How does an atheist explain the immune system?

[Line6]

It's obvious that there is an intelligence behind it.
So how do they explain it? Sometimes I really don't understand how people can believe in evolution because it's so absurd. How should an intelligent immune system develope by chance? Or take the heart for example. In the heart there are so many receptors which check all kinds of things like the blood pressure and so on. How should these things arrive by chance? It's so ridiculous, I cannot believe that intelligent people believe this nonsense, can you? To me it seems so ridiculous that I ask myself what if I only don't understand how they imagine evolution and this is the reason why it seems ridiculous to me.

[WeaponX]

They can't and they don't try. Just whenever we bring up alternate theories they take us to court and call us zealots. It's like trying to argue with a child while they have their fingers in their ears and are yelling over and over "lalalalalalala". Same principle.

[TForce]

Here's a simple answer. As Old School was saying, the body is an infinitely more complex machine than anything that we could come up with. Systems function with other systems, superseded by other systems until the flowchart takes up an entire library, and we are only considering one species. As with any programming, anything and everything happens for a reason. Sometimes, you have information decay and files are not accessed correctly. Sometimes, some viruses are introduced and patches are absolutely needed to correct the problem. The intelligence comes from the programming. Involuntary processes are nothing more than complex if/then statements.

[Chiefo]

TForce has some good material.

It isn't really an atheist perspective, but I can't really say I agree with WeaponX. The things that he accuses "us" of are the kinds of arguments that I personally deal with from the religious. Not to flame or anything, and I agree that hardcore evolution doesn't explain much; however we aren't allowed the "simple?" answer that it is God's creation.
Anyways, "evolutionists" would point out that the earth is much, much older than most biblical scholars posit it to be. That being said, the immune system developed as a result of many, many selections of what worked and what didn't.

I won't even attempt to elaborate about it here, mostly because I really haven't been involved in this discussion in years. I will say, however, that most "reasonable" non-religious people will say that evolution is not the "single" answer.

[Mavrick]

[ QUOTE ]
Sometimes I really don't understand how people can believe in evolution because it's so absurd. How should an intelligent immune system develope by chance? Or take the heart for example. In the heart there are so many receptors which check all kinds of things like the blood pressure and so on. How should these things arrive by chance? It's so ridiculous, I cannot believe that intelligent people believe this nonsense, can you? To me it seems so ridiculous that I ask myself what if I only don't understand how they imagine evolution and this is the reason why it seems ridiculous to me.


[/ QUOTE ]

dont knock what others belive, or dont belive...

[jeffrobodean]

I would like someone to explain how fingerprints are a result of any kind of evolutionary event. They serve no means to survival, no reason to be unique to the individual. They are a means by which God gives us on board identification.

[TForce]

I doubt that you would find any two noses that are exactly the same either. They are just grooves in the skin. They just happen to be unique designs.

[Venom]

It's insane, bro. I made a recent post on this in the research forum, I would check it out if you get a chance.

I am doing a lot of research on it, and it is incredible. The body faces more enemies in a day than any army has faced in a lifetime. And yet, for the normally functioning individual, we are able to fend off these enemies without even thinking about it. It is self operating!

Micheal Behee has an incredible chapter on this in his book "Darwins Black Box" I am studying it right now.

For instance, he said that your skin—your first line of defense—has an insane defense against viruses. Many viruses are made out of RNA. And your skin actually has an enzyme that it secretes, so that when a virus made out of RNA touches it, it gets lacerated!

It is also a synergistic system that depends on numerous steps to function. It actually appears to be irreducibly complex. There is no way this could have gradually evolved over time.

[DORIAN JR]

I believe in evolution and I´m not a atheist. I think evolution is the way god created all kind of life in world (humans, all other animals, plants, bacterias).

When I look at me, at enviroment all that I can imagine are modelated by evolution.

I think you have to take the red pill (Matrix), the truth are in front of you.

[jeffrobodean]

So, when God states in the Bible that he created man in his image, are you saying that God is an Amoeba?

[Chiefo]

I hate to sound unfriendly, but I daresay nearly everyone in this discussion believes in God; a condition that does not really fit into evolution, hence the recent arrival (and subsequent criticisms) of Intelligent Design theory. Unfortunately, when Venom makes statements such as "there is no way they could have evolved gradually over time" He's right (which I hate to concede) It seems that every day scientists are finding new holes in evolution, and I agree they are very problematic. The current theory of evolution cannot explain a large number of things. However, I hate to say "because current evolution theory doesn't work, therefore God exists," that would be a case of a faulty Aristotlean syllogism...grant a contradiction and all things follow.
Anyways, to the point of my post. You all believe in God in various ways, you all (for the greater part) disagree with evolution and other scientific explanations of life. Why make posts like this? You're preaching to the choir, in essence. I find Line6's curiosity laudable, however he shoots it down in the very post he asks the question in.
No headway is going to be made either way. We can all take a "Hitchhiker's Guide" view to it and think that the day they "prove" God exists, he will disappear by virtue of the proof of his existence (bad attempt at relating the story by me). More to the point, you guys believe what you believe, and I applaud it. I remember when I was religious, and I would definitely say life was "easier?" "more fulfilling?" when I was religious. Now everything is complicated in my mind.
Sorry, but it just bothers me to see posts like this because people will constantly relate how this and that "cannot possibly have evolved" and it just seems almost like self- fulfilling prophecies.

Sorry for the digressive post,
Reg

[Adam Knowlden]

Hi guys thanks for your comments:

[ QUOTE ]
However, I hate to say "because current evolution theory doesn't work, therefore God exists," that would be a case of a faulty Aristotlean syllogism...grant a contradiction and all things follow.


[/ QUOTE ]

I would contend this statement bro.

Either life was created or it created itself, I nor any other philosopher has been able to conjure up any other rationale explanation.

I have seen many offshoots such as panspermia, that life floated in from outer space, but all that really does is transfer the problem of abiogenesis somewhere else.

The law of biogenesis is universal. Just like gravity. The laws of graity are the same here as they are in pluto. The constants may change but the laws are universal. Same with biogenesis.

The law of biogenesis states life begats life. To state non-life begats life is against that law and is unscientific.

If this law can not be defied that would seem to logically indicated the original lifesource would have to be eternal.

This coincides perfectly with creation, but changing the scenario to panspermia or any other offshoot of abiogenesis only demonstrates that truely the answer can only be one of two statements..."God created life" or "life created itself".

[ QUOTE ]
I find Line6's curiosity laudable, however he shoots it down in the very post he asks the question in.


[/ QUOTE ]

I think he's being sincere and is just trying to start a discussion. His approach is just wrong I agree.

[ QUOTE ]
Why make posts like this? You're preaching to the choir, in essence.

[/ QUOTE ]

I would state this topic is huge right now and it is healthy to discuss debatable issues.

Regarding preaching to the choir, one has to make a choice to enter the faith forum. /forum/images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[kwood34]

The immune system is a complex question.

However, one could then ask, if God created us how we are, why do we need an immune system? Why would he create things that want to attack us and kill us?

The Bible has an answer for this. Adam and Eve sinned so we are all being punished. We all must die and their are all sorts of evils. A great number of people in the world are either unaware of this explanation (because they aren't familiar with the Bible) or they reject it as being cruel.

I remember a discussion with a friend one time and he was explaining to me that this made no sense. An all loving being wouldn't punish billions of people for something two people did. I never had a good explanation back for that argument.

Anyways, the point of this post, Line6, is that while you may think it is absurd for people to think the immune system evolved, others think it is absurd that a loving God would create things to attack us in the first place.

[Chiefo]

To Old School, touche'...I did enter the faith forum, mostly because I am still quite interested in how the religious view things. Moreover, I place a great deal of interest in your justification of things.
In regards to my "faulty Aristotlean syllogism," I'm glad you've outed me on it...I suppose you could say I was making a discussion point, that wasn't what I literally believed to be true nor did I believe that anyone in particular believes that...good call.

However, you point out the law of biogenesis, that life creates life and you use the law of gravity to back up your argument. I would come back with a statement of Relativity theory and moreover, special relativity theory.
I posit simply that although biogenesis as a law may be inviolable, perhaps a new law is required or there is more to the law than we are currently aware. For this, I would point to Quantum theory in comparison to other theories of matter. At very microscopic levels, matter obviously behaves differently. I will not go into the concept of waves of probability versus particles of experience- There are many good creationist arguments that use Quantum theory as corollaries to their topics.
I simply would like to point out that although our current theory of biogenesis- that life begats life- either clearly has a creator as its logical conclusion or that life "always was", perhaps the theory itself needs revision...I daresay that both relativity and special relativity are one example of a law needing later revision.

-Reg

[Adam Knowlden]

[ QUOTE ]
did enter the faith forum,

[/ QUOTE ]

We're happy to have you, and welcome your input! /forum/images/graemlins/smile.gif

[ QUOTE ]
In regards to my "faulty Aristotlean syllogism," I'm glad you've outed me on it...I suppose you could say I was making a discussion point, that wasn't what I literally believed to be true nor did I believe that anyone in particular believes that...good call.

[/ QUOTE ]

I see what you mean.

[ QUOTE ]
However, you point out the law of biogenesis, that life creates life and you use the law of gravity to back up your argument.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure I see what you are saying. My basic point was that a law of nature, like gravity, is universal. Often times there are offshoots to abiogenesis like panspermia. But applying the rules of the laws of nature, I was trying to show that these scapegoats are really just transferring the problem elsewhere and do not really solve the problem as the law of biogenesis is universal.

[ QUOTE ]
simply would like to point out that although our current theory of biogenesis- that life begats life- either clearly has a creator as its logical conclusion or that life "always was", perhaps the theory itself needs revision...I

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes many would agree with you.

I would state this is because every attempt to explain the creation of life void of intelligent input has failed utterly, so instead of accepting the obvious conclusion, that life can't sponteanously generate without intelligence, the laws just need revised.

It seems that with evolution the laws of science can be bent and changed to fit the theory instead of letting the evidence speak for itself. But with creation such things explanations are labeld "supernatural" and have "no place in science".

<font color="red">

‘Research on the origin of life seems to be unique in that the conclusion has already been authoritatively accepted … . What remains to be done is to find the scenarios which describe the detailed mechanisms and processes by which this happened.

One must conclude that, contrary to the established and current wisdom a scenario describing the genesis of life on earth by chance and natural causes which can be accepted on the basis of fact and not faith has not yet been written.’

</font>

Information theorist Hubert Yockey (non-creationist)Yockey, H.P., A calculation of the probability of spontaneous biogenesis by information theory, Journal of Theoretical Biology

[ QUOTE ]
I will not go into the concept of waves of probability versus particles of experience- There are many good creationist arguments that use Quantum theory as corollaries to their topics.


[/ QUOTE ]

Well this is one area in which the creationist community needs more qualified scientists...after we convert you to creationism I'm sure they would love to have you! /forum/images/graemlins/grin.gif

[Line6]

What do you think about the "junk DNA"?
Aren't the scientists totally arrogant when they say that we have a lot of junk DNA?

[Chiefo]

Hey Line6,
I hate to beat a dead horse, but:
The reason they say something like that is because of an inherent problem present when mutations take place. Mutations being a common occurence in RNA creation, and an essential part of evolution (thus introducing new genetic data)...the problem is that mutations are only agreed on to destroy genetic data when they occur. I haven't been involved in chemistry at all in the past two years, but last time I took Organic Chemistry somehow we got into an argument about how it is possible for ever more complex organisms to have "evolved" when a mutation, the very material necessary for such a thing to occur, destroys genetic data?

Ergo, scientists make a statement like this to back up the mutation theory, OR I could be TOTALLY off base and it could be a whole different argument this year.

Now I have to go live with the fact that I've both helped shoot down this theory AND stirred up unrest in myself about my lack of current scientific knowledge.

-Reg

[Line6]

Good arguments. Mutations do not lead to an increase in information. It doesn't become better. No X-men. Sorry folks. *lol*

[TForce]

Yeah, I still have not found this absolute documented proof of telekinetic influence of outside particles (it's probably there somewhere), but if anyone could do it, it would have to be God. I would have to say that perhaps God does not really want to invent X-Men. Maybe he's leaving that to us. Survival of the fittest to the tenth power. /forum/images/graemlins/grin.gif

[Chiefo]

Well I think I miscued my definition of "mutation" in my post, sorry to both Line6 and TForce. By "mutation," I meant the literal, scientific definition, not the creation of a telekinetic influence on particles (sorry IF I confused anyone or we're just joking around and I missed it.)

# Genetics.

1. A change of the DNA sequence within a gene or chromosome of an organism resulting in the creation of a new character or trait not found in the parental type.
2. The process by which such a change occurs in a chromosome, either through an alteration in the nucleotide sequence of the DNA coding for a gene or through a change in the physical arrangement of a chromosome.
3. A mutant.

I was shooting for either of the first two definitions as opposed to the third, sorry guys.

-Reg

[TForce]

I wasn't really referring to mutant-like powers either. I was referring to the idea that humans have the ability to exert telekinetic influence on particles outside of their body, something which has been thrown around as plausible science, even paraphrased in a scientific book that I have read (Kurzweil 1999), but he isn't returning my calls when I asked about documentation of this phenomenon. I have done a cursory search on the internet and found a number of sites relating to supernatural events and so forth, but not any cold, hard facts, like this book tries to posit. I have heard it elsewhere, but I have not found any proof to back up the idea.

On a side note, if God is capable of so many things that instill fear in us (something that I like to think that I have witnessed on countless occasions), than surely he can cause any kind of mutation he wants, just as a person shifts his weight, whether it be in response to external living conditions at the time, predators, or lack of food. Maybe it's intentional, maybe it's involuntary, maybe it's chaotic, but the latter option does not account for the overall positive progression of life in general. Sure, survival of the fittest makes it all seem so much like clockwork, but the big picture is one of advancement. It's not a matter of dead matter creating life. It's a matter of living matter creating life, with more powerful resources than some want to accept. The absolute beginning of life will probably be a mystery for a very long time, but there is no doubt in my mind whatsoever that beneficial mutations can occur. All we are doing is focusing on the crippled. What about those with six fingers? I am led to believe that six fingers are caused by missing genetic material? This is one of those occasions where we are considering vestigial mutations which have no real benefit in advancement of the species, but it opens up lots of possibilities.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexdactyly

Sexdactyly
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Sexdactyly is a genetic condition in which a person has six fingers on one or both hands, or six toes on one or both feet. This is a genetically inheritable condition; some populations feature a larger proportion of six-fingered people.

Sexadactyly, or hexadactyly, is not merely defined as having six finger per hand or six toes per foot. It requires that each of the six fingers have its own ray, so that no two fingers would be more "merged" than on a normal hand on X-rays (as in most forms of polydactyly). Nonspecialists and the media however use the terms interchangeably.

The biblical giant Goliath is said to have had six fingers on each hand and six toes on each foot.

[edit]
External links
http://www.dinodia.com/photo_features/gifted_fingers.php3

[edit]
See also
Dactyly
Polydactyly
List of polydactyl people

[kwood34]

TForce, Telekenetic powers is pure rubbish. Anytime someone has claimed to have these powers, when put under scientific testing, they haven't been able to prove it. James Randi is still waiting with his 1 million dollar prize...