<p>Your arguments are so numerous and erroneous that I have neither the time nor the desire to type out all the responses to them. The links I've given you are nice and succinct, save this one, which describes the function of pseudogenes in detail.</p>
<p>It's a little long-winded, but basically, it discusses in detail the nature of pseudogenes and how a great deal of them have no purpose whatsoever. There are different classes of pseudogenes, but they all share the characteristic of once having been necessary to survival but having been marginalized for various reasons.</p>
<p>What field of research--what are they supposedly unable to explain?</p>
<p>I guess you've just chosen to ignore all the factual evidence I've given you. I've covered the evolution of organs many times before: organs are useful during development, such as a light-sensitive spot on a flatworm or a bladder in a fish that can take in oxygen. They're not just "under construction," as you repeatedly try to assert--they serve an advantageous evolutionary purpose.</p>
<p>Moreover, creationism is not science. It fails the basic tests of science, such as falsifiability, and it has no place whatsoever in a legitimate scientific discussion.</p>
<p>Here are my sources:
Minghetti PP. and Dugaiczyk A. 1993. The emergence of new DNA repeats and the divergence of primates. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 90(5):1872-1876.
Hirotsune, S., Yoshida, N., Chen, A., Garrett, L., Sugiyama, F., Takahashi, S., Yagami, K., Wynshaw-Boris, A., and Yoshiki, A. 2003. An expressed pseudogene regulates the messenger-RNA stability of its homologous coding gene. Nature 423: 91-96.
Lee, J. T. 2003. Molecular biology: Complicity of gene and pseudogene [News and Views] Nature 423: 26-28.
Leslie Mullen. 2001. In Search of the Milky Way's Habitable Zone
Crow, J.F. 1999. The odds of losing at genetic roulette. Nature 397: 293-294.
Eyre-Walker, A. & Keightley, P. D. 1999. High genomic deleterious mutation rates in hominids. Nature 397, 344-347.</p>
<p>Your pseudogene source refers to a pseudogene that is expressed. DNA sequences that would code for functional proteins but aren't transcribed are what I'm talking about, and they don't have any function.</p>
<p>I'm a Christian for personal reasons, but also because I have never heard any intellectual argument that validly refutes it or proposes a valid alternative.</p>
<p>...or are you Christian for the same reason the vast majority of people are a certain religion - because you were raised to believe in it?</p>
<p>I'm not at all surprised this thread has turned into what it has, but it's still quite interesting that these arguments which have been thrown around so many times before continue to be blindly thrown at the opposing side. The problem is that strict creationists (by which i mean those that take the creation stories of the bible completely literally) will never be persuaded to believe in science or any other scientific (or otherwise) theory that contradicts their beliefs. Therefore, it is quite pointless to argue with them. There is enough creationist propaganda out there that purports to be scientifically valid and trustworthy to keep them going forever.
It would be nice if everyone could see that the strict creationism vs. evolution argument is completely ridiculous. But hey, if you want to believe that the universe is 5000 years old and that the NIV english translation is just as accurate as the original languages for interpretation purposes (as a scholar of ancient languages, you have to forgive me if i laugh histerically at this contention), then be my guest. But for the love of whatever you hold holy, stop this ridiculous argument. No one is going to prove or disprove the existance of god with such bickering.</p>
<p>In fact, and believe me on this point at least, no one will prove or disprove the existance of god... ever.... with any argument. It is impossible.</p>
<p>Now, back to the original question of the thread, yes i used to believe in god. Now, I'm not so sure. Put me down as agnostic.</p>
<p>Icarus, you are absolutely right. I'm going to stop arguing; it's pointless, since thesloc has obviously made a conscious decision to reject science. To go back to the original topic of this thread:</p>
<p>Atheist here. Strong or weak--still deciding. I have been an atheist for a while for the usual reason that I see no need for God; I regard him as an unnecessary hypothesis. However, I might be compelled to disbelieve in God because a God who punishes and rewards people (i.e. heaven or hell) based on their compliance with his rules is incompatible with freedom. It's the same idea that we're "free" to disobey the laws of an oppressive regime, but this doen't constitute real liberty.</p>
<p>I don't believe that this 'debate' was the purpose of the thread. Regardless, there will be no conclusion, as this is a personal matter for each person to decide, and - it's been debated for centuries. What makes you guys think you can end it on this one forum?</p>
<p>I believe in God, but do not go on a flying rampage when I'm taught evolution in school. I believe in separation of church and state and all that good stuff, but in all seriousness...don't get so heated up about this. There's no resolution.</p>
<p>Here are my three cents:</p>
<p>1) Quote from George Gallup - "I could prove God statistically."
The statistical chances of all these things happening in order for evolution - i.e. Big Bang and the coincidental collision and whoosh - "a singularity" springs up out of nowhere...and then another thing happens...and another...and a universe is formed. The statistical chance of the first event happening is improbable; the statistical chances of all these events happening in succession (order is important; if events happened out of order, either universe wouldn't have been created or we'd be...very different) is IMPOSSIBLE. It's as if you could flip a legitimate (not loaded) coin 1 google times and get heads each time - and you do this for a billion trials. Can't happen.</p>
<p>2) going to Piers Anthony's theory at the end of his book "And Eternity" (yes, its science fiction, and the book was about how God had to be replaced b/c he became useless, since he became wrapped up in pondering himself) - the Bible says the world was created in seven days. Is human language an accurate descriptor of God's time? God is infinite; his perspective of time is drastically different from ours. Humans simply decided that a day is 24 hours; the measure of time is a human construction, and therefore inadequate to describe God and his 'time'. Note this was the key point for which William Jennings Bryan HAD NO DEFINITE response in the Scopes trial. This is a way to reconcile both. I can do it with my conscience intact - or I think so - because I'm not doubting God's creation...but human estimation and interpretation of His work...therefore, a 'day' could be a billion years, and God could have created the world gradually - in a process similar to evolution - building on each creature. This theory adapts the two views.</p>
<p>3) Evolution has been empirically denied on the micro-biological level, as this board has already pointed out.</p>
<p>thesloc is actually a good example of what years of ignorance does.</p>
<p>It makes you lazy, unwilling to research objectively "the other side."</p>
<p>In his very first argument, thesloc used Lamarckian terms to describe evolution. Wow, talk about making your own side look good. You use out-of-date theories to support your own. That's real manly there, thesloc. Everybody knows that Lamarck theorized evolution incorrectly. But, that's the beauty of science and the pitfall of religion. Scientific theories are testable and fallable. Science replaces old theories with newer, better ones. Religion clings on to the old and refuses to let go.</p>
<p>The fact is that I will never become a creationist after taking two semesters of biology in high school, intro freshman and AP.</p>
<p>But, at the very least, thesloc, please get up to date on your evolutionary theory.</p>
<p>what is the Bible then...its stories....and to believe it takes faith, that is a lot less based on anything factual, all on faith...and those stories have been rewritten, languages changed, gospels omitted, depending on the politics of the time and the leaders of the various churches</p>
<p>nothing wrong with faith, but call it what it is</p>
<p>Jews believe that Jesus existed...they don't believe that god is his father and that he was immaculately conceived, however...just correcting you because you were wrong, as you requested.</p>