------------------------------------------------------- CONVENTION OF THE GOAN DIASPORA FROM GOA INTO THE WORLD Lisbon, Portugal June 15-17, 2007 Details at: http://www.goacom.org/casa-de-goa/noticias.html -------------------------------------------------------
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >I am surprised that you chose the 98% similarity >between chimp and bono species to make your point, >why not Homology or Embryology (Haeckels embryos >in particular?) are they dead ends so far as Darwinism >are concerned? > I know that Orlando does not believe what he is writing in this thread, unless he has had a recent conversion that I don't know about. He is merely playing the devil's advocate, or more correctly, a creator/designer god's advocate here. The structural similarity in the DNA is the most powerful means of ascertaining the relatedness between individuals through direct or common descent. It is used to establish paternity, maternity, ancestry and geneology in medicine and the courtroom. It is also shown to be the basis of the observed homology at the anatomical, embryological, physiological and cellular level. An established scientific principle is a complete rational explanation for which the evidence is overwhelming. The theory of evolution by natural selection satisfies this definition in all respects. First, it is a complete rational explanation because it provides a specific plausible mechanism that explains the diversity and complexity of the living world, and the apparent structural and functional similarities between different species. It is a scientific theory because it is testable, and because it is consistent with all other established scientific principles such as the laws of Physics and Chemistry. A testable theory is one which makes specific predictions that can be verified or falsified by observation and experiment. The following predictions of the theory of evolution have been irrefutably verified: 1. Living species have changed in complexity and diversity in a graded manner over the last 4 billion years. 2. Organisms show random variations in structure and function in each generation. 3. The variations are inherited. 4. A specific common molecular genetic mechanism explains both the variations and their inheritance. 5. The inherited variations that offer an advantage in a given environment become more common in each successive generation as long as the environment remains similar. Those that offer a disadvantage are eliminated. They may be preserved in a different environment, however. Those variations that are indifferent do not change in frequency in the general population. However, they may become common or disappear if a small population became geographically isolated. 6. The molecular genetic differences between any two species depend precisely on when in the history of this planet their lineages separated from each other (the lineages and point of divergence determined independently by fossil evidence). The greater the amount of difference the longer is the temporal distance of separation. 7. The structures and mechanisms found in all species are merely functional under a given environment. They are not optimally efficient in many cases. There are also many useless or non-functional structures and mechanisms. 8. Structures and mechanisms used for one purpose in an organism is used in an intermediate or incomplete form in another organism sharing a common ancestral lineage. There are non-functional eyes, components of the bacterial flagellum, steps in the blood clotting mechanisms, etc used for other purposes in other organisms. Yes, there are incomplete mouse traps in biology. The creationist Michael Behe has simply written a book full of factual errors. So have the others. For an exposition of the factual misinformation and erroneous speculations in their writings, please read the books and articles of evolutionary biologists Ken Miller and Massimo Pigliuci, the Nobel laureate Russell Doolittle (who discovered the blood clotting mechanism) and the evolutionary theorist Robert Pennock. The religious concept of creationism and its modern version, intelligent design, do not provide a specific plausible mechanism to explain all the features of Biology listed above. The undefined concept of a creator or designer is not a testable hypothesis. Its only semblance of a prediction, namely that there is a such a creator/designer cannot be objectively verified or falsified. It only raises more unanswered questions: What is the physical nature of this creator/designer? How did it come into being fully formed with the ability to design and create? What is the specific mechanism that it uses to design and create? Why and how does it make mistakes in designing and creating? Why did it not design and create all species at once? Why did it have to stagger them over 4 billion years? Why did it not create humans before creating unicellular organisms? So before proposing common design as an explanation for the 98% similarity between chimp and human DNA, all of the above questions need to be answered, and objective evidence obtained in support of at least some of those answers. Now regarding the abstract legal and philosophical arguments of religious creationists cited below, please see the following link for the most recent comprehensive court ruling that points out the gaping flaws and falsehoods in them, and determines that intelligent design is an unscientific belief: http://www.pamd.uscourts.gov/kitzmiller/kitzmiller_342.pdf Cheers, Santosh --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > My take is you are repeating Berra's Blunder. It is >sad when one has to take the stand that 'it has all >been explained before' or like in your case 'is > an established scientific principal' why not simply > exchange views? > > I do not see any "compelling pieces of evidence in > favor of descent of > humans from common ancestor" with the similarity in > genes. If you are > assuming as neo-Darwinism does, that we are what we > are because of our > genes, then you are saying that the amazing > difference between us and the > other primates is because of the 2% dissimilar genes > we carry. The 98% of > the common genes happen to be the so called > body-building genes, in my > opinion this similarity is just as compatible with > COMMON DESIGN as it might > be with common ancestry. > > To me the evolutionary icons, (one of which we just > discussed above) are not > persuasive anymore, the creationist lawyer's > incisive insights are one of > the reason for the skepticism with which I look at > Darwinism today. There > are others too like Michael Behe, William A. > Dembski, James M Kushiner, Lee > Strobel etc. I urge those on this list who are > interested in the debate to > look these authors up. > ------------------------------------------------------- Goanet recommends, and is proud to be associated with, 'Domnic's Goa' - A nostalgic romp through a bygone era. This book is the perfect gift for any Goan, or anyone wanting to understand Goa. Distributed locally by Broadway, near Caculo Island, Panjim & internationally by OtherIndiaBookStore.Com. For trade enquiries contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] -------------------------------------------------------
