Any religious people watch the Wonders of Life last night?

Jason2, how would you describe your faith, is it like an extra 'sense' or more like an emotion, akin to 'love', or both or neither of those but simply something indescribable and undefinable? Do you believe that faith exists, in the strictest definition of the word? Is it simply a mindset, an attitude, a philosophical position, a belief in a concept, that you have, or what? I'm trying to understand...

Do you think it's possible to love something but not believe in it? Do you enjoy Christian/religious music? I do. Times of Grace and Celldweller are two of my favourite bands, yet I'm certain I hold significantly opposing viewpoints to the artists in question. I even like Zao, who have strongly Christian lyrics throughout almost all their music. Just because I like those things, doesn't mean I believe in what the meaning or intention is behind those words, if indeed any meaning can be inferred correctly from them...

Hypothetically, if you were lying about believing in this stuff, would you feel ashamed, embarrassed or even guilty about admitting it, due to a social pressure from those that surround you? Do you have the freedom to be honest, or do you feel there is maybe some degree of pressure, however small, from your community or the people you associate with that restricts that freedom to be 100% honest? To what extent would you say that culture impacts on belief?

I've got to admit I went to church and took it relatively seriously when I was a kid too... I never really believed but I would try and convince myself that I did because I felt that it was the right thing to do :)
 
Last edited:
Spook187 said:
I have just started a indroduction course in Astrobiology this week, and a question came up which states some things.

Origins of life.

1:Some Supernatural or divine intervention.

2:Originated elsewhere.

3:Originated Earth.

Please explain jesus heads what you think of that question.
Click to expand...

What's the question, explicitly? Pick which one you think most likely and why? What do you think of the question? (I think I might know the answer given the fact that you're on an astrobiology course)

2 and 3 wouldn't make much difference, the same chemistry and physics would need to underlie, given the anthropic principle
1 is fantasy
 
I would say 2 and 3 are the correct answers there. Its kind of a trick question as earth is formed from more than one planet, so the "elsewhere" could be an answer. Especially considering most our oceans came from space
 
Robosapien said:
Whilst the cartoons are obviously just retarded, could you elaborate on what you mean when you say they're not random processes?
Click to expand...

Take the following example:

RANDOM mutation causes animal's legs/ears/brain to be slightly longer/bigger
animal can run faster/hear better/think more
more often than not the animal survives longer than animals without the mutation and reproduces, passing these traits on to its offspring. (NOT RANDOM)
If there is one successful mutation every 100 years in the entire earth population then after 1 million years (not long compared to Earth's history) then you have 10,000 evolutionary changes making something which could look entirely different to the starting animal.
 
Hamish said:
Take the following example:

RANDOM mutation causes animal's legs/ears/brain to be slightly longer/bigger
animal can run faster/hear better/think more
more often than not the animal survives longer than animals without the mutation and reproduces, passing these traits on to its offspring. (NOT RANDOM)
If there is one successful mutation every 100 years in the entire earth population then after 1 million years (not long compared to Earth's history) then you have 10,000 evolutionary changes making something which could look entirely different to the starting animal.
Click to expand...

What would the probability be for a given mutation being successful? Would you expect to see many more unsuccessful mutations than successful? If there are many errors then I'd assume that the successful mutations can only be preserved if the animal survives all the erroneous mutations?
 
Spook187 said:
I have just started a indroduction course in Astrobiology this week, and a question came up which states some things.

Origins of life.

1:Some Supernatural or divine intervention.

2:Originated elsewhere.

3:Originated Earth.

Please explain jesus heads what you think of that question.
Click to expand...

2&3 are similar but not the same. For instance if like originated in both 2&3 then it shows that life can begin in presumably different ways or conditions.

If only two is true and there was a single source of life or if life came to be on earth and not on earth then life is clearly more common than one might think.

Are we alien or native to this rock
 
ringo747 said:
What would the probability be for a given mutation being successful? Would you expect to see many more unsuccessful mutations than successful? If there are many errors then I'd assume that the successful mutations can only be preserved if the animal survives all the erroneous mutations?
Click to expand...

I'd expect the majority of mutations to have no observable effect whatsoever. Your DNA is constantly under attack and being damaged/repaired, occasionally the strand will miss-fold for reasons unknown. Have you grown wings or sonar vision?

These are changes on the minute scale, over the course of hundreds of thousands of years.

A genetic abnormality which increases muscle mass in the body of a predator may give it an edge in hunting/competing to breed. The same increase in muscle mass may be a disadvantage to a creature that lives, say, in an extreme environment like a desert, where food and water is scarce.

Did any of our Creationists watch the Wonders of Life last night? There were an interesting few sections which disprove *some ones* claims that these shows promote evolutionary science as a do-it-all solution which knows everything.
 
d_brennen said:
I'd expect the majority of mutations to have no observable effect whatsoever. Your DNA is constantly under attack and being damaged/repaired, occasionally the strand will miss-fold for reasons unknown. Have you grown wings or sonar vision?

These are changes on the minute scale, over the course of hundreds of thousands of years.
Click to expand...

You see this is what I don't get. If the majority of mutations have no observable effect then how does natural selection preserve them? I thought natural selection can only preserve something once a positive benefit has been realised?
 
ringo747 said:
You see this is what I don't get. If the majority of mutations have no observable effect then how does natural selection preserve them? I thought natural selection can only preserve something once a positive benefit has been realised?
Click to expand...

No. natural selection preserves everything that is passed on to the next generation. This requires a next generation to be propagated. So even if something has no discernable effect, it is passed on. Over time, said effect may cause a benefit, which helps to further propagate generations.

You keep inferring intelligent design into evolution. If you stop doing that, you may understand.
 
Even beneficial changes may be bred out due to the way sexual reproduction works. Genetic traits can become latent, giving rise to a higher probability of them reappearing. Two creatures with the same latent mutation have a higher probability of producing offspring with said trait, ad infinitum. I don't think you realise how long this process takes or how many generations are involved.

The world ISN'T 6000 odd years old, this is something I think anyone with a brain can realise without giving up on their God
 
Shayper said:
No. natural selection preserves everything that is passed on to the next generation. This requires a next generation to be propagated. So even if something has no discernable effect, it is passed on. Over time, said effect may cause a benefit, which helps to further propagate generations.

You keep inferring intelligent design into evolution. If you stop doing that, you may understand.
Click to expand...

The example has been given of making an animal run faster. For example if a cheetah is being chased by other animals, it makes sense that the faster ones will be more likely to survive. Despite these refinements a cheetah will always be a cheetah. How can a new creation come into existence based on this method?

Me inferring intelligent design? I haven't mentioned the concept anywhere actually. Just on that point, do you block the possibility totally?

d_brennen said:
Even beneficial changes may be bred out due to the way sexual reproduction works. Genetic traits can become latent, giving rise to a higher probability of them reappearing. Two creatures with the same latent mutation have a higher probability of producing offspring with said trait, ad infinitum. I don't think you realise how long this process takes or how many generations are involved.

The world ISN'T 6000 odd years old, this is something I think anyone with a brain can realise without giving up on their God
Click to expand...

I understand very well that this takes a long time and have no problem with the improvement/tweaking of species to suit their environment etc.

Who claims the world is 6000 years old? Certainly not me.
 
A cheetah will always be a cheetah. In 500 million years, if they still exist, I may not look anything like a cheetah or even a member of the cat family.

I didn't say you thought the world was 6000 years old ringo, just you seem to want to see radical changes, one species morphing into another over night, just to prove what can be observed already
 
ringo747 said:
Which part exactly?
Click to expand...

You have understood the first part of it, that slightly faster cheetahs will survive.

Well, what about cheetah branches that over time develop more ways to be faster? And these ones survive for being faster? Wing-like appendages grown from the shoulder blades would be a great way of keeping balance with speed, as well as enabling them to turn faster. If, over many generations, these are slowly developed, would you still call the animal a cheetah?

I would love to see this animal :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom