[ SECRET POST #3217 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #3217 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.


__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08.


__________________________________________________



09.


__________________________________________________



10.


__________________________________________________



11.










Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 03 pages, 064 secrets from Secret Submission Post #460.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[esteefee]

yeah, here's the thing: I am a scientist, through and through. I had a Creationist for a biology professor in college who was a jackass (he was tenured; I guess he didn't let them in on his beliefs until after he achieved tenure) and reserved his final lecture for teaching us all about Creationism. Not only that, but he put 10 questions on our final exam that were, I kid you not, e.g. "How long ago did God put the fossils under the Earth?" and "What was God's purpose in putting the fossils under the Earth?" (to test scientists' belief, in case you were wondering). Well, let's just say I got exactly 10 questions of the final exam wrong because I refused to answer that shit.

At the same time I was taking this biology class I was also taking an anthropological biology class taught by a terrific professor who wasn't a creationist, wasn't an ID scientist, was just a straight-up anthropological biologist. He taught me how DNA works. How it *evolved* into working. And I will tell you: learning how DNA evolved will make you more of a believer in somehow, some smart-as-fuck engineer having a hand in it somewhere, because that shit is too fucking sweet to just have happened. I mean, did you know that your own DNA has proofreading and error-correction during replication? That there are little enzymes produced just to prevent tangling of the divided strands during the replication process? Wut.

I do not believe in God. I do not believe in a higher power. But it sure is a touch of the awesome the DNA replication process came into existence and so, hence, evolution. How DNA evolved appears to be a natural process. Based on the three classes of ribonucleotide reductases (I, II and III) that have been discovered so far it appears to have evolved 3 separate times. So what does that mean? Either someone really, really thought it was a good idea, or Nature did. Either way, DNA is, literally, awesome enough for me. I don't need to look any deeper for ID.

[diet_poison]

I'm just gonna say I really like this comment for the most part, I'm sorry you had a shitty bio teacher, and I agree with your general worldview (except I do believe in God myself), but I'm not really sure what you're trying to say to me specifically; it started with "here's the thing" so it sounded like you were going to disagree with me? but you didn't really?

unless it's just about the meaning of "intelligent design" which is what I wasn't even sure about (people use it in different ways)

[esteefee]

oh, sorry, I'm agreeing with you about the pompous and narrow-minded, saying yeah, here's why. :)

[diet_poison]

Gotcha!

(is that your dog in your icon??)

[esteefee]

(It is! He is the most beloved Bear (a Belgian Malinois) from Person of Interest).

[diet_poison]

ahhh, Malinois are such gorgeous dogs. I was going to ask if it was a Malinois or a Shepherd, since I couldn't really tell from the picture.

One of the coolest dogs I ever met was a Malinois. She was a police dog. She was super intelligent, amazingly obedient, and very focused, all while still being really, really sweet. She knew when she was working and when she was relaxing, and when she was relaxing she came up to all of us for pets and love (this was at a club meeting where a cop was presenting about his work with her). And, of course, she was gorgeous!

[(Anonymous)]

I'm sorry about your biology professor. He sounds a bit backwards from a modern creationists thinking as, well, most modern creationists will tell you the fossil record was created by the flood.

Sure, the Bible says God created the earth mature and fully formed, that doesn't mean he buried fossils in it. It means more that it was a complete creation and didn't go through growing phases.

Your DNA story reminds me of the story about how Darwin admitted that there had to be some sort of intelligent design to the universe after examining an eyeball. I don't know how true the story is though.

[(Anonymous)]

“To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree. When it was first said that the sun stood still and the world turned round, the common sense of mankind declared the doctrine false; but the old saying of Vox populi, vox Dei, as every philosopher knows, cannot be trusted in science. Reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a simple and imperfect eye to one complex and perfect can be shown to exist, each grade being useful to its possessor, as is certainly the case; if further, the eye ever varies and the variations be inherited, as is likewise certainly the case; and if such variations should be useful to any animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, should not be considered as subversive of the theory.”

the tl;dr "Some might say the eye is too complex to evolve on its own and a God had to make it. But that's just because we're always learning new things and here's how to prove it was evolution by means of natural selection"

And people go "...the eye is too complex to evolve on its own and a God had to make it" SEE?!!?! HE BLEVED IN JEBUS AND NOT SCIENCE!!!!!

[esteefee]

The point of the story about my biology professor was that I paid money for an education, not for his personal religious ideas that had no basis in science fact. The prof exploited his position. I received a more religious education when the scientist stuck to the science.

That's a mis-paraphrase of Darwin's quote you got there. He posits the question, then goes on to answer: the human eye did evolve, and here's how it possibly happened. What he posited has since been supported by lots of research into the evolution of eyes and sensory structures.

Also, I have to say, the human eye would be a very poor design, since it has a blind spot where the optic nerve leaves the retina. A much better design would be the squid eyeball, where the nerve fibers route around the retina altogether. So did the Designer make a mistake and then fix it in the squid in their experimenting, or did humans get the poorer design after the first squid was designed? Why? Both sets of eyes evolved from a long-long-ago (500 million years ago) patch of sensory cells we shared with our cephalopod ancestor. How come we got the squishy end of the cuttlefish?

I'm going with evolution. With an option of awe for the unbounded complexity of the universe.