Denigration of the Roman Catholic Church is demonic in nature and origin. This is not to say justified criticism is demonic, but how much mud slinging is really loving criticism? I know the Roman Catholic Church is not perfect but it is the church of God and practitioners of her faith are true Christians. This can be definitively determined based on Holy Scripture. What is the true test of a Christian? "You will know they are Christians by their love for one another." This is the benchmark by which we measure our communion.
"If I speak in human and angelic tongues, but do not have love, I am a resounding gong or a clashing cymbal. And if I have the gift of prophesy, and comprehend all mysteries and all knowledge; if I have all faith to move mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing. If I give away everything I own, and if I hand over my body so that I may boast, but do not have love, I gain nothing. Love is patient, love is kind. It is not jealous, is not pompous, it is not inflated, it is not rude, it does not seek its own interest, it is not quick-tempered, it does not brood over injury, it does not rejoice over wrong doing but rejoices with the truth. It bears all things, hopes all things, endures all things." So this becomes the manner in which we should conduct ourselves and the measure by which we treat our Christian brothers and sisters. But it is not new news, it is from the foundation of our faith.
We are given gifts by the Holy Spirit such as apostleship, prophesy, evangelizing, teaching, discernment of spirits, compassion, and others. The demonic exert power in the world in the same manner. They give gifts of boldness, rage, ambition, fierce will power, pride, the power of persuasion and similar qualities. People are able to use these gifts to advance the agenda of the demonic. It can be subtle and we need to be aware of this type of demonic attack. Just because we are Christian does not mean we are immune from the attacks of the Evil One, it means the opposite. We are the better than the Delta Force, the Navy SEALS, Force Recon and Pararescue all put together. We are the Soldiers of the Most High God so we become the primary objects of demonic attack and we need to quit committing fratricide. Just being on watch for this type of behavior is enough to fight it pretty effectively. Let me also say that denigration of other churches by the Roman Catholics are also fratricide and this is exactly the type of behavior that the demonic powers encourage and work towards. We are called to be a unified church - one in Christ Jesus. I will finally believe that this is what our church leadership is working for when I see the call for a universal church council and not ever before.
Monday, May 28, 2007
Origins of Life on Earth (Part 10)
Although I am far from done discussing evolution, I will move on in my attempt to prove the existence of a divine Creator of the universe. One of the theories of the origins of life on Earth is that aliens dropped off living creatures then left. But where did those aliens come from, if that is in fact true? The best guess for the origin of the universe as of yet is the Big Bang theory. I have no objection to such a theory and current physical science points in this direction. No living being could have come out of the initial explosion though. This means there must have been a point in time when the universe was completely uninhabited by any temporal life what so ever. There must have been some point then when non living matter changed into living matter. This is a defining and singular point in time, meaning at one instant there was no life and at the next moment there was. When was that time and what happened?
It is fair to assume that Earth is a perfect model of the universe in this regard and that we are the most advanced living being in the universe, so we can ignore any such theory about alien origins of life on Earth. This is not to just flippantly disregarding any such theory, only saying that if it is true that we have our origins in some other part of the universe, something had to happen in that other place similar to what we are supposing what happened on Earth. Life had to start somewhere and we might as well use Earth as the cradle of life in the universe.
One theory about evolution is that change happens radically and in short order. This speaks more of creation than evolution because DNA will not support a theory about squirrels rapidly changing into raccoons. DNA only supports theories about squirrels changing into different kinds of squirrels. One of the silliest things I ever heard is that one day we were monkeys and a few millions years later we were men. First of all monkeys are perfectly suited for what ever environment they will be in. People need clothes to survive but animals do not. What change could ever happen to make animals not need fur only to need it again later?
It is fair to assume that Earth is a perfect model of the universe in this regard and that we are the most advanced living being in the universe, so we can ignore any such theory about alien origins of life on Earth. This is not to just flippantly disregarding any such theory, only saying that if it is true that we have our origins in some other part of the universe, something had to happen in that other place similar to what we are supposing what happened on Earth. Life had to start somewhere and we might as well use Earth as the cradle of life in the universe.
One theory about evolution is that change happens radically and in short order. This speaks more of creation than evolution because DNA will not support a theory about squirrels rapidly changing into raccoons. DNA only supports theories about squirrels changing into different kinds of squirrels. One of the silliest things I ever heard is that one day we were monkeys and a few millions years later we were men. First of all monkeys are perfectly suited for what ever environment they will be in. People need clothes to survive but animals do not. What change could ever happen to make animals not need fur only to need it again later?
Saturday, May 26, 2007
From Amino Acids to Living Cells (Part 9)
For something to be alive it must be able to reproduce itself, have the capacity for growth and function. When I think about viroids and prions becoming viruses then single celled organisms it seems like a logical progression to me, but it is not. The reason it seems logical is because it goes from simple to complex. It is order arising out of chaos in a systematic fashion with definite steps. It is not possible though because viruses, viroids and prions are not capable of reproducing themselves, they are parasites which require a host organism for the production of future generations. They are able to die though. So what happens to a population group that has no way to reproduce but does have a way to die?
So life, in it's simplest and earliest stages, needed RNA or DNA, proteins, a cell membrane (probably rigid), and a means for metabolism. How do we go from amino acids to that? It is easy to see how amino acids would naturally join together with chemical bonds then fold up by chance and develop three dimensional shapes, but in humans there is a special protein that gives proteins their conformation and ensures they take the shape that they are supposed to. They do not take shape without the intervention of this protein. How did that protein ever come about? It is like a factory. Can you imagine a factory accidentally appearing in the desert somewhere? Again, I do not have that much faith. The more biology reveals to us, the less likely evolution becomes.
So life, in it's simplest and earliest stages, needed RNA or DNA, proteins, a cell membrane (probably rigid), and a means for metabolism. How do we go from amino acids to that? It is easy to see how amino acids would naturally join together with chemical bonds then fold up by chance and develop three dimensional shapes, but in humans there is a special protein that gives proteins their conformation and ensures they take the shape that they are supposed to. They do not take shape without the intervention of this protein. How did that protein ever come about? It is like a factory. Can you imagine a factory accidentally appearing in the desert somewhere? Again, I do not have that much faith. The more biology reveals to us, the less likely evolution becomes.
Thursday, May 24, 2007
Proteins in Brief (Part 8)
There are two types of bonds atoms share. An ionic bond is fairly weak and formed between two atoms that have opposite charges. A covalent bond is strong. It occurs because each atom becomes unstable without a full compliment of electrons. Certain atoms are predisposed to share electrons with each other so the electron begins to orbit each atom in turn. These two atoms become strongly attached because now that both atoms have a full compliment of electrons they become stable and unwilling to part company and return to a state of instability.
When a cell needs a particular protein it sends a chemical message to the nucleus which unravels the appropriate stretch of DNA and manufactures the needed protein in the quantity required. A protein is not just any kind of molecule. The distinguishing mark of a protein is the presence of at least one peptide bond. A peptide bond between a group on an amino acid (containing a carbon atom, a hydrogen atom and two oxygen atoms) forms as a covalent bond to a group on another amino acid (containing a nitrogen atom and two hydrogen atoms). RNA strings a line of amino acids together in the order prescribed by the DNA. As the amino acid band comes to completion it begins to fold up on itself giving it a three dimensional shape called its conformation. It is through their conformation that proteins gain their function. Because of their shape they gain the ability to attach to other molecules and change them. The number of proteins needed for human life is not known, but it is in the tens of thousands! Each one of these proteins would have had to develop by chance, by mutation, without any order or direction if we were to hold strictly to evolution as an explanation of life on Earth.
When a cell needs a particular protein it sends a chemical message to the nucleus which unravels the appropriate stretch of DNA and manufactures the needed protein in the quantity required. A protein is not just any kind of molecule. The distinguishing mark of a protein is the presence of at least one peptide bond. A peptide bond between a group on an amino acid (containing a carbon atom, a hydrogen atom and two oxygen atoms) forms as a covalent bond to a group on another amino acid (containing a nitrogen atom and two hydrogen atoms). RNA strings a line of amino acids together in the order prescribed by the DNA. As the amino acid band comes to completion it begins to fold up on itself giving it a three dimensional shape called its conformation. It is through their conformation that proteins gain their function. Because of their shape they gain the ability to attach to other molecules and change them. The number of proteins needed for human life is not known, but it is in the tens of thousands! Each one of these proteins would have had to develop by chance, by mutation, without any order or direction if we were to hold strictly to evolution as an explanation of life on Earth.
Beginnings of Life? (Part 7)
Again we will just lay down some ground rules and define a few terms before really digging into the problems that exist in movement along the evolutionary railroad. There are three non-living agents that are players in this game we are playing. Everyone knows what a virus is - nucleic acid surrounded by a protein coat. Viroids are closely related to viruses, they are RNA strands without a protective protein coat. Prions are the opposite of viroids - proteins without any associated nucleic acid. Organelles are proteins within cells that have specific functions just as organs do in a complex organism. The nucleus is the organelle which contains the "blueprint" for life: nucleic acid. The simplest life forms are prokaryotic cells. The distinguishing mark of prokaryotes is the absence of membrane bound organelles, including the nucleus. Eukaryotic cells have a membrane surrounding the nucleus.
An analysis of the way these all interact and behave will also disprove evolution as a viable means to continue exploring science. It should be safe to say that if evolution where true, a logical progression for it to take place is going from unassociated sugars to ribonucleic acid to deoxyribonucleic acid, simultaneous with amino acids finding association with each other to become proteins. At some time along the evolutionary railroad the proteins married the DNA and viruses were born. This was the beginning of single-celled life and as the proteins grew and evolved, naturally the RNA or DNA strands within the protein grew in size, function and importance, eventually becoming prokaryotic then eukaryotic cells and eventually evolving into multi cellular organisms.
An analysis of the way these all interact and behave will also disprove evolution as a viable means to continue exploring science. It should be safe to say that if evolution where true, a logical progression for it to take place is going from unassociated sugars to ribonucleic acid to deoxyribonucleic acid, simultaneous with amino acids finding association with each other to become proteins. At some time along the evolutionary railroad the proteins married the DNA and viruses were born. This was the beginning of single-celled life and as the proteins grew and evolved, naturally the RNA or DNA strands within the protein grew in size, function and importance, eventually becoming prokaryotic then eukaryotic cells and eventually evolving into multi cellular organisms.
Saturday, May 19, 2007
The Oxygen Super Highway II (Part 6)
After doing some reading I knew just about as much as I did before I began my brief investigation - not much about amphibian respiration. As in mammals and fish, amphibians require a moist surface for the exchange of oxygen and carbon dioxide. Some have lungs and some do not, but all of them have capillaries close to the surface of their skin which has special epithelial cells which function the same as the epithelial cells in the mammalian lung. One new thing I learned is that some frogs obtain up to 80% of their oxygen through their skin. It does leave us in the same place we left off in The Oxygen Super Highway I, though - still no possibility of evolution leading fish out of the sea. Gills would never develop into an amphibian form of respiration because the components are too different. How would internal organs ever lead to external organs through the process of natural selection? It becomes yet another example of evolution in reverse. How would it work the other way? Could external epithelial cells ever develop into gills? While I see tremendous benefit to having internal organs I simply can not imaging some sort of mutation that would lead to it! Let us take a look at some of the fruits of DNA mutations in humans - Down Syndrome, muscular dystrophy, chronic myelogenous leukemia and any number of others that lead to miscarriages.
Friday, May 18, 2007
The Oxygen Super Highway (Part 5)
There are myriads of arguments that successfully disprove evolution. There are just too many holes in the theory and it does not stand up under intense examination. It does not stand up under any examination. One of the basic assertions is that life originated in the water and proceeded onto land via a walking fish that mutated to walk and harvest oxygen from air instead of water. Just bringing up a theory like that draws suspicion.
Under normal atmospheric condition the air is made up of roughly 21% oxygen by volume and 0.03% carbon dioxide by volume. When the diaphragm contracts it moves down and draws air into the lungs by creating a vacuum within the body cavity. Air with this rich partial pressure of oxygen enters the lungs and fills tiny air sacs in the lungs called aveoli. Capillaries surround these aveoli and the thin walls of both allow the free exchange of gases. Now the blood flowing into the lungs is poor in oxygen and rich in carbon dioxide with percentage by volume of 5.3% and 5.9% respectively. With such vast differences in the partial pressure of gasses present diffusion rapidly occurs to equalize the partial pressures of gasses in the lungs and capillaries, so as the blood flows out of the lungs it has suddenly become 13.7% oxygen and 5.3% carbon dioxide by volume. So this is what is occurring - oxygen rich air flows into the lungs and comes into contact with oxygen poor blood. Due to the differences in pressure the oxygen flows into the blood and the carbon dioxide flows out of the blood which is rich in the blood and poor in the atmosphere. Oxygen rich blood is pumped out of the lungs, through the heart and out to the body tissues where it again flows through thin walled capillaries. The amount of oxygen and carbon dioxide in body tissues is 5.3% and 5.9% by volume respectively. Now diffusion occurs again and gas flows freely to equalize the differing partial pressures of gasses. The blood is returned to the 5.3% oxygen and 5.9% carbon dioxide by volume and pumped back to the lungs via the heart.
Now let us look at what happens in the gills of a fish. Water is much harder to harvest oxygen from because salt water only contains 0.4% to 0.8% oxygen by volume. Wow, what a difference from 21% by volume in the atmosphere! Water flows across fine filaments called lamellae where capillaries carry blood flowing in the opposite direction. The direction of flow is important to optimize diffusion in such an oxygen starved environment. Unfortunately I can not dazzle you with fancy numbers as with the human respiratory system, but the principle of blood flow coupled with diffusion remains the same. Newly oxygenated blood flows from the gills to body tissues that have a lower partial pressure of oxygen and a greater partial pressure of carbon dioxide and diffusion again redistributes the gasses.
One of the vital factors of a respiratory system utilizing gills is being immersed in water. Have you ever looked inside a washing machine full of clothes and water? All the clothes are suspended and separated from each other and the ventilation facilitates the removal of dirt from the clothes. When the wash cycle is finished the spun clothes hardly fill the drum, instead they are all pressed up against the sides. Gills can be likened to clothes in a washing machine. When they are fully ventilated, the water suspends and separates the gills allowing oxygen to diffuse across the membranes and oxygenate the blood in the capillaries, but when the fish is out of the water the gills look much like the clothes that have been spun - they hardly fill the cavity, instead they are all pressed together, up against the sides. That does not make for good oxygen exchange, in fact it does not make for any oxygen exchange. How about a human lung, or any mammalian lung for that matter? Water is some what detrimental to its function. Mammals are simply incapable of harvesting oxygen from fluid. Because of the nature of the oxygen demand and the content of oxygen in water, mammals will never be able to draw enough oxygen from water by the same means as from the air. Diffusion would happen in reverse of what it is supposed to!
How does a creature crawl out of the water that is dependant on water for its very life? Granted, there are such things as amphibians which take oxygen from water and from the atmosphere but we will take a closer look at that possibility after we have developed how amphibians do that. My contention is simply that no fish ever crawled out of the water and started living on land. There is a wall of separation between water and air! The mechanisms for oxygen exchange are just too different. On one hand water flows over an appendage type device and on the other hand gasses fill a sac. Could gasses ever flow over gills and oxygenate them? Then could those appendage type devices ever start to fold up into sacs? I find that very hard to believe. It is not something I am capable of taking on faith alone. Even if it did happen, it would have to be guided by something other than chance! A series of random mutations simply can not change gills into lungs. The very thing that would help a fish to survive in the atmosphere would kill it in the water and the thing that allows it to survive in the water kills it in the atmosphere. Because gills need to remain moist to function one of the developments required to allow it to begin to be used as a lung is a mucous membrane. What would the mutation have to be to create one of those out of the blue? It would never happen! Mucous glands are too complex to just appear out of no where and for no reason and DNA mutations are too simple. How can changing a few amino acids develop into brand new organs? Just bringing up a theory like that draws suspicion.
Under normal atmospheric condition the air is made up of roughly 21% oxygen by volume and 0.03% carbon dioxide by volume. When the diaphragm contracts it moves down and draws air into the lungs by creating a vacuum within the body cavity. Air with this rich partial pressure of oxygen enters the lungs and fills tiny air sacs in the lungs called aveoli. Capillaries surround these aveoli and the thin walls of both allow the free exchange of gases. Now the blood flowing into the lungs is poor in oxygen and rich in carbon dioxide with percentage by volume of 5.3% and 5.9% respectively. With such vast differences in the partial pressure of gasses present diffusion rapidly occurs to equalize the partial pressures of gasses in the lungs and capillaries, so as the blood flows out of the lungs it has suddenly become 13.7% oxygen and 5.3% carbon dioxide by volume. So this is what is occurring - oxygen rich air flows into the lungs and comes into contact with oxygen poor blood. Due to the differences in pressure the oxygen flows into the blood and the carbon dioxide flows out of the blood which is rich in the blood and poor in the atmosphere. Oxygen rich blood is pumped out of the lungs, through the heart and out to the body tissues where it again flows through thin walled capillaries. The amount of oxygen and carbon dioxide in body tissues is 5.3% and 5.9% by volume respectively. Now diffusion occurs again and gas flows freely to equalize the differing partial pressures of gasses. The blood is returned to the 5.3% oxygen and 5.9% carbon dioxide by volume and pumped back to the lungs via the heart.
Now let us look at what happens in the gills of a fish. Water is much harder to harvest oxygen from because salt water only contains 0.4% to 0.8% oxygen by volume. Wow, what a difference from 21% by volume in the atmosphere! Water flows across fine filaments called lamellae where capillaries carry blood flowing in the opposite direction. The direction of flow is important to optimize diffusion in such an oxygen starved environment. Unfortunately I can not dazzle you with fancy numbers as with the human respiratory system, but the principle of blood flow coupled with diffusion remains the same. Newly oxygenated blood flows from the gills to body tissues that have a lower partial pressure of oxygen and a greater partial pressure of carbon dioxide and diffusion again redistributes the gasses.
One of the vital factors of a respiratory system utilizing gills is being immersed in water. Have you ever looked inside a washing machine full of clothes and water? All the clothes are suspended and separated from each other and the ventilation facilitates the removal of dirt from the clothes. When the wash cycle is finished the spun clothes hardly fill the drum, instead they are all pressed up against the sides. Gills can be likened to clothes in a washing machine. When they are fully ventilated, the water suspends and separates the gills allowing oxygen to diffuse across the membranes and oxygenate the blood in the capillaries, but when the fish is out of the water the gills look much like the clothes that have been spun - they hardly fill the cavity, instead they are all pressed together, up against the sides. That does not make for good oxygen exchange, in fact it does not make for any oxygen exchange. How about a human lung, or any mammalian lung for that matter? Water is some what detrimental to its function. Mammals are simply incapable of harvesting oxygen from fluid. Because of the nature of the oxygen demand and the content of oxygen in water, mammals will never be able to draw enough oxygen from water by the same means as from the air. Diffusion would happen in reverse of what it is supposed to!
How does a creature crawl out of the water that is dependant on water for its very life? Granted, there are such things as amphibians which take oxygen from water and from the atmosphere but we will take a closer look at that possibility after we have developed how amphibians do that. My contention is simply that no fish ever crawled out of the water and started living on land. There is a wall of separation between water and air! The mechanisms for oxygen exchange are just too different. On one hand water flows over an appendage type device and on the other hand gasses fill a sac. Could gasses ever flow over gills and oxygenate them? Then could those appendage type devices ever start to fold up into sacs? I find that very hard to believe. It is not something I am capable of taking on faith alone. Even if it did happen, it would have to be guided by something other than chance! A series of random mutations simply can not change gills into lungs. The very thing that would help a fish to survive in the atmosphere would kill it in the water and the thing that allows it to survive in the water kills it in the atmosphere. Because gills need to remain moist to function one of the developments required to allow it to begin to be used as a lung is a mucous membrane. What would the mutation have to be to create one of those out of the blue? It would never happen! Mucous glands are too complex to just appear out of no where and for no reason and DNA mutations are too simple. How can changing a few amino acids develop into brand new organs? Just bringing up a theory like that draws suspicion.
Thursday, May 17, 2007
Superficial Exam of Evolution (Part 4)
Just on the surface of things evolution is doubtful. Even the most superficial examination will show that it is an erroneous theory. Take for example hearing loss in the aging. Men are statistically more likely to suffer hearing loss than women. The onset of hearing loss in the aging begins at the high frequency ranges and as the loss of hearing progresses the frequency of sound waves lost lowers. Women speak at these higher frequency ranges, so men simply do not pick up the sound of their voices very easily. This is plain evidence of intelligent design!
On a more serious note, but none the less superficial, let us look at the extreme differences in climates that humans live in and question evolution on the basis of adaptive evolution. According to science we have been hanging around the planet for about 200,000 years. Eskimos live in an environment so cold, so harsh that only grass and bushes grow there. No trees or vines or any plants of that nature survive, but humans have been able to thrive, along with a myriad of other animals such as birds, bears, fox, elk, caribou and many others. It gets cold (-80 degrees Fahrenheit!). Other men live in climates that are equally hostile in the opposite extreme. Deserts get up to 135 or 140 degrees. There are swamps and jungles where it is so humid and teaming with every kind of life form, and high altitude environments that make it hard for someone who is not used to it to breathe. This is not even an exhaustive list of the different climates and environments men have lived and thrived in for many thousands of years, but the differences between the environments are tremendous. The theory of adaptive evolution asserts that as a population group arrives in a new environment the individuals that are best able to adapt through chance and gene mutation will survive and reproduce. 200,000 years is more than enough time to develop at least a little difference between men from the arctic and men from the swamp, but there is none. They are anatomically exact replicas of each other.
Other animals show slight differences though. Take bears for example. The hair of polar bears are specialized for their environment. The follicles are hollow tubes in which air is able to enter. The bear's body heat warms the air and helps keep the animal warm. Why don't Eskimos have hollow hair follicles? That would be a perfect adaptive mechanism to develop to suit the environment. Eskimos don't even have more hair than other people, in fact they have hair cover much less of their body that most Italians do, and Italians do not need that extra hair all over their bodies. The Mediterranean is a warm climate, so Italians would need less hair. It appears that evolution is working in reverse in these particular circumstances. How about peoples in high elevations? If adaptive evolution were true is it not reasonable that they would develop special lungs or special cells in their lungs to adapt to their environment? Alas, no such development has occurred, they are anatomically the same as those who live by the ocean. Traditionally the people who live close to the sea take much of their food from the sea, but they have not developed any special lung capacity or unique cells that allow them to harvest oxygen from water like the fish do. Why is that?
Questions like these make me question the validity of the theory of evolution. If men have been around for 200,000 years then why are we the exact same as we were even 2500 years ago? There should have been at least some new changes, but there has not. We know we are exactly the same because of the ancient Greeks and Egyptians. They knew human anatomy. They knew the same anatomy we know today. This view is very superficial, but it begs the question - is evolution a truly valid theory or does the scientific evidence make a judgement against it?
On a more serious note, but none the less superficial, let us look at the extreme differences in climates that humans live in and question evolution on the basis of adaptive evolution. According to science we have been hanging around the planet for about 200,000 years. Eskimos live in an environment so cold, so harsh that only grass and bushes grow there. No trees or vines or any plants of that nature survive, but humans have been able to thrive, along with a myriad of other animals such as birds, bears, fox, elk, caribou and many others. It gets cold (-80 degrees Fahrenheit!). Other men live in climates that are equally hostile in the opposite extreme. Deserts get up to 135 or 140 degrees. There are swamps and jungles where it is so humid and teaming with every kind of life form, and high altitude environments that make it hard for someone who is not used to it to breathe. This is not even an exhaustive list of the different climates and environments men have lived and thrived in for many thousands of years, but the differences between the environments are tremendous. The theory of adaptive evolution asserts that as a population group arrives in a new environment the individuals that are best able to adapt through chance and gene mutation will survive and reproduce. 200,000 years is more than enough time to develop at least a little difference between men from the arctic and men from the swamp, but there is none. They are anatomically exact replicas of each other.
Other animals show slight differences though. Take bears for example. The hair of polar bears are specialized for their environment. The follicles are hollow tubes in which air is able to enter. The bear's body heat warms the air and helps keep the animal warm. Why don't Eskimos have hollow hair follicles? That would be a perfect adaptive mechanism to develop to suit the environment. Eskimos don't even have more hair than other people, in fact they have hair cover much less of their body that most Italians do, and Italians do not need that extra hair all over their bodies. The Mediterranean is a warm climate, so Italians would need less hair. It appears that evolution is working in reverse in these particular circumstances. How about peoples in high elevations? If adaptive evolution were true is it not reasonable that they would develop special lungs or special cells in their lungs to adapt to their environment? Alas, no such development has occurred, they are anatomically the same as those who live by the ocean. Traditionally the people who live close to the sea take much of their food from the sea, but they have not developed any special lung capacity or unique cells that allow them to harvest oxygen from water like the fish do. Why is that?
Questions like these make me question the validity of the theory of evolution. If men have been around for 200,000 years then why are we the exact same as we were even 2500 years ago? There should have been at least some new changes, but there has not. We know we are exactly the same because of the ancient Greeks and Egyptians. They knew human anatomy. They knew the same anatomy we know today. This view is very superficial, but it begs the question - is evolution a truly valid theory or does the scientific evidence make a judgement against it?
Wednesday, May 16, 2007
Evolution In Brief (Part 3)
Evolution is a pretty simple concept. There are two main categories of change in genetics, they are macroevolution and microevolution. The two are quite different and when evolution is addressed it is usually macroevolution being discussed. Macroevolution is the change species take over a long period of time (millions of years) to develop into new taxonomic groups. Microevolution are changes that occur within a gene pool from one generation to the next.
One of the driving factors of microevolution is natural selection which effects a change in the gene pool due to the survivability of the fittest individuals. If a particular bear is better able to hunt due to its genetic superiority to the other bears in the immediate area it is more likely to survive and reproduce, by so changing the gene pool and populating subsequent generations with its own genes. Genetic drift are changes in the gene pool due to chance. Gene flow affects microevolution by the movement of individuals who are more likely to reproduce. As America was being shaped many different peoples populated her lands. Many people were introduced to each other who would not otherwise have been able to meet and as a result the gene pool changed. Gene flow reduced the differences between the different ethnic groups by blending them together. Bottlenecking, the founder effect and gene mutation cause microevolution, but not nearly to the degree that natural selection, genetic drift and gene flow do. When it is said that evolution is observable in the span of a life time, this is what is being discussed, and it is far different than macroevolution.
Speciation is the development of new species through the process of evolution. Gene flow stops during speciation and two formerly similar populations drift apart. After a period of time they have drifted so far apart they are no longer able to interbreed and two distinct species are developed. There are two classes of speciation. Allopatric speciation occurs when two populations are separated by physical barriers such as mountains, rivers, canyons or oceans. Sympatric speciation takes place when two population groups share a habitat but do not mate as a result of biological factors such as changes in the chromosomes and mating habits that are mutually exclusive. After millions of years of speciation occurs there are so many different genetic variations that life as we know it today develops.
The main factor in adaptive evolution is natural selection. As a population group is introduced to a new environment where new challenges threaten the survival of the population then the individuals who possess genes that are most suitable for survival in the new environment coupled with continued change from generation to generation eventually lead to new and more suitable individuals living in any one particular environment. As the population carries on for generation after generation a new species appears which has fully adapted to the new environment.
One of the driving factors of microevolution is natural selection which effects a change in the gene pool due to the survivability of the fittest individuals. If a particular bear is better able to hunt due to its genetic superiority to the other bears in the immediate area it is more likely to survive and reproduce, by so changing the gene pool and populating subsequent generations with its own genes. Genetic drift are changes in the gene pool due to chance. Gene flow affects microevolution by the movement of individuals who are more likely to reproduce. As America was being shaped many different peoples populated her lands. Many people were introduced to each other who would not otherwise have been able to meet and as a result the gene pool changed. Gene flow reduced the differences between the different ethnic groups by blending them together. Bottlenecking, the founder effect and gene mutation cause microevolution, but not nearly to the degree that natural selection, genetic drift and gene flow do. When it is said that evolution is observable in the span of a life time, this is what is being discussed, and it is far different than macroevolution.
Speciation is the development of new species through the process of evolution. Gene flow stops during speciation and two formerly similar populations drift apart. After a period of time they have drifted so far apart they are no longer able to interbreed and two distinct species are developed. There are two classes of speciation. Allopatric speciation occurs when two populations are separated by physical barriers such as mountains, rivers, canyons or oceans. Sympatric speciation takes place when two population groups share a habitat but do not mate as a result of biological factors such as changes in the chromosomes and mating habits that are mutually exclusive. After millions of years of speciation occurs there are so many different genetic variations that life as we know it today develops.
The main factor in adaptive evolution is natural selection. As a population group is introduced to a new environment where new challenges threaten the survival of the population then the individuals who possess genes that are most suitable for survival in the new environment coupled with continued change from generation to generation eventually lead to new and more suitable individuals living in any one particular environment. As the population carries on for generation after generation a new species appears which has fully adapted to the new environment.
Sunday, May 13, 2007
Energetic Procession
For the sake of fluidity in the attemp to formulate a scientific proof for the existence of God I moved our comments out of the Evolution post. The main purpose for that was that we were not even close to talking about evolution and there was probably no way we were ever going there in this conversation.
Saturday, May 12, 2007
The Virtues
There are four cardinal virtues: fortitude, justice, prudence and temperance. These are called cardinal because all other virtues depend on the practice of these. The cardinal virtues can be achieved through the combination of effort and grace. Temperance makes an appearance on another list of virtues called capital virtues which include brotherly love, chastity, diligence, humility, liberality, meekness and temperance. The capital virtues are so called because in practicing them all other virtues have their being.
When ever someone used to speak to me about temperance, only one thought came to mind, that of those crazy women in the Twenties trying to get everyone to quit drinking. Now everything I am about to discuss has nothing to do with the Temperance Movement or the people in it, it only has to do with what is inside my tiny mind. So temperance took on a meaning to me of only one thing, namely moderation. So that is the mindset you get when you have an immature spirit feeding on meat which is only yet ready for milk. What does moderation profit a soul? Is moderation so virtuous that it is to be said that all other virtues flow though the practice of moderation? Can it really be said that prudence, humility and chastity truly hinge on the practice of moderation? Certainly overindulgence is a bad thing for the soul when it is taken to excess, but that is not the opposite of moderation, that is addiction, which the practice of moderation will never conquer.
In the "temperance is moderation" model one minor detail is left out. That is that the virtues are not an end in themselves. They are a means to an end. They are the vehicle towards a deeper relationship with the Divine, without whom all is empty and all is meaningless. What can I say? The devil's in the details! Truly, if temperance is reduced to moderation then God has been removed from the virtue. What temperance actually means is to find God in all the pleasures of the world, to always be aware of the Lord Jesus in His gifts to us. Now that includes mastering the pleasures of the flesh because if we do not control them, then they will certainly control us. I am afraid that is the nature of the Beast, but to reduce temperance to mere moderation is to quit practicing the virtue.
When ever someone used to speak to me about temperance, only one thought came to mind, that of those crazy women in the Twenties trying to get everyone to quit drinking. Now everything I am about to discuss has nothing to do with the Temperance Movement or the people in it, it only has to do with what is inside my tiny mind. So temperance took on a meaning to me of only one thing, namely moderation. So that is the mindset you get when you have an immature spirit feeding on meat which is only yet ready for milk. What does moderation profit a soul? Is moderation so virtuous that it is to be said that all other virtues flow though the practice of moderation? Can it really be said that prudence, humility and chastity truly hinge on the practice of moderation? Certainly overindulgence is a bad thing for the soul when it is taken to excess, but that is not the opposite of moderation, that is addiction, which the practice of moderation will never conquer.
In the "temperance is moderation" model one minor detail is left out. That is that the virtues are not an end in themselves. They are a means to an end. They are the vehicle towards a deeper relationship with the Divine, without whom all is empty and all is meaningless. What can I say? The devil's in the details! Truly, if temperance is reduced to moderation then God has been removed from the virtue. What temperance actually means is to find God in all the pleasures of the world, to always be aware of the Lord Jesus in His gifts to us. Now that includes mastering the pleasures of the flesh because if we do not control them, then they will certainly control us. I am afraid that is the nature of the Beast, but to reduce temperance to mere moderation is to quit practicing the virtue.
Sunday, May 6, 2007
Newton and Photosynthesis (Part 2)
Sir Isaac Newton developed three laws of motion. The first states that "objects at rest tend to stay at rest until acted upon by another force and objects in motion tend to stay in motion until acted upon by another force." The second law is not an issue I care to address at the time (and maybe never in this series), and the third states, "For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction." Now my question is: can these laws be applied to the principle of entropy? Normally these laws are applied to specific objects like a locomotive, an asteroid, or airplane. I make the argument that these laws can be applied to the principle of entropy because the state of the universe is moving from order to disorder. The universe is in motion and will tend to stay in motion until acted upon by another force.
Have you ever walked from a toasty-warm sidewalk on a hot summer day onto the cool grass? Has the dramatic difference in temperature ever stood out to you? Have you ever wondered why the temperature changed so much? Let me tell you why it is so much cooler on the grass than on the sidewalk. When the sun's rays hit a solid object that is energy, in the form of light waves, transferring to the solid object and effecting a change in the volume of energy stored in the atoms of the object. The energy is absorbed into the electrons whirling around the nucleus of the atom and it moves from one "shell" to the next higher "shell." With the electron in this excited state it becomes very unstable and, like water, seeks the lowest level. The atom "throws" this extra energy off in the form of heat and the electron is able to return to the energy shell in which it truly belongs. This is what is happening to the dirt, concrete or asphalt sidewalk that is so much warmer than the adjacent grassy area.
On the grass, when the sun light hits the chlorophyll molecules, instead of returning to the lower energy shell the atom throws off the electron which cascades down a transport chain. A new electron is taken from water and oxygen is a waste product given off by the grass. This electron that was thrown off the chlorophyll indirectly causes the production of ATP, which is the basic form of cellular energy as well as causes the reduction of NADP to NADPH (another form of cellular energy) which moves to a cycle called the Calvin-Benson Cycle. The ultimate product of the cycle is the production of glucose. This is the process of photosynthesis. Now this process has been amazingly simplified, but the basics are there.
Now we must revisit one of our initial assumptions: natural laws are constants everywhere in the universe. If entropy is the natural movement of the universe from order to disorder, and the normal result of entropy is the production of heat then something is amiss. In photosynthesis heat is not thrown off by the grass next to the hot sidewalk, instead sugar is produced by the series of several chemical and biological reactions. This is the opposite of entropy. This is movement from disorder to order! In accordance with Newton's First Law of Motion there must be an external force acting on the movement of entropy for this to occur. Evolution may be the force acting contrary to entropy, but God might also be the force acting contrary to entropy.
Beginning with all initial assumptions and analysing photosynthesis in the light of entropy and Newton's Laws of Motion the deduction can be drawn that it is possible for evolution to exist and it is possible for God to exist.
Have you ever walked from a toasty-warm sidewalk on a hot summer day onto the cool grass? Has the dramatic difference in temperature ever stood out to you? Have you ever wondered why the temperature changed so much? Let me tell you why it is so much cooler on the grass than on the sidewalk. When the sun's rays hit a solid object that is energy, in the form of light waves, transferring to the solid object and effecting a change in the volume of energy stored in the atoms of the object. The energy is absorbed into the electrons whirling around the nucleus of the atom and it moves from one "shell" to the next higher "shell." With the electron in this excited state it becomes very unstable and, like water, seeks the lowest level. The atom "throws" this extra energy off in the form of heat and the electron is able to return to the energy shell in which it truly belongs. This is what is happening to the dirt, concrete or asphalt sidewalk that is so much warmer than the adjacent grassy area.
On the grass, when the sun light hits the chlorophyll molecules, instead of returning to the lower energy shell the atom throws off the electron which cascades down a transport chain. A new electron is taken from water and oxygen is a waste product given off by the grass. This electron that was thrown off the chlorophyll indirectly causes the production of ATP, which is the basic form of cellular energy as well as causes the reduction of NADP to NADPH (another form of cellular energy) which moves to a cycle called the Calvin-Benson Cycle. The ultimate product of the cycle is the production of glucose. This is the process of photosynthesis. Now this process has been amazingly simplified, but the basics are there.
Now we must revisit one of our initial assumptions: natural laws are constants everywhere in the universe. If entropy is the natural movement of the universe from order to disorder, and the normal result of entropy is the production of heat then something is amiss. In photosynthesis heat is not thrown off by the grass next to the hot sidewalk, instead sugar is produced by the series of several chemical and biological reactions. This is the opposite of entropy. This is movement from disorder to order! In accordance with Newton's First Law of Motion there must be an external force acting on the movement of entropy for this to occur. Evolution may be the force acting contrary to entropy, but God might also be the force acting contrary to entropy.
Beginning with all initial assumptions and analysing photosynthesis in the light of entropy and Newton's Laws of Motion the deduction can be drawn that it is possible for evolution to exist and it is possible for God to exist.
Saturday, May 5, 2007
Will Science Lead Us to God? (Part 1)
In all previous posts there has been an assumption of the existence of God. For this series I will not make that assumption, but will assume there either is or there is not the existence of a God, or Creator and Originator of the universe. There are many other assumptions we can and will make also. We can assume that natural laws are constants everywhere in the universe, that the universe is logical, that there are universal truths and we can know what they are, that the totality of human experience is admissible to this discussion but is valid only if it can be scientifically analysed or logically deduced. We will not assume this list is complete and may be altered upon a closer examination (any edits will be pointed out as such).
When I was a junior or senior in high school my mom told me to read the New Testament if I wanted to win the Nobel Prize for science. That statement was precipitated by a conversation about a Unified Field theory, which for some reason was in the news. In science, things that are really, really big do not always jive with things that are really, really small, so there is this idea that someone will someday develop a Unified Field Theory that will tie it all together and we will finally live in one big happy unified universe in which all things big and small will be explained. Well, this is not a Unified Field Theory, it is an attempt to prove the existence of God through the application and analyzation of science. First of all I want to acknowledge that this is very ambitious and it may not succeed, so again I want to solicit any help I can get. I am also open to criticism and would enjoy challenges and corrections when I am wrong.
Entropy is characterized by the movement of an ordered state to a disordered state and is the natural behavior of the universe. The conservation of energy asserts that energy can be neither created nor destroyed, but only transformed. It is spelled out in the First Law of Thermodynamics, which is, "The change in the internal energy of a closed thermodynamic system is equal to the sum of the amount of heat energy supplied to the system and the work done on the system." This law is accompanied by a Second, "The total entropy of any isolated thermodynamic system tends to increase over time, approaching a maximum value." I know that is a lot of information to digest in a short amount of space, and my only aim in this post is to lay out some of the foundation and begin the discussion, so I will stop with that.
When I was a junior or senior in high school my mom told me to read the New Testament if I wanted to win the Nobel Prize for science. That statement was precipitated by a conversation about a Unified Field theory, which for some reason was in the news. In science, things that are really, really big do not always jive with things that are really, really small, so there is this idea that someone will someday develop a Unified Field Theory that will tie it all together and we will finally live in one big happy unified universe in which all things big and small will be explained. Well, this is not a Unified Field Theory, it is an attempt to prove the existence of God through the application and analyzation of science. First of all I want to acknowledge that this is very ambitious and it may not succeed, so again I want to solicit any help I can get. I am also open to criticism and would enjoy challenges and corrections when I am wrong.
Entropy is characterized by the movement of an ordered state to a disordered state and is the natural behavior of the universe. The conservation of energy asserts that energy can be neither created nor destroyed, but only transformed. It is spelled out in the First Law of Thermodynamics, which is, "The change in the internal energy of a closed thermodynamic system is equal to the sum of the amount of heat energy supplied to the system and the work done on the system." This law is accompanied by a Second, "The total entropy of any isolated thermodynamic system tends to increase over time, approaching a maximum value." I know that is a lot of information to digest in a short amount of space, and my only aim in this post is to lay out some of the foundation and begin the discussion, so I will stop with that.
Tuesday, May 1, 2007
The Universal Language
Happy May Day!
The first time I consciously remember holding an affection for mathematics was in the Fifth Grade. Everyday after lunch we would pick up our notebooks and walk next door to study math for an hour. Before that I know I loved science and engineering, but I do not remember how serious I was about it. The space shuttle Challenger blew up when I was in the Fourth Grade. I know I was disturbed quite a bit. I thought it was great that a school teacher was going up into outer space. More than that I thought it was amazing that we could do it at all. My dad says I cried when the shuttle exploded, but not for the people on board, because I did not understand how such a wonderful machine could just explode. My compassion for people had grown by the time the Columbia burned up on reentry, and while my primary concern was for the astronauts' families, I still mourned (just a little bit) the loss of such wonderful technology we so easily hurled around the world. The bottom line is we probably will never be complete masters of science and mathematics no matter how much effort and knowledge we throw at it.
Mathematics is often called the universal language. This has had just one meaning to me until recently which is that mathematics is the language that everybody understands, but how about this meaning as well - mathematics is the language in which the universe speaks to us. Early mathematicians believed that. I think that is what made them so great. When I was in the Ninth Grade and beginning to learn about Geometry for the first time in depth Pythagoras was introduced to me. He never escaped mention for the rest of my career with mathematics. He lived 2500 years ago! He is still a household name! Two hundred years later Euclid lived and wrote The Elements, which was THE authority in mathematics until the Twentieth Century AD, and it is still considered highly authoritative. The only reason it fell from its exalted position to a slightly less exalted position was because it starts with five propositions and the fifth was dubbed as erroneous. Who has not heard of Sir Isaac Newton or Albert Einstein? The thing these people had in common was their faith in God and the belief that mathematics and science ultimately lead to Him.
My own discipline of favor is biology, but that covers a fair amount of chemistry too. In college I learned more about photosynthesis than I ever wanted to know, but that may come in handy soon as I try to explore the presence of God in the product of photosynthesis. Before I get there though I will have to discuss basics of science, kind of lay down the ground rules, which I am hoping will also help me to organize my thoughts (which I consider, next to my ignorance, to be my main liability in this effort I am beginning). So I look forward to all the help I can recruit in this and look forward to seeing the results it will yield.
The first time I consciously remember holding an affection for mathematics was in the Fifth Grade. Everyday after lunch we would pick up our notebooks and walk next door to study math for an hour. Before that I know I loved science and engineering, but I do not remember how serious I was about it. The space shuttle Challenger blew up when I was in the Fourth Grade. I know I was disturbed quite a bit. I thought it was great that a school teacher was going up into outer space. More than that I thought it was amazing that we could do it at all. My dad says I cried when the shuttle exploded, but not for the people on board, because I did not understand how such a wonderful machine could just explode. My compassion for people had grown by the time the Columbia burned up on reentry, and while my primary concern was for the astronauts' families, I still mourned (just a little bit) the loss of such wonderful technology we so easily hurled around the world. The bottom line is we probably will never be complete masters of science and mathematics no matter how much effort and knowledge we throw at it.
Mathematics is often called the universal language. This has had just one meaning to me until recently which is that mathematics is the language that everybody understands, but how about this meaning as well - mathematics is the language in which the universe speaks to us. Early mathematicians believed that. I think that is what made them so great. When I was in the Ninth Grade and beginning to learn about Geometry for the first time in depth Pythagoras was introduced to me. He never escaped mention for the rest of my career with mathematics. He lived 2500 years ago! He is still a household name! Two hundred years later Euclid lived and wrote The Elements, which was THE authority in mathematics until the Twentieth Century AD, and it is still considered highly authoritative. The only reason it fell from its exalted position to a slightly less exalted position was because it starts with five propositions and the fifth was dubbed as erroneous. Who has not heard of Sir Isaac Newton or Albert Einstein? The thing these people had in common was their faith in God and the belief that mathematics and science ultimately lead to Him.
My own discipline of favor is biology, but that covers a fair amount of chemistry too. In college I learned more about photosynthesis than I ever wanted to know, but that may come in handy soon as I try to explore the presence of God in the product of photosynthesis. Before I get there though I will have to discuss basics of science, kind of lay down the ground rules, which I am hoping will also help me to organize my thoughts (which I consider, next to my ignorance, to be my main liability in this effort I am beginning). So I look forward to all the help I can recruit in this and look forward to seeing the results it will yield.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
