I suggest you do some research on "speciation" - the defining point of evolution where one species can no longer breed with the species it evolved from. And then see where this has been observed. Come back here when you've done that.
I read the Toronto star article. I also read it on VOA news and Britian's Independent Online. I saw nothing of a "remnant DNA". I saw nothing of this "remnant DNA" being more complex than other DNA. I did not see anywhere that the scientists said that the "change" in their understanding of evolution was a rejection of it. I also did not see anything about a higher-lower species inter-breeding. I DID however see that scientists discovered that the once CURRENT knowledge of DNA had to be updated since with new equipment and strategies they found more complexities in what we understand to be DNA. And I DID see the scientists say that their understanding of hereditary diseases and other medical comprehensions will be advanced. And how does the quote: "The study, published yesterday in the journal Nature, also reveals that genetic variation between humans is much greater than previously thought." prove anything about a comingling of TWO species? This quotation would seem to indicate in favour of evolution, where many different DNA strands and environmental factors would generate many different genetic variations over time. No Visitor, you have done the usual laughable and pathetic theist strategy of twisting scientific discoveries to your own beliefs.
People like LG and TheVisitor would be more than happy to scrape the barrel of science for something they think supports their irrational beliefs. Ask them to do research on science that conflicts with their beliefs and they will refute it igorantly. This is why religion is of great danger to science and in NO way compatable.
Islamsmylife, When did you decide to become a Muslim? Are your parents or family members Muslim? Questions: 1) If you were born in feudal Japan and where only exposed to Shinto polytheism - would your "purpose in life" be the same as it is now? 2) If you were born in Ancient Greece and were only exposed to the Greek Pantheon of Gods - and you lived in Athens and your family paid religious service to Athena – she was their deity, their personal living God. Would your “purpose in life” be the same as it is now? 3) If you were born in Ancient Egypt and were raised to worship the Pharaoh as God - as your family had done for millennia (many times longer than Islam). Would your "Purpose in life" be the same as it is now? 4) If you were raised in a white supremacy family. Never taught to read and write but taught to hate all Muslims. If you were told this day in and day out for your entire life and you truly felt you hated Muslims. Would your purpose in life be the same as it is now? 5) If you were raised a Jew in Nazi Germany and gathered up as a child and put in a concentration camp and watched as your family was executed. Would you purpose in life be the same as it is now? 6) If you were born the Emperor of China 2000 years ago – would your purpose in life be the same as it is now? 7) If you were raised as a high priest in the Aztec religion. Would your purpose in life be the same as it is now? I think we make our own purpose in life. Think about early America. Many people of African ancestry were born into Slavery. They were taught that this was the normal way of things and they accepted it as that is what their parents taught them. A few found a new purpose – that being to fight against the institution of Slavery. That struggle was their purpose in life. When did you decide to become a Muslim? Are your parents or family members Muslim? I think we make our own purpose in life. Michael II
speciation does not indicate that one life form can turn into another - just like the changes in alarm clock design are independant from the changes in jet engine design - the ability to reproduce amongst (what one assumes to be) ancestors does not necessarily indicate an unlimited scope for one thing to change into anything - "species" is, after all, an arbitrary term used for the convenience of science based on the observance of differences (whether those differences are lmited by irreducable parameters is not known, at least to empiricism) - to bring such empirical evidence to the level of fact (to say that a living entity can turn into any other living entity) requires much much much more than just theorizing. The reason I advocate against it is that there are vedic references to speciation (one species changing over time to take a form that is virtually inrecognizable from its ancestors, but still remains of the same essential organism type) - but there are clear references that evolution, or transmigration between such organism types, happens on the platform of the soul, not of the corporeal body. So in otherwords the statements of the vedas are not contradicted by any facts arrived at through observations of speciation. the hypothesizing of evolution of the corporeal body does contradict the statements of the vedas, and since it is only a hypothesis, evolution remains to be treated as such until facts to the contrary come to hand (abiogenesis would be one such fact sufficient to dismantle the vedic proposition)
This isn't what any scientist is saying. However, your oversimplification of evolution gives those educated in the topic some insight into your ignorance. The very gradual genetic changes that occur in a species over many, many generations can only be reduced to an "entity turning into another living entity" only in the mind of the ignorant -or the deceptive. The fascinating thing here is you pretend to require evidence (which is available for the price of an education or the use of a library card) for the scientific fact of evolution; but simply take the word of any backward ass poet willing to write down the mythologies of his culture perhaps as long ago as 3000 years. You're a living, breathing contradiction of terms, LG.
SkinWalker so a microbe can or cannot turn into a blue whale given enough time according to evolution? I could be missing a few details but all there is in the way of evidence (distinct from theory) is a few sketchy indications of speciation ad hom ad hom
No. A microbe most definitely cannot turn into a blue whale given time. It can produce as offspring a slightly different microbe, better adapted for its environment. And, given time, the better adapted offspring of each subsequent procreation will survive to procreate themselves in a successive chain until they are eventually no longer the offspring of a microbe but of a simple animal. And so on. Like I said, an education will cure your ignorance. And you can choose to call this an "ad hom" all you want, but it is a fair criticism. The steady rejection of scientific statements that do not fit your superstition; but the ready acceptance of those that don't threaten your superstition is pure and utter intellectual dishonesty. What other possibility could exist to explain these apparent contradictions than either ignorance or deception. To continue your arguments based in either amounts to intellectual dishonesty. And when you and those like you get called on your poppycock, you cry "ad hom."
Moderator's Note Several posts within the last page or so were deleted. They were deleted in accordance with forum rules: Posts which, in the moderator's opinion, serve no purpose other than to attempt to provoke an angry reaction from another poster, will be deleted. Posts that interrupt a serious thread with comments that in no way, shape, or form relate to the original topic, will be deleted. Any further discussion in-thread about their deletion will be deleted as they are off-topic. If you have any questions or concerns, PM me. If you can justify why the comment was on-topic I may be moved to undelete it. If you aren't satisfied with this, PM another moderator/admin. Do not respond to this post in-thread.
Its the curiousity that is the foundation for all aspects of knowledge, regardless whether you are talking of science or religion. Its difficult for a thoughtful person to not attribute a meaning in life - in fact its unavoidable for everyone. Even if one is not a thoughtful person, their meaning in life is generally determined by their sex life and work (if what is giving one's life meaning is taken away from one, the symptoms of depression manifest)
I think there is a difference between: The purpose of life - in general (i.e. what is the purpose of life existing on Earth, or on any other planet etc). The meaning/purpose that we ascribe to ourselves - i.e. the purpose of OUR LIVES - OUR meaning IN life. Most people have the latter (even if it is merely not wanting to die) - but it doesn't mean there is a former!
If your purpose is not to die it would appear to imply that the purpose of everything that is not you is to kill you.
Firstly - I never said it was MY self-assigned purpose, as you imply with the word "your". Secondly, your logic is in serious need of revising, sir.Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! There is no such implication as you think. Why would you think there is?
"My" is a remarkably dubious concept to begin with. Who and what is this "My"? Where does it begin or end? Biological life is a continuous process of rebirth. Your cells die and grow again at this very moment.
Hi, I often wonder how many of these big questions (i.e. what is the meaning, purpose of life, is there a god, why am I here, what comes after death, when did the universe begin???) would have occured to me, had they not been proposed from others during my life. I say this because, after having lived many years, I am still surprised by how I am able to not see what has been right before my eyes for most of my life. Certainly though, as Sarkus has pointed out, there is a difference between the 'generic' and 'individual' meaning of life, if I may use these terms. If I say that I only want to enjoy life, is that a meaning for life? John
Yes, but how? The meaning is in the means. When you get to absolute bliss where do you go then except to come down again? Enjoy something the second time again and it is not quite so good and then, suddenly, it is all over and most of the time was spent on the promise, not the fulfilment. Blink and you miss it.
The very fact that there is disagreement on the natureand means of attaining/striving towards the purpose of life tends to indicate that it borrows from what you declare as "meaning"
Then enjoyment becomes the meaning in your life - which can be split up into divisions of long term and short term enjoyment (like it may be more enjoyable to not go to school and just take lots of drugs and have lots of sex, but that may not deliver long term enjoyments) - hence there is the counter that enjoyment borrows from austerity to become potent
