|
vincentML -> RE: agnostic or atheist? (5/14/2010 7:23:13 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: eyesopened
quote:
ORIGINAL: vincentML
quote:
Please direct me to the proof of our evolution from amino acids all the way to modern human. Please! I will make the time. Really. Unlike you, I do not say it isn't true, I'm just saying there is no proof that shows mutation by mutation how amino acids evolved into humans.
I wrote previously that I agree with your statement there is no proof that amino acids evolved into humans. Hate to be nit-picky here but for my own peace of mind let me remark that no-one ever claimed amino acids evolved into humans. The narrative is that DNA became encapsulated in primative cells and this began the chain of life that leads to humans. No proof but a lot of evidence and as I said before a work in progress.
In that vein, here is an easily read article by Olivia Judson in today's NYT describing the remarkable melding of the sciences of Genetics and Paleontology by the construction of the Neanderthal Genome. New tools and new knowledge.
The article is linked here. Enjoy.
An interesting article. Thanks.
My point remains that is no actual proof of our evolution but we can accept evolution by perponderance of evidence. Being certain of a thing based on a perponderance of evidence does not make one a fool. You are correct, no one on this thread made the claim that amino acids evolved into humans. But without an origin of life of earth there could be no humans.
But my point really, was that why do people who believe in an Energy that goes beyond the confines of chemistry and biology need to provide abolute proof of this Energy (Spirit) when so many other aspects of natural science are simply accepted? I was trying to make that point to RML but I always find your commentary to be thoughtful and again, I thank you.
And I thank you in return, eyesopened. May I remark upon your last statement?
First, I hate the word "proof." I think the human mind functions best when we build models. For me that is the essence of doing science. We build models by collecting observations. We alter or discard the model when new observations become imperative.
You have built your model of a supernatural energy based upon whatever observations or experiences you had. I won't quarrel with the particulars of your process.
I personally have a great deal of difficulty accepting the supernatural in any form simply because to do so violates the observations and constructs in my model of reality.
Some folks are not content to let the issue rest at the recognition of differences. They need to triumph. Their mode of battle (and it does become a battle) is that their process of model building is valid and yours is not. Unfortunately, I can't say what leads them to believe they validate themselves by attacking others. But, that is what I read in the OP. Instead of promoting discussion and understanding they need to trample and conquer. I don't see the point of that except it arises from personal insecurity, a delusion of superiority, or mischief-making. In any case it seems folly and a waste of time to repeatedly defend your own model. You have evidently recognized that. [:)]
|
|
|
|
