AgnosticWeb.com

Back to the forum index

Linear

A new math formula demonstrating the complexity of biologic systems and the interdependence of the parts:-{"For both the bacteria and the computing systems, take the square root of the interdependent components and you can find the number of key components that are so important that not a single other piece can get by without them."- Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2013-03-similarities-genetic-codes.html#jCp

2450 views

Another paper using computer simulations to show that some things are irreducibly complex, as proposed by Behe:-http://bio-complexity.org/ojs/index.php/main/article/view/BIO-C.2014.1/BIO-C.2014.1

2375 views

Computer simulations to deny the existence of irreducible complexity fail under analysis:-http://bio-complexity.org/ojs/index.php/main/article/viewFile/BIO-C.2014.1/BIO-C.2014.1-"This paper has investigated a number of published models
that claim to demonstrate the evolution of irreducibly complex
systems, and found that these models have failed on a number
of fronts. Two of the models fail to satisfy the knockout test, in
that they maintain functionality after parts have been removed.
Almost all of the models use parts that are trivially complex, on
the order of an amino acid rather than a protein in complexity.
None of the models attempt to show why the mechanism used
necessarily requires its parts. Finally, some of the models have
been carefully designed to evolve. Thus, none of the models
presented have demonstrated the ability to evolve an irreducibly
complex system.
"In contrast, we do find irreducible complexity in the designed
sensory system of the Tierran ancestor. This system is an example
of what kind of system it would be necessary to evolve in
order to falsify the claim that irreducible complexity is difficult
to evolve. It has not been proven that the sensory system cannot
evolve, but neither has it been shown that the sensory system
can evolve. The prediction of irreducible complexity in computer
simulations is that such systems will not generally evolve
apart from intelligent aid.
"The prediction that irreducibly complex systems cannot
evolve by a Darwinian process has thus far stood the test in
computer models. Some have claimed to falsify the prediction,
but have failed to follow the definition of irreducible complexity.
However, it is always possible that a model will arrive that
will falsify the claim. Until then, as a falsifiable prediction the
evidence for irreducible complexity grows stronger with each
failed attempt."

2370 views

hmmn ... This

2452 views

Romansh: hmmn ... This-I am very aware of the wedge document and the thoughts of the ID folks. I'm not them, but I take from their works what I think is reasonable, as I think my new book shows. Ask dhw.

2443 views

Romansh: hmmn ... This
 
DAVID: I am very aware of the wedge document and the thoughts of the ID folks. I'm not them, but I take from their works what I think is reasonable, as I think my new book shows. Ask dhw.-Sadly, Intelligent Design has come to be inextricably associated with Creationism. David's book sticks to the science, and although he concludes from his clear and comprehensive analysis of all the available scientific information that there had to be a designer, he stops there. The Atheist Delusion is not a religious book, and in his conclusion he emphasizes that "in this area of thought, there are only questions, no answers. Science advances with ever more information to digest, but it will not offer ultimate truth. Keep an open mind and permit yourself to change your mind if you find it necessary." You can't say fairer than that!

2451 views

Romansh: hmmn ... This
> 
> DAVID: I am very aware of the wedge document and the thoughts of the ID folks. I'm not them, but I take from their works what I think is reasonable, as I think my new book shows. Ask dhw.
> 
> Sadly, Intelligent Design has come to be inextricably associated with Creationism. David's book sticks to the science, and although he concludes from his clear and comprehensive analysis of all the available scientific information that there had to be a designer, he stops there. The Atheist Delusion is not a religious book, and in his conclusion he emphasizes that "in this area of thought, there are only questions, no answers. Science advances with ever more information to digest, but it will not offer ultimate truth. Keep an open mind and permit yourself to change your mind if you find it necessary." You can't say fairer than that!-I have posted this video before
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVRsWAjvQSg
In it Miller describes how the phrase intelligent design was substituted into Panda's Thumb, by your very own Discovery Institute.-Have you read Ben Goldacre's Bad Pharma - it weaves a sad tail of how the pharmaceutical industry omits to publish negative findings, has poor controls and few other poor practices? (This happens when you have a strongly goal oriented structure generating papers). I can only imagine how the Discovery Institute (essentially a theologically motivated laboratory) works. If David could provide a few articles that actually contradict intelligent design that come from the Discovery institute, I would be impressed.-While looking for info about the Discovery institute came across this:
http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2014/04/once-again-desp.html-We may find it interesting-Interesting that Ewert also graduated from Baylor.

2445 views


> > DAVID: I am very aware of the wedge document and the thoughts of the ID folks. I'm not them, but I take from their works what I think is reasonable, as I think my new book shows. Ask dhw.-
> Romansh:I have posted this video before
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVRsWAjvQSg
> In it Miller describes how the phrase intelligent design was substituted into Panda's Thumb, by your very own Discovery Institute.-Very clearly I have stated that it is not MY Very Own Discovery Institute. Please let us not twist facts to suit your views. I use some of their material in my thinking. That is all. I am my own person, as you are yours.
> 
> Romansh: Have you read Ben Goldacre's Bad Pharma - it weaves a sad tail of how the pharmaceutical industry omits to publish negative findings, has poor controls and few other poor practices?-No, I've not read it, but to explain how I work, as a practicing physician I never had an interview with a drug salesman from the pharmaceutical companies. I relied solely on journal articles covering the drugs. Granted the articles could be tainted as you note, but the articles I used were review articles after the drugs had been introduced for awhile. -> Romansh:( If David could provide a few articles that actually contradict intelligent design that come from the Discovery institute, I would be impressed.-So would I. I'm sure you had your tongue in your cheek as you wrote that.
> 
> Romansh; Interesting that Ewert also graduated from Baylor.-What does that comment mean?

2471 views

No, I've not read it, but to explain how I work, as a practicing physician I never had an interview with a drug salesman from the pharmaceutical companies. I relied solely on journal articles covering the drugs. Granted the articles could be tainted as you note, but the articles I used were review articles after the drugs had been introduced for awhile. -Yes Ben Goldacre ... implicated the journals quite explicitly.
But Goldacre would commend you from staying away from drug reps. Even if one tenth of his book is accurate ... it is pretty damning.-> So would I'm sure you had your tongue in your cheek as you wrote that.
Actually it was not.-But if you think the Discovery Institute is biased ... I personally would not cite them as a reference.-Incidently "your" Discovery Institute was aimed at dhw, now he might have reason to be defensive.-> > Romansh; Interesting that Ewert also graduated from Baylor.
> What does that comment mean?-Just that it is a coincidence that an American university I never have heard of before comes up two days running.-Just learning about Baylor and Ewert ... stumbled on this ...-http://boundedtheoretics.blogspot.ca/2011/03/charles-darwin-of-intelligent-design.html
and
http://boundedtheoretics.blogspot.ca/2011/06/revised-id-thesis-describes-plagiarism.html-Not big in the scheme of things but interesting-What did you think of the Panda's Thumb rebuttal of Ewert's paper?

2427 views


> > > Romansh; Interesting that Ewert also graduated from Baylor.
> > What does that comment mean?
> 
> Just that it is a coincidence that an American university I never have heard of before comes up two days running.
> 
> Just learning about Baylor and Ewert ... stumbled on this ...
> 
> http://boundedtheoretics.blogspot.ca/2011/03/charles-darwin-of-intelligent-design.html&... and
> http://boundedtheoretics.blogspot.ca/2011/06/revised-id-thesis-describes-plagiarism.htm... University is in Waco, TX about 100 miles north of me. It was founded as a Baptist University, but is now more modernized and fairly non-sectarian. Dembski taught there about 10-15 years ago. 
> 
> What did you think of the Panda's Thumb rebuttal of Ewert's paper?-Quite reasonable. My problem is I have a deep mistrust of all computer simulations as man-made approximations of reality. GIGIO is burned into my brain, and humans are mistake prone enough, that I want experimental proof of what the simulations propose to tell us. For me it is just like the math formulas that tell some cosmologists there must be multiverses. Prove it!

2466 views

Quite reasonable. My problem is I have a deep mistrust of all computer simulations as man-made approximations of reality. GIGIO is burned into my brain, and humans are mistake prone enough, that I want experimental proof of what the simulations propose to tell us. For me it is just like the math formulas that tell some cosmologists there must be multiverses. Prove it!
I can't and don't have to ... This is in my opinion a typical bit of nonsense promulgated by quite an eclectic group ... but often with a theistic group.

2407 views

Romansh: Quite reasonable. My problem is I have a deep mistrust of all computer simulations as man-made approximations of reality. GIGIO is burned into my brain, and humans are mistake prone enough, that I want experimental proof of what the simulations propose to tell us. For me it is just like the math formulas that tell some cosmologists there must be multiverses. Prove it!
> I can't and don't have to ... This is in my opinion a typical bit of nonsense promulgated by quite an eclectic group ... but often with a theistic group.-That was a rhetorical 'prove it'. Computer simulatins are simply proposals of somwe aspect of how reality might really work

2331 views

A simple discussion of how the body controls the amount of water in it, 60% by weight:-http://www.evolutionnews.org/2015/05/understanding_c_4096291.html-"Human life would be impossible without the presence of osmoreceptors, ADH, and ADH receptors. As Michael Behe might say, the system the body uses to control its water content is irreducibly complex. Evolutionary biology needs to explain how all of these parts came together as a functioning system. -"Moreover, as I've often said in this series, when it comes to life and death, real numbers have real consequences. The presence of osmoreceptors, ADH, and ADH receptors is not good enough to explain how the body controls its water content. The osmoreceptors have to respond fast and well enough to give the body proper warning. The posterior pituitary gland has to send out the right amount of ADH, not too much and not too little. Finally, the ADH receptors have to respond in the right way as well."

2238 views

In cell division the mitotic spindle must have proper orientation so the cells line up properly to create sheets of functional cells:-http://elifesciences.org/content/5/e10147#F1-"A molecular complex scaffolded by the GK protein-interaction domain (GKPID) mediates spindle orientation in diverse animal taxa by linking microtubule motor proteins to a marker protein on the cell cortex localized by external cues. Here we illuminate how this complex evolved and commandeered control of spindle orientation from a more ancient mechanism. The complex was assembled through a series of molecular exploitation events, one of which - the evolution of GKPID's capacity to bind the cortical marker protein - can be recapitulated by reintroducing a single historical substitution into the reconstructed ancestral GKPID. This change revealed and repurposed an ancient molecular surface that previously had a radically different function.-***-"A central issue in evolutionary biology is how complex systems originate through the action of mutation, drift, and natural selection. Tissue organization, spindle orientation, and the GKPID complex itself are all examples of complexity, defined as the integrated functioning of a system made up of differentiated, interacting parts. The GKPID complex can orient the mitotic spindle because of specific interactions between its component molecules and with other molecules in the cell and its local environment. In turn, the cellular phenomonenon mediated by this complex - regular orientation of the plane of cell division relative adjacent cells - allows the development and maintenance of organized, differentiated tissues, and this phenomenon in turn makes possible a higher level of biological complexity- the multicellular organism - from a collection of individual cells. Understanding the evolution of complexity at the molecular level can therefore help to illuminate the evolution of macroscopic complexity, including functions that are now crucial to animal biology per se. (my bold)-"Our work indicates that the GKPID complex was assembled stepwise through a process of molecular exploitation, in which old molecules with one function are recruited into a functional binding interaction with a newly evolved molecule. In this case, the GKPID, a duplicate of an ancient enzyme with an essential metabolic role in all life forms, already had the fortuitous capacity to bind the Pins protein, even before the latter protein appeared or subsequently acquired its relatively simple GKPID-binding linker motif (Figure 8). Once Pins did evolve this linker  along with its GoLoco motif, which interacts with G-protein complexes, which are also ancient (de Mendoza et al., 2014) then a mechanism would have been assembled that could bring to specific locations on the cell cortex the GKPID and other proteins associated directly or indirectly with it, such as KHC-73 and astral microtubules, thus enabling externally-cued spindle orientation."-Comment: The bolded area is Michael Behe's definition of irreducible complexity. The mechanism involves a complex enzyme and compatible molecular surfaces which "fortuitously" fit together, also bolded. Fortuitous or planned?

2358 views

The Wash Post is now touting this as the cause of multicellularity!-https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2016/01/11/startling-new-discovery-600-million-years-ago-a-single-biological-mistake-changed-everything/?wpmm=1&wpisrc=nl_evening-"In a paper published in the open-access journal eLife this week, researchers say they have pinpointed what may well be one of evolution's greatest copy mess-ups yet: the mutation that allowed our ancient protozoa predecessors to evolve into complex, multi-cellular organisms. Thanks to this mutation  which was not solely responsible for the leap out of single-cellular life, but without which you, your dog and every creature large enough to be seen without a microscope might not be around  cells were able to communicate with one another and work together.-"Incredibly, in the world of evolutionary biology, all it took was one tiny tweak, one gene, and complex life as we know it was born.-'It was a shock, co-author Ken Prehoda, a biochemist at the University of Oregon, told The Washington Post. If you asked anyone on our team if they thought one mutation was going to be responsible for this, they would have said it doesn't seem possible.-***-"But it turned out that only one was needed: A single mutation that repurposed a certain type of protein. Instead of working as enzymes (proteins that facilitate reactions inside the cell) the proteins were now what's known as an interaction domain. They could communicate with and bind to other proteins, a useful skill for cells that have decided to trade the rugged individualist life for the collaboration of a group. In the wild world of pre-complex life, this development was orders of magnitude better than Twitter for getting organisms organized. Every example of cells collaborating that has arisen since  from the trilobites of 500 million years ago to the dinosaurs, woolly mammoths and you  probably relied on it or some other similar mutation." (my bold)-Comment: I'm sure this mutation was very important but look at the bolded comment above. Always overoptimistic. It undoubtedly required more than just this.

2341 views

DAVID: The Wash Post is now touting this as the cause of multicellularity!-https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2016/01/11/startling-new-discovery-6...-I will cherry pick:-" Thanks to this mutation  which was not solely responsible for the leap out of single-cellular life, but without which you, your dog and every creature large enough to be seen without a microscope might not be around  cells were able to communicate with one another and work together. (My bold)-Instead of working as enzymes (proteins that facilitate reactions inside the cell) the proteins were now what's known as an interaction domain. They could communicate with and bind to other proteins (my bold), a useful skill for cells that have decided to trade the rugged individualist life for the collaboration of a group. In the wild world of pre-complex life, this development was orders of magnitude better than Twitter for getting organisms organized. Every example of cells collaborating that has arisen since (my bold)  from the trilobites of 500 million years ago to the dinosaurs, woolly mammoths and you  probably relied on it or some other similar mutation." (David's bold)-David's comment: I'm sure this mutation was very important but look at the bolded comment above. Always overoptimistic. It undoubtedly required more than just this.

And they have said so (which was not solely responsible...). Nevertheless, the pattern they are drawing attention to is that of individual cells communicating and collaborating. You will no doubt say it was all preprogrammed, but communication and collaboration are acts that suggest autonomous decision-making. Just another piece in the jigsaw that makes up the intelligent cell!

2227 views


> David's comment: I'm sure this mutation was very important but look at the bolded comment above. Always overoptimistic. It undoubtedly required more than just this.
> 
> dhw: And they have said so (which was not solely responsible...). Nevertheless, the pattern they are drawing attention to is that of individual cells communicating and collaborating. You will no doubt say it was all preprogrammed, but communication and collaboration are acts that suggest autonomous decision-making. Just another piece in the jigsaw that makes up the intelligent cell!-Same issue. I think the cells carry instructions to cooperate.

2152 views

If a living system needs A to get to B, to go on to C, Darwin style evolution doesn't work:

https://evolutionnews.org/2019/05/an-unintended-endorsement-of-marcos-eberlins-new-book...

"In Eberlin’s own words: “The old chicken-and-egg problem is an example of causal circularity: To get A we need B, but to get B we first need A. We can’t have one without the other. To get both together, we need foresight.” In other words, we need intelligent design.

"Eberlin continues: “We find examples of this causal circularity — and thus the need for foresight — throughout living systems.” One example is the relationship between DNA, RNA, and proteins: “Without DNA and RNA, the cell could not synthesize the proteins it needs. Yet without a suite of complex proteins the cell could not synthesize more DNA and thus could never divide. And without another suite of complex proteins the cell could not make RNA. No DNA and RNA, no proteins. No proteins, no DNA or RNA.” (my bold)

"Eberlin describes other cases of causal circularity throughout his book. In each case, the organism needs A to make B, but it has to already have B before A exists. And in Eberlin’s examples A and B are both complex entities. Michael Behe used the human blood-clotting system as an example of irreducible complexity, because all of its complex components have to be present in order for a clot to form when and where it’s needed. But the components themselves do not depend on the prior existence of the other components. Causal circularity is a much stronger claim, and (as Eberlin repeatedly points out) it poses a serious problem for the notion that the components evolved step-by-step from simpler entities.

***

"Eberlin goes into some detail about amazing features of the cervix that enable it to deliver a baby at the right time. The cervix and baby are like the chicken and egg: To get A we need B, but to get B we first need A. And this points to foresight.

"Eberlin writes: “If in the first-ever baby delivery, the cervix was not able to hold the baby in place and then open at exactly the right time, this poor pioneer infant would have been expelled too early or been trapped inside the mother’s womb, leading to the death of both child and mother.”

***

"According to a 2016 article published by the Royal Society (UK), “the timing of the origin and diversification of placental mammals [in which the cervix first appears] is a highly contentious topic.”

***

"Eberlin’s main argument against evolution is based on causal circularity, but in his last chapter he criticizes punk eek as one of many attempts to salvage evolutionary theory in the face of its growing problems.

"Punctuated equilibria is a term introduced in 1972 by Darwinian paleontologists Niles Eldredge and Stephen Jay Gould to describe the observed fact that the vast majority of fossil species appear abruptly in the rocks (punctuation) and then persist unchanged for some time (equilibrium) before they disappear. According to Gould, “every paleontologist always knew” that this is the dominant pattern in the fossil record. (The Structure of Evolutionary Theory, 2002, 759.)

"Eldredge and Gould argued that the observed pattern is consistent with the theory of “allopatric speciation.” “Speciation” refers to the origin of new species, and “allopatric” (from words meaning “other” and “fatherland”) refers to geographical separation. According to the theory (which PM kindly summarizes for us rubes), part of a large population becomes geographically isolated. Then genetic changes somehow turn the isolated fragment into a new species, possibly in a short time (geologically speaking). Because of its size and rapid evolution the small isolate would initially leave no fossil record. By the time it started to leave fossils, it would seem to have originated abruptly and with no connection to the original population.

"There is direct fossil evidence for the pattern of punctuated equilibria, but only indirect and circumstantial evidence for the process of allopatric speciation. Apart from its consistency with the fossil record, the most powerful argument in favor of the theory of allopatric speciation is that primary speciation has never been observed, so speciation must occur where we can’t detect it. In other words, the point of the theory is to explain why we can’t find any direct evidence for the most important class of events in evolution.

"Eberlin doesn’t buy punk eek, because (he writes) it “offers no credible mechanism for the geologically rapid evolution of new forms.'”

Comment: this idea of circular causality is certainly a stronger criticism of Darwin-style -evolution than irreducible complexity. It fits all of my comments about the struggling origin of life experiments. Note my bold above.

1578 views

QUOTE: "Eberlin doesn’t buy punk eek, because (he writes) it “offers no credible mechanism for the geologically rapid evolution of new forms.'”

DAVID: ...this idea of circular causality is certainly a stronger criticism of Darwin-style -evolution than irreducible complexity. It fits all of my comments about the struggling origin of life experiments.

Nobody has offered a credible explanation for the origin of life, or a credible mechanism for the evolution of new forms, or a credible solution to the chicken and egg mystery. That is why they continue to be a source of controversy. We can all very easily debunk any of the theories, including that of an unknown, sourceless mind which keeps itself hidden.

1546 views

QUOTE: "Eberlin doesn’t buy punk eek, because (he writes) it “offers no credible mechanism for the geologically rapid evolution of new forms.'”

DAVID: ...this idea of circular causality is certainly a stronger criticism of Darwin-style -evolution than irreducible complexity. It fits all of my comments about the struggling origin of life experiments.

dhw: Nobody has offered a credible explanation for the origin of life, or a credible mechanism for the evolution of new forms, or a credible solution to the chicken and egg mystery. That is why they continue to be a source of controversy. We can all very easily debunk any of the theories, including that of an unknown, sourceless mind which keeps itself hidden.

Still leaves us perplexed: how to explain why we are here? Only design fits.

1577 views

Definition and arguments that are for and dispute it:

https://www.asa3.org/ASA/education/origins/ic-cr.htm

" Four Definitions of Irreducible Complexity
1. Michael Behe's Original Definition — [an irreducibly complex system is] "a single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function of the system, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning." (Darwin's Black Box, page 39, 1996)
2. William Dembski's Enhanced Definition — "A system performing a given basic function is irreducibly complex if it includes a set of well-matched, mutually interacting, nonarbitrarily individuated parts such that each part in the set is indispensable to maintaining the system's basic, and therefore original, function. The set of these indispensable parts is known as the irreducible core of the system." (No Free Lunch, page 285, 2001)
3. Michael Behe's "Evolutionary" Definition — "An irreducibly complex evolutionary pathway is one that contains one or more unselected steps (that is, one or more necessary-but-unselected mutations). The degree of irreducible complexity is the number of unselected steps in the pathway." (A Response to Critics of Darwin's Black Box, 2002)
4. My Revision of Behe's Original Definition — A system is irreducibly complex if there is no function for any system that is missing one part, i.e. if all "subsystems with one less part" are functionless. { This revision, suggested in 2001, corrects a minor error in Behe's original definition; the error does not affect the logic of claims about irreducible complexity if we use Definitions 2, 3 or 4. }"

Counter arguments are weak:

"Ken Miller claims that he has "answered the biochemical argument from design" even though he acknowledges that biologists "have not provided a detailed, step-by-step explanation of the evolution of the flagellum." But he thinks this failure is temporary, and "is not much of an argument against Darwin; rather, it means that the field is still active, vital, and filled with scientific challenges." By contrast, a scientist who is more cautiously humble (in predicting what will happen in the future of science) might think that although we eventually may learn enough to confidently conclude that this really was "not much of an argument," currently more humility is appropriate due to the current absence of detailed evolutionary explanations. Miller's page to "answer the arguments" is not humble. Instead it is filled with bold declarations that arguments for design are "disproved... falsified... invalidated... demonstrably false... collapsed... incorrect... fatally flawed... wrong." (my bold)

" By contrast with these triumphalist proclamations, it seems more scientifically justifiable to admit that "we don't know for certain, so we need to collect and evaluate more evidence." The pages cited in this section are from 2003-2004, and now in 2009 [and still in 2010] I think "the jury is still out" when we look for "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" on a verdict either for or against claims that irreducibly complex biological systems provide evidence for intelligent design. We can also ask questions about the rate of evolution — for each step in an extrapolation from small-scale evolution to a large-scale natural production of all biological complexity, how many mutations and how much selection would be required to produce the changes we observe in DNA, how long would this take, and how probable is it? — and I think that in current science the answers are not certain, thus providing another reason for logically appropriate humility. During a process of gradually learning more, the claims (and counter-claims) that seem logically justifiable will become more apparent, but until then some humility seems justifiable."

Comment: read all the back-and-forth arguments and pick a position.

375 views

Romansh: hmmn ... This-It would appear the Discovery Institute is dropping its poorly hidden pretense that it is not a religious organization.-http://ncse.com/blog/2015/12/marriage-made-heaven-0016830

2181 views

Romansh: hmmn ... This
> 
> It would appear the Discovery Institute is dropping its poorly hidden pretense that it is not a religious organization.
> 
> http://ncse.com/blog/2015/12/marriage-made-heaven-0016830-I'm not surprised, and I am sure you are not. From the beginning it has been run by a group of devout rather fundamentalist Christians. It happens that I have come to agree with much of their scientific concepts about evolution. I certainly do not accept Christian theology which comes from an age with a strong belief in miracles, a belief which the Catholic Church still follows.

2176 views


> DAVID: I am very aware of the wedge document and the thoughts of the ID folks. I'm not them, but I take from their works what I think is reasonable, as I think my new book shows. Ask dhw.
> 
> dhw: Sadly, Intelligent Design has come to be inextricably associated with Creationism. David's book sticks to the science, and although he concludes from his clear and comprehensive analysis of all the available scientific information that there had to be a designer, he stops there. The Atheist Delusion is not a religious book, and in his conclusion he emphasizes that "in this area of thought, there are only questions, no answers. Science advances with ever more information to digest, but it will not offer ultimate truth. Keep an open mind and permit yourself to change your mind if you find it necessary." You can't say fairer than that!-I readily admit for myself, I am a form of a creationist. I believe there must be a greater power that organized the reality of our universe. That power hides in the quantum layer, somewhat separate from us directly, and that power guided evolution, for the reason that evolution is the only possible way to advance from simple life to complex life, indicating tht the creator has limited direct powers in the realm of living organisms, the most complex items in the universe. Please note that religions are blind to this sort of reasoning and thinking. They hopefully want more of a direct connection from their God.

2437 views

RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum