herbivore, as I'm sure you know, yet retains a dental structure far more similar to that of a carnivore. It also has a tiny stomach in comparison to any herbivorous animal you'd care to name. Why? Either, many aeons ago, its ancestors were carnivorous or a designer gave it an inept set of tools to survive in an unsuitable environment. Shits and giggles or macroevolutionary processes at work?

Phalanges

The extremities of a huge variety of the endoskeletal animals on Earth are composed of the same number of bones in roughly the same positions. The only difference is in their size and shape. For instance, the bones comprising the hands and fingers of humans can be found in in the flippers of a dolphin or the talons of a falcon or the paws of a cat in the same positions but in differing shapes and sizes. Why? Either we evolved from a common ancestor and these bones adapted as species diverged or a designer spent a shit ton of his time making them look as similar as possible while specifying them to suite the particular needs of the species he was working on when he could (or should) have started from scratch in each individual case and have come up with a far more effective set of hands/feet/paws/etcetera for the various species than they ended up with.

Human Chromosome 2:

The DNA sequence of human chromosome 2 is nearly identical to a sequence found in the bonobo genome. The major difference is that, in the bonobo genome, it is spread across two separate chromosomes. Coincidence? Not a chance: at the centre of a chromosome exists a 'centromere' which, amongst a variety of functions, is essential in gene expression. If the chromosomes were fused during our evolution from a common ancestor with the great apes we'dd expect to find remnants of a second centromere- a 'vestigial' one: i.e. inactive; useless; 'junk DNA'. Lo and behold, we do. At the centre of human chromosome 2, in this centromere, is genetic evidence of a second vestigial centromere. How did that get there? Either it remained when two chromosomes fused along the common ancestry we share with the great apes or a designer put it there for shits and giggles.

__________________

macphearsome

I guess I was trying to say that science is based on observations. What is a fact? Something we observe over and over again, I suppose... but we should avoid the trap of assuming that we can immediately discern fact from fiction.

Of course, I realize now that my next paragraph contradicts the first approach... there is a fairly consistent set of rules that we observe and we must do our best to fairly weigh the evidence while avoiding the pretend notion that any one group can have a monopoly on "fact vs fiction"

Well, I've started rambling so I'll leave it at that. I look forward to reading further replies in this thread and I look forward to your discussion in the religion section.

__________________
"What if I want more than the pale facsimile of fulfillment brought by a parade of ever-fancier toys? To spend my life restlessly producing instead of sedately consuming? Is there an app for that?" - xkcd

Dino image from www.qwantz.com

Merkabah

Indeed. What everyone observes are the facts. But the observations go through our perceptions which are subjective and can have an effect on our interpretations of those observations. But it's important that while our understandings change, while our perceptions change, the facts stay the same and an objective truth still exists. Our goals should be the same: finding that objective truth while trying minimize the effects of subjective perception. No one can claim monopoly because it belongs to all of us. This is why it's important to keep an open mind, because we must be willing to accept that our perceptions are not correct and be willing to adapt to new observations of facts.

And I'm glad your interested in the religion discussion. I'll be answering some more questions there over the next hour or so, maybe a few later tonight. Tomorrow will be a new post dealing with prophecies in the Bible that I believe are evidence of God. It'll be an interesting read, I assure you.

__________________
To find truth you must first find confusion. The path to truth is one of questions not answers. Arrogance is a blindfold.

Merkabah

You forgot to mention our appendix which seems to have no other purpose but to burst at some point when we least expect it.

I wasn't trying to debunk evolution. I wasn't trying to debunk the article. I brought it here to be discussed and to let the facts emerge and speak for themselves.

But I'll give it a go.

recurrent laryngeal nerve

Sorry, I cannot give a qualified response to this. I will say that if this is a disadvantage to humans, I haven't noticed.

The Giant Panda:

They are oddly cute though. Wonder what purpose that serves towards their conservation?

Phalanges

If it works, why change it?

Yeah, I know I did a crap job answering these issues. I never claimed to be able to hold my own in an evolution argument. That's why in my first post, I didn't mention any of my personal thoughts. I'm not qualified to give any kind of opinion really. But if you want the opinions I do feel qualified to give, go ahead and check the religion forum.

Maximus

Point is in the video game of life you can't know the secret passage on level 10 if you are only on level 4. You can only speculate if such a passage exists.

__________________

Ygdonmir

This intelligent design concept is something to think about, but it should in no way interfere with the scientific method. The big problem here is that many people are too intently convinced by pseudoscience. There is no direct full proof evidence that the Christian god or whoever was our maker, nor that we have a maker in that sense. Given the great question about our origins in general we shouldn't be quick to throw away theories with ones just as uncertain.

I believe people are too allured by instant gratification on very wild concepts that are a long way from being proven. Some perhaps too full of pride to accept that we humans are descendants of a lesser life form. It's quite possible. I'm one to keep an open mind, and I refuse to stop asking why. Even when it comes to an intelligent maker, no matter how much I may disagree, there is still that 1% chance that I cannot throw away.

In the end it becomes more of a borderline philosophical question, and not one that we cant really hope to learn in our lifetimes. But if anything, evolution should not be replaced by intelligent design. Nor should intelligent design be preached, there should be testable evidence if any to solidify the claim. There are plenty of evangelists who would love to see evolution replaced (Not pointing a finger at any of you guys, of course. Just an example), which would serve an agenda of ignorance rather than truth.

There is simply more validity in the scientific sense of evolution being more likely to be the case. Perhaps evidence around us of evolution lies right in front of our faces. Such as different variations of the human form. Skin color and such. People from different corners of the globe have morphed in certain aspects to help them live in their environments. It just makes you wonder what would happen if we humans spread across the galaxy. Imagine how differently we would develop to suit higher gravity worlds or worlds where humans are forced to live underground. Stuff like that would certainly change our bodies to better adapt.

This little extended theory could be easily proven, however not any time soon. Possibly taking a millennium. If evolution is indeed true, as I'm inclined to believe, then this would in the future be indisputable evidence right in our laps.

__________________
"Three things cannot long be hidden. The sun, the moon and the truth." -Buddha

DRWWadsworth

nornerator

I propose the theory of intelligent falling.

Think about it like this, there are two objects, and they always fall towards each other, yet neither one of them are touching. How do they know which way to fall?

Scientists cannot explain this, so they made up the "space-time continuum" and made this huge convoluted theory about space-time warping around objects, yada yada yada, throw in some math and you have relativity.

Yet it can all be much more easily explained "God did it"

Occam's Razor bitches

Legio

Occams Razor does not point to "God did it", because there is no how. "God did it" gives no real explaination, just a who.

macphearsome

Our dear nornerator was being ironic, friend