Muslim topic  permalink

another bash at Evolution Theory

This discussion has been closed.

Messages: 1 - 20 of 20
  • Message 1. 

    Posted by RayofSun (U14818146) on Friday, 27th May 2011

    In short, DNA uses language, what came first the language or the DNA and how does the theory explain the development of these features using the theory, is it not time that atheists and secular humanists really nailed their science down as irrefutable instead to using silly Creationists versus Science false dichotomies?

    Report message1

  • Message 2

    , in reply to message 1.

    Posted by Tom Adustus (U9467814) on Friday, 27th May 2011

    In short, DNA uses language, what came first the language or the DNA and how does the theory explain the development of these features using the theory, is it not time that atheists and secular humanists really nailed their science down as irrefutable instead to using silly Creationists versus Science false dichotomies? 
    You clearly have no idea what you are writing about. Take a couse in Biology.

    Report message2

  • Message 3

    , in reply to message 2.

    Posted by RayofSun (U14818146) on Friday, 27th May 2011

    Does DNA use language, yes or no?

    Report message3

  • Message 4

    , in reply to message 1.

    Posted by Gary Heron (U2441558) on Friday, 27th May 2011

    RayofSun

    The theory of evolution explains how diversity arises and how a single type of life form can over time give rise to multiple different type of life form. To operate evolution requires a method of heredity where the information transfered from obne generation can be subject to change it does not and indeeddoes not require to, explain how that system of heredity came to be.

    The subject of how life originated on the Earth and how the DNA based system of heredity came to be is a subject of continueing study.

    Report message4

  • Message 5

    , in reply to message 3.

    Posted by Betty (U1722779) on Friday, 27th May 2011

    Does DNA use language, yes or no?

     


    No, it is a very simple code, not complex or flexible enough to be called 'language'.

    You're clutching at straws, Beanie. Evolution happens. The theory of evolution explains how it happens. The only way you can blow the theory out of the water is by producing a new theory that explains the evidence and observations even better.

    Report message5

  • Message 6

    , in reply to message 1.

    Posted by Betty (U1722779) on Friday, 27th May 2011

    is it not time that atheists and secular humanists really nailed their science down as irrefutable instead to using silly Creationists versus Science false dichotomies?

     


    No.

    For a start, science does not belong to atheists and secular humanists. There are, and have always been, many, many scientists with religious beliefs of one kind or another.

    Science has to be 'refutable'. If there is no way a theory could be falsified by evidence, then it is dogma, not science. Dogma is of no use to anyone.

    The 'false dichotomy' of science versus creationism is created by creationists, not scientists. Very, very few scientists are bothered by creationism at all. You get a false impression from reading these boards.

    Report message6

  • Message 7

    , in reply to message 5.

    Posted by RayofSun (U14818146) on Friday, 27th May 2011

    how did this simple code develop? I have read scientists who have called it language btw.

    Report message7

  • Message 8

    , in reply to message 7.

    Posted by Betty (U1722779) on Friday, 27th May 2011

    how did this simple code develop?  

    Why are you asking posters on a discussion board about religion? Why not find out for yourself, from a scientist?



    www.talkorigins.org/...

    Try this. It outlines different theories about abiogenesis - how life came from non-living proteins.

    Report message8

  • Message 9

    , in reply to message 8.

    Posted by RayofSun (U14818146) on Friday, 27th May 2011

    I thought some atheist may want to show me in layman terms how they are right!

    I found this:

    www.cosmicfingerprin...

    Report message9

  • Message 10

    , in reply to message 1.

    Posted by SeLion (U1749809) on Friday, 27th May 2011

    In short, DNA uses language 

    Can you give some examples, it may go some way to explaining what you are trying to achieve with this sound bite?

    Report message10

  • Message 11

    , in reply to message 9.

    Posted by Betty (U1722779) on Friday, 27th May 2011

    I thought some atheist may want to show me in layman terms how they are right!

     


    So you deliberately trolled the board with some ridiculous straw man assertion about science, and a question you didn't really want to know the answer to?

    The link I gave you has nothing to do with atheism or religion. It is information accepted by scientists from all religious backgrounds. I'm sorry it wasn't to your taste, but that's really not anyone's problem but your own.

    Report message11

  • Message 12

    , in reply to message 3.

    Posted by tucuxii (U13714114) on Saturday, 28th May 2011



    Does DNA use language, yes or no?


     


    Well accpording to the OED



    la'nguage n.

    1. vocabulary or way of using it prevalent in one or more countries

    2. method of expression

    3. words amd their use

    4. professional or sectional vocabulary

    5. literary style

     


    So we have learned DNA does not use language and RayofSun needs to buy a dictionary

    Report message12

  • Message 13

    , in reply to message 11.

    Posted by LairigGhru (U14051689) on Saturday, 28th May 2011

    RayofSun,

    The universe has been around for 13.7bn years since the Big Bang, and the Sun and its solar system has only been around for say 5bn years, so there has been time for an awful lot of coincidences to occur out there. Scientists have shown that comets contain amino acids, for example. Back in the 1950s Sir James Jeans (was it he?) used to use the analogy of a typing pool of monkeys thumping away everlastingly at typewriters. Sooner or later one of them would accidentally produce a Shakespeare sonnet.

    As regards life development on Earth, on 19 April I contributed the following to the thread 'Islam and Evolution':

    I watched part 1 of The Gene Code last night and noted the critically important fact that we share about 200 of the genes contained in the earliest known single-cell organism, the archea which existed about 3bn years ago. A single-celled bacteria lived at the same time, and at some point an archea absorbed one into its own body and thus started the process of the evolution of life. Consequently by 2bn years ago complex cells had appeared. 

    You will no doubt be aware of the famous experiment carried out in the 1950s when amino acids were produced simply by discharging bolts of electricity into a liquid.

    Report message13

  • Message 14

    , in reply to message 10.

    Posted by SeLion (U1749809) on Friday, 3rd June 2011

    Can you give some examples, it may go some way to explaining what you are trying to achieve with this sound bite? 

    I guess then that RayofSun's failure to provide some examples is proof that this was yet another ill-conceived attempt from him to bash science, scientists etc. etc.

    Report message14

  • Message 15

    , in reply to message 14.

    Posted by AlDajjal (U14195232) on Friday, 3rd June 2011

    It is obvious that DNA came before language. As for arguing against evolution, you only have to go down to the nearest beach with cliffs, and start chipping away at the rock face to find fossils. The further down you go the less fossils there are, until you come to the point before there was life on earth, and there are none.

    Report message15

  • Message 16

    , in reply to message 1.

    Posted by Igor Trip (U1917499) on Sunday, 5th June 2011

    Here's three of YouTube videos showing how life and DNA could have started.

    Abiogenesis.
    www.youtube.com/watc...

    The Origin of the genetic code.
    www.youtube.com/watc...

    The Origin of Genes.
    www.youtube.com/watc...

    Report message16

  • Message 17

    , in reply to message 16.

    Posted by LairigGhru (U14051689) on Friday, 24th June 2011

    Last night I watched the docu-drama on BBC1 depicting the struggles which must have taken place between our own human species and groups of the more ancient Home erectus hominids who were already in what we call India when 'we' arrived about 100,000 years ago. Inevitably such a topic put me in mind of those I have met on this MB who have set their face against the theory of evolution, and I wondered what they would say to one of the programmes final points - that we, Homo sapiens, were merely the last of a continuum of hominids that walked out of Africa over the millennia, the others being: Australopithecus; Homo floresiensis; Homo habilis; Homo ergaster; Homo heidelbergensis; Homo rudolfensis; Homo neanderthalensis and Homo erectus. If even one of these other groups had not gone extinct, we would have had a link with the apes that could not sensibly have been disputed by anyone, for it would have been clear to all.

    Those who reject the whole archaeological record out of hand surely have the responsibility to provide their own explanations for the hard evidence that the experts have so painstakingly pieced together. To naughtily deny the evidence assembled strikes one as mere desperate avoidance of the inconvenient truth.

    Report message17

  • Message 18

    , in reply to message 17.

    Posted by LairigGhru (U14051689) on Monday, 27th June 2011

    There could scarcely be a better example for demonstrating the fair and correct way that science conducts its affairs! On Saturday's edition of Radio 4's 'Today' programme, the anthropologist Professor Chris Stringer was interviewed about a book he has felt obliged to write in order to explain recent discoveries that have forced major changes in our thinking about human history based on the archaeological record. His honest approach was exemplary for he was admitting that a virtual revolution has occurred and forced a major re-think. The contrast with the attitude of religionists is so marked!

    If you want to listen to the interview on the 'Listen Again' facility, it takes place at about the 1hr 20min mark.

    Report message18

  • Message 19

    , in reply to message 18.

    Posted by RayofSun (U14818146) on Monday, 27th June 2011

    Science is great, but it should not be idealised, or forgotten that it is a human enterprise (meaning a sociology that can study a community of scientists and the power relations), its methods are partial and it cannot be used to study the humanities or art.

    Scientists largely work for the government or large cartelised corporations, and since their livelihoods and reputations are dependent on these, they cannot afford to rock the boat, they could get sacked and their reputations destroyed if they upset their employers.

    Report message19

  • Message 20

    , in reply to message 13.

    Posted by Stazbumpa (U4044370) on Monday, 27th June 2011

    You will no doubt be aware of the famous experiment carried out in the 1950s when amino acids were produced simply by discharging bolts of electricity into a liquid. 

    There have been further experiments recently where simple chemicals in a capsule have been shot at a solid target. The resulting mush was tested and found that the chemicals had combined into more complex stuff, giving some evidence to the theory that life started by way of glancing asteroid impacts on earth which threw up water into the atmosphere and smashed the chemicals contained in the asteroid together to form the compounds needed for life to start.

    @ RayofSun:

    Research the subject, you keep posting from a position of deliberate ignorance and it does you no favours.

    Report message20

Back to top

About this Board

The BBC Religion and ethics message boards are now closed.

They remain visible as a matter of record but the opportunity to add new comments or open new threads is no longer available.

Thank you all for your valued contributions over many years.

We will be introducing a new blog later in the year. Aaqil Ahmed, Commissioning Editor Religion and Head of Religion & Ethics, has a blog with more details.

or register to take part in a discussion.


The message board is currently closed for posting.

Opening times:
No longer applicable

This messageboard is post-moderated.

Find out more about this board's House Rules

Search this Board

Copyright © 2015 BBC. The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.