Evolution - some questions

kowloon wrote: »

I don't have much to add to the original OP except 'Inorganic Amino acids', pretty sure there's no such thing. Open to correction though.

In 1939, Lord Northbourne coined the term organic farming in his book
Look to the Land (1940), out of his conception of "the farm as organism,
" to describe a holistic, ecologically-balanced approach to farming—in
contrast to what he called chemical farming, which relied on "imported
fertility" and "cannot be self-sufficient nor an organic whole." This is
different from the scientific use of the term "organic," to refer to a class of
molecules that contain carbon, especially those involved in the chemistry
of life.
link

"To make a living cell requires matter, as well as free energy. DNA, RNA,
and protein are composed of just six elements: hydrogen, carbon, nitrogen,
oxygen, sulfur, and phosphorus."
Page 13

Proteins are biochemical compounds consisting of one or more polypeptides
typically folded into a globular or fibrous form, facilitating a biological
function. A polypeptide is a single linear polymer chain of amino acids
bonded together by peptide bonds between the carboxyl and amino
groups of adjacent amino acid residues. The sequence of amino acids in a
protein is defined by the sequence of a gene, which is encoded in the
genetic code.
link

Carbon holds the whole thing together!

MagicMarker wrote: »

*looks at location*

*adds to ignore list*

On the contrary, I think it's great that we have someone from lands afar to debate with.

seamus wrote: »

There's a very valid reason why people ask the "Why are there still monkeys" question.

It's because of this very well-known image/idea:

This seems more like supposition, than a valid reason to me.

Despite its inaccuracies, I think most people's reasons for refuting/questioning evolution, are not arrived at by what they see in this picture.

Dawkins title implies for some who read it purpose, motivation, or some sort of conscious or chosen direction in evolutionary development. We all know this is impossible, as does Dawkins.

seamus wrote: »

I was referring to the specific question of "Why are there still monkeys", not to other questions/criticisms of evolution.

The question "Why are there still monkeys" comes from a lack of understanding of evolution rather than someone who has considered the concept in its entirety and come up with some criticisms or refutations. Even if you do not agree with evolution, you would not ask the question "Why are there still monkeys", if you understood it.

Fair enough, but I think a lack of understanding of evolution has little to do with a person asking the question, "Why are there still monkeys?". Whether it be for religious reasons or a belief in the notion that humans are 'better' than monkeys, the type of person who would ask this question, more often than not, has no interest in finding out anything about evolution. Tell them to research the topic and the answer is usually along the lines of a blunt "I don't need to, I know what I believe."

FrankAmazing wrote: »

To those who ridiculed me; it is that arrogance, snide posturing and ''witty'' supreme stance which lends itself to the stereotypical views that people hold of atheists

You will have to forgive some people, they are so used to hearing the questions you asked coming from creationists on this forum… creationists who think they are not questions but actually „knock down“ arguments against evolution… that many of them tend to jump the gun and become aggressive by knee jerk reaction. If people poke a dog 1000 times out of cruelty, then the vet who has to poke him for pure reasons will still get bitten fairly often.

Although I am not faulting you for this, so do not take it the wrong way… it probably did not help that you chose to ask your questions in the religion section and the atheism forum. Maybe you might consider posting them in the Biology forum for example?

Again do not get me wrong, I am not saying you are not welcome here. I just think you might find asking biology questions in a biology forum more enlightening. The forum as you said SEEMS less active but I have not seen many questions there go unanswered when people do ask them. Theists may have made evolution the battle ground of choice against atheism, but evolution is not an atheist subject per se.

However out of necessity, or just pure interest, many of us here do have a strong knowledge on the subject. Do you feel your questions have been answered or would you like to ask new ones, or go deeper into any of the ones thus far answered? Just say the word and I will try, but I do not want to spend time answering anything you feel has been answered sufficiently already.

Sarky wrote: »

The only thing I've read by Dawkins was that quote he said somewhere that went something like "Science is interesting, and if you don't think so you can f*ck off." From what I've gathered here, he's clever and very knowledgeable, but also abrasive and sometimes rude

The thing is, if you are going to form an impression of someone it might be worth getting the facts right first Dawkins for example never said the thing you just quoted. Dawkins was actually quoting someone else, in a conversation with Neil DeGrasse Tyson, and it was done jokingly.

Strangely most of the things people call Dawkins rude about tend to be things he never actually said. In this case the quote was from an editor from New Scientist.

Link here for evidence. If anything it is a good study of ensuring one has ones facts right before coming to a conclusion, especially when the conclusion is on someones character from second hand reports.

music producer wrote: »

But clearly many automatically read into the title what ostensibly Dawkins did not intend.

There is good reason why people say "Never judge a book by its cover". Not only can you not read too much into a title... especially given the author had to write an entire book to explain it.... but often the title of a book, and the cover, are not in the control of the author but the publishing company. For example(s) Dawkins TV show "The root of all evil" was not named by him but the production company and the sub title of Christopher Hitchens book "God is not great" which was "How religion poisons everything" was not actually his choice either but the publisher.

A third good reason is that if you read only the title of the book, come on to a forum of knowledgeable people like this one, and start harping on as if you know what you are talking about... you will quickly have your ass placed on a plate and served up to you and have yourself left looking silly.

Dades wrote: »

There are two types of people who don't accept evolution.

(1) Those who simply don't understand it, and/or
(2) Those that don't want to.

That is all.

Not understanding something doesn't equate to not accepting it. I don't understood Einstein's theory of relativity, it doesn't mean I don't accept it.