painted wolf
Grey Muzzle
actually we call most of it "noncoding".
wa:do
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
One question for Creationists, and another for Evolutionists
- Thread starter James Humphreys
- Start date
wa:do
http://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoHumBenMutations.html
(thanks to painted wolf for the link)
From Wikipedia:
Introns sometimes allow for alternative splicing of a gene, so that several different proteins that share some sections in common can be produced from a single gene. The control of mRNA splicing, and hence of which alternative is produced, is performed by a wide variety of signal molecules. Introns also sometimes contain "old code," sections of a gene that were probably once translated into protein but which are now discarded.
It was generally assumed that the sequence in any given intron is junk DNA with no function. More recently, this is being questioned however; it is known that introns contain several short sequences that are important for efficient splicing. The exact mechanism for these intronic splicing enhancers is not well understood, but it is thought that they serve as binding sites on the transcript for proteins that stabilize the spliceosome. It is also possible that RNA secondary structure formed by intronic sequences may have an effect on splicing, and in alternative splicing, an exonic sequence in one product is intronic in another. "Old code" sequences, on the other hand, in most cases indeed seem to be "evolutionary kipple".
There are hypotheses on the function of introns that have evidence behind them. So basically you point to anything that is not well understood, and you claim it undermines all of science? As if the reason things are hard to understand is because God made them that way?
Look, I agree with you, there isn't a consensus on the purpose of introns, but that does not undermine the entire field of genetics or negate our understanding of transcription, translation, and replication.
That's what they are supposed to be?? Says who? Can you prove that's what they are supposed to be? Can you prove that God will or will not "activate" the DNA of an amoeba? Wouldn't: "humans aren't supposed to figure it out yet, but they will in the future" be justified along that line of reasoning?
The wonderful things about science are the things we do NOT understand. At least the things we DO understand in science can be proven. If you base your understanding on the divine or the spiritual, it can never be proven or understood. And even if it was, who's to say your specific God is behind it?
You have no evidence for this. Just because we don't have a firm consensus on the various functions of introns does NOT mean that God controls them or this dubious "DNA activation"is responsible.
A mere Googling of the term "DNA Activation" brings up these respectable, objective, and empirical </sarcasm> sites:
http://www.dnaactivation.org/
- In this session, I transmit the crystalline violet light body to you and three powerful attunements. This DNA activation session includes a clearing of anything and everything that would adversely impact your ability to activate and integrate the crystalline violet light body and the
accompanying attunements. [They will do all that for a mere $600. Sadly, I'm not joking here.]
http://www.lipstickmystic.com/articles/dna_activation_is_dangerous.html
http://dnaactivation.tribe.net/
http://activateyourdna.com/
http://www.psychic101.com/dna-activation.html
So 99.85% of the 480,000+ physical and biological scientists in the U.S. are selfish and full of themselves? And the 1 scientist out of every 685 who rejects evolution is not selfish?
(numbers sourced from Newsweek magazine)
Ok, just to clarify. Even if I assume that such a ghost body does in fact exist I still do not see that it would have any impact on the theory of evolution. The theory of evolution explains the development of living biological physical bodies. Something to keep in mind is that the theory of evolution does not explain everything. No scientific theory explains everything. So although I have to completely agree with you when you say that the theory of evolution would be hard pressed to explain the origin (or the existence, or the function) of a spirit or ghost body, that does not in any way threaten the theory of evolution.
The theory of evolution does not explain why my socks keep disappearing when I put them in the dryer. But this does not threaten the theory of evolution even a little bit. The theory of evolution explains the diversity of biological life on this planet, and it does so very well. And it will continue to explain the diversity of life on this planet even if we discovered concrete proof of this spirit everyone keeps talking about. And it will keep on explaining the diversity of life even though my missing socks will continue to be an eternal mystery.
But let us for the sake of this discussion assume that this spirit, soul, ghost body does in fact exist. We can agree that the theory of evolution is completely incapable of explaining such a thing. In fact no scientific theory that I am aware of would be capable of explaining such a thing. So we would need a new theory. The new theory would not cancel out the theory of evolution any more than it would cancel out the theory of gravity or any of the other scientific theories. It would have to explain a completely different set of phenomena. For instance it would have to explain how we have memories without a living brain? And if we can have memories without a living brain, why does brain damage affect our memories? How can we see and hear without eyes or ears? And how are we able to interpret what we see without a visual cortex? And if our ghost body is able to see without eyes, why cant people living people who have lost their eyes see? This ghost body would be like having an other set of sensory organs that are eternal and indestructible. Why cant we use them when we are still alive if something goes wrong with the physical biological equivalent?
I am sure that many people have some interesting theories as to how all this works (I am sure that Super Universe for example has all the answers to these questions), but as it stands now I dont think there is any scientific theory that can handle these kind of things.
rojse
RF Addict
I do not think that the existence of a soul would disprove evolution. Evolution is merely a word for long-term systematic change, which is not confined to biology. Ideas can evolve, politics can evolve, religion can evolve. But, in the context of biological evolution, evolution would not disproved by the existence of a soul.
In fact, there is a multitude of examples of evolution in action, from in the laboratory of short-lived insects, to natural examples, such as fish changing into separate species, or from separate species to identical species. Even bacteria have evolved and become resistant to different vaccines - the common cold is an excellent example of this.
But from what little I understand about the "soul", you cannot see it, it has no mass, we cannot measure it. So, how would you prove that this "soul" exists, how come only people have a "soul"?
Perhaps we could definitively prove evolution if we could prove that animals have a "soul" too.
In fact, there is a multitude of examples of evolution in action, from in the laboratory of short-lived insects, to natural examples, such as fish changing into separate species, or from separate species to identical species. Even bacteria have evolved and become resistant to different vaccines - the common cold is an excellent example of this.
But from what little I understand about the "soul", you cannot see it, it has no mass, we cannot measure it. So, how would you prove that this "soul" exists, how come only people have a "soul"?
Perhaps we could definitively prove evolution if we could prove that animals have a "soul" too.
Super Universe
Defender of God
You don't understand. We're debating the dominant CAUSE of evolution that brought about humans, not the process. Yes genes mutate but the overwhelming majority of beneficial mutations are from DNA activation, not natural selection.
Most beneficial evolution happens in short periods. It's called punctuated equilibrium.
Your Wikipedia post... Are you actually attempting to prove to me that your scientists know everything about DNA? The Wikipedia post shows that scientists are questioning the old idea that most of DNA is so called 'junk' DNA. Obviously they don't know everything.
Their errors do not undermine the entire field of anything. You're overreacting. The scientists are generally doing the best they can. You can keep on worshipping them, they'll get it right eventually, and when they do they will provide absolute proof of the human soul. I wonder if they'll attempt to take the credit for that as well?
Can I prove that amoeba's are what they are supposed to be? No, but you can't prove any different. And I have billions of years of their stagnant DNA structure on my side.
The divine, the spiritual can be understood. As you travel the universe you will learn more and more. God proven? God isn't into proving Himself to anyone, especially humans. He doesn't have to because He knows there is nothing that can truly harm the soul and that one day you will return home like a son sent off to college.
I have no evidence for DNA activation? I certainly do. As I said, the proof is in the pudding, your scientists just don't understand it yet.
I posted earlier that DNA activation comes from God alone. If you wish to deal with these people then that is your choice. I'm sure I could find a scientist who claims to have created a perpetual energy device, or another who claims to have discovered cold fusion, or to have cloned a human.
I don't know the specific numbers of selfish scientists but they are not selfish because they are scientists, they are selfish because they are human. It's in your design to be that way, it's caused by the almost complete separation from God. The ego takes charge and asserts itself.
People wonder why God doesn't prove Himself to us but it would violate the whole reason for us and the earth to exist. We need to allow our personality free reign in a place where we can do no harm so the soul can learn and understand it.
No, I am simply showing that numerous explanations exits. And I am demonstrating how not knowing everything is a positive aspect of science, not a negative one. You called it junk, and I'm questioning that.
So for some reason God has imbued you with this inhuman ability to look past your own ego? And the countless Nobel Prize Winners who have this ability just don't "get it" enough to use it? If we will eventually get it right and have proof, why bother believing it when there is no evidence?
I didn't make a claim - I don't have to prove any different. You made a claim that that's how they are supposed to be. I was just wondering what evidence led you to make that claim.
So if you haven't returned yet (I'm assuming you are still human), then how can you have all this knowledge?
Really? You haven't shown me any proof. In fact I had to Google the term myself just to know what you were talking about. I posted the first 5 websites listed, and they were absolutely ridiculous. Check them out for yourself.
Those scientists are called crackpots. Group them with the 0.15% who reject evolution.
So somehow even though you are human, you know all this because you are not separated from God? How do you know you aren't as far from God as everyone else? How do you know which God to be close to? What about the extremists who think that everyone but them is separated from God? Do you see where this line of reasoning leads?
"I do not fell obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use.
--Galileo Galilei
Super Universe
Defender of God
Numerous scientific explanations do exist. It tends to support the point I stated which is that your scientists don't know everything, or anywhere near everything, about DNA.
I did not call DNA junk. I would never do such a thing. It's an amazing thing, much more than you now know. Your own egotistical scientists invented that term AND your Wikipedia post referred to the term "junk" DNA as well.
God enabled me to look past my own ego? Nope, it's still there, alive and well. It doesn't go away, you just learn to understand it.
The next time you get into an argument with someone over something trivial maybe you'll sit down and realize the true cause of it: feeling of insecurity, not being shown enough respect at work or at home, suppressed anger at someone you can't vent it upon...
As I said, I don't know how many of your scientists have suppressed their own ego but think of a scientist who makes an incredible discovery yet shuns the Nobel Prize and all fame that goes with it. Or one who takes the prize money and donates it to charity.
My evidence that an amoeba is exactly what it is supposed to be? Uh, as I already said, I'll take the 4 billion years of stagnant evolution as my proof.
How can I have all this knowledge? It's all readily available. I didn't invent it and unlike your scientists I won't take credit for it's discovery and walk around as if I did create it. It's completely free.
I haven't shown you any proof of DNA activation? Sigh... Again, I said your scientists refer to it as punctuated equilibrium. You really should read slower because I am repeating myself a great deal. It makes it impossible for the discussion to grow.
Those scientists are crackpots? So are the ones who's websites you've posted on DNA activation. If you don't want your ideas tarnished by your crackpots then don't associatte other crackpots with mine.
Being separate from God does not lessen your ability to gain any knowledge. But it does tend to suppress your ability to accept that which you cannot verify with your senses.
I did not call DNA junk. I would never do such a thing. It's an amazing thing, much more than you now know. Your own egotistical scientists invented that term AND your Wikipedia post referred to the term "junk" DNA as well.
God enabled me to look past my own ego? Nope, it's still there, alive and well. It doesn't go away, you just learn to understand it.
The next time you get into an argument with someone over something trivial maybe you'll sit down and realize the true cause of it: feeling of insecurity, not being shown enough respect at work or at home, suppressed anger at someone you can't vent it upon...
As I said, I don't know how many of your scientists have suppressed their own ego but think of a scientist who makes an incredible discovery yet shuns the Nobel Prize and all fame that goes with it. Or one who takes the prize money and donates it to charity.
My evidence that an amoeba is exactly what it is supposed to be? Uh, as I already said, I'll take the 4 billion years of stagnant evolution as my proof.
How can I have all this knowledge? It's all readily available. I didn't invent it and unlike your scientists I won't take credit for it's discovery and walk around as if I did create it. It's completely free.
I haven't shown you any proof of DNA activation? Sigh... Again, I said your scientists refer to it as punctuated equilibrium. You really should read slower because I am repeating myself a great deal. It makes it impossible for the discussion to grow.
Those scientists are crackpots? So are the ones who's websites you've posted on DNA activation. If you don't want your ideas tarnished by your crackpots then don't associatte other crackpots with mine.
Being separate from God does not lessen your ability to gain any knowledge. But it does tend to suppress your ability to accept that which you cannot verify with your senses.
I know this, I have said it in two posts now. The problem is that you used this to discredit them by calling them names. When I said we have full understanding of how DNA encodes information, I was referring to that exclusively. How DNA is transcribed into mRNA which is translated into proteins. I'm sorry if I misspoke, but I didn't mean to claim we know everything about DNA.
How does one do that?
This stuff is hardly trivial to me. And I don't appreciate your condescending psychological analysis.
My point was that talking about things in terms of what they are "supposed to be" goes nowhere. It implies some deterministic 3rd party who knows what's supposed to be and what's not. Also, evolution is not stagnant.
You said: "Most beneficial evolution happens in short periods. It's called punctuated equilibrium. "
If you are claiming that DNA activation and punctuated equilibrium are the same thing, then why do you persist in using a pseudoscience term?
Punctuated equilibrium does not prove your mysterious DNA activation. The Wikipeida article on punctuated equilibrium doesn't even mention DNA, let alone DNA activation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punctuated_equilibrium
I'm not. Since you didn't provide me any sources on DNA activation, I Googled it myself and posted the first 5 results that Google gave.
We've come a long way with our feeble senses.
Papersock
Lucid Dreamer
Of course they don't. DNA is a relatively recent discovery.
Super Universe
Defender of God
How does one learn to understand their own ego? There are two sides in the universe, those in service to themselves and those in service toward others. This is the great drama, this is the true battle of light and dark, good and evil. Examine yourself, are you able to forgive others? Are you able to forgive yourself? How charitable are you? Are you ever humble? Do you have suppressed anger?
None of this is condescending. We all have these things to some degree, what I'm saying is that you can learn to detect them and let them out in a more proper manner.
Each day, before noon time I try to ask myself "Am I in a good mood or bad mood?" Whichever it is I then think about what made me in a good mood or what made me in a bad mood. Once I realize that it was the jerk on the freeway who cut me off this morning, then I decide I've been angry enough over it and it changes my mood instantly.
I'm not saying be emotionless, just begin to realize the true cause of your emotions, be in charge of them instead of them being in charge of you. Can you imagine a hindu yoga instructor ever losing their temper?
From our view it's difficult to say what any species is supposed to be. I don't think God is too much interested in the form a species takes. He's more interested in the reasoning and emotion a species is capable of.
Having complex vocal, complex movement ability, and sufficient brain seems to give dominant species the ability to create more complex systems. Almost like humanity is producing it's own heaven on the earth. We are free to do anything and we all choose to create. Don't we each create our own life by the choices we make?
Punctuated Equilibrium doesn't prove DNA activation? No it doesn't but it does show evidence of sudden evolution. I wish your scientists good luck in finding an environmental pressure that caused each spurt in species evolution.
Why do I persist in using a pseudoscience term? Because it's more accurate, what do I care that your scientists won't accept it? I do not worship them.
We've come a long way? Pure ego...
Super Universe
Defender of God
I don't know better. Any scientist who studies DNA knows a thousand times more about it than I do but they have no idea how capable it really is because they are not allowed to imagine more than one step from any proven concept.
What would happen if a scientist decided that God exists, then that God created DNA/RNA to host spirit and give life. Then this scientist imagined that God made the DNA evolve into a more complex form to host an immature fragment of God known as a soul.
Then the scientist imagined that the DNA would further evolve as the soul gains experience, it would go from two bands that form a double helix to a twelve banded helix. Each additional band gives you access to a higher dimension. Once you have them all, you can then enter heaven and return to your source.
Of course this scientist would be labelled a crackpot by their peers. One small step at a time, little scientists...
painted wolf
Grey Muzzle
thats because the idea of a "twelve banded" helix is biologically impossible.
wa:do
wa:do
James Humphreys
Member
fantôme profane;830616 said:
Thank you for your thoughtful reply. I'm going to have to kind of "shoot from the hip" with my own reply, as otherwise I won't have enough time to make the post. That also covers me for any slip-ups I might make!
It is true that evolution has developed as an explanation for the origin of biological life, as contrasted with something spiritual. But evolution does claim to explain the origin of humanity. If an integral part of being human is an eternal spirit, then that explanation of our origin offered by evolution is incomplete, and perhaps flawed in some aspect, if it cannot explain the origin( and as you said existence and function) of our spiritual dimension. Of course there are theistic evolutionists-those that see the purposeful guidance and creative energy of a higher being(most likely a spiritual being) behind the external processes of evolutionary development. Within that kind of evolutionary perspective, where things are not just the result of random mutations and natural selection, then the co-existence and interaction with a spiritual dimension would be much easier to explain.
In general though there seem to be two main attitudes prevalent among advocates of what I would call conventional evolutionary theory. The first would be that anything that goes beyond the bounds of the natural, whether true or not, is irrelevant to the scientific process. Then there are those who seem to have a certain crusading attitude, and use science as a kind of weapon to destroy vestiges of superstitions and blind faith. Within that extreme it becomes almost a holy grail to show that everything happened without the need of a higher being, and to use each new discovery to relegate religious belief to the dustbins of history. Of course, that might be seen as reaction to those believers who attack anything scientific, if it seems to contradict truths enshrined in holy scriptures.
Of course I am a believer in a spiritual dimension, and if both the physical and spiritual are two complementary aspects of one reality, the existence of each is not at all irrelevant to the other. On the contrary, any understanding of one would be very incomplete without understanding the other. For instance, in physics the super-string theory is often referred to as the "theory of everything". But if reality also comprises a spiritual dimension, obviously at best that name would have to be changed to "theory of half of everything." I guess what I would like to see in those at the cutting edge of science, whether that is in evolution, or any other discipline is a willingness to keep an open mind to things that go beyond the scope of what science can presently deal with.
For instance, usually research, using a scientific method, into phenomena that seem to have a supernatural origin or dimension, is viewed with scorn by much of the scientific establishment. Science trusts what comes to us through our 5 physical senses, as long as we can measure and quantify it. But what if almost everyone was blind, and only a few people had eyesight? Would scientists be able to trust what those few were saying? Probably not, even if it was valid. So, some people claim to see things, perhaps with spiritual eyes. They see and hear their dead grandmother talking to them. The reason we disregard those things is largely because so few have that experience, and even with them it is often sporadic. But when viewed in the context of history cumulatively there really are a lot of experiences like that, so it is big jump just to belittle as delusions and mental illness everything in that category.
I do think that we have 5 spiritual senses corresponding to the 5 physical senses. Then why, as you asked, wouldn't the spiritual eyes take over for the physical when we are blinded in an accident? Well, I think while we are in our physical bodies, the perception that our spirit self receives of physical reality has to come through the channel of our bodies. Similarly, our memories may be retained in our spirits, even if we suffer a brain injury. But, perhaps the brain in that case would be like a broken TV set, unable to receive and bring into our physical perception the memories being transmitted to it from our spirit.
Super Universe
Defender of God
How so?
Also you misunderstand. The real truth behind DNA isn't that it is a biological code, it's an energy code. In this dimension, the material dimension, this energy code is expressed as DNA.
When you gain another DNA band you move up one dimension.
We're not biological beings, we're energy beings.
That's all well and good. But with me the problem arises in that if I begin to accept claims of this nature, I might as well accept everything.
Who's to say that we wouldn't all find peace if we harness "the force" that the Jedi's use in Star Wars? Maybe "the force" is the true energy code.
Who's to say there aren't aliens with technology beyond our comprehension who are responsible for bouts of rapid evolution? Maybe they beam invisible lasers on earth and cause speciation? What if these aliens are so advanced, that they placed DNA on earth in the first place? Maybe they even created our so called "material dimension" in the first place?
Couldn't advanced aliens feasibly replace God in all of your statements?
Yes, if it is the case that there is an eternal spirit that is an integral part of a human being then the theory of evolution would be incomplete. It would still of course be an actuate description of how the physical part of our existence developed. But I hope you will forgive me for pointing out that basically what you are saying is that if we assume that there something (the eternal spirit) that is not explained by evolution then we can conclude that there is something not explained by evolution. You are trying to show that the theory of evolution is incomplete by assuming that the theory of evolution is incomplete. Your conclusion is your assumption. You asked us to assume that such a thing exists and I am happy to do for the sake of an interesting conversation, but that does not mean that I consider it to be a valid assumption.
The whole thing just seems like assumptions supporting assumptions. If you assume that there is a purposeful guidance behind the external processes of evolution then that might explain the assumption we are making concerning the existence of the eternal spirit. Or is it that the assumption that we are making concerning existence of an eternal spirit requires the assumption of a purposeful guidance. On the other hand Occams razor would slice both assumptions off rather cleanly. The theory of evolution explains biological life very nicely without adding multiple assumptions such as a purposeful guidance or eternal spirit.
This is where I am afraid that you are going to think of me as an extremist, if you dont already. Science is the study of nature, and natural processes. Things that go beyond the bounds of the natural, whether true or not, are beyond the bounds of science. That does not mean that they are not real. It does not mean that it is unreasonable to believe them. It does not even mean that people cannot experience them. But the stubborn fact still remains that they are beyond the bounds of science. The supernatural by definition cannot be studied scientifically. I realize it seems like scientists are trying to show that a higher power is not necessary but I think this is simply because science is the pursuit of natural explanations for natural phenomena. Science will either find a natural explanation, or it will fail to find a natural explanation. But science will never find a supernatural explanation, even if there is one. That is beyond the bounds of science.
I respect people who are able to go beyond the bounds of science, but I tend to get rather frustrated with people who dont seem to understand that science has boundaries.
I agree with some of this. I believe that we as human beings evolves our senses through a process of natural selection. Natural selection would favour our senses being developed in such a was as to aid in our survival, avoid predators, find food, keep from falling off cliffs etc. There is no reason to assume that these senses that developed for these reasons would also be able to detect the entire nature of reality. In fact we know that they dont, we cannot see microscopic particles, or infrared light, or hear certain tones. Science and technology has greatly expanded our natural senses, but I would not assume that reality is limited to that which we can detect, measure and quantify. But science is limited to that which we can detect, measure and quantify.
I consider myself to be an open minded sceptic. I mean by that that I do not dismiss possibilities or try to belittle people who make claims that seem fantastic. But I do require sufficient evidence before I will accept such claims for myself. I dont know if people see can see the spirits of dead relatives, I only know that I have not. And such claims have never been scientifically verified.
This is what I was referring to when I talked about multiplying assumptions. If we assume the existence of these spiritual eyes that allow us to see without physical biological eyes, we have to make further assumptions as to why it doesnt work while we are in our physical bodies. If we assume that memories are retained in our spirit we have to make further assumptions to explain why some people may not have access to them. And I think this would be just the beginning, the assumption of an eternal spirit would require a whole host of additional assumptions to support it.
Frankly I find it so much easier simply not to make such an assumption. It doesnt add anything to my understanding of the universe.
Yes, good, do that. You will then find not so much a problem.
Well if it's all about not finding problems, then I should just stop thinking. That would solve a lot.