Churches rejecting science altogether

[grannymh]

Animals aren’t defined on the basis of what they design or think.

Good point. Hold that thought.

On the other hand, human nature can be defined by what persons design or think. It is the “can be” basis which makes human nature different in kind from animal nature.

 

[buffalo]

Good point. Hold that thought.

On the other hand, human nature can be defined by what persons design or think. It is the “can be” basis which makes human nature different in kind from animal nature.

Yes, JPII thought this the “ontological leap”. But God creating man supernaturally does not require this.

 

[vsedriver]

I can see if I can find this for you, but I believe it was a Russian biologist who decided to test this theory by breeding Siberian wolves. He took a few, and allowed only the most docile males and females to breed. He occasionally brought in fresh wolves to replenish the gene pool. He bred them, if I recall correctly, for 20 generations.

At the end what he had were still genetically Siberian wolves, but they were much smaller, with floppy ears, spots and acted domesticated. If you didn’t know that they were wolves, you’d think they were dogs. And what he found of interest is that these traits arose from breeding them toward being docile.

So it’s not just DNA. Stuff happens in the interpretation of DNA that makes everything a bit less clear.

Those were foxes. The idea was to breed more domesticated foxes to make it safer to care for them on fur farms. As they were bred for docility it changed the balance of hormones in each succeeding generation. The lowered hormones allowed for other genetic differences to begin to show up such as white markings. It is now believed that white markings are a sign of domestication. They are seen in dogs, cats, horses, and cattle but not in wild breeds of these animals.

The theory goes that will continued selective breeding a distinction will eventually ‘evolve’ between wild fox and domesticated fox that is similar to the distinction between wolves and dogs.

 

[kbachler]

Those were foxes. The idea was to breed more domesticated foxes to make it safer to care for them on fur farms. As they were bred for docility it changed the balance of hormones in each succeeding generation. The lowered hormones allowed for other genetic differences to begin to show up such as white markings. It is now believed that white markings are a sign of domestication. They are seen in dogs, cats, horses, and cattle but not in wild breeds of these animals.

The theory goes that will continued selective breeding a distinction will eventually ‘evolve’ between wild fox and domesticated fox that is similar to the distinction between wolves and dogs.

Thank you. It had been some time since I had read that account, and I appreciate the info.

 

[kbachler]

Good point. Hold that thought.

On the other hand, human nature can be defined by what persons design or think. It is the “can be” basis which makes human nature different in kind from animal nature.

I’m not saying that human’s don’t have distinguishing features. I AM saying that their class of features puts them inside the animal kingdom, not outside of it.

 

[kbachler]

Just link me your best source showing a species that evolved into a higher species.

Buffalo - I provided two sources on speciation already. Getting more is not hard, you can just Google it and look for reputable sources. There are two sources n the post. With respect to higher, how are you using the word “higher”? Depending on you are, horses may be an example, and I believe that was given in one of the articles.

 

[buffalo]

Buffalo - I provided two sources on speciation already. Getting more is not hard, you can just Google it and look for reputable sources. There are two sources n the post. With respect to higher, how are you using the word “higher”? Depending on you are, horses may be an example, and I believe that was given in one of the articles.

Horses?

Just give me you best link as I requested.

 

[kbachler]

Horses?

Just give me you best link as I requested.

I DID. USE IT.

Funny that you’re laughing, yet with a number of posts in the past few days you’ve demonstrated (AGAIN) that you haven’t a clue about the discussion, and then you take this attitude of being haughty and laughing at someone else. You don’t define what you mean by “higher” and you expect an answer to your question. You quote the stuff on Vetter and Dawkins, but I don’t think you had a clue what it meant.

If you want to have a real discussion, I am happy to. GO LOOK UP THE REFERENCES I PROVIDED. If, OTOH, your goal is just to poke fun at something that you don’t understand, I’m sorry, I just don’t have the patience for that.

 

[buffalo]

I DID. USE IT.

Funny that you’re laughing, yet with a number of posts in the past few days you’ve demonstrated (AGAIN) that you haven’t a clue about the discussion, and then you take this attitude of being haughty and laughing at someone else. You don’t define what you mean by “higher” and you expect an answer to your question. You quote the stuff on Vetter and Dawkins, but I don’t think you had a clue what it meant.

If you want to have a real discussion, I am happy to. GO LOOK UP THE REFERENCES I PROVIDED. If, OTOH, your goal is just to poke fun at something that you don’t understand, I’m sorry, I just don’t have the patience for that.

Typical kbachler retort.

http://forums.catholic-questions.org/picture.php?albumid=639&pictureid=4483

 

[buffalo]

I DID. USE IT.

Funny that you’re laughing, yet with a number of posts in the past few days you’ve demonstrated (AGAIN) that you haven’t a clue about the discussion, and then you take this attitude of being haughty and laughing at someone else. You don’t define what you mean by “higher” and you expect an answer to your question. You quote the stuff on Vetter and Dawkins, but I don’t think you had a clue what it meant.

If you want to have a real discussion, I am happy to. GO LOOK UP THE REFERENCES I PROVIDED. If, OTOH, your goal is just to poke fun at something that you don’t understand, I’m sorry, I just don’t have the patience for that.

What did you get out of the Venter Dawkins exchange?

 

[davidv]

I’m not saying that human’s don’t have distinguishing features. I AM saying that their class of features puts them inside the animal kingdom, not outside of it.

How does help in determining the difference in kind v. difference in degree?
Are you arguing the snails and tigers only differ by degree?

 

[kbachler]

How does help in determining the difference in kind v. difference in degree?
Are you arguing the snails and tigers only differ by degree?

I don’t understand the question. Both snails and tigers are animals. They both meet the definition.

There are a further series of definitions that can be made to break down the differences between phylum, family, species, etc. But they both belong to the animal kingdom.

 

[kbachler]

What did you get out of the Venter Dawkins exchange?

Plenty. Why did you post the link to it?

 

[kbachler]

Typical kbachler retort.

http://forums.catholic-questions.org/picture.php?albumid=639&pictureid=4483

What do you want, Buffalo. You asked for a link AFTER I had provided two such references and told you how to find more. Do I have to spoon feed you? You’ve shown your capable of doing this, why are you criticizing me instead of just going to the references? I provided information so that you can see from very accepted sources that speciation does occur, but you won’t go to look? (I guess sometimes one can’t even lead the horse to water!) And instead you try to criticize me?

If you WANT the truth, go look. If you don’t go look, then we will know what the real truth is every time you try to start a hatred oriented anti-science argument, won’t we?

God is a God of truth. He isn’t afraid of the truth. Go LOOK at the reference.

 

[buffalo]

What do you want, Buffalo. You asked for a link AFTER I had provided two such references and told you how to find more. Do I have to spoon feed you? You’ve shown your capable of doing this, why are you criticizing me instead of just going to the references? I provided information so that you can see from very accepted sources that speciation does occur, but you won’t go to look? (I guess sometimes one can’t even lead the horse to water!) And instead you try to criticize me?

If you WANT the truth, go look. If you don’t go look, then we will know what the real truth is every time you try to start a hatred oriented anti-science argument, won’t we?

God is a God of truth. He isn’t afraid of the truth. Go LOOK at the reference.

I love science - correctly done and reasoned, of course.

 

[davidv]

I don’t understand the question. Both snails and tigers are animals. They both meet the definition.

There are a further series of definitions that can be made to break down the differences between phylum, family, species, etc. But they both belong to the animal kingdom.

Do snail and tigers differ by degree or kind?

 

[kbachler]

Do snail and tigers differ by degree or kind?

Yes.

 

[kbachler]

I love science - correctly done and reasoned, of course.

Then you should start correctly doing it and reasoning it. You have references, quit asking for them and go look. You quoted the Venter-Dawkins discussion with little comment (as you often do) why quote it?

Generally, I think you quote stuff that you don’t quite understand because you think it supports your position, but you’re not really sure, so you don’t say anything in order to avoid raising the issue. Does that sum it up?

 

[buffalo]

What do you want, Buffalo. You asked for a link AFTER I had provided two such references and told you how to find more. Do I have to spoon feed you? You’ve shown your capable of doing this, why are you criticizing me instead of just going to the references? I provided information so that you can see from very accepted sources that speciation does occur, but you won’t go to look? (I guess sometimes one can’t even lead the horse to water!) And instead you try to criticize me?

If you WANT the truth, go look. If you don’t go look, then we will know what the real truth is every time you try to start a hatred oriented anti-science argument, won’t we?

God is a God of truth. He isn’t afraid of the truth. Go LOOK at the reference.

I have looked back 10 pages and have not found the links. Just repost them. :banghead: Spoon feed me. :sad_yes:

 

[buffalo]

Then you should start correctly doing it and reasoning it. You have references, quit asking for them and go look. You quoted the Venter-Dawkins discussion with little comment (as you often do) why quote it?

Generally, I think you quote stuff that you don’t quite understand because you think it supports your position, but you’re not really sure, so you don’t say anything in order to avoid raising the issue. Does that sum it up?

Obviously you are not paying attention. I commented several times on Venter Dawkins.

I will be charitable and do it again. Venter disses the tree of life, Dawkins is incredulous, Davies too.