About Darwinism .... .

[hadeka]

I will say my opinion about the evolution theory of Darwin (Darwinism) and i realy would like to recieve comments about my opinion.

When Darwin started presenting his new theory, many people converted to Atheism, and untill now, this theory is a way of converting to Atheism. Why?!

Darwin is talking about the evolution of all living organism and maybe non-living organism too, not only human.
From another side, the most famous and active theory about the construction of the universe is the Big Bang theory. So the evolution theory can be mixed with the Big Bang theory.What do i mean?

(I am not talking in strange things, i am just talking about the evolution theory.)

After the explosion of Big Bang, many things was formed, such as: planets, stars and meteors, etc..., and living organism such as: plants and other beings.
From what i understood, this theory is talking about that, for example: The human being was an ant for example and then became bigger, a mouse for example and then a monkey, and then a human.
These are examples but all i want to say, that according to the evolution theory, human being (specifically) was a very small being and then became bigger and bigger untill he became human, untill now.
I will say my opinion about the evolution of human being (specifically).
According to modern sciences and specifically, the genetics engeneering and the studies of the DNA, the DNA (as we all know) is near copying genetic characteristics of someone to another. And the results of near copying these genetic characteristics, can not be transformed to a genetic characteristics of another being, even in a long period of time.
So what i am saying is, that because of the existance of the DNA, the genetic characteristics of a monkey for example, can not make the grand sons of that monkey, a human.
Because, each being and each individual has his own DNA. So there is no evoltuion in the forms of that DNA.

Another point is: What is the difference between human being and any other living organism?
As we all know, that all other living organism are living by nature, they dont have a free will, they dont have a mind.
But human being is the only being that own a free will because it is the only being that own a mind in the brain which is a way to think and way to realise.
What is the proof that human being is the only being that ownes a mind and ways to think?
If we looked to our universe, we will observe that, it is only human who is destrying everything, or just destroying the life circle, that means that human has a free will, a free will which came from his mind. Without the human, the life circle will continue by nature.
So the question here is, where did this mind came from? and why it is only in the human brain?
If we said that human always have this mind, even when he was a monkey or looks like a monkey (according to Darwinism), so we must not call it as a monkey, we must call it as a human too!
and if the mind came suddenly to the human, so it is impossible to believe that the mind came by nature, because if it is, so it might came to other living organism, but it never happen.
So, having this mind and this free will are (as i think) very big proof against Darwinism and that there is a GOD who created that universe and who gave us this free will used by mind.

So, i dont think that i said anything new, but all i wanted to say is, that the Genetic engeneering science of all living organism and the free will and mind of human are a good proof against Darwinism and also against Atheism.

I would like to know comments about my opinion.

and sorry for my bad english.

I hope you can get what i mean and what i want to say.

Thank you

Hadeka.

 

[KBC1963]

Hi hadeka,

In response to your post let me first say that Darwin himself said that evolution was false before he died so not even the author of the theory believed it. As for the theory itself there has been no transitional species ever found, (transitional means a species inbetween what the theory says we were and what we are now) Almost all evidences used for evolution are based totally on suposition on things dug up but in any event there is no hard evidence,
Now about the DNA thing, many people think that genes can be traded across species but as you have stated it has been proven impossible, we can only trade genes among a species type.
Free will is definitly a domain of humans alone and if there was any truth in evolution then there would have been other species exibiting the same traits as part of the theory depends on everything living came from one begining species.
As for atheism it is nothing more than a belief in itself, all humans have faith in something otherwise we couldnt move, (our first faith is believing our sensory information, sight sound etc...) as soon as a person states that he believes that life began as anything he shows his faith in a belief that he has approved for himself so if a person says hes an athiest he is merely stating that he hasnt chosen a belief in a higher intelligent power
but he most likely believes in chance as the beginning of life (evolution)
so in most cases the athiest chooses not to believe in GOD but rather believes in what another man postulates or theorizes so in the end the athiest is as guilty of having faith and beliefs as all the rest of us they however just dont think as big as we do

 

[Yerda]

Alrighty, I'm not sure I completely understood the topic to begin with but the first reply makes it clearer, thanks.

To begin with, yes, it is allegedly true that Darwin did not believe his own theories (I have no idea myself but have heard people comment on this many times). Most scientists do not believe Darwin was 100% correct either so around 1950s the New Synthesis was proposed as the means for species to evolve. This is also an incomplete picture and many fields of biology are attempting to unite their hypotheses and develop a stronger theory.

Darwin proposed natural selection as the means of change. He was not incorrect only incomplete. It could not be argued that a bright orange arctic fox would not stand a lower chance of survival in the snow could it? It would not pass on it's genes and the likelyhood of more bright orange arctic foxes decreases. This however doesn't explain the whole story behind changing gentic sequences. Doesn't quite discredit the idea of evolution though does it?

I think you may also be correct in saying that no transitional species has ever been found, I would have to look into it. I will however say that the similarities between different species is startling, have you ever looked a chimpanzee in the face?

Where, however, did you find information that genes cannot be introduced into new species? Only a few months ago I introduced a gene from a jellyfish into a culture of E. coli making them glow a bright green under ultraviolet light. How do bacteria produce human insulin? If genes could not be introduced from one species into another then viruses would not exist as this is precisely how they work.

As for free will, maybe ask Mr. Spinkles as he started a brilliant thread on the subject.

 

[KBC1963]

Where, however, did you find information that genes cannot be introduced into new species? Only a few months ago I introduced a gene from a jellyfish into a culture of E. coli

I read several reports where they tryed to get the sperm of one species type to join with the egg of another species type and in all cases it failed, that is meant in a natural sense, to splice genes is a different thing in itself and its boundaries are not yet set. could the parts of one animal type be spliced into another species such as gills of fish into humans like aquaman? it is highly doubtfull.
Having many similarities among various species can be looked at in a few ways, it could mean common ancestry if it had evidence to back it up such as transitional links, but it also points to a maker that had common building blocks for his creations, just as a carpenter can build a chair from wood so can he build a building as well. our own car industries attest to the diversity possible using only a few foundational mechanical principals (internal combustion)

It could not be argued that a bright orange arctic fox would not stand a lower chance of survival in the snow could it? It would not pass on it's genes and the likelyhood of more bright orange arctic foxes decreases

Heck we can argue about anything hehehe, I do agree that a specific trait can be held in check by environment but that doesnt change the species in question, as long as there is a fox there is always the possibility that orange can still some out so the better way to look at that thought is this; we have many traits that are encouraged or discouraged by enviroment and as a species moves around those environmental influences will change which will allow a trait to come to more use as the influence becomes more common but the species will always have all the traits as a possibility. keep in mind that that thought is based on the common belief that all diversity of life originated from one common ancestor, whoever that one was must have had a suitcase full of spare dna that it would never use but rather would pass it down to a species that was as yet unformed, it is absolutely amazing how far into the future that original ancestor was able to see geneticly... from fish eyes to eagle eyes, from deepest sea to birds.
Now here is a good question- is it possible for our own human dna sequences to be resequenced to form a new species? in other words do we have in our genetic structure the ability to grow fish eyes and gills and live in the sea?

 

[Yerda]

KBC1963, you said "I read several reports where they tryed to get the sperm of one species type to join with the egg of another species type and in all cases it failed". This is not recombinant DNA technology, genetic engineering or whatever, I don't know why anyone would try this. It is not hard to understand that gorillas and antelope cannot mate, that is not in dispute. If that is what the topic is about I have misunderstood and I apologise.

"could the parts of one animal type be spliced into another species such as gills of fish into humans like aquaman?" Well yes, there have been instances where human organs have been grown on the backs of mice. Gills onto humans would probably be a bit more difficult.

If you do agree that specific traits are encouraged by the environment, then consider this - the environment is constantly changing. So then must be the organisms which inhabit it. And not only the colour of the environment changes, the content, the composition and the predators and prey. Over the course of billions of years selective pressure could (it may be argued) produce the huge variation of organisms present on the earth.
You have yourself argued for natural selection by claiming that the environment can change a species so I'm not really sure about your stance on this topic.

I would like to know where you got the idea about spare DNA and the ability to see into the future. Evolution is not believed to be conscious and mutation and change occurs by great accident. If a genetic mutation is not beneficient the organism dies and the mutation is not passed on. If however it presents an advantage to the organism in then it is more likely the said organism will survive and replicate passing on its genes. The offspring also inherit the advantage (depending on the laws of chance and the species in question).

I'm sorry to go on, thanks for making an interesting debate out of this topic.

P.s why don't you post your question as a new topic in the Off Topic section.

 

[KBC1963]

On the genetic statement I made I was refering to to a paper that I read where they took the genes from 1 egg of one specie and exchanged it with genes from another and then tryed to see if they could then combine in that manner.

natural selection is adaptation and the gist of what i'm saying there is that our genetic structure will never adapt beyond what we already have as a possibility as an example you will never grow wings no matter what the environmental stimulus is your hair will never be any other color than is possible in your genes such as lets say green. to use a simpler anology wood will never become iron rather it can be any type of wood in existence by adaptation.

The spare dna idea is mine alone, I always wonder how we could have such a variety of possible things such as hair color for instance, if you believe in evolution you would have to believe that whenevr a certain color was desired your genes would evolve to include that color among those possibilities already present however if you believe in GOD then all of our possibilities were programmed in at our inception. (that is my belief) so I have been checking to see if anyone can determine whether your genes can evolve or come up with a possibility not inherent in them to begin with.