Do you believed the Big Bang and evolution theory?

[yen]

You understand my position but find it unacceptable?

Eh. Â*=) Â*You're obviously looking for a serious debate about this controversy. Â*I have to say though that I'm not up to it. Â*^^ Â*I actually don't mind that you believe differently so my responses to you would not have a similar amount of... conviction. Â*My reply posts to you so far has been because... you uh... nitpicked my posts in particular despite that they were basically personal impressions from docus and articles that I have come across. Â*^^;;;

About macroevolution, is this about ancestors? Â*That species separation issue? Â*I think I replied about this already. Â*I said I don't think so much about it, because I think God made everything out star dust (or nothingness if you prefer). Â*In the end, we all turn back to dust or maybe photons. Â*=)

Ack. Â*I have a bad feeling I'll just keep on defending Darwin's theory in this thread.

Anyway, the main reason why I find his theory plausible is because I've read/watched doctors who say they understand bad bugs better because of Darwin's theory. Â*It has a practical use, and I like practical stuff. Â*If there's a similar theory (ID, perhaps) that can give the same amount of help to the medical field as Darwin's theory, I'll be happy to support it as well. Â*=)

Hounded, you asked about how Darwin's theory is helping medicine, right?

Okay, that Darwin docu on National Geographic Channel said this about the AIDS virus.

One of the reasons why AIDS is so hard to beat is because it keeps evolving, adapting to their environment. Â*AIDS drugs end up become less and less effective (and even useless) as newer variants of the AIDS virus evolve.

For example, there was this guy who was taking about half a dozen AIDS drugs. Â****

To be continued. Â*Someone needs the computer bad. Â*BRB. Â*=)

[tolstoi]

yen..points taken.guess we're on the same side...kewl =)

I said I don't think so much about it, because I think God made everything out star dust (or nothingness if you prefer). In the end, we all turn back to dust or maybe photons. =)

[tolstoi]

so who are the hard-core EVOLUTIONIST here?..kanang dili semi..raise yur ryt hand =)

[yen]

... Eh, tolstoi. I'm sorry, but one of your posts really confuses me. Â*I'm not sure I understand it... you say that Darwin's theory is wrong because he wasn't able to dig up the very first living thing?

Â*I guess we really do have a different idea of what a theory is. Â*A theory (to me) is like faith. Â*It's an explanation of how things came to be, like the Bible. Â*To me, there is little between scientific theories and what is in the Bible.

For example, fossil records can help support scientific theories, but the farther away it happened in the past, the harder it is to find fossils (hard evidence).

It's the same with the Bible, it's easier to find hard evidence (archaelogical digs) for events like the sacking of Jerusalem by the Babylonians then it is to find hard evidence for the Garden of Eden.

However, just because we don't have evidence, it doesn't mean it isn't true because there is also no evidence saying that it is not true.

I hope what I said above wasn't confusing. Â*I'm feeling quite confused right now.


Anyway, back to the AIDS thing.

These guy was trying different AIDS drugs. Â*Unfortunately, the AIDS virus evolved until there came a point that all the drugs he was taking was essential useless. Â*(Poor guy...)

Because the drugs had stopped working, he stopped taking them. Â*And then this is what happened!

The AIDS virus population inside of him evolved back into the (species) which was not resistant to the drugs. Â*Here's what the doctors discovered. Â*The original AIDS virus thrived better in an environment without drugs, so when the patient stopped taking those drugs, the original AIDS species multiplied faster than the AIDS species which was resistant to the drugs. Â*It was Darwin's theory in action!

Because of this discovery, the doctors made a new treatment procedure wherein they ask their patients to stop taking AIDS drugs in order to trick the virus population to revert back to the non-resistant type. Â*When that happens, the patients will start taking those drugs again. Â*Hopefully, this time - the drugs will be able to take out the virus population before it turned resistant again.

Anyway, when I saw this docu on NGC, I was impressed and thankful that our doctors were armed with such knowledge. Â*Later on, I realized that Darwin's theory also helped doctors in their fight against Bird Flu. Â*It was from this point, that I started to feel compelled to support Darwin's theory because it helped in the medical field, despite that I was originally not interested in it and even said I found it boring.

The Big Bang Theory; however... I'm not sure if there's a practical use for this theory.

[yen]

http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/n...l/13056353.htm

Here you go, guys.Â* Bird Flu and Darwin's Theory.

It's a Pro-Darwin article so be prepared.Â* =)

Posted on Wed, Nov. 02, 2005

Bird flu, Bush, evolution - and us

Steven Salzberg is professor and director at the Center for Bioinformatics and Computational Biology, University of Maryland.

The emergence of the new, highly virulent bird flu is just the latest example of how the microscopic world is constantly evolving into new forms that threaten to devastate the human population. The seriousness of the threat was underscored yesterday by President Bush's announcement of a new $7.1 billion national preparedness plan.

To fight off this threat, we need to understand everything we can about the influenza virus. But even if we succeed completely in defeating the flu today, the problem isn't going away. Not only will flu pandemics continue, but also we never know when a new disease such as SARS or West Nile virus will appear.

To keep ahead of these diseases, we need to continue our scientific research, and we need to educate our citizens about what they can do both to protect themselves and to help control the spread of disease. The current assault on the teaching of evolution greatly undermines our efforts to do this, now and in the future. If we stop educating our children about science, our society runs the risk of losing many of the wonderful advances that make our lives better.

Why has the debate about evolution reemerged? Perhaps because few people see the obvious effects of evolution that geneticists and evolutionary biologists see every day.

Comment from Yen --- I was guilty (just a little) of the above-mentioned ignorance.Â* ^^;;

Consider the influenza virus. Like many viruses, it mutates very fast, creating many slightly different strains that compete to see which ones can infect their host most efficiently. Each year, we create a new flu vaccine, which although not perfect, is very effective.

Why do we need a new vaccine every year? In a word, evolution. Each year, the flu accumulates many mutations, and some of those mutations allow it to avoid the vaccine. These resistant strains quickly take over - that's what Darwin meant by phrase "natural selection" - and become next year's flu strain. The same thing happens with bacteria, and this is why our over-use of antibiotics - in animal feed, hand soaps, and a growing number of other products - is hastening the evolution of frightening new antibiotic-resistant bacteria.

What about the feared bird flu, the H5N1 strain that has jumped from birds to humans and killed more than half the people it has infected? Most people don't understand that H5N1 is evolving not in people, but in birds. We don't yet know what genetic changes will turn this flu strain into a pandemic, but we do know that it will continue to evolve. Each time it jumps to humans, there's a chance that will be the new pandemic strain.

Scientists in my lab and others can tell you that developing a vaccine for the flu absolutely requires that we understand its evolution. We can also tell you that the flu doesn't "care" if we believe in evolution. It will keep evolving anyway, and it will kill us if we ignore it.

A major misconception about evolution is that it is a theory of the origin of life. It isn't. It's about the origin of species. It does not explain how life came to be in the first place, but rather it explains how, once life appeared, it separated into distinct forms that led to the wonderful diversity of life on our planet. (Darwin himself believed that the first life was put here by a divine being.)

See?Â* =)Â* Darwin also believed in God.Â* Like Newton and Einstein.Â* Science and Religion doesn't have to be separated.

The evidence for evolution is overwhelming and increasing every year. Among the many astonishing things we've learned through the sequencing of the human genome is that we share hundreds of genes with the lowly E. coli bacterium. These genes are so essential to life that their DNA has been preserved for two billion years, and today we can read the evidence in our genomes.

Several polls have reported that a majority of Americans believe that religion-based alternatives to evolution should be taught in science classes in our schools. These polls are called evidence that perhaps we should teach these alternative views. Reporters and pollsters deserve much of the blame here: Science isn't like politics, where outcomes are determined by polls. Another recent poll revealed that less than half of the U.S. population knows that the Earth revolves around the sun. Does this mean we should teach that the sun revolves around the Earth? What these polls do highlight, sadly, is the failure of science education. Of course it would be a huge mistake, and a disservice to our children, if we used polls to decide what to teach in school.

Let's drop the artificial debate about evolution and intelligent design and teach our children what science really is. Let's teach them that science requires a skeptical mind and that scientific theories must be supported by objective facts. If we want to teach children about scientific debates, let's pick a real debate - there are plenty of them - rather than an artificial one. And let's equip the next generation of scientists to bring us new cures and new technology, rather than burying our heads in the sand.

There you go, guys. If possible, I would like to see Anti-Darwin articles that provides a replacement theory or belief which helps in the field of medicine.

[tolstoi]

i'm not saying that Darwin's theories are entirely wrong..part of it maybe true..that is why i said inconclusive, meaning it is still has to be proven as facts..

now to reiterate my points..it is known that Darwin's main study was on Evolution, consequently he would also land an investigation regarding ORIGIN since analysing how a species evolves will certainly draws you to its beginning/roots..and to complicate things, to have study on ORIGIN means to know the beginning of the Universe =) ...and as you mentioned in the post above that Darwin's book "The Origin of Species" is not exactly what it speaks then i can also state that his works on evolution is not always plausible =)

I guess we really do have a different idea of what a theory is. A theory (to me) is like faith. It's an explanation of how things came to be, like the Bible. To me, there is little between scientific theories and what is in the Bible

what i believe in the bible with regards to the subject matter is that God is the source of everything [Gen 1:1]..we have to cast a line between theory and faith here because the former basically needs a hypothesis and expirementation in order to come up with such a theory..but in faith, there is certainly nothing to prove or be expiremented..it is about what you believe personally, regardless if it may become impertinent to some other peoples belief...science needs EVIDENCES..and if Darwin could not fathom the beginning of everything then his postulates and theories are bound to be debunk!

[tolstoi]

A major misconception about evolution is that it is a theory of the origin of life. It isn't. It's about the origin of species. It does not explain how life came to be in the first place, but rather it explains how, once life appeared, it separated into distinct forms that led to the wonderful diversity of life on our planet. (Darwin himself believed that the first life was put here by a divine being.)

i wont accede =)..to know completely how species evolves means to investigate that species down to its very roots..how it started/originated up to how it had become in the present thru the process of evolution..meaning, if we want to eradicate a virus then we have to know the very origin of it..not just select a point of origin in time and then formulate a vaccine basing from our limited understanding..and yu can see the result now, these viruses keeps on evolving and evolving =)

[Beetlebum]

The big bang theory encouraged a lot of scientist to do research on the orgin of the universe and thus making a lot of breakthroughs from their discovery: nuclear fission, electromagnetic radiation, the list goes on and on.

I don't think science and religion should be mixed together in school, which allowing ID will do if passed. Teach catholism in a religion class/science in a science class (that's how I was brought up).

I went to a catholic school (which i'm sure most have, am i right?). But most of the publc schools in America don't have religion in their classroom. Not every student shares the same religion. So what gives Americans to enforce ID, when it implies that there is a God? ID has been talked about in the scientific community since the early 90's and there have been no serious advancement in that field.

If you don't want your children to become atheists take your child to church. There isn't one? Teach them yourself. Always be involved.

Religion and science can still coexist inspite of their neverending battle. The Catholic church did accept some cocepts of evolution and newton was quite religious, and a lot of darwinist if i remember were deeply involved in Christianity. Personally, I beliieve they were trying to connect with God in some way by unlocking the mysteries of the universe. After all.... we are all seeking the truth (so religion is good for motivation). But in terms of scientific and an academic THEORY - religion will just undermine science. It doesn't mean we should accept science as the absolute truth, but I think we should look at the bigger picture (science, religion, your own personal experience). Just becasue we keep things seperate doesn't mean we can't find a common ground.

[HoundedbyHeaven]

http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/n...l/13056353.htm

Here you go, guys. Bird Flu and Darwin\'s Theory.

It\'s a Pro-Darwin article so be prepared. =)...

There you go, guys. If possible, I would like to see Anti-Darwin articles that provides a replacement theory or belief which helps in the field of medicine.

Thank you for that article, yen.

Below is a dissenting article from: http://www.reasons.org/resources/fff...virus_argument .

Virus Argument No Longer Immune to Challenge

by Fazale R. Rana

The apparent ability of certain viruses, such as HIV, to develop (“evolve�) immunity to drug treatment represents convincing, real-time proof of evolutionary advance, according to some biologists. 1 Recent research, however, poses a potent threat to this emerging icon of evolutionary theory. 2 Scientists have uncovered an alternative explanation for the acquired immunity, one that argues against naturalistic evolution.

The viruses in question, RNA viruses also called “retroviruses,� act like other viruses in most respects. All viruses may be described as protein capsules with genetic material (usually DNA) in their core. 3 Viruses first attach themselves to healthy cells and then inject their genetic material into those cells. The viral genetic material takes over the cells’ operation, forcing the repeated production of viral proteins and genetic material. Eventually, the accumulating viral particles cause the host cell to rupture. This burst sends out large numbers of viruses to repeat the cycle of infection.

Since the genetic material in retroviruses is RNA, it must convert into DNA inside the host cell. 4 This newly made DNA directs the manufacture and assembly of more retroviruses. But the enzyme (reverse transcriptase) in charge of copying the viral RNA to make retroviral DNA is prone to error. The high rate of copying errors means a high mutation rate for RNA viruses. 5

Mutations alter the viral proteins, thus the drug-protein interaction. Antiviral drugs targeting the original viral proteins may have little or no effect on the mutated (modified) proteins. When this happens, the drugs lose their capacity to halt the spread of an RNA virus. Natural selection receives the credit for this change. In the lingo of evolution, a mutation that benefits the virus (in this case, one that enables it to avoid the drug’s impact) has become fixed in the virus’s genetic material, and it will remain as long as the virus is exposed to the antiviral therapy.

Researchers at the Pasteur Institute uncovered a different scenario, one that does not adhere to the pattern depicted above. 6 Based on their study of 85 sets of proteins from viruses that infect mammals, plants, and bacteria, they concluded that RNA viruses change by genetic drift (random genetic variations within the viral material) rather than in response to drugs. Genetic drift proceeds at a clock-like, roughly consistent rate, regardless of exposure to drug treatment. In other words, the rate and type of protein change caused by RNA viruses remained the same whether or not the viruses encountered antiviral drugs.

Independent modeling studies designed to identify the origin of drug resistance in retroviruses affirm this conclusion. 7 If drug resistance evolves, it should stem from new viral strains (mutations) generated in the midst of drug treatment. Instead, modeling studies show that the drug-resistant strains are already present when drug therapy begins. They do not emerge after drug therapy is initiated. In other words, pre-existing strains of RNA viruses happen to be insensitive to specific antiviral drugs, and these continue to live while the drug-sensitive strains die off.

In his book Icons of Evolution, biologist Jonathan Wells cites many textbook evidences for evolution (including some that scientists have relied on most heavily) that lack or contradict experimental and observational confirmation. 8, 9 The case for adaptive immunity of RNA viruses would seem to belong on that list.
References:

1. Kenneth R. Miller, Finding Darwin’s God: A Scientist’s Search for Common Ground Between God and Evolution (New York: Cliff Street, 1999), 50-51.
2. Monica Sala and Simon Wain-Hobson, “Are RNA Viruses Adapting or Merely Changing?� Journal of Molecular Education 51 (2000): 12-20.
3. Michael J. Pelczar and E. C. S. Chan, Elements of Microbiology (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1981), 180-212.
4. Alan G. Atherly, Jack R. Girton and John F. McDonald, The Science of Genetics (Fort Worth: Saunders College, 1999), 597-604.
5. Stuart T. Nichol et al., “Emerging Viral Diseases,� Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA 97 (2000): 12411-12.
6. Sala and Wain-Hobson, 12-20.
7. Ruy M. Ribeiro and Sebastian Bonhoeffer, “Production of Resistant HIV Mutants During Antiretroviral Therapy,� Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA 97 (2000): 7681-86.
8. Editor’s note: For a review of Icons of Evolution, see this issue’s Resource Review department.
9. Jonathan Wells, Icons of Evolution: Science or Myth? (Washington, DC: Regnery, 2000).

Enjoy.

[HoundedbyHeaven]

It is true that Intelligent Design (ID) can imply the Judaeo-Christian God, but that is simply one of its implications-- same with the Big Bang Theory (BBT), and especially the BBT. When the BBT theory was first forwarded, it was frowned upon by the scientific community. Because it accumulated more and more proofs to it to be able to outweigh other theories on the origin of the cosmos, scientists had to accept it despite its theological implications-- particularly for the Judaeo-Christian faith. But going back to ID, there are non-Christian scientists involved in this movement, precisely because all it asserts is that irreducably-complex lifeforms could not have evolved, but were designed instead.

As for any serious advancement in ID, besides being too early, how could it advanced seriously, when it is rejected by colleges because it is not \"science\"? How would any research for the advancement of ID get funding when every proposal is struck down (not to mention most of the proposers fired from their job, unless tenured)? ID does not advance that much, not because it cannot advance but because it is held down, due to its theological implications.

As for keeping your children for losing their faith, I believe parents should be actively involved, but I also believe that any scientific theory that is falsifiable should be thought, regardless of its theological implications. The Kansas school board highest victory was when it got rid of that definition of science that insists only naturalistic explanations can pass as a theory.

Also, I find it difficult to see how religion would undermine science. How did all those God-believing founders of every major branch of science got to founding a branch? by stealth? The Christian world sure was far blinder than a bat to let her God-believing sons and daughters begin a branch of science under her very nose, or those scientists were more devious than the devil.

No, science came from the bosom of Christianity, and could not have advanced without the Christian faith enveloping all of the Western world.

Shalom.