nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Please Read OP)

PDN

This new 'catch-all' thread will operate similar to the Creationism and Protestant/Catholic Debate threads.

Too many threads are spoilt and dragged off topic when a non-Christian poster demands, "What evidence do you have for God?" While some may enjoy such discussion, it is frequently off-topic and derails discussion of other subjects (the very discussion that is the reason for this Forum's existence).

So, in order to protect the Forum and facilitate on topic discussions, all that stuff now belongs here. Anyone who keeps trying to derail other discussions by demanding evidence for God's existence will be warned, and if those warnings are ignored then swift infractions and bans will ensue.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

nagirrac

IRWolfie- wrote: »

I'm curious though; I thought most of the religious denied that God was a testable hypothesis (and hence not under the remit of Science) and they had a Carl Sagan "non-overlapping magisteria" type idea. Since you think there can be evidence for the existence of God, then surely there can be evidence against the existence of God. Does this mean that you think we can disprove the existence of your God?

Talking about information processing etc seems reminiscent of standard creationist arguments.

I don't believe science can prove or disproof God as science as you said yourself does not prove anything. For context, I am a deist leaning agnostic so I so not look at things from a religious perspective. I look at the evidence I am aware of and conclude the possibility of creative intelligence i.e scientific and subjective evidence that suggests design. If such a creative intelligence exists it is obviously far beyond anything we can currently imagine. It would have to exist outside our space-time universe and thus not be subject to the parameters of our universe, like time for example. I believe this is one of the biggest mistakes people make in trying to conceptualize God, they think in terms of the parameters that govern our observed universe.

The concept of the aether is an interesting one. It was thought up to the late 19th century that all waves had to travel through a medium, so for light to propegate through space there was thought to be an aether. This was abondoned after the Michelsen-Morley experiment. There is an argument to be made that the idea of the aether is back however with the concept of the quantum vacuum or zero point field. It appears clear that there is no such thing as "nothing" from a material standpoint in our observed universe.

The blogosphere has been very active with hysterical rants against the punblished results of the ENCODE project. Admittedly most of this is from non-scientist atheist types, but some scientists have been very vocal about "hype" associated with the findings, Larry Moran from teh University of Toronto for example. I don't see the rationality in the "hype" accusation, the ENCODE group are doing what any scientists do, they are reporting the results of their work. It appears the fact that it is giving fodder to creationists is the real issue, but why should that even be a factor in scientific discovery?

Yes, the creationists use the "information" argument too. My personal belief is that at its most basic level (the quantum vacuum) our reality is digital information and everything we observe is derived from that.

Geomy

I think a lot of arguments about creationism and science comes down to social conditioning and personalities.
A bit like closed minded Atheists arguing
with closed minded Christians....neither are going to give in or see it from the other's point of view.
But this discussion is developing into something interesting

HHobo

nagirrac wrote: »

Do you seriously think that Richard Dawkins and his more fanatical disciples would welcome evidence of design?

fanatical disciples?

I suppose it's possible he has some unthinking sycophants following him but if he does they would be the equivalent to a follower of Jesus who just got up from listening to the sermon on the mount and started calling for the killing of all unbelievers. To say he would have missed the point would be an understatement.

nagirrac wrote: »

He has made a career and considerable income on arguing for a random, purposeless universe and concluding those who believe in design are somehow "dim".

Most of his career has been in biollogy. He has written many books and gained considerable wealth in that domain. It is a little cheap to insinuate he is in it for the money.
Over his long career he has seen mountains of evidence for a random, purposeless universe and none the other way. He gets, understandably, annoyed when legions of people who just don't like reality deny it on ludicrously bad evidence and these same people most often haven't taken the time to even look at the evidence. He refers to these people as deluded, not dim. Deluded is a really accurate description of someone who believes fantastical tales in order to avoid facing an uncomfortable reality.

nagirrac wrote: »

The reason why there is so much irrational response to the ENCODE project recent findings is that some scientists and many non scientists do not like the results as it does not fit comfortably with their worldview.

That is wild assertion and shows that you are willing to interpret other peoples reactions based entirely on what you want them to be thinking. Have you personally read the criticisms? Excluding the fact that the ENCODE papers were welcomed by a lot of scientists, the ones who are critical, are accusing the ENCODE folks of being hyperbolic. As I understand it, many scientist think they were suggesting that 80% of the genome was functional in the sense that it was previously considered 1% was. It isn't, by the finding of the ENCODE project itself. The real number might be more like 20%. Still a very surprising change from 1%. I don't think anyone has any "worldview" problems with it. Irrational? I would like you to show why this objection above is irrational.

The thing that you seem to be determined not to get, is that for people like Dawkins, their worldview is evidentially based. They go where the evidence leads. Their view of all manner of subjects will have changed many times in their lives. Biology, physics etc. find new things which change the way they look at the universe. The only thing they are committed to is taking the universe as it is, not as they would like it to be.

nagirrac wrote: »

The history of science should teach us to be humble. There is a tendancy among many people to assume what we know now is accurate, when history teaches us that what we know at any give time is likely to be overthrown in the future.

There seems to be an attitude at large in the world that old theories are consistantly proven completely wrong and this is likely again in the future. There is an essay by Issac Asimov called "The relativity of wrong" that discusses this. It is well worth a read. Our understanding of the universe is not being completely thrown out every so often. While some ideas are proven fundamentally wrong, mostly ideas are refined.

nagirrac wrote: »

The "fine tuned universe" is strong evidence for a top down design as is the incredible information processing (both digital and analog) in cellular life.

The fine tuning argument is so embarrasingly awful that I am continually shocked that it is presented as evidence. It is the very essence of arrogance and human centrism.

The fact that you think " information processing (both digital and analog) in cellular life" is "strong evidence" for top down tells me that you are very biased. It is an argument from ignorance (I am willing to take that back just as soon as some evidence for top down is presented) and wilfully ignores the lessons that the history of science, which you seem eager to promote, has taught us thus far. In 100% of cases where a mechanism has been determined it has been bottom up.

If it were conclusively proven that the universe was designed, I'd be just fine with that. I think that discovery would be quite exciting actually. The possibilities that would open up would be mind-blowing.
How would you feel if it were conclusively proven that the universe was not designed?

nagirrac

HHobo wrote: »

Over his long career he has seen mountains of evidence for a random, purposeless universe and none the other way. How would you feel if it were conclusively proven that the universe was not designed?

OK, let's just focus on that point then and see if we can get anywhere.
Where is the mountain of evidence for a random, purposeless universe?

The question of whether the universe has a purpose is a philosophical question, not a science question. If science stuck to science i.e. how and not why, and philosophy (including religions) stuck to philosophy i.e. why, and not how, we would all get along much better:)
The problem with creationists and ID is the attempt to contradict scientific findings with no or weak evidence. I understand why they get into this pickle because of faithful interpretation of their religious texts.

In my opinion, the only honest answer to the question "does the universe have a purpose" is "we don't know".

So then we get to random. Where do we get the idea that the universe is random? From a physics standpoint I think being honest we also have to say "we don't know" as we have no idea what happened at the beginning of the big bang due to physics as we know it breaking down at the Planck time.

Then we get to evolution and what started the whole migration in human thought in the mid 19th century from design to random. Interestingly enough we say evolution is not random but the primary mechanism behind it (mutation) is. If we don't yet understand the mechanisms of the human genome of today how can we understand how the mechanisms of evolution unfolded over 3.5 billion years? Yes, we can show random mutation of genes in bacteria leading to variation, but this may be just a fragment of the mechanisms involved. The ENCODE project leaders have had to back off a little from their claims due to the lack of compelling evidence to date, but the evidence appears to be that our current human DNA has 3 categories: 1) genes, roughly 20,000 of them taking up 2% of our DNA, 2) coding of small and large RNA that makes up at least 20% and perhaps 50%, and 3) "jumping genes" or transposable elements (TEs) which makes up the the remaining potential 50%.

The second category of coded RNA appears critical to all kinds of cell regulatory functions, brain development, etc. Jumping genes however are the most fascinating. These are what have been traditionally called "junk" DNA and are similar to viruses. They are strands of DNA that move or copy themselves and jump to new locations. This poses the interesting question whether jumping genes are the primary mechanism of evolution and not random mutation.

Did the human genome evolve from millions of years of random genetic mutations resulting in variation that drove natural selection? Based on the unfolding evidence, I would have to conclude "I don't know" to the first part of the statement but my sense is that as more evidence emerges it will confirm "adaptive mutation" as the primary mechanism of evolution as opposed to "random mutation".

HHobo

nagirrac wrote: »

OK, let's just focus on that point then and see if we can get anywhere.
Where is the mountain of evidence for a random, purposeless universe?

Everything we investigate appears purposeless. Everything could have a purpose. There maybe some cosmic reason for the exact arrangement of pebbles in your driveway. You have conclude "I don't know" to that question, right?
Well no, you don't have to. If it really looks like there isn't a purpose it is perfectly sensible to assume that there isn't right up until there is some evidence that there is.
Do fairies exist? In the strictest sense, we have to remain agnostic; or do we? While we cannot prove or show or bring positive evidence to bear on the non-existence of fairies, it is entirely rational to dismiss them as fiction until some evidence is produce. Is absolute philosopical terms "absense of evidence is not evidence of absense" as the religious endless put forth. In practical term it is. Does the loch ness monster exist? No. Why? No evidence.
If you are examining a system and it appears to opperate by X mechanism. All of it's operations are consistant with X and appear to always have been. Is this evidence against the utterly unevidenced mechanism Y? I would say so, would you?

nagirrac wrote: »

The question of whether the universe has a purpose is a philosophical question, not a science question. If science stuck to science i.e. how and not why, and philosophy (including religions) stuck to philosophy i.e. why, and not how, we would all get along much better:)

Science isn't interested in philosophy. Scientists are just as entitled to engage in it as philosophers are, and certainly as entitled as the religious. When someone religious engages in philosophy they aren't doing religion. Philosophy has zero tolerence with interjecting wild unsupportable claims into logical arguments. Religion is founded on wild, unsupportable claims.

nagirrac wrote: »

In my opinion, the only honest answer to the question "does the universe have a purpose" is "we don't know".

In an absolute sense it is. Why ask the question? What propmts it. Why should the universe have a purpose? Is the question even sensible?
Do rocks have purposes? Prove to me that any given rock you find doesn't have a purpose. I submit in an absolute sense you must remain agnostic on the question. Does blue have a purpose?
The rational answer is for all practical purposes, no. We have zero evidence that the universe has a purpose. As soon as that changes we can seriously entain the notion!

nagirrac wrote: »

So then we get to random. Where do we get the idea that the universe is random? From a physics standpoint I think being honest we also have to say "we don't know" as we have no idea what happened at the beginning of the big bang due to physics as we know it breaking down at the Planck time.

Actually, I wouldn't apply the word random to the universe. I assumed when you referred to Dawkins you were talking about the contents of the universe.
Saying the universe is random makes absolutely no sense at all. Saying it is non-random makes exactly as little sense. We have a sample size of one.
It is another question that isn't worth asking. The "fine tuning" argument is ludicrously bad for much the same reason. Sample sizes of one are looked at on scales which might not even exist to determine that something eye-bulgingly rare in the observable universe must have been the whole point. I think there should be a new fallacy just for this argument. "Argument from aint' we so special!":)

nagirrac wrote: »

Then we get to evolution and what started the whole migration in human thought in the mid 19th century from design to random.

Let's take these jumping gene, which you seem to be suggesting are non-random. What is guiding these genes in their jumps? Is God reaching down are moving them about to help organisms adapt to changing envoirnments?
Give me a cogent argument that they are opperating in a non-random way?

philologos

nagirrac: as interesting as your defence of deistic agnosticism is I have a question for you that might bring Christianity to the fore.

Why is deism a more acceptable idea to you that theistic Christianity, namely that God sent His Son Jesus to redeem the world by being crucified for the sins of the world and being raised to life three days later?

I'm not trying to be confrontational - firstly I'm genuinely fascinated by your position as I used to be an agnostic also, and secondly because I believe that this will bring Christianity back into the discussion.

HHobo

philologos wrote: »

nagirrac: as interesting as your defence of deistic agnosticism is I have a question for you that might bring Christianity to the fore.

Why is deism a more acceptable idea to you that theistic Christianity, namely that God sent His Son Jesus to redeem the world by being crucified for the sins of the world and being raised to life three days later?

I'm not trying to be confrontational - firstly I'm genuinely fascinated by your position as I used to be an agnostic also, and secondly because I believe that this will bring Christianity back into the discussion.

I'm not attempting to answer for nagirrac here, but even from the atheistic position, a deistic position is more rational than the theistic. Note: I was reading "acceptable" as believable or rational.

The very short answer from the athiestic perspective is that theists have to assume on no evidence a great deal more than a deist does. Deism is at least perfectly compatible with the observable universe as in there are no direct conrtradictions.

philologos

HHobo wrote: »

I'm not attempting to answer for nagirrac here, but even from the atheistic position, a deistic position is more rational than the theistic. Note: I was reading "acceptable" as believable or rational.

The very short answer from the athiestic perspective is that theists have to assume on no evidence a great deal more than a deist does. Deism is at least perfectly compatible with the observable universe as in there are no direct conrtradictions.

It strains my credulity to think of why a god would create the universe and run off.

Admittedly I'd like a subscriber to that philosophy to respond though.

To me the rational basis is scant in comparison to a theistic God who is mindful of us ala Psalm 8:4.

HHobo

philologos wrote: »

It strains my credulity to think of why a god would create the universe and run off.

Admittedly I'd like a subscriber to that philosophy to respond though.

To me the rational basis is scant in comparison to a theistic God who is mindful of us ala Psalm 8:4.

I'm sure nagirrac will give you his/her own response.

The simple logic of it is unavoidable.
If I posit that there exists a "Tilket". I have to assume it exists so long as I have no evidence. If I start adding properties to it, I am making further assumptions. This can't be avoid by appeals to intuition.

A "Tilket" may be unlikely without any evidence. A "Tilket" named Bob with brown hair, 5 arms and riding a tricycle who has a mild addiction to strawberry jam is more unlikely.

philologos

HHobo wrote: »

I'm sure nagirrac will give you his/her own response.

The simple logic of it is unavoidable.
If I posit that there exists a "Tilket". I have to assume it exists so long as I have no evidence. If I start adding properties to it, I am making further assumptions. This can't be avoid by appeals to intuition.

A "Tilket" may be unlikely without any evidence. A "Tilket" named Bob with brown hair, 5 arms and riding a tricycle who has a mild addiction to strawberry jam is more unlikely.

The no evidence claim is where I disagree. There's plenty of evidence that Jesus was who He says He was from a Christian point of view and as far as I can see there's good reason to put my trust and stake my life on Him. This is an issue that we need to look at if we are to get past this impasse.

HHobo

philologos wrote: »

The no evidence claim is where I disagree. There's plenty of evidence that Jesus was who He says He was from a Christian point of view and as far as I can see there's good reason to put my trust and stake my life on Him. This is an issue that we need to look at if we are to get past this impasse.

This is the point in the conversation where Christians become (in my honest and humble opinion) quite dishonest and completely irrational.

Let me give you an example.

Do you consider the eye-witness testimony, 500 or so such witnesses if I remember correctly (note it isn't really eye-witness testimony as there are not 500 first hand accounts. There is only the claim there were so many eye-witnesses) who claim to have seen Jesus after he resurrected form the dead; do you consider this evidence that Jesus was divine?

Fanny Cradock

HHobo wrote: »

I'm not attempting to answer for nagirrac here, but even from the atheistic position, a deistic position is more rational than the theistic. Note: I was reading "acceptable" as believable or rational.

The very short answer from the athiestic perspective is that theists have to assume on no evidence a great deal more than a deist does. Deism is at least perfectly compatible with the observable universe as in there are no direct conrtradictions.

And the key phrase is "from the atheistic perspective".

HHobo

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

And the key phrase is "from the atheistic perspective".

I used the term atheistic to indicate my perspective was distinct from nagirrac's (deistic).

I am assuming you hold logic to be consistant regardless of a person's worldview.

Do you have an issue with my reasoning?

Fanny Cradock

HHobo wrote: »

This is the point in the conversation where Christians become (in my honest and humble opinion) quite dishonest and completely irrational.

Let me give you an example.

Do you consider the eye-witness testimony, 500 or so such witnesses if I remember correctly (note it isn't really eye-witness testimony as there are not 500 first hand accounts. There is only the claim there were so many eye-witnesses) who claim to have seen Jesus after he resurrected form the dead; do you consider this evidence that Jesus was divine?

Yours is not a humble opinion. It's merely a silly insult. Do you actually speak to people like this in your day to day life? If you really think you are dealing with dishonest and irrational then stop posting here if you can't spare us the insults.

Now to your question. If one presupposes that the NT is a reliable source of documents dealing with the life, death and resurrection of Christ then the accounts of his post-crucifixion existence are indeed evidence that he was divine. This is self-explanatory.

Now for my question. If we had 500 eyewitness accounts of the appearance of Jesus post-crucifixion all dated to within a day of the events they describe would you then consider the claims of Christianity to be any more trustworthy?

Geomy

In layman's terms,what is deism ?

tommy2bad

Geomy wrote: »

In layman's terms,what is deism ?

The belief that God exists but doesn't take any part in creation.
Sort of absentee landlord principal.

nagirrac

Geomy wrote: »

In layman's terms,what is deism ?

Deism is a belief in God, based on observing the natural world and applying reason to it. Deists do not believe in a God who directly intervenes in the natural world in any authoritarian sense, do not believe in supernatural events, and do not suscribe to organized religions. Desist believe that God created the universe and everything we observe in it, including the ability for humans to have reason.

nagirrac

tommy2bad wrote: »

The belief that God exists but doesn't take any part in creation.
Sort of absentee landlord principal.

Incorrect. Deists believe God created the universe and that everything we observe unfolds due to how it was designed.

Fanny Cradock

A God who created the universe and then left it to its own devices. Whereas Christianity is based upon the idea that God both sustains all of creation and acts within it.

nagirrac

HHobo wrote: »

Let's take these jumping gene, which you seem to be suggesting are non-random. What is guiding these genes in their jumps? Is God reaching down are moving them about to help organisms adapt to changing envoirnments?
Give me a cogent argument that they are opperating in a non-random way?

I asked you to provide the mountain of data that you (and Dawkins) say demonstrate the universe is random and purposeless. You have provided none, other than some philosophical musings.

The alternative to random mutation is adaptive mutation. My interpretation of the evidence being uncovered is that adaptive mutation is the primary driver of evolution. The whole research area of jumping geness is not new, it was first proposed by Barbara McClintock (in 1948!) and although she received a Nobel prize for her work later it was largely ignored by the scientific community.

If the primary driver of mutation is adaptive rather than random, then you have to ask what is the reason for adaption. The stress of the environment is the obvious answer which likely explains why some species have a lot of jumping genes and others not so many, as different species encounter different environments. The point though is that the organism, and this works at the level of a microbe, reacts to its environment and changes itself. It is not random at all. We see this most clearly in human brain development which is not a slow process and is accelerating.

tommy2bad

nagirrac wrote: »

Incorrect. Deists believe God created the universe and that everything we observe unfolds due to how it was designed.

By that description TULIP Presbyterians are deists! I don't think predestination is necessary for a deist view.

nagirrac

philologos wrote: »

nagirrac: as interesting as your defence of deistic agnosticism is I have a question for you that might bring Christianity to the fore.

Why is deism a more acceptable idea to you that theistic Christianity, namely that God sent His Son Jesus to redeem the world by being crucified for the sins of the world and being raised to life three days later?

I'm not trying to be confrontational - firstly I'm genuinely fascinated by your position as I used to be an agnostic also, and secondly because I believe that this will bring Christianity back into the discussion.

Well, that is a great question philologus and one I am quite familiar with as my mid teen daugher is a devout Catholic and as you can imagine dinner time discussions are quite interesting:)

I do believe in the historical Jesus, but I do not believe in the truth of revealed scripture, whether Old or New Testament. I would even go as far as to say that some of the more recent discoveries of documents from the era, like those of the Essenes, are more likely to be authentic as they were not subject to censure and modification by the early Christian Church.

I see no evidence of a God that intervenes directly in human affairs. If there was such a God, there was no better opportunity to step in than the 20th century with its unprecedented levels of human savagery.

HHobo

nagirrac wrote: »

I If the primary driver of mutation is adaptive rather than random, then you have to ask what is the reason for adaption. The stress of the environment is the obvious answer which likely explains why some species have a lot of jumping genes and others not so many, as different species encounter different environments. The point though is that the organism, and this works at the level of a microbe, reacts to its environment and changes itself. It is not random at all. We see this most clearly in human brain development which is not a slow process and is accelerating.

I am asking for a mechanism. Random mutation and natural selection is adaptive by virtue of the selective pressures.

What prompts a gene to jump from A to B. How does it know where to go to react to any particular enviornmental factor?

HHobo

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Yours is not a humble opinion. It's merely a silly insult. Do you actually speak to people like this in your day to day life? If you really think you are dealing with dishonest and irrational then stop posting here if you can't spare us the insults.

It is my opinion, honestly stated. Did you just call me a dishonest?

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Now to your question. If one presupposes that the NT is a reliable source of documents dealing with the life, death and resurrection of Christ then the accounts of his post-crucifixion existence are indeed evidence that he was divine. This is self-explanatory.

If one supposed that by fiat, one is not rational. This is self-evident.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Now for my question. If we had 500 eyewitness accounts of the appearance of Jesus post-crucifixion all dated to within a day of the events they describe would you then consider the claims of Christianity to be any more trustworthy?

No. We have thounds of living eye-witnesses to the miracles of Satya Sai Baba. You could go to India today and interview them yourself, if you so desired. They will talk about Sai Baba raising the dead etc. and how he is omniscient and omnipotent. I don't find these claims convincing. People have invented such fabrications since the dawn of humanity.

If you find the two thousand year old second-hand report, translated and copies numerous times, of 500 eyewitnesses compelling, you must surely find the first-hand testimony of thousands of living eye-witnesses extemely so. Do you or will you dismiss these claims out of hand?

nagirrac

HHobo wrote: »

I am asking for a mechanism. Random mutation and natural selection is adaptive by virtue of the selective pressures.

What prompts a gene to jump from A to B. How does it know where to go to react to any particular enviornmental factor?

I don't know the mechanism, but as the ENCODE and other projects unfold we will learn a lot more. Random mutation in my opinion and in the opinion of an increasing number of scientists does not account for the amount of variation needed for evolution and certainly not the type of evolution seen in humans over the past 10,000 years.

Think about it logically. The human DNA has to account for building an entire human. Genes code for proteins and everything else in the DNA determines how the 200+ different types of cells are built and interrelate in the human anatomy. The brain alone is almost incomprehensible in terms of how such a structure is built. We still have a way to go in understanding all of it.

Morbert

nagirrac wrote: »

I don't know the mechanism, but as the ENCODE and other projects unfold we will learn a lot more. Random mutation in my opinion and in the opinion of an increasing number of scientists does not account for the amount of variation needed for evolution and certainly not the type of evolution seen in humans over the past 10,000 years.

No. That is categorically untrue. There is not "an increasing number of scientists". The modern synthesis of evolutionary biology is affirmed by the vast vast vast majority of scientists, and its reputability continues to grow.

The idea that evolution is somehow in trouble as a scientific theory is parroted by creationist/ID think tanks and bears absolutely no relation to what is really happening in the scientific community.

nagirrac

Morbert wrote: »

No. That is categorically untrue. There is not "an increasing number of scientists". The modern synthesis of evolutionary biology is affirmed by the vast vast vast majority of scientists, and its reputability continues to grow.

The idea that evolution is somehow in trouble as a scientific theory is parroted by creationist/ID think tanks and bears absolutely no relation to what is really happening in the scientific community.

Sorry, have to disagree on a specific point. The Theory of Evolution is not in trouble nor has it ever really been in trouble. Everyone bar creationists who are a small loud minority accept that life evolved over billions of years to what we have today.

The mechanisms of how DNA has evolved and how DNA and regulatory processes function is ongoing science, in many ways we are in the early stages of understanding how organisms (even as relatively simple as a microbe) are built from DNA. In terms of the biochemistry involved, random mutation at the gene level leading to variation is the agreed mechanism of chemical evolution for many decades, long before the human genome was decoded.

The amount of data generated by the ENCODE project already is staggering and it will not be complete for at least another 5 years. If you think there is agreement among all scientists, go on Ewan Birney's blog and see some of the venomous comments from some in the science community. It appears some scientists are as attached to their 95% "junk" DNA beliefs as creationists are attached to the literal biblical account.

To understanding the human genome and any organism's genome, the key areas are understanding coding for small and large RNA segments to do with cell regulation (what is called non coding DNA in that it does not code for a specific protein) and transposable elements or jumping genes which lead to mutation. This is where the action will be in the next decade, as Dawkins Selfish Gene in my opinion will be consigned to the dustbin.

Morbert

nagirrac wrote: »

Sorry, have to disagree on a specific point. The Theory of Evolution is not in trouble nor has it ever really been in trouble. Everyone bar creationists who are a small loud minority accept that life evolved over billions of years to what we have today.

The mechanisms of how DNA has evolved and how DNA and regulatory processes function is ongoing science, in many ways we are in the early stages of understanding how organisms (even as relatively simple as a microbe) are built from DNA. In terms of the biochemistry involved, random mutation at the gene level leading to variation is the agreed mechanism of chemical evolution for many decades, long before the human genome was decoded.

The amount of data generated by the ENCODE project already is staggering and it will not be complete for at least another 5 years. If you think there is agreement among all scientists, go on Ewan Birney's blog and see some of the venomous comments from some in the science community. It appears some scientists are as attached to their 95% "junk" DNA beliefs as creationists are attached to the literal biblical account.

To understanding the human genome and any organism's genome, the key areas are understanding coding for small and large RNA segments to do with cell regulation (what is called non coding DNA in that it does not code for a specific protein) and transposable elements or jumping genes which lead to mutation. This is where the action will be in the next decade, as Dawkins Selfish Gene in my opinion will be consigned to the dustbin.

I specifically said the modern synthesis of evolutionary biology. Not simply evolution. Your post in no way challenges the modern synthesis of evolutionary biology. What, for example, do you mean specifically when you say "This is where the action will be in the next decade, as Dawkins Selfish Gene in my opinion will be consigned to the dustbin"? While ENCODE is certainly an interesting project, I can find no papers or studies implying Darwinism is not the correct paradigm.

nagirrac

Morbert wrote: »

I specifically said the modern synthesis of evolutionary biology. Not simply evolution. Your post in no way challenges the modern synthesis of evolutionary biology. What, for example, do you mean specifically when you say "This is where the action will be in the next decade, as Dawkins Selfish Gene in my opinion will be consigned to the dustbin"? While ENCODE is certainly an interesting project, I can find no papers or studies implying Darwinism is not the correct paradigm.

Just for clarity, Darwin knew nothing about the mechanisms of biochemistry so we are talking about neo-Darwinism. In some ways it is unfortunate for Darwin to be dragged into a debate of science he knew nothing about. Darwin was a zoologist and not even aware of Mendel's work nor were most scientists of the time, genetics as we know it started 50 years after Darwin, the physical structure of DNA was discovered 100 years after his time. The discovery in the 1970s that most DNA was not involved in making proteins led to the conclusion that most of the genome is junk. This is the basis for neo-Darwinism, random mutation is a messy process leading to a messy genome, ergo 95% of it is jumk. The more rational conclusion would have been the rest of this genome may have function, we just have not figured it out yet.

The current work on understanding the function of the entire human genome is some of the most exciting science in history. How does a genome make a full organism from a zygote? We don't know, but we will find out, and it won't be because the genome is full of junk I can assure you.

Pushtrak

nagirrac wrote: »

The discovery in the 1970s that most DNA was not involved in making proteins led to the conclusion that most of the genome is junk.

Don't make that mistake when talking to geneticists. The ones I've talked to make pains to stress it isn't junk DNA, it is non coding DNA. Very different things.

Also, to make the point that talking about evolution (as used in modern times) is neo-Darwinian is trivially true. It's true, but hardly even worth a passing mention.