Harry, since you asked a Biblical question, I will try to answer it with an
answer from the Bible.
The undertone of your question is one that has plagued many a Christian for
a long long long time. That is. "How could a Good and Loving God allows so
much evil to occur in this world?"
Alas, I do not have a clear answer for this general question. But I could
try to get a stab at your more specific question as to why species go
extinct. For the same reason that we die. The Biblical answer for the
reason of Death is clear. With the fall of man to Sin, a curse was placed
on the whole creation. Man brought down everything with a curse when Eve
and Adam sinned. Death is a result of this curse. Species extinction is an
extension of this curse of death.
But just to make it clear once again, Intelligent Design is not about a
Christian God. Many IDers are Christian but ID as a theory says nothing
about a God. All ID says is that the evidence we see in nature point to
having been designed, as opposed to having randomly occured.
Jojo
----- Original Message -----
From: "Harry Veeder" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, August 08, 2012 1:45 AM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:The Fallacies of Darwinian Evolution - Genetic
Improbability
Jojo,
Whether or not macro-evolution can be explained by genetic mutations,
species extinction have played a role in macro-evolution.
If macro-evolution is caused by an intelligent designer, it follows
that species extinction occurs by design.
I think the main reason people reject conscious design by a biblical
God, is that non-believers think such a biblical designer is perverse
if he creates life and then subsequently destroys life. Who wants to
worship a sadist God?
Harry
On Tue, Aug 7, 2012 at 5:12 AM, Jojo Jaro <[email protected]> wrote:
Alain, I hope you read my thread on Microevolution vs Macroevolution. The
resistance of bacteria to certain antibiotics and the bugs surviving
pesticides are the result of microevolution. In both instances, the
changes
appear to fast, to quickly, to large a change, to complex a new trait,
that
it can not be explained by random mutation over several generations as
implied by Natural Selection.
In other words, what you are seeing is indeed evolution; but clearly not
Darwinian Evolution. What you are seeing is Microevolution or adaptation.
Microevolution is real, Darwinian Evolution (macroevolution) is a
fallacy.
Jojo
----- Original Message -----
From: Alain Sepeda
To: [email protected]
Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2012 5:05 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:The Fallacies of Darwinian Evolution - Genetic
Improbability
I've worked on such operation research look in the 90s.
was working well on tricky problems.
one things I noticed is tha "Elitism" (keeping always the best fit,
without
any random death) was slowing the evolution. Best fit need to be killed by
accident.
there was interesting research on other kind of evolution, based on
cultural
assets the "books"... that you can give to your childs, or not, but also
to
neighnours, or foreigners, and receives, copy, destroy....
was working too, but simple genetic algorithm were working for hard to
formalize problems.
However they can explain the success of species where cultural asset start
to be more important for survival than genetic assets.
sorry to bother you with industry problems.
about darwinian evolution, every time a friend catch an
antibiotic-resistant
bacteria, or that a farmer get ruined because the bugs survive from
insecticides, I have a tendency to respect that theory.
about intelligent design, as an engineer about biology I'm quite critic
about the word design, and the word intelligent, but I'm only an
engineer...
have a tendency to be touchy about design.
When I see the "genetic computer", the word "fallen in order" (fr: "tombé
en
marche") seems evident for me... the is the best description of
self-organizing. A QM physicis will talk of spontaneous symmetry breaking.
Engineer Joke:
Optimistic : the glass is half full.
Pessimistic: the glass is half empty.
Engineer : the glass is twice too big.
2012/8/7 Colin Hercus <[email protected]>
Hi Jojo,
You might also read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_programming and
some of the related links.
Colin
On Tue, Aug 7, 2012 at 2:58 PM, Jojo Jaro <[email protected]> wrote:
Amino Acids are just the building blocks, the letters of the alphabet
for
building complex protein molecules. You have to chain them correctly in
the
proper sequence to get even the simplest protein of 50 animo acids. The
chances of this occuring randomly is staggering in its own right, let
alone
come up with 300-500 of these proteins to come up with the simplest
self-replicating life.
Having amino acids is a far cry from the simplest protein and definitely
a far far far cry to the simplest life form. It's like saying since we
found the letters A - Z, the novel "Romeo and Juliet" can be easily
found
also.
I have read your wikipedia articles, and I am suitably "impressed" by
the
level of its scholarship and integrity.
Jojo
----- Original Message -----
From: Colin Hercus
To: [email protected]
Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2012 2:45 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:The Fallacis of Darwinian Evolution - Genetic
Improbability
Hi Jojo,
I'd hate to say I read it on Wikipedia, but there's also more scientific
sources than that. I'm not about to go do the research for you, I
suggest
you check it out yourself. Abiogenesis is a problem and scientists are
working on it. That's a lot of why we looking for life on other planets,
other solar systems and in extreme environments on earth. Amino acids
have
been found in comet tails, they're really not that complicated.
Colin
On Tue, Aug 7, 2012 at 2:12 PM, Jojo Jaro <[email protected]> wrote:
You don't know that. But even if it was, that still does not solve
your
abiogenesis problem.
----- Original Message -----
From: Colin Hercus
To: [email protected]
Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2012 1:40 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:The Fallacis of Darwinian Evolution - Genetic
Improbability
On Tue, Aug 7, 2012 at 6:51 AM, Jojo Jaro <[email protected]> wrote:
Abd, I appreciate your comments.
After reading your post below and rereading it and rereading it
several
times, I am still at a lost on what you are contending. Please
restate your
contentions in simpler prose that dumb people like me can understand.
Yes, While we know that amino acids can be created from non-life
simple
hydrocarbons, the conditions do not match known earth atmospheric
conditions. I believe you are alluding to the Urey-Miller experiment
where
they successfully created amino acids from base molecular H20 and some
simple hydrocarbons. But one thing you need to realize, it never
created
any self-replicating molecules, it never create any "life"
The Urey-Miller experiment was successful but did not simulate the
correct conditions. For one, it was performed on a "Reducing"
Atmosphere of
hydrocarbon gases, not the oxidative atmosphere with oxygen. When the
experiment was redone with oxygen, the oxidizing action of oxygen
destroyed
the animo acids just as quickly as it was created. Hence, the
experiment
was designed on top of faulty assumptions.
No, the earths atmosphere was reducing before we had photo synthesis
