DSM

"Darwin’s idea has several problems. Firstly, it makes little sense. Secondly, it is supported by little evidence."

The logic behind the theory of evolution is simple, competition between animals and species weed out those less able to compete, leading to the species altering over time, to adopt those features that promote survival.

Simply extrapolating back in time would indicate that humans and other animals evolved from earlier species.

All fossil and genetic evidence gathered over many decades fits neatly into this hypothesis, so much so that the probability of an alternative theory finding credence is miniscule.

By its nature, it would be very easy to disprove by simply providing a single species that exists that not linked to any other similar species by genetics or skeletal structure.

Sadly for creationists not a shred of evidence that disproves evolution has yet to emerge. (or a shred of evidence that the world was created by a supreme being)

So in the interim until such evidence emerges (if ever) the scientific world is obliged to consider evolution as the pre eminent theory. To do other wise requires blind faith.

Shadow Minister,
From where and how is genetic information increased?

George,
thanks for struggling with an impossible question--that is impossible if you approach it honestly, child's play in the hands of some.
Despite appearances and just quietly, I suspect there's something rather than nothing. But I don't concern myself with it too much since I'm sure I'll never know, and faith is not an option.
I do find it hard to believe that so many great thinkers, down through the ages, were deluded.

Oh dear, Philo,

You *are* aware of the mecanism by which pseudogenes come to be? Look it up. Duplicated sequences, as well as sequences from effectively random DNA fragments are endogenously spliced into bacterial genomes via various vectors in the wild. Into ours too, thanks to various retroviruses.

Anybody inserting sequences into bacterial plasmids know that *any* sequence will be transcribed and translated at a non-zero rate. Despite deliberately lacking promoter sequences. Even if toxic, making some genes hard to clone, like subunits of the Menke's protein, or CopZ.

Given that pseudogenes and other sequences exist, are translated, and therefore produce proteins of some sort, therefore being subject to normal selection, and subsequent variation and selection.....Given these, as any lab manual in molecular biology will confirm, just why is your question of shadow minister a show stopper?

Rusty

Sqeers,
Thanks for responding (in a way). I indeed prefer the “struggle” involved in trying to answer fundamental existential questions (concerning the world and/or myself) to ignoring them or proclaiming them meaningless. Even at the price of some people finding my approach “dishonest”. I am sure there are many people, including many more insightful than I, with the same preference.

>>I do find it hard to believe that so many great thinkers, down through the ages, were deluded.<<
I understand that by “delusion” you mean the pursuit of (and belief in) the objective dimension of “truth” - understood differently by the old Greeks, differently by medieval and post-medieval philosophers, and differently by contemporary philosophers and scientists . Of course, you are entitled to your (post-modernist?) position that I was trying to understand. So is e.g. runner entitled to his - though he is using different words to describe world-views he disagrees with (or cannot understand). The difference is that - I think - I can understand his beliefs, even if I do not share them. There are many world views - including some based on an atheist position - that are naive, easy to understand, hence easy to dismiss. I thought your position was not one of those. Therefore I took your question seriously, and tried to answer it.

I might just add that without this belief in “truth” - found worth investigating by generations of great (and not so great) thinkers - we would not have computers and the internet to communicate to each other our beliefs or disbeliefs. Besides, the clear distinction between “scientific truth” and “metaphysical/religious truth” - however you define both - is only a couple of centuries old, and even that only in the traditional West.

Dan, I address my remarks to you because, as I said, I find you an interesting case.
How has knowledge of God increased in 2,000 years? Do you think you have a better understanding of Jesus than those who sat at His feet, attended His sermons and heard His parables first hand?
Over time languages themselves evolve; new words are invented which enable new concepts, or greater subtlety of meaning. In an age lacking such lingual nuances, body language and facial expressions would have been far more important than in an age of the telephone.
Islam, B'Hai and Mormonism offer some newer, more 'modern' insights into the nature and desires of God, but as far as I am aware, mainstream Christianity hasn't had any universally accepted updates from God since Jesus.
I would suggest you would have far superior knowledge of: mathematics, medicine, physics, geography and yes even biology than any member of the audience at the Sermon of the Mount.
Yet, of what value is any of that knowledge, if your understanding of your God is less?