Re: evolution? and faith

john queen (john.queen.ii@mail.utexas.edu)
Wed, 11 Jun 1997 09:40:56 -0500

>Date: Wed, 11 Jun 1997 09:39:06 -0500
>To: "Pim van Meurs" <entheta@eskimo.com>
>From: john queen <john.queen.ii@mail.utexas.edu>
>Subject: Re: evolution? and faith
>In-Reply-To: <865977586-0-entheta@mail.eskimo.com>
>
-----My fundamental problem with evolution is that it has yet to be
observed or shown to be possible. And to keep you from hiding behind the
many defenitions of evolution, I am speaking of what most consider to be
evolution. This being new organ and limb formation or along this line.
Just saying random mutations got us here is on thing. Examining the
biochemical requirements for the formation of any cellular process or
organelle is another. In normal science you dream and visualize but you
also study feasibility.

john w queen ii
>>
>At 05:19 PM 6/10/97 -0400, you wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>At 06:23 PM 6/9/97 -0400, you wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>JQ: What are the mechanisms behind the evolution of man from primates?
>>>
>>>Hmm, I wonder if this is a correct way of phrasing it. Unless our common
>>>ancestor was considered a primate. I do not believe that evolution
>>>requires different mechanism for the different species. So in short,
>>>mutation and natural selection.
>>
>>JQ: ---100 years ago mutation and natural selection were very big words.
>>Now
>>we know that theres more to mutation and natural selection than they knew
>>about. For instance, DNA, RNA, mRNA and etc. A DNA molecule not only has
>>
>>We know more of the details about inheritance, that's true and we know
>>more about mutation and natural selection, that's true as well.
>>
>>JQ: to be mistakenly modified at hundreds of locations(subject of it's
>>own),
>>but the body(a host of other mechanisms) has to selectively unfold the DNA
>>to expose this new DNA for it's conversion into RNA. That's great but
>>there has to be specific DNA mutations that form a mechanism or need for
>>this newly mutated DNA to be dealt with in this mannor. In addition, the
>>
>>
>>I am not sure what you are trying to say here ? That a single mutation
>>cannot have a benificial effect or that there has a need for the mutation ?
>>
>>
>>JQ: cell has to be able to do something with this new information. Let's
>>say
>>
>>Again a confusing use of semantics. The cell has to be able to do
>>something with this new information ?
>>
>>JQ: it's a code for a new type of protein for the cell wall. Okay then,
>>the
>>cell has to not only open up the dna make rna and produce this protein but
>>also transport this protein to a specific location to be used. How does it
>>
>>You are assuming that the cell knows what to do with it but that is not
>>the case.
>>
>>JQ: know what to do with the protein? This type of Knowing is also
>>genetic in
>>
>>It doesn't and this is not required either.
>>
>>JQ: nature. So there are also other mechanisms that have to evolve through
>>'mutations' for the simplest of structures to made. In addition , the
>>
>>
>>Are there ?
>>
>>JQ: What am I saying? Just giving the answer "mutation followed by
>>"natural
>>selection" isn't scientific anymore. I think it's well known that
>>
>>
>>You asked about the mechanisms behind evolution. These are still the
>>mechanisms which are thought to be behind evolution. So what made it
>>suddenly not scientific anymore ?
>>
>>JQ: mutations are very hard to come by and have never been known to produce
>>anything remotely usefull. Mutations translate to cancer. Skin cancer is
>>
>>Wrong and wrong. Mutations are hardly that hard to come by and indeed
>>there are known mutations which do useful things.
>>
>>JQ: a result of DNA modification. A host of other diseases are results of
>>mutations. The formation of cancers is a far cry from the formation of new
>>organs and organ systems.
>>
>>But noone has claimed that mutation itself is evolution. Mutations which
>>result in cancer will unlikely be of evolutionary value.
>>
>>JQ: Most people still think that natural selection explains how a giraffes
>>neck got longer. Like there is some kind of pressure that causes us to
>>
>>No, natural selection explains how animals with longer necks could have
>>had a higher chance of survival as they were able to reach food other
>>animals could not reach. How the neck got longer is not explained by
>>natural selection.
>>
>>JQ: evolve. I do know what you are saying when refering to natural
>>selection.
>>It requires that there be these mutations that are in my opinion are not
>>founded.
>>
>>Are you suggesting that there are no mutations ?
>>
>>>On the contrary Jesus has to be accepted as the son of god without any
>>>physical evidence. Darwin however is a mere interpretator of observations
>>>and even if Darwin's ideas are found to be erroneous, the fact of
>>>evolution remains.
>>>But contrary to religious beliefs, Darwin's ideas can be tested,
>>>falsified, repeated and observed.
>>
>>JQ: ---It seems like this comment is similar to a subject we discussed
>>before.
>>Somehow evolution is a FACT. "Okay now that that is established lets talk
>>about our theories".
>>
>>Indeed, evolution is both a fact and a theory. Like gravity being a fact
>>and a theory.
>>
>>
>>JQ: This bothers me. I refuse to call something that I have never seen,
>>read
>>about in a history book or read about a fact. Evolution(cell, tissue,
>>
>>
>>That's your problem yet evolution is for all to observe.
>>
>>JQ: organ formation and etc) is not something that we experience or anyone
>>has
>>ever experienced. Why call it a fact? It is not a fact.
>>
>>Why are you suggesting that organ formation is the only evidence of
>>evolution ?
>>
>>JQ: I want to look at the heart of evolution. What would of had to happen
>>if
>>it did happen. This requires detail. My readings into molecular biology
>>and chemistry show fundamental problems with evolution.
>>
>>Ah, you require details. Well that's where science comes into play. But
>>perhaps could you share what you consider 'fundamental problems with
>>evolution (theory)' ?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>