ERV's

Debunking Monkey mentioned ERV's and used them as evidence for common ancestry with apes.

Well, I thought I would play the skeptic and see what I could find which had an opposing side to what DM claimed. I am not knowledgeable in these areas but there is always time to learn. I actually thought it was quite interesting what DM brought, but I found this link which questioned whether ERV's are actually good evidence for common ancestry. I found it rather interesting and made sense to me...the guy brought forward some experiments so he wasn't all "talk", he seems well qualified with a BSc in Biology (as claimed).

ERV's Debunked

Here is a bit from his profile which I thought qualified him quite well:

Hello, and welcome to my channel.
This channel was meant for intelligent Atheists/agnostics and Christians who want to debate their beliefs in a rational and civilized manner. A bit about me:
I am currently "sitting on the fence" when it comes to accepting the theory of evolution. I am not specifically against evolution, I am against bad science. I don't think there's enough evidence as of yet for me to fully accept the theory of evolution.
In this channel, I will post videos of what and what I do not consider evidence of evolution, as well as various videos dealing with faith, religion and atheism.


My qualifications:

BSc Molecular Biology 2004
M.D. (2009)

Cheers,

DP

Merry Christimas!

Merry Christmas everyone,

I hope you all have good one!

and praise to God for the Birth of our Saviour Jesus Christ the Lord.

DP

Strange views

I don't know whether to laugh or not :D I have never heard of explanations like this, only Dawkin's and his preference of aliens to God as an explanation for intelligent design. Anyway, I thought you guys would find this a good read.

I have no idea who this guy is but I happened across an article about this "Dr. Rhawn Joseph"

http://esciencenews.com/articles/2009/07/21/life.earth.came.other.planets

This guy dis-believes abiogenesis and claims that life must have come from another planet in the form of microbes. A quote from the article:

"Dr. Rhawn Joseph, the author of this landmark paper, puts it bluntly: "Given the incredible complexity of a single-celled organism and its DNA, the likelihood that life on Earth was randomly created in an organic soup is the equivalent of discovering a computer on Mars and proclaiming it was randomly assembled in the methane sea."

Therefore, as only life can produce life, life on earth must have originated on other planets. But then, how did it get here?"

Can I ask him a question?

Where did the microbes come from and how did it evolve on other planets if it cannot on this one? Some "unknown" piece of stuff?

So many theories, so many beliefs, so many dis-beliefs... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...

I believe in the Maker.

DP

Preface to John Lennox's "God's undertaker"

I have started reading John Lennox's book and have finished the preface which I thought was a fantastic introduction. The preface went on to distinguish between the different terms of use and their meaning. For example he noted that "Intelligent Design" is confusing when discussing about a "Designer" of the universe because it is a shorthand these days for "crypto-creationism". He suggested that "intelligent causation" or "design" is a better term because the meaning of intelligent design is tainted.
BathTub and I ran into this problem before. I had to explain that I meant literally "intelligent design" and not a movement.

An interesting paragraph:
"The oft repeated question whether intelligent design is science can be rather misleading, certainly if we understand the term 'intelligent design' in its original sense. Suppose we were to ask the parallel question: Is theism science? Is atheism science? Most people would give a negative answer. But if we were now to say that what we are really interested in is whether there is any scientific evidence for theism (or for atheism), then we are likely to be faced with the reply: Why, then did you not say so?
One way to make sense of the question whether (intelligent) design is science or not is to reinterpret it as: Is there any scientific evidence for design? If this is how the question should be understood, then it should be expressed accordingly in order to avoid confusion".

Hmmmm,

Onto chapter one.

DP

P.S. I am not trying to do reviews of the book but I like to share what I think is...cool :)

Name Change

I decided to change my name to "Da Pilgrim" instead of "Da Bomb".
Da Bomb was my old gaming name when I was younger but for blogging it sounds haughty. So I chose a name that echoes who I really am...that is, I am a pilgrim on a journey to what and wherever God will lead me.

Cheers,

DP

Family Photo

Just had a family photo taken. Left is Esther my fiancee, next is me, my sister Abbey, my brother Andrew, my brother Luke, my mother, my brother Jeremy, my sister Bethany, my brother Ethan, my future brother-in-law Joshua, my sister Naomi, my father, my grandma and Tara our dog :)

Interesting quotes about the probability of macro evolution...


"More muscle is added to the argument by the fact that the vast majority of mutations observed in the laboratory have deleterious effects. This is not at all surprising in view of the digital nature of the genetic code that we shall have occasion to explore in some detail later. After all, one would hardly expect a computer programme to be improved by random changes in its code! Even the tiniest of changes is usually disastrous. But for the moment we simply record that cell biologist E.J. Ambrose of the University of London argued that it is unlikely that fewer than five genes could ever be involved in the formation of even the simplest new structure, previously unknown in the organism. He then points out that only one in 1,000 mutations is non-deleterious, so that the chance of five non-deleterious mutations occurring is 1 in a million billion (1 in 10 to the power of 15) replications. After showing that this is only the beginning of the problems, in having such beneficial mutations integrated into the development of the entire organism and passed on in the gene pool, he concludes 'that recent hypotheses about the origin of species falls to the ground, unless it is accepted that an intensive input of new information is introduced at the time of isolation of the new breeding pair.'" - John Lennox

"As it came clear that the Darwinian theory could not be broadly correct a question still remained, however, for I found it difficult to accept that the theory would be wholly incorrect. When ideas are based on observations, as the Darwinian theory certainly was, it is usual for them to be valid at least within the range of the observations. It is when extrapolations are made outside the range of observations that troubles may arise. So the issue that presented itself was to determine just how far the theory was valid and exactly why beyond a certain point it became invalid." - Fred Hoyle.

I echo these men's questions and struggles with the theory of evolution...(that is, evolution without input from God)

Free Books by John Lennox

I am giving away two books by John Lennox called:
"God's Undertaker, Has Science Buried God?"

I have not read the book as of yet (only a chapter on evolution) but I plan to. John Lennox comes across to me as a well qualified and respected man from what I have seen. I was very impressed with him in his debates with Richard Dawkins.

John Lennox in this book invites us to consider whether science has buried God or not and whether science points toward atheism or not.

Some info from the back cover:

"John C. Lennox MA PhD DPhil DSc is Reader in Mathematics at the university of Oxford and Fellow in Mathematics and the Philosophy of Science at Green College. He has lectured in many universities around the world He is particularly interested in the interface of science, philosophy and theology. He and his wife Sally live near Oxford."

Quotes from other people about the book:

"As an agnostic in the true sense of the word as "not knowing", I found John Lennox's book intriguing and providing much food for thought...This is a well written and thought-provoking book and will contribute to reasoned discussion on a fundamental question."
Alan Emery, Eritus Professor of Human Genetics, University of Edinburgh.

'This short book is more than just a critical analysis of the deep question posed in its title. It is a scientific detective story, which keeps the reader on his toes as the evidence is put in place bit by bit'.
Keith Frayn, Professor of Human Metabolism, University of Oxford.

"God's Undertaker is an important and topical contribution to the debate and questions about the origin of the universe and its physical laws, the origin of complex biological design and the purpose (if any) of mankind".
Chris Paraskeva, Professor of Experimental Oncology, University of Bristol.

CONTENTS:

1. War of the worldviews
2. The scope and limits of science
3. Reduction, reduction, reduction...
4. Designer universe?
5. Designer biosphere?
6. The nature and scope of evolution
7. The origin of life
8. The genetic code and its origin
9. Matters of information
10. The monkey machine
11. The origin of information
Epilogue
References
Index
191 pages.


I would like to offer these books primarily to atheist/agnostic friends who follow my blog should they like a copy. If not, then any other atheist/agnostic hanging around is welcome to have a copy.
You can send your mailing address to my email (vesselofclay88@gmail.com) and I will send it to you.

Dan