# Evolutin Phase III

[ HOURGLASS2 OUTPOST ] [ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ FAQ ]

Posted by Amazing [Anointed] on November 27, 1999 at 17:00:56 {nwG7wj0NI.0hi4VK0MIQASIIcexUto}:

Okay everyone, after reading many of the recent posts in response to my earlier two, Evolution I and II, and some other main posts dealing with evolution, I need to lay some groundwork, and set the record straight.

Background: I restate that I am not an expert in the field of microbiology or evolutionary science. In no way do I mean to imply that I have enough background to assert myself into their community. My engineering backgraound, however, allows me to make some cross discipline comparisons, but that is as far as I can take it.

Ground rules: In an earlier post one person said IN EFFECT that I did not even have the basis to ask questions, but that I should get informed first, then I will be qualified to ask questions. I faced this arrogance with 25 years of Watch Tower mentality. The very basis of learning is to ask questions as you go along. That process starts even in the 'baby' state that I am in on this subject. Eventually, maybe my questions will become more profound to the liking of some.

The Challange: I have two questions. One for Christian fundamentalists who totally reject evolution; and the other for evolutionists.

Christians: Many of you refute evolution because you say that it is incompatible with the purpose of God in redeeming us as stated in the Bible. You state that Jesus ransom is, by its very nature, based on the sin in Eden which lost our perfect state with God. You contend that evolution undermines that very premise. Tell me this then: Why could not God have used the evolutionary process to create all living things, and continue this process until he PERFECTED a human pair? Then, he could have given Adam /Eve a sentient soul or mind. After this, they then sin, necessitating redemption. Why is this concept, as promoted by some religions, such as the Roman Catholic Church, so hard for you to consider?

Evolutionists: Earlier, I suggested a macro-scale-time test for the theory of evolution. Some strongly balked because you say that I do not understand the process of data collection, theory formation, and then testing. I explained to AF that I do understand this process but that I was mostly stimulating discussion and presenting concepts, fully aware of the logistical impracticality of such a program.

Here is the basis of my suggestion in question form. If, as many contend, that evolutionary science has progressed to the point where overwhelming evidence exist that we evolved, then do we not have at least enough evidence on hand to commence a macro-scale test forward?

I know that we do not know all that we need to know to look for in such a test. But do we not have even a little smiggen of evidence from which we could commence such a test? What about DNA mapping? What about recording any physiological changes, gradual skeletal modification, and organ functional adjustments? Why cannot a program be established to monitor what we now know, and as we learn of more things to look for, add these in to the data collection process. Then throughout the eons of time, such data collection could be useful to future generations in determining evolutionary progress. This may be of help in learning what happened in the past.

Mathematical Models: In nuclear reactor physics we cannot with certainty predict exactly what will happen in the fission process. We approximate, using calculus, the probabilities of neutron chain reaction. From this we can determine energy release, heat, etc. necessary to sustain a reaction and produce power through the steam cycle. My earlier comments about probabilities with respect to formation of the initial chemicals from which life evolved is not that I necessarily hold the that approach, but that I mentally related to it when exposed to a lecture by a Professor in biology in Richland, WA. He made a good argument in my mind that mathematical models demonstrate problems with the evolution of life. I do not endorse or maintain that he is correct. I simply related to his approach as it compared to reactor physics and other mathematical models I am familiar with.

Testing: My discipline is in electrical and test engineering. Electrical theory progressed along much the same line. Some little theory would be advanced, then as tests commenced, new understanding, more data collection and theory developed. Scientists and engineers from different parts of Europe and America shared independant developments to further the state of the art.

Thomas Edison conducted thousands of test trying to develop just one little simple device called the light bulb. He did not wait for electrical theory to be refined and overwhelming evidence to be collected before making attempts to test what was theorized at the time. He just moved forward with what he had.

Theory: Those of you who strongly support evolution have made a good argument with respect to fact vs theory. You make a comparison to gravity. We know that gravity exists and can prove it. We do not understand all the mechanisms and process behind gravitational forces. The same can be said for electro-magnetic theory and light. Einstein desired to develop a unified theory but never really made it. So it is true with evolution, while the evidence supports evolutionary facts, understanding the processes and mechanisms is still in the theoretical state.

Nevertheless, science does move forward with tests, not having all the information needed to know what data to collect or what to always test for. But as they do, they learn and new theory and information emerges. Test often have to be scraped and started over with new criteria. But why wait?

Argumentation and Learning Processes: Whether you are Christian or athiest, please try to skip the personality attacks to discredit me. I am not stating that I have the answers or that I am an expert here. I do not necessarily support the mathematical probability models suggested for the formation of ammino acids, proteins, etc. Therefore, I need not be discredited. I am starting the process of reviewing and learning more about evolution. So, if you want to convince me, then give me the facts or make intelligent discussion with me. Most of you have done that, but some few of you, who obviously have better knowledge than I, could at least try to be professionally considerate. The good example I have in mind is AF, who make good arguments, but he dispenses with the emotional attacks and stays focused on the technical aspects of the issue.

Thanks - Simply Amazing

Follow Ups:

- *Evolutin Phase III J.H. 05:20:56 11/28/99 (0)
- *Evolutin Phase III Liberal Elder 21:54:06 11/27/99 (3)
  - **Evolutin Phase III FRED HALL 07:36:41 11/28/99 (2)
    - ***Evolutin Phase III J.H. 07:43:44 11/28/99 (1)
      - ****Evolutin Phase III FRED HALL 08:25:16 11/28/99 (0)
- *Evolutin Phase III ImaginalBud 19:10:00 11/27/99 (0)
- *Evolutin Phase III Bibleman#2 18:33:40 11/27/99 (0)
- *Evolutin Phase III AF 18:31:59 11/27/99 (3)
  - **Evolutin Phase III Skeptic 08:13:20 11/28/99 (2)
    - ***Evolutin Phase III AF 10:08:02 11/28/99 (1)
      - ****Evolutin Phase III Skeptic 19:48:22 11/28/99 (0)
- *Evolutin Phase III Bibleman 18:23:33 11/27/99 (0)
- *Evolutin Phase III Extrapolation 18:03:17 11/27/99 (0)
- *Evolutin Phase III chappy 17:38:42 11/27/99 (0)
- *Evolutin Phase III OneGlove 17:28:38 11/27/99 (1)
  - **Evolutin Phase III Amazing 17:37:56 11/27/99 (0)

Post a Followup

Name:
E-Mail:

Subject: *Evolutin Phase III

Comments:

Optional Link URL:
Link Title:
Optional Image URL:

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ HOURGLASS2 OUTPOST ] [ FAQ ]