RE: [asa] Re: Endgame (various responses)

Hi David-

Answers to your numbered questions:

1. Yes, if they study the DNA record and compare the genomes.

2. I didn't understand this question, so I can't answer- needs more explaining.

3. I don't understand how looking for scientific evidence can be considered a religious exercise.

Per George Murphy's previous email- I didn't imply to mean he accepted the firmament... that was for other readers- I'll try to be more clear in the future. And I reject the Star Trek analogy because it puts me in a superior position over George, as if George was Newton and I was Data (if the analogy holds ;-)

DF Siemens said:
" In considering human evolution, your need to remember that the fetal head is as large as can be accommodated by the mother's pelvis. So the notion of bigger brains is nixed."

I never proposed bigger heads- I proposed smarter people. Maybe the grey matter could be connected better, and maybe even denser (as we do with microprocessor design- more powerful and smaller devices).

Pastor Murray said:
" A common sci-fi theme is the growth of humans ex utero. This is, in fact, a theme in Huxley's "Brave New World" but is probably familiar to most from the growing fields in "The Matrix." Perhaps we might not need to see a change in female physiology to see a growth in human brain sizes?"

That would be very painful if the DNA was this way, because you know humans... there will always be women who want to go natural. But maybe a "key" could be added to the DNA code which only makes the embryo grow if in a test-tube and will abort if attempted naturally.

...Bernie

-----Original Message-----
From: David Clounch [mailto:david.clounch@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, February 02, 2009 9:07 PM
To: Dehler, Bernie
Cc: asa@calvin.edu
Subject: Re: [asa] Re: Endgame

On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 12:29 PM, Dehler, Bernie <bernie.dehler@intel.com> wrote:
> "Otherwise, the 'endgame' we can say is already really 'ended.'"
>
>
>
> As far as I know, everyone who accepts biological evolution also thinks that
> biology is still evolving- we have seen the end of nothing, biologically.
> And if we stay on earth for another 1 to 3 million years, then I'd expect to
> see some major biological changes. And knowing humans, these biological
> changes WILL be directed/influenced by the human mind (known as "intelligent
> design," I suppose) via human genetic engineering.

Bernie,
I am delighted to be able to agree with you on something!

But let me ask a hypothetical. Lets say visitors from another galaxy
visit human space 3 million years from now, long after humans have
vanished and their cities crumbled to dust, and start poking into the
nature of things left behind. Lets assume they start looking for the
origins of those Kemps Cows that generate such delicious chocolate or
strawberry milk directly from the udder.

1. Will alien scientists be able to tell that humans, or perhaps some
other intelligence, diddled with life and the evolutionary process
over the previous 3 million years?

2. If they propose examining this phenomena, will they be told
science cannot examine the evidence and therefore they aren't really
doing science?

3. Will some among them tell them that if they look for evidence of
human diddling they are really doing religion?

Oh if only I had a time machine!

Of course reasonable people will disagree about these possibilities,
both then and now.

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Tue Feb 3 14:18:38 2009