Quote:
On 2002-08-24 11:11, DJ wrote:
Quote:
You can call the whole body of knowledge a 'theory' if that language suits the situation, but there is no more debate among the genetic scientists about the overall process. There will, of course, be fine tuning of specifics, there may be a few 'way out of the mainstreamers' who 'say it ain't so', as there seems to be in all sciences, but the process of evolution is NOT in doubt.
Anyone who wants to argue this fact cannot do so without an education in genetics. Once you have that education, you cannot dispute evolution.
|
Bernie Ebbers and Dennis Kozlowski (sp?) thought there was no more debate on whether they could be caught [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_razz.gif[/img]
This is a challenging text above. You use a theory to prove a theory, ok. Creationists do the same.
I must admit that I don't think there needs to be mutual exclusion. I believe the universe was created, and has evolved to the state we are in today. (Some call it first cause, which sounds like a bleached version of creationism without the creator).
I believe I have comfortably and successfully reconciled things.
But I still have an open mind, and remain an avid researcher. To that point, I have never heard an explanation of "First Cause," so I look to philosophy/religion to explain that piece because science conveniently explains it as "we don't touch that part because it was before time." <-- copout
DJ
|
And how much research have you done to find the status of evidence genetic science has discovered to date? Or are you 'comfortable' that ignorance is bliss. I don't mean that in a derogatory way. Whatever you are refering to as 'first cause' is not a scientific hypothesis that I have ever heard. If it is a viable hypothesis, well let scientists look at it. If it is a religious rationalization to keep a thread of factual correctness in the Bible's creation story, then it should probably be presented as such.
You could site lots of examples of folks who had major accepted theories of various things that were later shown to be wrong. That is irrelevant because there are plenty of things that are beyond challenge in any practical sense: The Earth is not flat, the Sun is not orbiting the Earth, A dragon is not eating the Sun during an eclipse. Regardless of how many individuals may not accept such conclusions, the chances future evidence will find these conclusions to be wrong are so remote as to be zero for all practical purposes.
I am not using a 'theory' to prove a theory. Every step of evolution is understood down to the molecular level. It is testable, it is consistent, it is understood.
What the general population is having trouble with is lack of awareness of just how far this research has progressed. People are still arguing 'gaps in the fossil record' and 'adaptation but not evolution'. They are still arguing 'impossible through random, natural, molecular activity'. Genetic researchers have solved all these questions and are miles and miles ahead.
It has already been mapped out how life goes from inorganic molecules randomly in contact with eachother to the first organisms and beyond. The mutation process is understood. Reproduction is understood. Natural processes that result in variation of species is understood. The time to go from no life to humans agrees with the geological and fossil record. The process only requires random occurrances not intelligent design nor intervention.
The human genome with its 3 billion base pairs has been mapped. Other organisms' genomes have been mapped. Mutations needed to go from one species to another have been mapped. The rate of mutation has been observed. It is consistent with the theory of evolution. Factors affecting natural selection are better understood.
Taking inorganic molecules in a 'test tube' and ending up with reproducing RNA molecules has been accomplished. Selecting RNA molecules that are conducive to making DNA molecules through simulated random processes has been accomplished. (The process has to be simulated by speeding things up artificially, but not substantially changing the process, because we can't wait a billion years to see if it works.)
The latest research I heard explained last week, (U of WA science lecture series), was that researchers were working on how one can look at the DNA code in a gene and determine which protein will result. It turns out that only a relatively small number of amino acids on the DNA strand carry the actual protein blueprint and a larger portion of the DNA controls turning the gene on and off.
And she steps down off the soapbox of evolution to once again join the rest of the world.