Possible key human evolution genes identified

[Extra Stout]

Speaking of semantics and, to be precise, I actually believe you'll find it is the glorification of God that is the central focus of God's plan.

See post #472, in which I precisely agree with you.

[Phenomanul]

What Romans 1 there is saying is that knowledge of God is self-evident from creation, yet in spite of that, men choose not to glorify God (i.e., not to acknowledge Him), and not to be thankful towards Him, or to reduce Him into a human idol.

How does RG's suggestion either:
1) Fail to acknowledge God
2) Fail to show thankfulness to God
3) Reduce him to a human idol?

Ding ding ding....

Random Chance not equal to GOD...

Not even his only GOD referencing comment can get him out of that one...

I believe GOD may have got the ball rolling... but had nothing to do with anything since that time.

Again from my previous post...

The theory of natural selection requires progressive development at every successive step. However, random evolution and mutations cannot themselves possess intelligent understanding and planning.

It seems that evolutionary proponents (not necessarily you), whether consciously or not, have regarded the blind and inanimate forces of the environment, or nature, as having the ability to create and think.

In other words, despite their denial of the possibility that intelligent design may be a valid theory, the theory of evolution actually requires an intelligent, purposeful mind directing the process at every one of the supposed millions of imaginary intermediate stages as if these incremental changes were following a plan to produce a new life form.

If GOD did guide evolution across a multi-billion year old model... He inherently guided it along several steps of the way... He Designed, He Created, He Diversified.... that implies participation -- For us to see and realize that then implies 'acknowledgement'. RG's stance doesn't.

And I still don't think RG is trying to have a scientific discussion with you. All of his arguments are of the form, "If scientists prove X is true about the universe, what does that do to your faith?" That is a philosophical/theological question.

But only to try and get me to admit was that GOD was possibly not involved in the creation of Life, biological molecules, etc...

Not to mention his math is still wrong, because it excludes limitations he has been unwilling to factor in (not that anyone could), and because he factors in assumptions that are highly speculative and unprovable (i.e. the existence of infinite universes).

[LaMarcus Bryant]

but god is a proven scientific fact!

[Extra Stout]

Not even his only GOD referencing comment can get him out of that one...

RG still does need to clarify his position there. Based upon his reticence, I suppose we should assume he is a Deist until he states otherwise.

[Yonivore]

See post #472, in which I precisely agree with you.

Oh, Gosh! I quit following this thread with anything more than faint interest so long ago.

472? Wow! Now that's stamina.

[temujin]

Take 400mg of genetics.
Pour in some Physics (I didn't know F.Collins was writing astrophysiscs books, too! He better focus on his basics, considering the latest stuff he's produced).

Stir for 10/12 pages, occasionally adding some biochemistry and plain chemistry.

On the side, chop up a hefty amount of maths and statistics (it always helps).

Put evething in the owen for 4 additional pages, while showing a 3D structure, and adding some prions from time to time.

Finally serve with a side dish of paleonthology, zoology, evolutionary genetics (back to the original).

It's all good, although QUITE heavy, except the wine.

The 4000BC Chateau des Bu tons just kills the receipt.
A tragedy.


Better drink it alone.

.

[RandomGuy]

RG needs to realize however, that not everything revolves around naturalistic explanations. He has attempted to use statistical probability, as a way of proving that the creation of Life by random chance would be possible, but can't provide any mechanisms; only assumptions that having infinite universes, infinite time, imaginary building blocks proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that his claim is plausible. He then proceeds to question why I don't buy his numbers and insists on repeating questions that have already been answered only for the sake of pushing his points. When I force him to question the validity of using statistics as a means of modeling kinetically driven chemical reactions he digresses and suggests that Life came from Mars, or brings up my viewpoint on Islam : All the while he maintains that his probabilities are high...

They have found very very simple self-replicating molecules.

The "God in the gaps" bit won't hold up forever.

Sooner or later they will discover the most likely way that we went from very simple, naturally occuring molecules with the ability to self replicate given a soup of components to single-celled organisms.

The research linked above is yet another step in that direction.

Once it is shown that such simple chemistry can lead to self replication, the whole "it's just too impossible for life to begin with simple organic chemistry and progress to complex organisms" will cease having any real validity for any but the most blind zealots.

By the way, I never said the "probabilities are high" of such reactions. Individually, such things are like winning a lottery with very very long odds.

The distinction you fail to grasp or simply ignore, I can't tell which, is that if you play this long-odds lottery times in enough places the odds of winning do actually approach one.

All it takes is that one winning ticket, and we are the result.

[Fabbs]

[Blake]

The atheist nightmare.....the banana



I lol every time