Actually, this discussion has been rather tame so far (let's keep it that way). If you want to see some raunchy behavior, just go over to the talkorigins newsgroup. The gripe I have is that evolution is taught as fact, when in actuality there are so many holes in the theory that it just doesn't adhere well together. The shortcomings of the theory are never taught to the students, and therefore, they are not allowed to come to their own conclusions. Documentaries abound on TV showing men dressed in ape suits that are supposed to convince the watcher that the whole thing is true. But, you may say, what about all those ape fossils? Henry Gee, chief science writer for Nature (and an evolutionist), has pointed out that all the evidence for human evolution between about 10 and 5 million years ago "can be fit into a small box." According to Gee, the conventional picture of human evolution as lines of ancestry and descent is "a completely human invention created after the fact, shaped to accord with human prejudices." Putting it even more bluntly, Gee wrote in 1999: "To take a line of fossils and claim that they represent a lineage is not a scientific hypothesis that can be tested, but an assertion that carries the same validity as a bedtime story - amusing, perhaps even instructive, but not scientific." I realize that this statement by Gee does not end the argument, but it summarizes the point that the fossils alone don't prove anything, especially when there are so few. And he is an evolutionist! The ape-to-man problem is at the end of the evolutionary tree, but there is bigger problem at the beginning of it - the origin of life. Although he is a microbiologist and not a molecular biologist, I'm sure Brian is familiar with the issues. Basically, the whole process depends on chance. Chance that simple molecules combine to form complex molecules, chance that complex molecules combine to form simple organic molecules (amino acids), chance that simple organic molecules (amino acids) combine to form complex organic molecules (proteins), chance that complex organic molecules (proteins) combine to form DNA. Remember, when combining probabilities you multiply the chances together, not add. Regarding amino acids, about half of the 20 amino acids required for life have been re-created in laboratories. But, there are problems with the methods employed to create them, and the usefulness of the end products. These problems (which I will list if necessary) preclude the assumption that these amino acids could be produced naturally, or be of any use to continue the process of successfully (yet randomly) combining together to form proteins. A small protein may have 100 amino acids linked together, but they have to be in a certain order to be useful. And proteins do not willingly combine together on their own. They are manufactured naturally inside cells by information contained in the DNA of the cell, with RNA actually carrying the load to the cell workstations where the proteins are manufactured by combining amino acids in the proper sequence. DNA is obviously a very complex protein in and of itself, so if it carries information to make the proteins, what made it? Answer: it happened by chance. We are to believe that the most complex protein came together by chance with the job of then making simple proteins. It's the cart before the horse, chicken and egg thing on a molecular basis. Actually, DNA, RNA, and the workhorses within a cell would have all had to come together by chance simultaneously for anything to work! Cells are not the lumps of protoplasm that Darwin thought. Instead, they are miracles of micro-machinery that can only function as a complete unit, where the components alone are not useful. The warm pond of prebiotic soup is a dead theory. The next step is to go from the chance formation of DNA to the simplest genome in an organism made up of about 482 genes, or 500,000 base pairs. I'll save that leap of faith for another discussion. -Jody ----- Original Message ----- From: "Brian Ahmer" <firstname.lastname@example.org> To: <email@example.com> Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2002 6:20 PM Subject: Re: discussion > I want everyone to know that I haven't been offended by anybody's > remarks and I hope I haven't offended anyone either. (Although I > probably could've phrased things nicer!) I respect jody, zack's, and > everyone else's opinion and I've actually taken the discussion off > list. As with some other people, one or two of my emails never got > through and it's probably better that way. If another email pops up > from me on the subject, note the time stamp because it's probably an > old one, and it doesn't mean I'm still going. > > I just truly think people evolved and cave men invented gods. With > this belief, it is hard to watch the world blow each other up over > religious issues. And if I'm right about this stuff, it would be > almost criminal to not try to at least open a discussion on it. It > would be like watching somebody get mugged and not stopping to help. > I guess the bad side is that it really does piss some people off to > hear such "blasphemy" (oh my!). Feel free to contact me off list if > you want to continue the discussion. > -- > Sincerely, > Brian Ahmer, Ph.D. > > ============================================ > Assistant Professor > Department of Microbiology > The Ohio State University > 376 Bioscience Building > 484 West 12th Ave > Columbus OH 43210 > > 614-292-1919 > firstname.lastname@example.org > http://www.biosci.ohio-state.edu/~microbio/ba.html > ============================================ > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- > This is the apistogramma mailing list, email@example.com. > For instructions on how to subscribe or unsubscribe or get help, > email firstname.lastname@example.org. > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This is the apistogramma mailing list, email@example.com. For instructions on how to subscribe or unsubscribe or get help, email firstname.lastname@example.org.