Conference on Evolution

[edwest2]

Hi Ed,

I’m new to this thread, but interested in the debate. I have a fairly straight forwarded (but long winded) question:

Background: The speed of light is a constant in free space. You can count on it, just as engineers can count on physical forces when they build sky scrapers. The light we see from stars is not the light they are current giving off, but light that was given off and then had to travel across X distance before reaching earth and our eyes. While the speed of light is very fast, the distances between earth and the heavenly bodies giving off energy in the form of light are very large. Based on that, we know that light takes 8 minutes and 18 seconds to reach the earth (thus the sun you are seeing is actually the sun from 8 minutes ago).

Recently, scientists (I apologize if I’m using a dirty word) have photographed a burst of energy from a dying star which they estimated was 13.7 billion light-years away. This would seem to indicate that the universe is at least billions of years old.

Question: How do you reconcile this particular observation with a young earth perspective?

Hi,

I would appreciate it if you regarded me as a fellow human being as opposed to one of “them.”

I enjoy studying science. I keep track of the latest developments almost daily. I am in the process of studying the history of technology.

In regarding the speed of light, a bit more research is required. The current thinking is that the speed of light was much higher at the beginning and has slowed to its present rate. See: A Time Varying Speed of Light as a Solution to Cosmological Puzzles" by Andreas Albrecht, published in Physical Review D. Also, the speed of light through space is affected by dust, gas, dark matter, dark energy and zero point energy. Perhaps you’ve heard of the lensing effect that occurs as light passes near certain interstellar objects.

Recent excellent research has shown that the ‘red shift’ may not be a doppler effect at all. It appears that measurements fall into bands and not into distance related categories. The example of an electron needing to acquire a certain amount of energy before “jumping” to a higher band or orbit is used.

There is plenty of good science out there that does contradict certain well published ideas but something more important than science (for some) is at stake: power. To convince people of something. The truth is optional. Ask PZ Myers what the National Acadamy of Sciences really thinks about its religion is compatible with science position. They don’t think the two are compatible by the way.

The Catholic Church now finds itself in the position of defending reason itself. See the New York Times article by Cardinal Schoenborn titled Finding Design in Nature.

If you read that article, I think it will be very clear that those who wish to present false and distorted information to people so they can obtain power over them are not presenting what the Church actually teaches about this subject. Finally, as Pope Benedict said about the secularly famous statement by Pope John Paul II, “But it is also true that evolution is not a complete, scientifically proven theory.”

That’s where I stand.

Peace,
Ed

 

[ricmat]

You have to understand how evolution works. A new species does not come about immediately – it takes hundreds of generations (more or less time depending on the reproductive lifespan of the animal or plant. But the first steps begin with the first generation. Evolution is not something that proceeds in giant steps, like fish to tetrapod, or reptile to mammal, or hominid to human.

Rather, evolution is incremental. Small and isolated genetic changes resulting from transmitted mutations do not usually constitute a barrier to mating and reproduction. Moreover, Europeans and North Americans have not been isolated from each other, so genetic exchange between them has ensured the continuity of the species. If that exchange were to stop for hundreds or thousands of generations, and if environmental pressures changed drastically in one place inhabited by humans, then the drive toward speciation would increase.

StAnastasia

I understand this quite well, thank you. But your post has nothing to do with my point. You presented a powerpoint which proffered an analogy for evolution, except that it didn’t cover the “different species” part of evolution (which of course it the whole point of evolution). As I said, it may have convinced your audience, but it was a false analogy.

 

[StAnastasia]

I understand this quite well, thank you. But your post has nothing to do with my point. You presented a powerpoint which proffered an analogy for evolution, except that it didn’t cover the “different species” part of evolution (which of course it the whole point of evolution). As I said, it may have convinced your audience, but it was a false analogy.

That was the first of a series of slides on the subject.

 

[mpartyka]

You say “given time…yada yada anything can happen” But that’s speculation. The analogy in your powerpoint is false.

The analogy is designed to answer a particular question and does so quite well in representing what is the evolutionist’s theory as to why certain “lower” species remain if they are descended from “higher” species. What you are proposing in return is that there is some sort of “barrier” beyond which a species cannot mutate such as to eventually develop into a species distinct from its predecessors. Both the analogy and your rebuttal are worthy of consideration. How do we determine which theory is right? We don’t have the vast amount of time it would take to see evolution in progress. The only option, then, is to see if there is any evidence which can tell us definitively whether certain distinct species share a common ancestor. If we can determine with reasonable certainty that humans and chimpanzees have a common ancestor, we’ll know that it is indeed possible for a species to diversify into distinct species and that there is no “barrier” to such a process’s taking place.

I prefer to use the analogy of travel to illustrate my point. Let’s say you live in Alaska, and I live in Hawaii. I call you up for a quick chat, and you can see from your caller ID that I’m calling from Hawaii. The next day, you hear the doorbell ring, and you open the door to find me standing on your front porch! “How did you get here?” you ask. And that’s a good question…but what is not in question is that I am indeed standing on your porch when the previous day I was many miles away. SOME process took place to transport me from point A to point B – a plane, a boat, or some combination of vehicles – and while we don’t know what that process was exactly, we know that the process undeniably exists (because if it didn’t I wouldn’t be on your porch).

This is why I focus on the issue of common descent. Prove common descent, and you prove that evolution did occur in some form or fashion, even if you can’t tell exactly what that form or fashion is.

–Mike

 

[mpartyka]

Would you give me the definition of evolution that you are defending here? I may have a bet easier time replying if I know if you are discussing micro evolution or macro evolution.

Macroevolution. Basically, I believe that the genetic evidence that is available to us today is sufficient to prove that human beings and chimpanzees are descended from a common ancestor species.

In other words, there used to be no humans or chimpanzees, only this ancestor species, but about five million years ago, two portions of this original ancestor species got separated from each other and also from the rest of their kind. One of these separate portions eventually developed into humans, and the other separate portion eventually developed into chimpanzees. The rest of that original ancestor species died out completely, leaving humans and chimpanzees as the only surviving descendants.

–Mike

 

[Cbailey2]

Hi Ed,

I would appreciate it if you regarded me as a fellow human being as opposed to one of “them.”

First, I’m sorry, but I do regard you as a human being and I don’t group you into a “them.” I don’t know which of the “them” from my second post you are referring to, but the first referred to thoughts and the second to authors/artists. I definitely regard you as human; that’s why I bothered to ask your thoughts. And I appreciate your response!!!

I enjoy studying science. I keep track of the latest developments almost daily. I am in the process of studying the history of technology.

That’s awesome to hear and I wish more people, both Christian and otherwise tried to keep up with the latest developments in science.

In regarding the speed of light, a bit more research is required. The current thinking is that the speed of light was much higher at the beginning and has slowed to its present rate. See: A Time Varying Speed of Light as a Solution to Cosmological Puzzles" by Andreas Albrecht, published in Physical Review D. Also, the speed of light through space is affected by dust, gas, dark matter, dark energy and zero point energy. Perhaps you’ve heard of the lensing effect that occurs as light passes near certain interstellar objects.

I’ll check out the article; I’m interested to hear about it. But here’s my caution is with your first line: “a bit more research is required.” A bit more researched is required…until what? Until we are successfully able to conform reality to our predefined outcome? At what point do we stop trying to push a square peg into a round hole? When do we allow the preponderance of evidence to redefine our anticipated outcome?

Don’t get me wrong: I have total faith in the truth of Genesis. God created us (both our matter and our soul…how doesn’t really matter to my faith or love of him). God gave us (Adam and Eve) free will. We (Adam and Eve) chose disobedience and sin. God so loved the world that He gave His only Son to restore our original creation.

But the science you are talking about (both in favor of evolution and in favor of creationism) both need more work before we can label either as Truth with a capital T. St. Paul states that a thousand years is like a day to God and a thousand years like a day." To state that Genesis must be a scientific text is to state that the only source of truth is science. Personally, I find a greater understanding of the human condition in fiction and poetry than I do in science/natural philosophy.

There is plenty of good science out there that does contradict certain well published ideas but something more important than science (for some) is at stake: power. To convince people of something. The truth is optional. Ask PZ Myers what the National Acadamy of Sciences really thinks about its religion is compatible with science position. They don’t think the two are compatible by the way.

At the beginning of 1 Corinthians, St. Paul compares and contrasts the wisdom of man and the wisdom of the cross. Theirs is a wisdom of fact, only of that which they can prove and understand. It is limited and shrinks in proportion to the limits and shrinkage of the human mind. Their existence shrinks and expands in proportion to what they can understand. They live in a small world.

Ours is a wisdom of mystery. It is based on that which God has revealed to us as his Truth, but thrives in that mystery. We are not limited to a small world and do not demand facts to believe (although they always end up validating us in the end…) - our existence is as limitless as our God.

My point is this: all Catholics believe in Creationism (i.e., God is our Creator). What we disagree with is the science, which you right pointed out needs more research (on both sides). Science and religion are compatible and I offer this as food for thought:

fish.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/05/03/god-talk/

 

[ricmat]

This is why I focus on the issue of common descent. Prove common descent, and you prove that evolution did occur in some form or fashion, even if you can’t tell exactly what that form or fashion is.

–Mike

I believe in evolution. I believe that the earth is 14 billion years old (give or take a few). I believe that more primitive life forms lived in the distant past, and the more advanced lifeforms live today. I believe that a rearrangement of DNA is required for lower forms of life to become higher forms of life.

I am actually not proposing that there is a barrier prevent more primitive lifeforms from changing into more advanced lifeforms.

Where I differ from StA, and some others is that I don’t believe that totally RANDOM mutations can accomplish the task from lower forms of life to more advanced forms in only 4 billion years. I can accept that it can be done by an intelligent agent (whom I think is God) intervening at key points and times.

If you called me on the phone from Hawaii, and then 30 seconds later, you were at my front door, a theory that “You walked here” is not viable. You could counter argue that “Ricmat saw pictures of Mike actually walking in Hawaii, so it is theoretically possible that Mike walked to Southern California in 30 seconds.” But it doesn’t work because of the timeline. In my mind, that’s where “random” evolution sits right now. The time line doesn’t work. Also, the fact that DNA has built in features to prevent mutations…and, a few other minor points.

Your comment about “Somehow I got from Hawaii to Alaska (or So Cal)” is what I’ve been complaining to the random evolution folks all along. Their explanation is that evolution “did it somehow”. It requires DNA evidence really to prove it. But there is none.

I don’t claim to have all the answers. But their answers are not answers either.

 

[edwest2]

Macroevolution. Basically, I believe that the genetic evidence that is available to us today is sufficient to prove that human beings and chimpanzees are descended from a common ancestor species.

In other words, there used to be no humans or chimpanzees, only this ancestor species, but about five million years ago, two portions of this original ancestor species got separated from each other and also from the rest of their kind. One of these separate portions eventually developed into humans, and the other separate portion eventually developed into chimpanzees. The rest of that original ancestor species died out completely, leaving humans and chimpanzees as the only surviving descendants.

–Mike

Only the interpretation of the genetic evidence is at fault. Using DNA instructions to build two similar body plans, say man and ape, and can you believe it? Both sets of instructions are similar! The DNA to build each are similar! Why? Because the body plans are similar.

So it is not a foregone conclusion that anything evolved from anything as currently understood. It appears possible that small variations can occur but these appear to be more influenced by geography, climate and available food types.

Peace,
Ed

 

[mpartyka]

Where I differ from StA, and some others is that I don’t believe that totally RANDOM mutations can accomplish the task from lower forms of life to more advanced forms in only 4 billion years. I can accept that it can be done by an intelligent agent (whom I think is God) intervening at key points and times.

Okay…but how does one prove that a particular mutation or sequence of mutations occurred via the choice of an intelligent agent and did not occur randomly? Is there a kind of “signature” of intelligence that would distiguish a deliberate choice from a random occurrence?

–Mike

 

[ricmat]

Okay…but how does one prove that a particular mutation or sequence of mutations occurred via the choice of an intelligent agent and did not occur randomly? Is there a kind of “signature” of intelligence that would distiguish a deliberate choice from a random occurrence?

–Mike

I don’t know that you can prove it one way or the other.

We can look at “things” and generally tell if they fell together randomly or were designed. There is no foolproof way to do it I suppose. But then, without DNA, the entire evolution thing (random or not) sort of falls apart. The TOE cannot be proven.

The ones I normally argue with say that God is not involved, even to the point of setting the physical parameters of the universe in an intelligent fashion so that the universe actually works right (the fine tuning). They won’t even say that God designed evolution (whatever the mechanism turns out to be). They say that it’s an insult to God to call him a designer. Hence my current signature. If Isaiah can call God a designer, then how big of an insult can it be?

It seems that they must think God was busy doing something, and then “Oops…what the heck happened there? That’s not what I was planning on.”

 

[mpartyka]

Only the interpretation of the genetic evidence is at fault. Using DNA instructions to build two similar body plans, say man and ape, and can you believe it? Both sets of instructions are similar! The DNA to build each are similar! Why? Because the body plans are similar.

I understand your argument, and if there were no way to tell a copied gene from an original gene, it would be a good argument. But there are certain indicators that copied genes have by which we can tell that they are copies and not originals. So, we don’t get only positional information by looking at DNA. We also get chronological information from DNA – we can tell what happened in the past by looking at DNA in the present.

Ever watch CSI or Mythbusters? These shows are great examples of scientists at work, and they provide all sorts of examples of how past events can be determined from present observations.

–Mike

 

[ricmat]

Ever watch CSI or Mythbusters? These shows are great examples of scientists at work, and they provide all sorts of examples of how past events can be determined from present observations.

–Mike

LOL

Ever watch the History Channel, or NGEO? Their shows are great examples of pure bunk. Look, we found a small portion of a bone from 100 million years ago. Based on this bone, we can tell that the creature was 50 feet high, could run 35 miles per hour, slept between the hours of 8PM and 5AM, was green, cared for it’s young in a monogamous relationship for life, and generally was well liked by all the other creatures of the era.

I said earlier that I believed in evolution (but not the random type). Actually, to be more accurate I should say that although that directed evolution seems like the best shot to me, that I’m open to other options as well.

I’ve seen some of the same info that Ed is referring to, and frankly, “what we know” is not all it’s cracked up to be throughout the science world (I’m an Electrical Engineer BTW).

 

[buffalo]

The analogy is designed to answer a particular question and does so quite well in representing what is the evolutionist’s theory as to why certain “lower” species remain if they are descended from “higher” species. What you are proposing in return is that there is some sort of “barrier” beyond which a species cannot mutate such as to eventually develop into a species distinct from its predecessors. Both the analogy and your rebuttal are worthy of consideration. How do we determine which theory is right? We don’t have the vast amount of time it would take to see evolution in progress. The only option, then, is to see if there is any evidence which can tell us definitively whether certain distinct species share a common ancestor. If we can determine with reasonable certainty that humans and chimpanzees have a common ancestor, we’ll know that it is indeed possible for a species to diversify into distinct species and that there is no “barrier” to such a process’s taking place.

I prefer to use the analogy of travel to illustrate my point. Let’s say you live in Alaska, and I live in Hawaii. I call you up for a quick chat, and you can see from your caller ID that I’m calling from Hawaii. The next day, you hear the doorbell ring, and you open the door to find me standing on your front porch! “How did you get here?” you ask. And that’s a good question…but what is not in question is that I am indeed standing on your porch when the previous day I was many miles away. SOME process took place to transport me from point A to point B – a plane, a boat, or some combination of vehicles – and while we don’t know what that process was exactly, we know that the process undeniably exists (because if it didn’t I wouldn’t be on your porch).

This is why I focus on the issue of common descent. Prove common descent, and you prove that evolution did occur in some form or fashion, even if you can’t tell exactly what that form or fashion is.

–Mike

http://kolbecenter.org/graphics/hydrogencolor.jpg

 

[buffalo]

Okay…but how does one prove that a particular mutation or sequence of mutations occurred via the choice of an intelligent agent and did not occur randomly? Is there a kind of “signature” of intelligence that would distiguish a deliberate choice from a random occurrence?

–Mike

One way is to determine the number of times the same thing happens. If it repeats it usually indicates design or purpose.

 

[buffalo]

Dual Coding Is Virtually Impossible by Chance

 

[buffalo]

Time to play the Richard Dawkins Mutation Challenge again.

 

[Namesake]

In regarding the speed of light, a bit more research is required. The current thinking is that the speed of light was much higher at the beginning and has slowed to its present rate.
Peace,
Ed

That isn’t true. Current thinking is that the speed of light has not changed at all. Your creationist ideas are leading you astray.

 

[Namesake]

I believe in evolution.

You don’t have to believe in evolution. It’s a fact that should be accepted because of the evidence.

 

[buffalo]

Recent common ancestry of human Y chromosomes:
Evidence from DNA sequence data

 

[Namesake]

Recent common ancestry of human Y chromosomes:
Evidence from DNA sequence data

This is essentially gibberish. No where can I find materials and methods. Materials and methods are an essential part of scientific publication. So, if you cannot produce materials and methods it means nothing at all. That’s just how science has to be done.