No, that’s not how evolution works. But I’ll give you a chance.
Explain the evolutionary theory to me.
Doesn’t have to be long. Just sum it up.
…
…you’re as bad as any extremist religionist that you say you despise.
…last I checked, I wasn’t comdemning everyone I disagreed with to hell or instructing them to stap on bombs and blow up a bunch of innocent people.
Seriously, I can’t even think of a sarcastic comment that would do justice to what a ridiculous statement that is.
The opinion is Faith based
Evolution doesn’t happen by random chance. But nice try though.
Natural Selection, Genetic Drift, Gene Flow, Mutation, and Sexual Selection.
Where do creationists keep hearing that evolution is just “random chance”, that would be absurd, and it isn’t true. Evolution is in fact the opposite of chance, with one of its main mechanisms being natural selection.
“You mentioned sexual selection. Evolution can’t explain sexual reproduction at all. Simply put, once some organism was able to sexually reproduce, with whom did it have sex?” Sexual selection is a mechanism of evolution. And there are some species that reproduce sexually in certain conditions and asexually in others (yes, this has been observed). You can draw a conclusion from here, right? I’m in a hurry.
“I can’t even imagine how anyone could think those systems would have evolved.” Try taking an evolutionary biology class, and it will be easier to understand. Trust me, it all makes sense once you go in-depth.
“And evolution is random. Natural selection says that random mutations produce superior specimens that survive and reproduce, eventually producing more superior specimens through more random mutations.”
Evolution is reliant on chance, but chance doesn’t “drive” evolution. You just stated it right there. If a mutation produces a specimen with better fitness, then it will survive and reproduce more than an animal with less fitness. How is that random? It’s a consequence of their being better fit. For a longer explanation, all you have to do is look up “evolution random” or something to that effect on google. It is a very common misconception of evolution.
I was bit cryptic how could anyone believe it was all created by random chance? The answer is faith.
And for those saying it was not random at all, then what guided that first string of amino acids into a protein?
The origin of life has nothing to do with evolution trunthepaige. But we have actually replicated just what you are talking about in a lab. It only took a few weeks, they formed amino acids in just a couple weeks, all by themselves. In a flask, representative of the early earth’s atmosphere.
DarkReign16
Wow major ignorance here, I said protein, amino acids do absolutely nothing by themselves, you need something that can reproduce itself, without that evolution is irrelevant. Try again, go to your holy place and study harder, then tell me how proteins came about all by themselves. Start at the beginning not the middle
Yeah, I get it. 99% of scientists are wrong and you’re right.
Look, believe what you want. Believe there’s a pretty pink unicorn in your backyard who poops joy, for all I care (there’s as much evidence for that as for gods and goddesses). Not my problem. But I’ll lampoon who I will. If that happens to be people who ignore science and say God wiggled his nose and *poof* people arise out of nothing, I will do that.
Ummm…. wow. I don’t know who that guy is, but i can disprove evolution, and i’m only 14….. (what do they teach in these schools? Gosh….)
An_Atheist_View
I see he has nothing to say and has been reduced to name calling
trunthepaige, amino acids are the building blocks of proteins, and life. You don’t seem to understand evolution if you think that it has anything to do with how life itself got here, it only deals with what happens once it did get here, which is why it does not contradict God belief.
I only used that as an example that there is no one unified theory of evolution.
There isn’t a unified theory of creationism either.
Pwned.
“what guided that first string of amino acids into a protein?”
A condensation reaction.
ryc: If design implies a designer, who designed the designer? That’s where the whole arguement fails.
Also it fails with the whole consept of understanding what is and what isnt designed. Hume explained it a hundred years before Darwin. We cannot logically claim that something is designed unless we see it in an undesigned stage. For instance, if we see a wall made of bricks we wouldnt know if it’s a natural formation or not if we didnt see a pile of unorganized bricks beforehand. There’s nothing in our minds to click unto something whether or not something is designed or isnt.
Then, the notion of “design” itself. When you mention design, when you think of design, you think of the designer, AKA God. However, evolutionists are not unlike you in the way that they to awknowledge “design” and a “designer.” The only difference is that their design is the imperfect design of evolution (the hodge podge I mentioned in my comment on AAV’s xanga) and a designer which is evolution in that through random mutations that allowed for apperance of outward characteristics and through non-random climate favored one variation over another. There’s nothing “undesigned” in that only… a different form of design.
Now let’s talk about just “happened.” Well… when you consider it, everything just “happens.” If you drop a pencil it will fall, if you strike a keyboard key it will appear on the screen (unless you really got a crappy keyboard but crappy keyboard too just “happen”). The point is, is that everything happens when it happens by natural laws. Pencils fall because of gravity. Keys appear on the screen because of electrons and gravity and semi-conducting silicon chips. Evolution occurs because of biological forces (reproduction, relationship to species between each other), environmental forces (climate change, continental drift, natural disasters), and a slight, slight hint of randomness, which is mutations. Mutations are, unfortunately, random, personally I wouldnt mind having some order and laws in them as well, but these are just errors, errors DNA make in copying each other. It happens all the time in your body, though quite rarely (far better than say… my spelling/grammatical mistakes). But in the universe there are such things that occur on a “random” basis, mutations is one, and the Uncertainty Principle of quantum physics is another one I could think of. So if you consider the universe as just “happening,” evolution is no different from anything else. Also, you seem to draw an unfair generalization of evolutionists that they are all godless baffoons who just enjoy randomness and deny any designer. Well… that’s not true. Sure there are some and perhaps many of those who do, myself included, I dont think there’s a designer, there really doesnt seem a need for one. Though, I’m not an evolutionist. I think in general most evolutionary scientists just dont care about religion or a designer, while yes, there are some vocal evolutionist atheists, but likewise there are very religious people who are evolutionists who think that evolution is just another way God works through science. The Roman Catholic microbiologist Kenneth Miller from Brown University and the Russian Orthodox evolutionist Theodosius Dobzhansky are two good examples. Ken Miller wrote “Finding Darwin’s God” which is on my reading list which I hope to read in order to talk to my Christian friends of how evolution does not conflict with their views of a diety… or a designer. Then there’s Theodosius Dobzhansky who wrote the, rather famous, essay, “Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution” (he needed a better title, true), and he critiques Young Earth Creationists, as well as affirms evolution and his own theological beliefs, here’s a link to the essay: http://www.2think.org/dobzhansky.shtml
So lastly I return to your comment and address the issue of cells. Well first the basic cellular organism we are talking about here is a narrow band of DNA around a thin membrane in a cell that’s literally… nothing. That only has the ability to gather particle and reproduce. Flagellum and the internal organelles came later, billions of years later (the first evidence of single celled organisms dates back to 3.5 billion years while stuff began crawling out of the sea around 600 million years). True, even in those reduced stages the chances of a cell assembling at random is about the same as winning a lottery at a gas station and that very moment getting struck by lightning. So, there had to be simple cell parts before hand. The amino acids being formed in the lab (and yes it did happen) that simulated the conditions of early earth is one example. Then through a condensation reation they formed the first string of molecules, which probably was RNA. Sometime later an RNA particle during reproduction split into two and the first string of DNA was formed which was able to reproduce from then on (they had about a billion years to form so that wont be too difficult). Though is is a bit hypothetical and my knowledge on early formation of life is not up to date there are a number of good theories out there postulating that. We also have evidence in the oldest rocks we can find on the planet of proto-life chemicals that give credance to a chemical generation of life. Though really that criticism is quite insignificant when you consider that the theory of evolution does not deal with the origin of life. Rather it deals with it’s complexity and it’s “design.” It talks about the simple processes we see every day, variation, being favored for more kin. How that variation came about and how it spreads is very much a point of debate among scientists but that’s what really makes evolution good… it’s there to be criticised and corrected through the scientific process in order to narrow down the on the truth. Just because there is no single tested idea on how reproducing life originated (though there are good theories) does not invalidate genetics, drift, mutations, reproduction, competition, and anything else that comes afterward in the last 3.5 billion years of evolution.
ryc:
The mutation occured from pressure from their environment, it is only random in the sense of what organisms it occurs in, but the environment impacts it greatly, so it is more of a reactionary based mutation. Also, NS easily works to create macro evolution, sometimes huge parts of dna change with mutations, and mutatations can actually add information, contrary to most creationist websites lies. You don’t seem to understand much about selective pressures, or evolution at all, you basically only know of the straw man version that you read on creationist websites, from what it sounds like.
Also, you are very wrong about mutations again, most mutations are neutral, not harmful.
Evolution is true. (well, unless you’re reading the bible, I always wanted to talk to snakes while a dead man rose from the dead, who previously walked on water…but before he flew into the sky of course.)
One last thing I forgot to mention and that’s calling into question that Mt. Rushmore is a rock and we are biochemical matter. In the broadest sense it also invalidates your arguement because rocks and biochemical matter simply arent the same thing. It’s sort of like (one of the) flaws in the watchmaker arguement. A watch needs a watchmaker for the simple reason that watches dont reproduce!
How is it angry? I’m not pissed at all.
DarkReign16
I understand it so well and it is really so simple. Amino acids are nothing until the are arranged in a prefect order. Without that they can do nothing at all, other than degenerate. Amino acids can not evolved any more than any organic or inorganic compound can. They can’t reproduce.
No evolution does not disprove God, so I am not attacking Abiogenesis based on any religious need to do so. It is just such an unproven theory, full of thousands of wholes, but it is believed on faith by those that that do need to believe in it, for their own religious fulfillment.
And for prettyinpink42
A condensation reaction is a great way to make the ingredients for pantyhose and paint, but tell me, how are they doing trying to make the simplest of particles that can reproduce themselves? All this time and nothing to show for it. But the first cell must have been so simple or it could never have happed. Why can’t it be done again, if science knows so much about it?
“A watch needs a watchmaker for the simple reason that watches dont reproduce!”
That is one funny example of circular reasoning
50 and 49
Mom still looks younger than she is and dad still looks older
trunthepaige, all amino acids form peptide bonds with themselves via a condensation reaction. A long string of amino acids is a protein. That is undisputed. Besides,–well, instead of explaining this and wasting my time, why don’t you pick up a textbook and read about it yourself?
Scientists aren’t pretending that they know how to make life. I think it’s pretty ridiculous to think that they should have it “figured out” by now, considering that science is still being held back by the religious right.
prettyinpink42
Make one, a protein I real one not a chart on a piece of paper, one that can replicate itself, do it that would be real cool. I have read the textbooks it can’t be done. Some of us actually understood what we read
I never noticed the great deference being given religion by those in the scientific community. In other words that was pure bs on your part. If you had an argument you would have given it by now. Argumentum ad hominem is the last resort of the lost argument. Read another book and this time understand it
Good thing I know something about science, ma’am.
“Make one, a protein I real one not a chart on a piece of paper, one that can replicate itself, do it that would be real cool.” It’s pretty tough. Science has not made life, like I said. Biochemistry is making great strides with understanding the complex processes of the cell, however. And we do know that amino acids make bonds with other amino acids via condensation reactions. Again, that is undisputed, and any textbook will tell you this. Are you trying to say that until we can synthesize life, science is bullshit? Science isn’t perfect, science doesn’t know everything. No scientist ever claims to know everything. It seems that only anti-evolution types demand so.
“In other words that was pure bs on your part” You mean the last bit? Do you need to brush up on Christian history? Scientists used to be persecuted for saying anything that remotely contradicted the Church’s version of the bible. Even today people are trying to hinder research based on religious grounds, yet demanding answers for complex dilemmas. You can’t have it both ways.
“Read another book and this time understand it” I’m in the middle of biochemistry and organic chemistry courses currently. If you want to join me in an intellectual discussion based on scientific principles rather than cheap tactics I’ll be willing to have one. You should be the one to speak about reading books. This sentence- “I never noticed the great deference being given religion by those in the scientific community” -could use some work.
Paige wasn’t talking about deference in the distant past. Although the church used to be the supreme rulers of everything, that died quite a while ago. To say that those in the mainstream scientific community these days defer one bit to the religious is nuts.
Sorry, maybe I wasn’t as direct as I should have been. She implied that we had all this time to do scientific experimentation. When in fact for many years science was held back by the church, and I related it to the present time by the legislation put on research and introducing Intelligent Design into our classrooms by the religious right.
Science is so broad and there is always a complex number of experiments to be done and problems to be solved. Many research scientists do work for pharmecutical and drug companies (you know, the people you demand cancer and AIDS cures from). Biochemistry is also a booming field (though not a personal favorite of mine, it does provide lots of evidence for evolution, so I like that aspect of it). Biochemists are commissioned for the Human Genome project, etc. In order to try to simulate conditions, etc, we must know how and why everything in the cell works. No, we haven’t reached the pinnacle, we are making great strides in this field. There will always be questions to be answered, and problems to be solved. But it doesn’t mean that science isn’t accomplishing things or that evolution is in danger. Not at all. To make that argument is a huge fallacy.
To this day I find it so amusing that that reproducing proteins are treated as such a simple concept. Just treat it as a given and move on. All while no one has any real idea how it could happen. If its so simple then do it.
Comments (30)
No, that’s not how evolution works. But I’ll give you a chance.
Explain the evolutionary theory to me.
Doesn’t have to be long. Just sum it up.
…
…you’re as bad as any extremist religionist that you say you despise.
…last I checked, I wasn’t comdemning everyone I disagreed with to hell or instructing them to stap on bombs and blow up a bunch of innocent people.
Seriously, I can’t even think of a sarcastic comment that would do justice to what a ridiculous statement that is.
The opinion is Faith based
Evolution doesn’t happen by random chance. But nice try though.
Natural Selection, Genetic Drift, Gene Flow, Mutation, and Sexual Selection.
Where do creationists keep hearing that evolution is just “random chance”, that would be absurd, and it isn’t true. Evolution is in fact the opposite of chance, with one of its main mechanisms being natural selection.
“You mentioned sexual selection. Evolution can’t explain sexual reproduction at all. Simply put, once some organism was able to sexually reproduce, with whom did it have sex?”
Sexual selection is a mechanism of evolution. And there are some species that reproduce sexually in certain conditions and asexually in others (yes, this has been observed). You can draw a conclusion from here, right? I’m in a hurry.
“I can’t even imagine how anyone could think those systems would have evolved.”
Try taking an evolutionary biology class, and it will be easier to understand. Trust me, it all makes sense once you go in-depth.
“And evolution is random. Natural selection says that random mutations produce superior specimens that survive and reproduce, eventually producing more superior specimens through more random mutations.”
Evolution is reliant on chance, but chance doesn’t “drive” evolution. You just stated it right there. If a mutation produces a specimen with better fitness, then it will survive and reproduce more than an animal with less fitness. How is that random? It’s a consequence of their being better fit.
For a longer explanation, all you have to do is look up “evolution random” or something to that effect on google. It is a very common misconception of evolution.
This is a good explanation right here: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html
I was bit cryptic how could anyone believe it was all created by random chance? The answer is faith.
And for those saying it was not random at all, then what guided that first string of amino acids into a protein?
The origin of life has nothing to do with evolution trunthepaige. But we have actually replicated just what you are talking about in a lab. It only took a few weeks, they formed amino acids in just a couple weeks, all by themselves. In a flask, representative of the early earth’s atmosphere.
DarkReign16
Wow major ignorance here, I said protein, amino acids do absolutely nothing by themselves, you need something that can reproduce itself, without that evolution is irrelevant. Try again, go to your holy place and study harder, then tell me how proteins came about all by themselves. Start at the beginning not the middle
Yeah, I get it. 99% of scientists are wrong and you’re right.
Look, believe what you want. Believe there’s a pretty pink unicorn in your backyard who poops joy, for all I care (there’s as much evidence for that as for gods and goddesses). Not my problem. But I’ll lampoon who I will. If that happens to be people who ignore science and say God wiggled his nose and *poof* people arise out of nothing, I will do that.
Ummm…. wow. I don’t know who that guy is, but i can disprove evolution, and i’m only 14….. (what do they teach in these schools? Gosh….)
An_Atheist_View
I see he has nothing to say and has been reduced to name calling
trunthepaige, amino acids are the building blocks of proteins, and life. You don’t seem to understand evolution if you think that it has anything to do with how life itself got here, it only deals with what happens once it did get here, which is why it does not contradict God belief.
I only used that as an example that there is no one unified theory of evolution.
There isn’t a unified theory of creationism either.
Pwned.
“what guided that first string of amino acids into a protein?”
A condensation reaction.
ryc: If design implies a designer, who designed the designer? That’s where the whole arguement fails.
Also it fails with the whole consept of understanding what is and what isnt designed. Hume explained it a hundred years before Darwin. We cannot logically claim that something is designed unless we see it in an undesigned stage. For instance, if we see a wall made of bricks we wouldnt know if it’s a natural formation or not if we didnt see a pile of unorganized bricks beforehand. There’s nothing in our minds to click unto something whether or not something is designed or isnt.
Then, the notion of “design” itself. When you mention design, when you think of design, you think of the designer, AKA God. However, evolutionists are not unlike you in the way that they to awknowledge “design” and a “designer.” The only difference is that their design is the imperfect design of evolution (the hodge podge I mentioned in my comment on AAV’s xanga) and a designer which is evolution in that through random mutations that allowed for apperance of outward characteristics and through non-random climate favored one variation over another. There’s nothing “undesigned” in that only… a different form of design.
Now let’s talk about just “happened.” Well… when you consider it, everything just “happens.” If you drop a pencil it will fall, if you strike a keyboard key it will appear on the screen (unless you really got a crappy keyboard but crappy keyboard too just “happen”). The point is, is that everything happens when it happens by natural laws. Pencils fall because of gravity. Keys appear on the screen because of electrons and gravity and semi-conducting silicon chips. Evolution occurs because of biological forces (reproduction, relationship to species between each other), environmental forces (climate change, continental drift, natural disasters), and a slight, slight hint of randomness, which is mutations. Mutations are, unfortunately, random, personally I wouldnt mind having some order and laws in them as well, but these are just errors, errors DNA make in copying each other. It happens all the time in your body, though quite rarely (far better than say… my spelling/grammatical mistakes). But in the universe there are such things that occur on a “random” basis, mutations is one, and the Uncertainty Principle of quantum physics is another one I could think of. So if you consider the universe as just “happening,” evolution is no different from anything else. Also, you seem to draw an unfair generalization of evolutionists that they are all godless baffoons who just enjoy randomness and deny any designer. Well… that’s not true. Sure there are some and perhaps many of those who do, myself included, I dont think there’s a designer, there really doesnt seem a need for one. Though, I’m not an evolutionist. I think in general most evolutionary scientists just dont care about religion or a designer, while yes, there are some vocal evolutionist atheists, but likewise there are very religious people who are evolutionists who think that evolution is just another way God works through science. The Roman Catholic microbiologist Kenneth Miller from Brown University and the Russian Orthodox evolutionist Theodosius Dobzhansky are two good examples. Ken Miller wrote “Finding Darwin’s God” which is on my reading list which I hope to read in order to talk to my Christian friends of how evolution does not conflict with their views of a diety… or a designer. Then there’s Theodosius Dobzhansky who wrote the, rather famous, essay, “Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution” (he needed a better title, true), and he critiques Young Earth Creationists, as well as affirms evolution and his own theological beliefs, here’s a link to the essay: http://www.2think.org/dobzhansky.shtml
So lastly I return to your comment and address the issue of cells. Well first the basic cellular organism we are talking about here is a narrow band of DNA around a thin membrane in a cell that’s literally… nothing. That only has the ability to gather particle and reproduce. Flagellum and the internal organelles came later, billions of years later (the first evidence of single celled organisms dates back to 3.5 billion years while stuff began crawling out of the sea around 600 million years). True, even in those reduced stages the chances of a cell assembling at random is about the same as winning a lottery at a gas station and that very moment getting struck by lightning. So, there had to be simple cell parts before hand. The amino acids being formed in the lab (and yes it did happen) that simulated the conditions of early earth is one example. Then through a condensation reation they formed the first string of molecules, which probably was RNA. Sometime later an RNA particle during reproduction split into two and the first string of DNA was formed which was able to reproduce from then on (they had about a billion years to form so that wont be too difficult). Though is is a bit hypothetical and my knowledge on early formation of life is not up to date there are a number of good theories out there postulating that. We also have evidence in the oldest rocks we can find on the planet of proto-life chemicals that give credance to a chemical generation of life. Though really that criticism is quite insignificant when you consider that the theory of evolution does not deal with the origin of life. Rather it deals with it’s complexity and it’s “design.” It talks about the simple processes we see every day, variation, being favored for more kin. How that variation came about and how it spreads is very much a point of debate among scientists but that’s what really makes evolution good… it’s there to be criticised and corrected through the scientific process in order to narrow down the on the truth. Just because there is no single tested idea on how reproducing life originated (though there are good theories) does not invalidate genetics, drift, mutations, reproduction, competition, and anything else that comes afterward in the last 3.5 billion years of evolution.
ryc:
The mutation occured from pressure from their environment, it is only random in the sense of what organisms it occurs in, but the environment impacts it greatly, so it is more of a reactionary based mutation. Also, NS easily works to create macro evolution, sometimes huge parts of dna change with mutations, and mutatations can actually add information, contrary to most creationist websites lies. You don’t seem to understand much about selective pressures, or evolution at all, you basically only know of the straw man version that you read on creationist websites, from what it sounds like.
Also, you are very wrong about mutations again, most mutations are neutral, not harmful.
Evolution is true. (well, unless you’re reading the bible, I always wanted to talk to snakes while a dead man rose from the dead, who previously walked on water…but before he flew into the sky of course.)
One last thing I forgot to mention and that’s calling into question that Mt. Rushmore is a rock and we are biochemical matter. In the broadest sense it also invalidates your arguement because rocks and biochemical matter simply arent the same thing. It’s sort of like (one of the) flaws in the watchmaker arguement. A watch needs a watchmaker for the simple reason that watches dont reproduce!
How is it angry? I’m not pissed at all.
DarkReign16
I understand it so well and it is really so simple. Amino acids are nothing until the are arranged in a prefect order. Without that they can do nothing at all, other than degenerate. Amino acids can not evolved any more than any organic or inorganic compound can. They can’t reproduce.
No evolution does not disprove God, so I am not attacking Abiogenesis based on any religious need to do so. It is just such an unproven theory, full of thousands of wholes, but it is believed on faith by those that that do need to believe in it, for their own religious fulfillment.
And for prettyinpink42
A condensation reaction is a great way to make the ingredients for pantyhose and paint, but tell me, how are they doing trying to make the simplest of particles that can reproduce themselves? All this time and nothing to show for it. But the first cell must have been so simple or it could never have happed. Why can’t it be done again, if science knows so much about it?
“A watch needs a watchmaker for the simple reason that watches dont reproduce!”
That is one funny example of circular reasoning
50 and 49
Mom still looks younger than she is and dad still looks older
trunthepaige, all amino acids form peptide bonds with themselves via a condensation reaction. A long string of amino acids is a protein. That is undisputed. Besides,–well, instead of explaining this and wasting my time, why don’t you pick up a textbook and read about it yourself?
Scientists aren’t pretending that they know how to make life. I think it’s pretty ridiculous to think that they should have it “figured out” by now, considering that science is still being held back by the religious right.
prettyinpink42
Make one, a protein I real one not a chart on a piece of paper, one that can replicate itself, do it that would be real cool. I have read the textbooks it can’t be done. Some of us actually understood what we read
I never noticed the great deference being given religion by those in the scientific community. In other words that was pure bs on your part. If you had an argument you would have given it by now. Argumentum ad hominem is the last resort of the lost argument. Read another book and this time understand it
Good thing I know something about science, ma’am.
“Make one, a protein I real one not a chart on a piece of paper, one that can replicate itself, do it that would be real cool.”
It’s pretty tough. Science has not made life, like I said. Biochemistry is making great strides with understanding the complex processes of the cell, however. And we do know that amino acids make bonds with other amino acids via condensation reactions. Again, that is undisputed, and any textbook will tell you this. Are you trying to say that until we can synthesize life, science is bullshit? Science isn’t perfect, science doesn’t know everything. No scientist ever claims to know everything. It seems that only anti-evolution types demand so.
“In other words that was pure bs on your part”
You mean the last bit? Do you need to brush up on Christian history? Scientists used to be persecuted for saying anything that remotely contradicted the Church’s version of the bible. Even today people are trying to hinder research based on religious grounds, yet demanding answers for complex dilemmas. You can’t have it both ways.
“Read another book and this time understand it”
I’m in the middle of biochemistry and organic chemistry courses currently. If you want to join me in an intellectual discussion based on scientific principles rather than cheap tactics I’ll be willing to have one. You should be the one to speak about reading books. This sentence- “I never noticed the great deference being given religion by those in the scientific community” -could use some work.
Paige wasn’t talking about deference in the distant past. Although the church used to be the supreme rulers of everything, that died quite a while ago. To say that those in the mainstream scientific community these days defer one bit to the religious is nuts.
Sorry, maybe I wasn’t as direct as I should have been.
She implied that we had all this time to do scientific experimentation. When in fact for many years science was held back by the church, and I related it to the present time by the legislation put on research and introducing Intelligent Design into our classrooms by the religious right.
Science is so broad and there is always a complex number of experiments to be done and problems to be solved. Many research scientists do work for pharmecutical and drug companies (you know, the people you demand cancer and AIDS cures from). Biochemistry is also a booming field (though not a personal favorite of mine, it does provide lots of evidence for evolution, so I like that aspect of it). Biochemists are commissioned for the Human Genome project, etc. In order to try to simulate conditions, etc, we must know how and why everything in the cell works. No, we haven’t reached the pinnacle, we are making great strides in this field. There will always be questions to be answered, and problems to be solved. But it doesn’t mean that science isn’t accomplishing things or that evolution is in danger. Not at all. To make that argument is a huge fallacy.
To this day I find it so amusing that that reproducing proteins are treated as such a simple concept. Just treat it as a given and move on. All while no one has any real idea how it could happen. If its so simple then do it.