Phew! That's a relief.
This did present a whole host of other questions the web site did not address, like What will the aliens do with us when their experiment is over? And, Are the experimentees who are aware of their fate planing to do anything about it? Build a spaceship and leave? Beg the aliens for a little more time? Join them? Hmmm... so many possibilities to consider.
But I digress. What I really wanted to talk about was DNA. The above mentioned web site also proposed that the ancient symbol of health-- two snakes twined about a pole-- was actually a representation of DNA left behind by the aliens. What an idea.
Perhaps this stuck in my head because I've been thinking a lot about DNA recently. Have you ever considered the pros and cons of being built from DNA? Pros: You are a composite of your ancestors' DNA, including (most likely) their health, IQs, food choices (which can alter DNA), toxic exposures, etc. Cons: You are a composite of your ancestors' DNA, including their health, IQs, food choices, toxic exposures, etc.
How is this a pro? Well, for one thing, as a parent raising biological offspring, you know what ballpark your child will be in. You may think they are in left field sometimes, but at least they're not in a different solar system. If Johnny gets sick you know to consider Uncle Joe's diabetes and Aunt Edith's paranoia. Suzy's IQ may floor you, but you're at least likely to be able to carry on a conversation with her.
How is this a con? Well, that toxic lab you or your parents worked in years ago may manifest itself in Johnny's health. And Grandpa Smith's tobacco addiction may haunt your whole family for generations to come. And like it or not, what ever is wrong with your DNA is likely to be wrong with your kids' as well.
Then of course, if you adopt a child there is no "insert new family's DNA here" port, so when Johnny is in the hospital with odd symptoms-- good luck! And talking to Suzy may be like trying to discuss the baseball game only to find out she's playing in a hockey rink up in Siberia.
And what about evolution? (Disclaimer: I am a creationist who believes in evolution. While you'd think this would endear you to everyone, it actually just ticks everyone off.) I am completely certain that God created the universe, and that he's still alive and well and running the show. I also know that even the most die-hard anti-evolutionists can't argue with the fact that over-use of antibiotics has led to changes in the germs we're trying to avoid. This is evolution right before our very eyes, folks. I'm sorry, but you just have to deal with it. It's real.
So, why is it still the Theory of evolution? Why not the Law of evolution? Like gravity? Because there are actually two parts to the Theory.
1) Living organisms can change and evolve to better suit their environment. Proven. Again and Again and again. The antibiotic example is only one of many.
2) Living organisms can change and evolve so much that they become entirely different living organisms. Theory. While it may follow (somewhat) logically from #1, we have no direct evidence for this type of evolution at all. Forget the "missing link", we're actually looking for any links.
But what about DNA? Don't we share huge amounts of DNA with palm trees? Doesn't this prove something?
Yes, we do. And undoubtedly it does. But what, exactly? Looking at it from a purely scientific standpoint, it is still Just A Theory. We can like the theory all we want, but that doesn't make it real. Because, like it or not...
truth exists.
It always has. It always will.
Galileo proposed that the earth went around the sun. (Which was not a new idea, btw. It was a very old one being re-proposed.) This didn't fit with the current politically correct (or religiously correct) view point, but it was still true, and all the arguments against it couldn't change the truth.
And the fact is, God either did create everything, or he didn't. He either exists, or her doesn't. We either evolved from plankton, or we didn't. We are either the result of an alien genetic experiment or we're not. And all the wanting and wishing and debating in the world can't change the truth.
Truth exists.
We can just do our investigations in hopes that we come know what is true. Sometimes, like Galileo with the earth, we hit it right on. Sometimes we don't. Sometimes the world loves us for getting it right. Sometimes it doesn't. But none of that changes what is true. Truth exists.
Which brings me to the question: How do we really know something? But that is a topic for another day. (Go ahead-- sigh with relief.)
Rebecca
who forgot to mention that you have DNA both in the nucleus of each cell and in your mitochondria-- and they are not the same. Cool, huh? And they are passed along in different ways, too. But that is also a topic for another day.
6 comments:
Responses in order, as always...
1. The historical claims made by the web site on Sumerian mythology should probably be re-examined in light of the other claims made on their web site... (You may also want to read Snow Crash, if you haven't already.)
2. The snakes on a pole symbol is infinitely more likely to represent a Guinea Worm: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dracunculiasis I consider this theory to be dubious as well, but it wins out over the DNA theory on the grounds of not being completely stupid.
3. DNA is awesome, and has been demonstrated (using SCIENCE!) to be one of the densest forms of information storage around. I do not have a citation to back this up, sorry.
4. Gravity is, just like evolution, a theory. Gravity is also, just like evolution, a fact. (There is also a Law of Gravity, thanks to Newton, but that's something else entirely.)
Facts are observable phenomena like the fossil record or stuff falling when you drop it. Theories are formed to explain facts, and are constantly re-formed in light of new facts. A law (for completeness...) is a mathematical description of observed phenomena. That's why there is no Law of Evolution - creating a mathematical description of evolution would be silly and not terribly useful.
I forgot what number I'm on: You are mistaken in your belief that speciation has not been observed. See Weinberg, J.R., V.R. Starczak, and D. Jorg, 1992, "Evidence for rapid speciation following a founder event in the laboratory." Evolution 46: 1214-1220 for more. Also, observing speciation as it happens is not necessary for us to "observe" it - there is overwhelming evidence in favor of speciation throughout the fossil record. There absolutely are links all up and down the chain of evolution.
What most creationists miss completely is that evolution does not explain or attempt to account for the genesis of life. They also forget that the Bible does not explicitly state the manner in which God chose to create all of the different creatures that are on the Earth - all it says is that he created them. I personally find evolution a much more elegant solution to the problem of populating a planet than going around creating every living thing individually.
I agree on almost all counts. I think designing one DNA master plan and reusing it, either through evolution or not, is a very elegant design. And of course the historical claims on the Sumerian web site are in question-- their whole outlook is under question! But the thing I was looking for was a bank of Sumerian names-- and they had several. Very useful. I also think DNA is Awesome, and I am also quite certain it has to be one of the most dense form of information storage around. The reasons for gravity are clearly theories. I believe Newton worked out the calculus equations to predict accurately how things behave because of gravity. We all know most things fall when we drop them, and planets orbit stars, etc. The why is the only question there. as for evolution, I'll look at the info you posted. thank you. I have not, so far, seen any "proof" (that's a tricky word-- I know. I don't mean mathematical, I mean "show me it happening, or direct evidence that it did happen") of one species evolving into another. But of course, just because I have not seen it does not mean it doesn't happen. I just think that people have taken the simple evolution (finches, for instance) and drawn conclusions without direct evidence.
I knew this would be a touchy topic. As Elwood P. Dowd said, "A litte disagreement makes any conversation more interesting, don't you agree?"
It's only touchy because you haven't yet realized that I'm right ;)
And humble, too. =)
An aside -- the Mayan calendar also notes 2012 as the end of the world. The calendar simply ends then. Did they know the same thing that the Sumerian's knew?
Saying that the Mayan calendar marks 2012 as the end of the world is like saying that our current calendar marks the year 9999 as end of the world. Or that an old computer's calendar predicted that the world would end in 1999.
There is no mystical secret to the year 2012, and neither of their calendars made any claims that 2012 would be the end of the world. They just happened to use a numbering system that made 2012 a convenient stopping point for counting, just like 1999 is convenient for us using base 10.
Post a Comment