Intelligent Design or Accident?

you know what guys...why don`t we for once agree on the real life evidence that shows that Some humans are created while others have evolved.
So Both theories are true. now happy?

Re: # 24

tahmed,

...... don`t get so technical - order, species , same thing as far as i am concerned ......... i asked a simple question - is it possible to breed man with monkey ?.......... and if the answer is yes then we should get on with the business of evolution - i am sure we can come up with ``people`` who can swing from a tree and do complex math at the same time ............

tahmed32:

Planck`s constant did not appear in the list as a separate constant but it is included, for instance, in the fine structure constant, which is number 8 on the list. It might be part of some other constants also. I really do not know the rationale on which this list is compiled. I noticed that the same list was given on several other web sites also. So it seems to be the fairly standard list.

Regarding Hamidm`s comment, apes and humans are two different species. One species does not interbreed with another as a general rule. I know somebody might bring up horses and donkeys; they interbreed and the result is a mule which is barren. Both of them (humans and apes) descended from hominids. A random mutation separated them.

Mohammad Gill

Re: # 23
Tahmed Saheb, Plancks constant has nothing to with theory of evolution.

Anyways, are you pointing towards theory of parallel universes, I don`t think anyone has ever proven it mathematically. Einstein came very close to it with the concept of curvature in time, that is uou end up where you start.

I don`t know where and how this author is getting these intersting concepts. It sounds like some Science Fiction novel, I consider myself a student of science, but I have`nt seen or heard such things except on NOVA and PBS channels as prospective theories with no empirical evidence as far as existential Universe is concerned.

Whoever said that we are not Monkeys, is correct however, evolution is a linear progression of time, it takes probably million+ yrs for homo eructus to homo sapiens.

Thanks to Linnaneous, we can feel superior by saying that Monkey is a different genre and species. PEter feeding PAul.

hamidm #26 you ask for proof of evolution? i got photographic evidence of evolution for you.

delhiwala #28 Gill sahib had mentioned universal constants and i was just wondering why i did not see Planck`s constant in the list. One need not be a scientist to have an interest in science - and I think that is true for Gill sahib and for me and lots of other people on chowk. Nothing wrong with learning about scientific advancements from PBS - or from books and magazines in layman`s language. There are no brahmins in science - only scientists who push the limits of man`s knowledge, and those who appreciate the work they are doing (which is a large segment of the public worldwide), and those who are content merely to enjoy the fruits of their work (which includes everyone, even the naysaying creationists).

On parallel universes, this idea follows from string theory as i understand it. string theory itself is a mathematical construct at this time, but efforts are underway to design ways to test it. one thing is for certain: string theory (with all its incredible implications) is based on solid work. even if it proves to be not completely true, or even completely incorrect, insights provided by this work represent a significant advance in science. The multi-billion dollar particle accelerator being built in europe, as well as the smaller fermi lab (?) facility that has been in existence for some time in indiana, US are I understand expected to check on some implications of string theory.

hamidm2: 22

It is such direct street-smarts which I thoroughly admire in a fellow-man. This is what separates humans from scientists. Consider yourself inducted.

The other day someone printed a news item with picture ( BBC) that a women breast-feeds a monkey (now 7 years old & still) in India and insists on calling it her son. Today there was a picture of a little hanumaan sucking at the cow`s udder ( a Budder he`ll be called?).

I too would be waiting for a very unambigous answer--tahmad32, the resident johnny-boy may continue his pansy-antics to amuse us.

Re:24

(Almost by definition you cannot have cross-breeding within species (except in rare cases, as in case of horse and ass which produces a jackass, specimen of which can be found on chowk. and even in this case the offspring - jackass - is infertile.)

The offspring is called a mule, I believe

tahmed32:

I want to make a correction to my post # 27. The Fine Structure Constant is number 14 on the list and not 8 as stated in my post. Sorry for this lapse.

Mohammad Gill

hamidm: echosqueek approves of your post!! ha! ha!

Re: # 34

tahmed,

....... i think the definition of ``species`` is incorrect ...... just because man and monkey stopped interbreeding does not mean they are a different species ....... by this definition the horrible hindoos and the pathetic pakis will be different species in another million years or so ......... the fact is that lions and tigers can mate and produce fertile offspring even though they diverged millions of years ago, and so can jackals and domestic dogs ........... just because you have a few chromosomes that are different does not mean you are a different species ............ just look at echoboom - as much as we hate to admit it, he is family ............

Another nice and precise review Dr Gill. Bravo!
A few points I`d like to add:

Cosmological constant happens to be the greatest issue of contradiction between theoretical and experimental physicists/cosmologists. The observed values of this constant are in sheer disagreement with those predicted by theory. And this is perhaps the reason for the induction of so much effort into research from both sides.

At the Planck scale - the scale of the universe before the big bang - the various forces and constants unify, so we are left with far issue problems to address then at the lower energy scale.

I do not personally think an analogy can be drawn between the Theory of evolution and Evolution of the universe. The universe has evolved on a much more homogeneous and linear pattern, with masses and energies interconverting, and with little or no `innovation`, while that is an important ingridient of Darwinism.

regards
shobig

Does someone who becomes a scientist does so by design or is so by accident?

I think a human-child raised by a monkey in a jungle has a tremendous chance of getting mistaken, by humans, for a monkey.

A monkey`s offspring, raised by humans, can never be mistaken for a human.


Going by the concept of entropy, I think there is a far greater chance of devolution than evolution. We notice this in ``wild`` vs ``cultured`` flora & fauna.

I am firmly convinced that according to the Qur`an the ancestors of present-day monkeys, & their khaloos Phhupaas, were once hamidm2s of their times.

hamidm #35

sorry my friend, but you make no sense when you say that the definition of species is incorrect. How can a definition of a term be incorrect? It is like saying that the definition of Asia is incorrect and the terms should be used to also include Europe.

You would make more sense if you said that the overall taxonomy scheme itself (of which species is simply one layer) put up by Linnaeus in the 18th century is not valid. However, the fact is that that scheme, despite challenges once in a while, has withstood the test of time albeit with further refinements, new layers of sub-classification and so on. The current revolution in genetics will no doubt in due course provide us with a firmer basis for distinguishing between different life-forms on earth than the knowledge Linnaeus had available to him.

I agree with you when you say we are all family. It is only human arrogance that causes it to emphasize distinctions between humans (racial, religious, caste, ethnic, economic status, worldly power, vip`s vs. masses, whatever) as well as between humans and other creatures. The great-granddaddy of all life on earth was the same single celled microscopic creature that first wiggled around the earth`s oceans 3 billion years ago. Racial distinctions came up a mere 10,000 years ago, and racial distinctions from a scientific perspective are a load of nonsense. There is greater genetic diversity WITHIN the african people, e.g., then any other people on earth.

shobig-sifar:

The cosmological constant you`re talking about is different. That constant was used by Einstein as a sort of fudge factor to obtain steady state universe from his theory. that constant is important and the scientists are trying to comprehend its true nature. I appreciate your interest in the article.

Mohammad Gill

… Intelligent design or accident …? I think it is design that makes intelligent use of accidents.

One has to be oblivious of mounting scientific evidence in order to discard the idea of evolution. Doing so on basis of narrow interpretation of scripture revealed to hallucinating men makes it worse. We may as well start believing in men parting ocean by waving their hand.

My own view is closer to “theistic evolution” ... where mechanism of evolution is a part of a greater, intelligent design. More and more ingredients needed for creation and evolution of species may be identified and discovered by scientific methods. Will this provide more answers or pose more questions … remains to be seen. However, what remains a mystery, at least up until now as I have understood, is extremely low likelihood of these ingredients coming together at the right times, in right proportions, in right sequence, for creation and evolution of species … and hence my take on this issue as outlined in the beginning of this post.