Starting From the Theist Side

It seems like a lot of debates start out on atheist terms, so I wanted to mix things up, just for fun.

Open scenario for anybody: When a mommy and a daddy love each other very much, and they totally do the nasty (bow chicka bow wow!), a sperm and an egg combine to form an embryo. The embryo starts as a single cell, then divides into two cells, then four, and eventually you get a stunning specimen such as myself (it's science). To keep this focused, I just have one question:

How do those identical embryonic cells know when and how to differentiate into ecto-/endo-/mesodermic cells and such? What is the signal? What guides the process?

Zeus.

No joke, it could be any mythical deity.

I was just wondering, before people really start discussing this, how in anyway does this further the theist side of the argument? I mean essentially you seem to be saying that a lack of knowledge from the science perspective constitutes a score for the theists argument. This obviously isn't the case unless you can somehow link the argument back to god.

Maybe you could quickly explain how god fits into your view of how cellular differentiation occurs?

Quote:

---

smart people are very good at rationalizing things they came to believe for non-smart reasons.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RooJ

I was just wondering, before people really start discussing this, how in anyway does this further the theist side of the argument? I mean essentially you seem to be saying that a lack of knowledge from the science perspective constitutes a score for the theists argument. This obviously isn't the case unless you can somehow link the argument back to god.

Maybe you could quickly explain how god fits into your view of how cellular differentiation occurs?

---

First cause. It's a logical conundrum that I can't seem to rationalize. Something causes the cells to differentiate, even with direct study, there is no understanding yet from science. And saying a lack of evidence doesn't disprove science is true, but neither does it disprove God, even though the most common argument against Him is about how there is no evidence of His existence.

I eventually wanted to take it a step further, to the beginning of everything. Either the universe has been here forever and ever, with no beginning, in which case we should see perfected evolution in everything already, or it began at a point in time out of nothing, which takes a great deal of faith, or it was created at a single moment in time by God, which takes faith, but at least attributes the creation to something.

no Silver, just because the Universe has always been, doesn't mean there would be perfect evolution. Species are wiped out before they have the chance is most cases, dinosaurs were, no doubt something will end us, if not ourselfs.

Also if we go for the theory that the Universe expands and contracts back into the original point and does this over and over forever, all life dies at that point and starts again.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by joey11223

no Silver, just because the Universe has always been, doesn't mean there would be perfect evolution. Species are wiped out before they have the chance is most cases, dinosaurs were, no doubt something will end us, if not ourselfs.

Also if we go for the theory that the Universe expands and contracts back into the original point and does this over and over forever, all life dies at that point and starts again.

---

That's a great theory, but there's no way to prove it, so it must be false. If the universe we are in began at a single point in time, even if it was contracting before that, space-time would be "reset" anyway, with no evidence of the previous universe.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SilverZero

That's a great theory, but there's no way to prove it, so it must be false. If the universe we are in began at a single point in time, even if it was contracting before that, space-time would be "reset" anyway, with no evidence of the previous universe.

---

There is no way to prove god... then in your own words it must be false.
There is no previous universe, he's saying that this universe goes from singularity to X, then back to singularity and then X again.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SilverZero

And saying a lack of evidence doesn't disprove science is true, but neither does it disprove God, even though the most common argument against Him is about how there is no evidence of His existence.

---

Firstly you're twisting my words, I didnt say "a lack of evidence doesn't disprove science" I said a lack of knowledge from the science perspective doesn't constitute a score for the theists argument.

Science builds its evidence from testing and observing the world we live in. The argument you're putting forward is an attempt to disprove or show problems within science and then somehow claim a victory for your own beliefs. This is illogical because theres nothing linking the issue you pointed out to god, whether science is correct on an issue or not.

Science doesnt build its theories by looking at the bible and pointing out flaws, it studies the world we live in. All to often i see theists using the fact that science can't explain something as evidence for "a particular god".

Im also interested in how this proves that your particular brand of god exists. Please could you explain how this issue, or even the issue about the beginning of everything proves that the CHRISTIAN god exists. Not A god, but the christian god.

I could take out my embryology text book. But you don't care about actually knowing the facts, otherwise you would have looked it up at Wikipedia or actually looked in a library, for proper knowledge for once.

To me, it appears you just can't understand the growth of an organism, as it is hard for some to grasp the concept of evolution, or to grasp the concept of how big our (know) universe really is. That doesn't make it less real, however.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Neruo

I could take out my embryology text book. But you don't care about actually knowing the facts, otherwise you would have looked it up at Wikipedia.

You just can't understand the groth of an organism, so it appears, at it is hard for some to grasp evolution, or to grasp how big our (know) universe really is. That doesn't make it less real, however.

---

Exactly. Early man was smart enough to ask questions, but not smart enough to have answers. God was created to fill in the blanks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SilverZero

Either the universe has been here forever and ever, with no beginning, in which case we should see perfected evolution in everything already, or it began at a point in time out of nothing, which takes a great deal of faith, or it was created at a single moment in time by God, which takes faith, but at least attributes the creation to something.

---

For the first bit in bold, why? Why would we?

For the second bit in bold, what? How does that work then? Do you really think this:

Universe created out of nothing = great deal of faith

Universe created out of nothing (but goddidit) = less faith, because you say that a god made it?

Surely you would need far more faith to believe that the main antagonist in a couple of thousand year old myth created the universe itself?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SilverZero

How do those identical embryonic cells know when and how to differentiate into ecto-/endo-/mesodermic cells and such? What is the signal? What guides the process?

---

I am in no way qualified to give you a detailed explanation about this, but I do remember a little bit from chemistry class. I think DNA is explanation you're looking for. I'm pretty sure it carries the "code" or whatever you want to call it, that determines how we form.

I could be wrong, anyone else have insight?

I've just picked up my notes from school when we were dealing with reproduction at biology class, and found out that during the growth of an embryo, there is a stage in which, in stead of just creating more and more cells, 'cellular differentiation' is initiated. In this phase, certain genes are activated, while others are deactivated, to force the cell into developing the features inscribed on those genes, which, in turn, specialise the cell, making it for example: a nerve cell, a skin cell, a cell of the liver or stomach, or any other cell of the human body (assuming it is a human embryo we're talking about).
The cells, in their pre-differentiating state, are called 'Stem Cells', and can be used, by chemical induction (see below) to create any specific type of cell, just like the regulation in the embryo (see below), which is why they are so prized and wanted in science. (Which is maybe why we don't know enough about this subject, as there are many people against stem-cell research, right? So logically speaking, if we were able to research stem-cells, we might figure out more about embryonic development, and maybe, just maybe, have this chapter of the religious debating history made to end :wink:)

Now then: Differentiation is done via the so-called 'regulation', or 'regulation of gene expression' (I love that term :D), of which I haven't got very much knowledge, alas... The only thing I do remember about it is that this process is induced by something we Dutchies call 'chemical induction' (no idea how it's called in the lingua franca, however). In this chemical induction, genes are somehow activated by a certain change in the amount and type of chemicals present (I believe it were types proteines, but correct me if I'm wrong...)


And that's where I'll hop out of the picture... For I have no idea how ALL of the proteines and chemicals get there, or how they are created, or how they get at the right spot... The only chemicals I know are the ones that are secreted from the Chorda (the 'primitive/reptillian' vertebrae), these will make the cells above it differentiate into mesodermic stuff, which will become the 'neural tube' (or something... it's that nerve thing that goes through your vertebrae to which all the nerves connect... it's attached to the brain stem (lowest part of the brains)). So... That's one example, but I have no idea of the rest of the chemicals... who knows...

So: Any embryologists here? (is that even a word??? O_o)


P.S. I am but a humble 16-year old high school student, not an embryologist and might not know (or remember) the correct details. Therefore, there could be errors in the description above... It was just what I can remember about what I've learnt. So don't go hammer me when you've found a mistake a'ight? ^^

P.P.S. Gotta Love Science!!! :D

heh, cryodragoon, you reminded me that it wasn't chemistry class but biology. oops! you can tell I don't remember much about this:rolleyes:

Quote:

---

or it began at a point in time out of nothing, which takes a great deal of faith

---

No it doesn't take a great deal of faith.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Ban...ional_evidence
Now, scientist use evidence not faith to base their reasoning.
Also it can be falisfied as they made a prediction about the amount of baryon to photon ratio.

Quote:

---

The measured abundances all agree at least roughly with those predicted from a single value of the baryon-to-photon ratio.

---

And yeah it turned out correct, thus the theory is correct. Plus add in the fact that the background radiation what was predicted by big bang theoriest came true, big bang was then accepted.

Cryodragon gave a good description on how embryos develope when their really young, this again does not need god.
http://www.thetriplehelix.org/wordpr...big%20bang.jpg