Great! I see that you are being perfectly logical here . May I use your wonderful logic and extend that to Macs - "Aqua is far ahead of the Windows Vista UI.." but
Just because you see virgin forest all around you and hear no signs of traffic behind, does not necessarily mean you are "far ahead".
Sometimes it just means you are lost and do not know it yet.
There are a lot of tombstones built for things that were "far ahead".
If a pregnant woman is assaulted and it results in the death/injury of the unborn infant, the assailant will be charged with "Endangering the life of an unborn fetus" over and above any charges that may be filed for attacking the woman.
That implies that the law does consider any attack on the unborn fetus as punishable - but we do allow abortions; so does that mean that the mother is allowed to attack the fetus and cause its death, but no one else is?
Also, if a child is born prematurely, the medical establishment will be obliged to try and save the child; and anything that may be done by the medical establishment or the parents which would endanger the life of the child will be considered a crime.
However, if this same child were still in the womb, then it can be legally aborted with no consequence to anybody.
I agree. The.NET API is a huge improvement over the Win32 API and the new versions of.NET are much better than even Java. Sun is now playing catch up with.NET and trying to implement features in Java similar to what is available in.NET - example: linq.
With the new expression suite and silverlight,.NET API is far ahead of the competition and anything available on Mac including Cocoa.
The author's points are indicative of his lack of understanding of.NET more than anything else.
This is the first release. I am sure they will improve on this.
What sets it apart from the Mac Mini is that it is upgradeable. So if a new fancy graphics card comes out, you have the option of using it. Mac Mini is not very upgradeable and Apple upgrades are frightfully expensive.
As for the fan, that can be easily adjusted in the BIOS settings and so it can be made much quieter. Also, they have an option of using a different fan.
If you look at the performance figures, the performance is definitely much better than a Apple Mac with the 2.2 Ghz Core 2 Duo on all tested benchmarks, so I don't quite agree with the author that there is not much of a difference.
If this company is able to hold together and release a next version of the box with these issues resolved, then it could really sell.
But yes, it is misleading when they say that the full Mac Clone comes for $399 when they are pricing the OS separately.
Laws are in place to protect the weak from being completely overrun by the strong. If there weren't minimum wage laws, the rich would still get people to work for them - but they will be paying them very little; and even then people would land up for work.
Similarly, if rape wasn't a crime, the strong would rape the poor; the rich will have the means to protect themselves.
So if you weren't already born rich and strong, your chance at life is actually far lower without these laws to protect you.
The belief that even the weak should be allowed to life a happy life is what prompts these laws in society and it is not because the society feels that it is in the interest of society to protect the weak.
This belief that the weak must be protected comes from the understanding that there must be a greater power who is benevolent even to the weak and that we must in a sense align ourselves with this greater power.
If we didn't have any such belief, then we we are free to oppress the weak.
Interesting viewpoint. What if I replace the profession with something else:
The point of being a manufacturer, is to share the product, not to make a profit. There's nothing wrong with expecting to make some money off of it, but that should not be the focus. Or
The point of being a coder, is to share the coder, not to make a salary. There's nothing wrong with expecting to make some money off of it, but that should not be the focus. Or
The point of being a photographer, is to share the photos, not to make a profit. There's nothing wrong with expecting to make some money off of it, but that should not be the focus. Or
The point of being a publisher, is to share the publication, not to make a profit. There's nothing wrong with expecting to make some money off of it, but that should not be the focus. However, I do believe that if people did produce for the sake of sharing without making profit the priority that the world would be a much better place. But it would also mean that most of the producers of the world will have to get used to living with much less.. and by producers, I also mean employees.
So while I do agree with the parent's sentiment, I don't think anyone can point their finger at Metallica unless they are truly practicing a lifestyle of sharing what they are themselves producing without much of a thought as to how to make a living off that effort.
One does not choose to believe in something because they want to behave a certain way. It actually works the other way around. People behave a certain way *because* of their belief.
The truth is that if there is no supernatural benevolent being who we must all answer to, there is really no need to give a fig for anyone else's interest than our own.
Why would I give a damn for the folks in Dafur who are being killed by the hundreds right now - it doesn't affect me or my family. Actually, if I go purely on the basis of "intellect", it may actually be advantageous for me to have fewer humans on the planet.
The truth is morals are a byproduct of our beliefs. If we believe in our own preeminence and that we are all basically going to die one day and completely cease to exist and that we must always strive for our own gain, then there is really no need for being kind to our fellow man.
Your sarcastic and misplaced comments not withstanding, the parent is right - the belief in evolution is not the litmus test of intelligence. There have been many very accomplished people who do not fully grasp evolution and who aren't impaired by that one bit.
a) Very few genetic mutations are actually beneficial. And even if they are beneficial, very few of these mutations actually carry over to the 3rd generation.
Cite?
b) Some mutations are only beneficial if it *simultaneously* occurs with many other mutations.
You may also be interested in a more detailed explanation which includes some examples of beneficial mutations and not-so-beneficial mutations as well.
As to Dawkin's actual quote in the Blind Watchmaker, he repeats the usual line about how micro evolution over time can lead to macro evolution given enough time while at the same time referring to the contradiction that we find in the problem posed by the Cambrian Explosion.
Dawkins writes,
"...some very important gaps really are due to imperfections in the fossil record. Very big gaps, too...the major gaps are real, they are true imperfections in the fossil record...the only alternative explanation of the sudden appearance of so many complex animal types in the Cambrian era is divine creation and (we) would reject this alternative." After realizing the fossil record isn't imperfect and the missing links really aren't missing at all, he declares,
"The 'gaps', far from being annoying imperfections or awkward embarrassments, turn out to be exactly what we should positively expect." Right.
Credits: I am quoting portions from www.anointed-one.net
It's worse than that - evolution isn't just up there with things like Ohm's law and the law of gravity... it ceased being a theory/law altogether when DNA was discovered thereby making Darwin's hypothesized inheritable traits a reality. Fact is, pretty much everyone agrees that evolution does occur, but on the micro scale. And by the way, the fact that traits are carried over from the parent to a child has been known for thousands of years and it predates the discovery of the DNA.
Given the now known existence of DNA & mechanisms of genetic variation, the tautology "the fittest survive" points out that evolution HAS to occur.
variation + the fittest survive + hereditory traits => successive generations become fitter
How could they possibly NOT become fitter (evolve)?!!
Speciation is similarly unavoidable. Population genetic drift comes about by interbreeding, so lack of interbreeding will lead to diverging sub-population genetics, and there is nothing to stop this proceeding past the no-turning-back (speciation!) point of no longer being able to interbreed. A couple of problems:
a) Very few genetic mutations are actually beneficial. And even if they are beneficial, very few of these mutations actually carry over to the 3rd generation.
b) Some mutations are only beneficial if it *simultaneously* occurs with many other mutations.
c) Even if (a) and (b) occur due to the vast geological time available for these things to occur, we should still expect to find many transitional while we have actually found very few. Especially troubling is the Cambrian Explosion problem.
To quote Dawkins from the Blind Watchmaker:
"...Cambrian strata of rocks, vintage about 600 million years, are the oldest ones in which we find most of the major invertebrate groups. And we find many of them already in an advanced state of evolution, the very first time they appear. It is as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history. Needless to say, this appearance of sudden planting has delighted creationists."
Some of the reasons why some people find it hard to accept are :
- It's personal - it clashes with their religious beliefs
- It's personal - it clashes with their egotistical belief of being special, not an animal
- Evolution of large animal species happens to slowly to observe, and most people are not familiar with other forms of evolution (e.g bacterial, or genetic design) that do happen observably quickly
- It's taught horribly in schools. When you are taught properly about population speration and genetic drift, environmental change and punctuated equilibrium, speciation as evolution past the point of inability to interbreed, it makes sense. If you instead believe evolution happens to individuals vs populations, or that all genetic changes are claimed to be incrementally beneficial (vs punctuated equilibrium, or even Lamarkian drivel like giraffe's necks getting longer because of their stretching for leaves, then you will be very confused! This is not a open and shut case as you might believe. Actually, the lack of transitional fossil evidence to account for this evolution of animal species gradually has led to Gould proposing the theory of "Punctuated Equilibrium" which basically states that the changes actually occurred in large steps and not gradually.
As for horizontal gene transfer, it only occurs in smaller more primitive life forms such as bacteria. So that cannot account for vast changes we have noticed in the higher vertebrates.
When these issues remain unresolved, one cannot reasonably argue that everything can be explained by the theory of evolution or even that we are close to explaining everything.
Or you may look at the Gould's theory of Punctuated Equilibrium which actually tries to explain why we don't see as many transitional fossils as we should expect to find. However, if you accept Gould's theory, then you will have to also accept that macro evolution does not follow the same processes as micro evolution.
Though it is often argued that macro evolution follows the same processes as micro evolution, famous evolutionists such as Gould have nonetheless proposed theories such as the "Punctuated Equilibrium" theory which states that evolution actually took place in big steps and it wasn't always through millions of accumulated micro-level evolution.
Gould proposed this theory to explain for the very small number of transitional fossils which have been recovered so far while we should actually expect to find many.
Another reason for this theory is to account for the Cambrian Explosion problem which Dawkins also refers to in his books including the Blind Watchmaker.
Some of the other theories proposed for large changes between generations is the Horizontal Gene Transfer theory. However, the problem with this theory is that horizontal gene transfer is seen in simpler organisms like bacteria and is not seen on any other organisms such as vertebrates.
So is it not accurate to say that micro evolution and macro evolution follow the same processes. Even many prominent evolutionists will disagree with that.
What appears to be "concrete" evidence to you may not be seen that way by others especially if there are other ways of looking at the evidence.
Example: If you noticed a knife at a crime scene and it had blood on it and it is the blood of the victim and it has the fingerprints of the victim, then it does not necessarily mean that the victim cut himself/herself with it and neither does it rule out a second person (an assailant) who may have carried out the crime.
Your comment has been modded funny, but it is actually pretty insightful.
This error on NASA's part was not so much a miscalculation as the fact that NASA failed to consider other factors which could influence the probability.
What I am more concerned about are mathematical errors which don't seem to have been caught by peer review even years after the erroneous finding was released.
If we believe that the world formed in a Big Bang, then life must have a beginning, wouldn't it?
The evolutionary explanation only starts from the point when a self-replicating, self-organizing life form was already formed. That is, after life itself came into existence.
But how exactly did that life come into existence? Dawkins discusses this in some depth in the Blind Watchmaker and that is what I refer to in my previous posts.
Please read my post fully. Dawkins made that comment about the miraculous origin of life. I have given the exact quote in my post for your reference.
As to the whole subject of God, the question of God arises because you have a miraculous event which cannot occur if there wasn't someone/something causing that event - hence God comes into the picture.
If you ask the question - doesn't God have a beginning? Well, the answer is No. Because that really is the definition of God. God is a being with no beginning and no end.
That may not be the explanation you *like* to hear though.
It's the soul. But then when does the foetus get a soul? Too early and many pregnancies are terminated by God (natural failure to carry to term) after he's given them a soul. Too late and you'll get some very early premature babies who have no soul (at least to begin with).
It really is about having as many babies as possible.
If you doubt that, what about the story about Onan? He was told to pork his brothers wife and when he said no, to show that he really DID mean "no", he shot his wad over the floor rather than use it to make is sister-in-law pregnant. So god killed him. Your reasoning if flawed. The Christian belief is that God and only God can grant life or take it.
That reminds me of these passages from the Blind Watchmaker by Dawkins (taken from www.anointed-one.net):
"An apparently miraculous theory is exactly the kind of theory we should be looking for in the particular matter of the origin of life...A miracle is something that happens, but which is exceedingly surprising...although the odds against the coincidence are extremely high, we can still calculate them. They are not literally zero...It could happen. The odds against such coincidence are unimaginably great but they are not incalculably great."
"But of course any God capable of intelligently designing something as complex as the DNA/protein replicating machine must have been at least as complex and organized as that machine itself...To explain the origin of the DNA/protein machine by invoking a supernatural Designer is to explain precisely nothing, for it leaves unexplained the origin of the Designer."
"...Cambrian strata of rocks, vintage about 600 million years, are the oldest ones in which we find most of the major invertebrate groups. And we find many of them already in an advanced state of evolution, the very first time they appear. It is as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history. Needless to say, this appearance of sudden planting has delighted creationists."
"The present lack of a definitely accepted account of the origin of life should certainly not be taken as a stumbling block for the whole Darwinian world view, as it occasionally is." On one hand, Dawkins writes the whole point of his book is,
"to provide a non-miraculous account of the existence of complex adaptations." On the other, he writes,
"an apparently miraculous theory is exactly the kind of theory we should be looking for in the particular matter of the origin of life." He failed to provide a non-miraculous account.
Dawkins writes,
"...some very important gaps really are due to imperfections in the fossil record. Very big gaps, too...the major gaps are real, they are true imperfections in the fossil record...the only alternative explanation of the sudden appearance of so many complex animal types in the Cambrian era is divine creation and (we) would reject this alternative." After realizing the fossil record isn't imperfect and the missing links really aren't missing at all, he declares,
"The 'gaps', far from being annoying imperfections or awkward embarrassments, turn out to be exactly what we should positively expect." Right.
It seems the only objection Dawkins has with the explanation that God created life is
"...it leaves unexplained the origin of the Designer." This is a bizarre point of view because God (the Designer) by definition does not have an origin.
So coming to your point - Religion may be simplistic, but even a prominent scientist like Dawkins still has to rely on a miracle as the explanation for the origin of life. What he grapples with and refuses to acknowledge is the source of the miracle.
For example. Christians argue against abortion. but that has nothing to do with God really. It has everything to do with Muslims not outnumbering Christians because of population control. Where did you get that from? Christians argue against abortion because the life of the fetus is considered sacred. Thats the only reason. It is the same reason that the church is against euthanasia.
Theists are not more socially adapted to survival. Quite the opposite Research after research shows that the religious outlive atheists and are also generally happier. http://www.webmd.com/content/Article/78/95776.htm/
I think your reasoning is clouded by your suspicion of religion (which is reasonable) and your distrust of anything to do with God.
But to claim that atheism makes sense isn't very logical.
The truth is that we are no where near understanding it. Yes, there have been many many theories proposed as to how life may have originated, but not one of them is provable.
Slashdot Mirror
Sometimes it just means you are lost and do not know it yet.
There are a lot of tombstones built for things that were "far ahead".
If a pregnant woman is assaulted and it results in the death/injury of the unborn infant, the assailant will be charged with "Endangering the life of an unborn fetus" over and above any charges that may be filed for attacking the woman.
That implies that the law does consider any attack on the unborn fetus as punishable - but we do allow abortions; so does that mean that the mother is allowed to attack the fetus and cause its death, but no one else is?
Also, if a child is born prematurely, the medical establishment will be obliged to try and save the child; and anything that may be done by the medical establishment or the parents which would endanger the life of the child will be considered a crime.
However, if this same child were still in the womb, then it can be legally aborted with no consequence to anybody.
I agree. The .NET API is a huge improvement over the Win32 API and the new versions of .NET are much better than even Java. Sun is now playing catch up with .NET and trying to implement features in Java similar to what is available in .NET - example: linq.
.NET API is far ahead of the competition and anything available on Mac including Cocoa.
.NET more than anything else.
With the new expression suite and silverlight,
The author's points are indicative of his lack of understanding of
This is the first release. I am sure they will improve on this.
What sets it apart from the Mac Mini is that it is upgradeable. So if a new fancy graphics card comes out, you have the option of using it. Mac Mini is not very upgradeable and Apple upgrades are frightfully expensive.
As for the fan, that can be easily adjusted in the BIOS settings and so it can be made much quieter. Also, they have an option of using a different fan.
If you look at the performance figures, the performance is definitely much better than a Apple Mac with the 2.2 Ghz Core 2 Duo on all tested benchmarks, so I don't quite agree with the author that there is not much of a difference.
If this company is able to hold together and release a next version of the box with these issues resolved, then it could really sell.
But yes, it is misleading when they say that the full Mac Clone comes for $399 when they are pricing the OS separately.
Laws are in place to protect the weak from being completely overrun by the strong. If there weren't minimum wage laws, the rich would still get people to work for them - but they will be paying them very little; and even then people would land up for work.
Similarly, if rape wasn't a crime, the strong would rape the poor; the rich will have the means to protect themselves.
So if you weren't already born rich and strong, your chance at life is actually far lower without these laws to protect you.
The belief that even the weak should be allowed to life a happy life is what prompts these laws in society and it is not because the society feels that it is in the interest of society to protect the weak.
This belief that the weak must be protected comes from the understanding that there must be a greater power who is benevolent even to the weak and that we must in a sense align ourselves with this greater power.
If we didn't have any such belief, then we we are free to oppress the weak.
So while I do agree with the parent's sentiment, I don't think anyone can point their finger at Metallica unless they are truly practicing a lifestyle of sharing what they are themselves producing without much of a thought as to how to make a living off that effort.
One does not choose to believe in something because they want to behave a certain way. It actually works the other way around. People behave a certain way *because* of their belief.
The truth is that if there is no supernatural benevolent being who we must all answer to, there is really no need to give a fig for anyone else's interest than our own.
Why would I give a damn for the folks in Dafur who are being killed by the hundreds right now - it doesn't affect me or my family. Actually, if I go purely on the basis of "intellect", it may actually be advantageous for me to have fewer humans on the planet.
The truth is morals are a byproduct of our beliefs. If we believe in our own preeminence and that we are all basically going to die one day and completely cease to exist and that we must always strive for our own gain, then there is really no need for being kind to our fellow man.
True. I think pretty much the entire world wouldn't have had any problems if the Iraq war was short - no matter if the WMD was found or not.
So yes, you are right. That was insightful.
Your sarcastic and misplaced comments not withstanding, the parent is right - the belief in evolution is not the litmus test of intelligence. There have been many very accomplished people who do not fully grasp evolution and who aren't impaired by that one bit.
Please also see:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1999/01/990119080707.htm
Cite?
b) Some mutations are only beneficial if it *simultaneously* occurs with many other mutations.
Such as? http://www.genetics.org/cgi/content/abstract/176/3/1759
You may also be interested in a more detailed explanation which includes some examples of beneficial mutations and not-so-beneficial mutations as well.
http://radaractive.blogspot.com/2006/12/beneficial-mutations.html
As to Dawkin's actual quote in the Blind Watchmaker, he repeats the usual line about how micro evolution over time can lead to macro evolution given enough time while at the same time referring to the contradiction that we find in the problem posed by the Cambrian Explosion.
Dawkins writes, "...some very important gaps really are due to imperfections in the fossil record. Very big gaps, too...the major gaps are real, they are true imperfections in the fossil record...the only alternative explanation of the sudden appearance of so many complex animal types in the Cambrian era is divine creation and (we) would reject this alternative." After realizing the fossil record isn't imperfect and the missing links really aren't missing at all, he declares, "The 'gaps', far from being annoying imperfections or awkward embarrassments, turn out to be exactly what we should positively expect." Right.
Credits: I am quoting portions from www.anointed-one.net
variation + the fittest survive + hereditory traits => successive generations become fitter
How could they possibly NOT become fitter (evolve)?!!
Speciation is similarly unavoidable. Population genetic drift comes about by interbreeding, so lack of interbreeding will lead to diverging sub-population genetics, and there is nothing to stop this proceeding past the no-turning-back (speciation!) point of no longer being able to interbreed. A couple of problems:
a) Very few genetic mutations are actually beneficial. And even if they are beneficial, very few of these mutations actually carry over to the 3rd generation.
b) Some mutations are only beneficial if it *simultaneously* occurs with many other mutations.
c) Even if (a) and (b) occur due to the vast geological time available for these things to occur, we should still expect to find many transitional while we have actually found very few. Especially troubling is the Cambrian Explosion problem.
To quote Dawkins from the Blind Watchmaker:
"...Cambrian strata of rocks, vintage about 600 million years, are the oldest ones in which we find most of the major invertebrate groups. And we find many of them already in an advanced state of evolution, the very first time they appear. It is as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history. Needless to say, this appearance of sudden planting has delighted creationists." Some of the reasons why some people find it hard to accept are :
- It's personal - it clashes with their religious beliefs
- It's personal - it clashes with their egotistical belief of being special, not an animal
- Evolution of large animal species happens to slowly to observe, and most people are not familiar with other forms of evolution (e.g bacterial, or genetic design) that do happen observably quickly
- It's taught horribly in schools. When you are taught properly about population speration and genetic drift, environmental change and punctuated equilibrium, speciation as evolution past the point of inability to interbreed, it makes sense. If you instead believe evolution happens to individuals vs populations, or that all genetic changes are claimed to be incrementally beneficial (vs punctuated equilibrium, or even Lamarkian drivel like giraffe's necks getting longer because of their stretching for leaves, then you will be very confused! This is not a open and shut case as you might believe. Actually, the lack of transitional fossil evidence to account for this evolution of animal species gradually has led to Gould proposing the theory of "Punctuated Equilibrium" which basically states that the changes actually occurred in large steps and not gradually.
As for horizontal gene transfer, it only occurs in smaller more primitive life forms such as bacteria. So that cannot account for vast changes we have noticed in the higher vertebrates.
When these issues remain unresolved, one cannot reasonably argue that everything can be explained by the theory of evolution or even that we are close to explaining everything.
Or you may look at the Gould's theory of Punctuated Equilibrium which actually tries to explain why we don't see as many transitional fossils as we should expect to find. However, if you accept Gould's theory, then you will have to also accept that macro evolution does not follow the same processes as micro evolution.
Though it is often argued that macro evolution follows the same processes as micro evolution, famous evolutionists such as Gould have nonetheless proposed theories such as the "Punctuated Equilibrium" theory which states that evolution actually took place in big steps and it wasn't always through millions of accumulated micro-level evolution.
Gould proposed this theory to explain for the very small number of transitional fossils which have been recovered so far while we should actually expect to find many.
Another reason for this theory is to account for the Cambrian Explosion problem which Dawkins also refers to in his books including the Blind Watchmaker.
Some of the other theories proposed for large changes between generations is the Horizontal Gene Transfer theory. However, the problem with this theory is that horizontal gene transfer is seen in simpler organisms like bacteria and is not seen on any other organisms such as vertebrates.
So is it not accurate to say that micro evolution and macro evolution follow the same processes. Even many prominent evolutionists will disagree with that.
What appears to be "concrete" evidence to you may not be seen that way by others especially if there are other ways of looking at the evidence.
Example: If you noticed a knife at a crime scene and it had blood on it and it is the blood of the victim and it has the fingerprints of the victim, then it does not necessarily mean that the victim cut himself/herself with it and neither does it rule out a second person (an assailant) who may have carried out the crime.
Your comment has been modded funny, but it is actually pretty insightful.
This error on NASA's part was not so much a miscalculation as the fact that NASA failed to consider other factors which could influence the probability.
What I am more concerned about are mathematical errors which don't seem to have been caught by peer review even years after the erroneous finding was released.
Example:
http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/02/20/0340238/
Wrong! try again.
If we believe that the world formed in a Big Bang, then life must have a beginning, wouldn't it?
The evolutionary explanation only starts from the point when a self-replicating, self-organizing life form was already formed. That is, after life itself came into existence.
But how exactly did that life come into existence? Dawkins discusses this in some depth in the Blind Watchmaker and that is what I refer to in my previous posts.
You make an accusation but you haven't backed it up with facts. There is a term for this too - should I mention it?
Read all you want:
http://www.anointed-one.net/atheism.html
Please read my post fully. Dawkins made that comment about the miraculous origin of life. I have given the exact quote in my post for your reference.
As to the whole subject of God, the question of God arises because you have a miraculous event which cannot occur if there wasn't someone/something causing that event - hence God comes into the picture.
If you ask the question - doesn't God have a beginning? Well, the answer is No. Because that really is the definition of God. God is a being with no beginning and no end.
That may not be the explanation you *like* to hear though.
It really is about having as many babies as possible.
If you doubt that, what about the story about Onan? He was told to pork his brothers wife and when he said no, to show that he really DID mean "no", he shot his wad over the floor rather than use it to make is sister-in-law pregnant. So god killed him. Your reasoning if flawed. The Christian belief is that God and only God can grant life or take it.
Dawkins writes, "...some very important gaps really are due to imperfections in the fossil record. Very big gaps, too...the major gaps are real, they are true imperfections in the fossil record...the only alternative explanation of the sudden appearance of so many complex animal types in the Cambrian era is divine creation and (we) would reject this alternative." After realizing the fossil record isn't imperfect and the missing links really aren't missing at all, he declares, "The 'gaps', far from being annoying imperfections or awkward embarrassments, turn out to be exactly what we should positively expect." Right.
It seems the only objection Dawkins has with the explanation that God created life is "...it leaves unexplained the origin of the Designer." This is a bizarre point of view because God (the Designer) by definition does not have an origin.
So coming to your point - Religion may be simplistic, but even a prominent scientist like Dawkins still has to rely on a miracle as the explanation for the origin of life. What he grapples with and refuses to acknowledge is the source of the miracle.
http://www.anointed-one.net/begin.html/
http://www.webmd.com/content/Article/78/95776.htm/
I think your reasoning is clouded by your suspicion of religion (which is reasonable) and your distrust of anything to do with God.
But to claim that atheism makes sense isn't very logical.
Read:
http://www.anointed-one.net/atheism.html
The truth is that we are no where near understanding it. Yes, there have been many many theories proposed as to how life may have originated, but not one of them is provable.