Conference on Evolution

[grannymh]

Yes, God created the universe and it was “good”.

So, why couldn’t there be a compatible evolutionary theory in which saltations are a strength? A compatible theory in which there are other “good” strengths? Odds are irrelevant (post 135) when God is the Creator.

Blessings,
granny

All human life is sacred from the moment of conception.

 

[buffalo]

So, why couldn’t there be a compatible evolutionary theory in which saltations are a strength? A compatible theory in which there are other “good” strengths? Odds are irrelevant (post 135) when God is the Creator.

Blessings,
granny

All human life is sacred from the moment of conception.

Saltations are sudden huge jumps. They cannot be explained by Darwin’s long ages.

Bye bye long ages. Hello EES and self assembly.

The odds get higher and higher with each new evolutionary explanation.

So we get to God creates a plan. The plan is carried in the language of DNA. He created the “kinds”. The kinds have the language that allows them to adapt to a changing environment. Isolation and natural selection causes speciation. There you have it.

 

[StAnastasia]

I recommend you check your Bible. The Bible clearly tells us that corruption entered the world after the Fall. Illness and deformity. God was and is active in His Creation but Satan is also active and will be permitted, for a time, to remain so.Peace,
Ed

I’m not sure how you understand corruption, but predation and death have been with us since the beginning of life on earth, 3.5 billion years ago. Ask any biologist.

 

[StAnastasia]

So, why couldn’t there be a compatible evolutionary theory in which saltations are a strength? A compatible theory in which there are other “good” strengths? Odds are irrelevant (post 135) when God is the Creator. Blessings,granny
All human life is sacred from the moment of conception.

Grannymh, “saltations” are accountable for in the Neo-Darwinian Synthesis: the idea of “punctuated equilibrium” can explain how speciation can happen relatively rapidly and not be fully accounted for in the fossil record.

StAnastasia

 

[grannymh]

Grannymh, “saltations” are accountable for in the Neo-Darwinian Synthesis: the idea of “punctuated equilibrium” can explain how speciation can happen relatively rapidly and not be fully accounted for in the fossil record.

StAnastasia

What is so very intriguing about your reply is that marvelous word “idea”. “The idea of “punctuated equilibrium” can explain how speciation can happen relatively rapidly and not be fully accounted for in the fossil record.” Could be that there are more “ideas” lurking! Not be fully accounted for in the fossil record! What else may not be accounted for in the fossil record?

Blessings,
granny

Human life deserves to be understood.

 

[buffalo]

Grannymh, “saltations” are accountable for in the Neo-Darwinian Synthesis: the idea of “punctuated equilibrium” can explain how speciation can happen relatively rapidly and not be fully accounted for in the fossil record.

StAnastasia

Then why the need for the EES?

Explain the jump from one cell to multicelled organisms. That is the issue.

Doesn’t anyone see how this all requires more and more time and the odds get much longer?

 

[grannymh]

Then why the need for the EES?

Explain the jump from one cell to multicelled organisms. That is the issue.

Doesn’t anyone see how this all requires more and more time and the odds get much longer?

In addition to your questions, I wonder why it is automatically assumed that humans evolved from a primate common ancestor? Is it a fear factor? Is it the influence of “publish or perish”?

What does biochemistry have to offer? What about cellular biology? What does the unity found in nature mean?

Why is the life principle itself limited to one theory?

Seems to me that the earth is a pretty big place. Were all the chemicals, etc., needed to form the first living cells concentrated in a two foot x two foot area?

Of course, I believe in the obvious evolutionary theory. But why should I believe that there was only one tree of life? Even playing around with a gedanken experiment (post 119) can give rise to the idea that the life principle itself is not limited.

Blessings,
granny

All human life is sacred from the moment of conception.

 

[Maciej]

Since I (Maciej Giertych) was mentioned in this forum I wish to correct some misunderstanding. I have attendend the Pontifical Academy of Sciences (PAS) session on evolution 31.Oct.- 4.Nov. 08 in the Vatican and not the Pontifical Council on Culture conference at the Gregorian Univ. 3-7 March 09. My report from the PAS session is available at: giertych.pl/pliki/PAS%20report%20poprawiony.doc
My contribution to the evolution debate is spelled out in my booklet available on: giertych.eu/pliki/Teaching%20on%20evolution%20in%20European%20Schools.doc
Darwin was correct in showing that races form. Now we know exactly how this happens, both naturally and in breeding. There is much evidence supporting this. But all race formation depends on reduction of genetic information. Macroevolution requires increase of information and there is no scientific evidence for this. Until proponents of the theory of evolution are able to demonstrate the process of increasing genetic information the theory is dead. It is best to leave religion out of the scientific discussion. Maciej

 

[Patrick_Bestall]

I think I will ignore the recent criticisms of my posting #48, the geologist’s Hydroplate Theory which fits with the Genesis account of the waters under the earth and the “firmnament above”; because my critics chose to ignore the supporting statements by NASA, and to deny there’s any geological evidence in Dr. Brown’s theory without checking it out.

I prefer to go on to deal with another aspect of the Genesis account which evolutionists love to throw at creationists: the age of the universe as indicated by the number of light years to the distant stars. Most good Bible believers are stumped by this one. But I think the Bible provovides another clue to how astronomers should interpret the mysterious data. I say “mysterious” because it is a mystery as to why the universe seems to be expanding at ever increasing speed. Explosions don’t act this way, so to maintain the theory physicists have to introduce a mathematical entity into their formulaes which they call “dark matter” and “dark energy”. It’s the stuff of science fiction.

Well, a good Bible believing astronomer took a clue from the scriptures which say “God rolled out the heavens like a tent” (that looks just like a science text book drawing of space curved around a large star, except it’s upsidedown), and God will “roll up the heavens like a scroll”. In other words, after the explosion comes the implosion. The astronomer suggested that we are already in stage two, and that the furthermost stars are not increasing speed away from us, but rather we are moving at an increasing speed away from them towards a giant black hole. It’s an optical illusion. Since I originally heard him say this, Hubble has verified that the black hole at the centre of our galaxy is much much bigger than ever thought. And I dare say the one at the centre of our finite universe. If this is true, then the speed of light has slowed down for us more than we think. We know other things affect the speed of light, even temperature. There is also a good theory which disputes that light has to travel through curved space. Let’s just say evolutionists are not in a position to be dogmatic about using light to measure time anymore than they were to use radioactive decay or even the geological record, both of which are suspect. One more thing; another astronomer wondered why there are no supernovas recorded to have occurred more than 7,000 years ago. Hmmm. I wonder why.

In parting I’d just like to know; do any of you who suport the popular theories of evolution believe that Jesus could create living flesh out of nothing (so to speak) when he healed people and raised the dead? Do you think God could?

 

[Abbadon]

Since I (Maciej Giertych) was mentioned in this forum I wish to correct some misunderstanding. I have attendend the Pontifical Academy of Sciences (PAS) session on evolution 31.Oct.- 4.Nov. 08 in the Vatican and not the Pontifical Council on Culture conference at the Gregorian Univ. 3-7 March 09. My report from the PAS session is available at: giertych.pl/pliki/PAS%20report%20poprawiony.doc
My contribution to the evolution debate is spelled out in my booklet available on: giertych.eu/pliki/Teaching%20on%20evolution%20in%20European%20Schools.doc
Darwin was correct in showing that races form. Now we know exactly how this happens, both naturally and in breeding. There is much evidence supporting this. But all race formation depends on reduction of genetic information. Macroevolution requires increase of information and there is no scientific evidence for this. Until proponents of the theory of evolution are able to demonstrate the process of increasing genetic information the theory is dead. It is best to leave religion out of the scientific discussion. Maciej

You make two incorrect assumptions. One is that evolution requires an increase of information, if we consider the amount of genetic material an aemeoba has compared to a human you will notice that it is alot less. And two is that there is no increase in genetic information which any second year genetics student can tell you about duplication from unequal recombination. Not only that if you consider exons and introns alot of new information can be added without increasing actual genetic code.

If you are Maciej Giertych a population geneticist you should know to be more specific about the words that you use. Perhaps you meant something other than an increase of information? Also evolution is the only theory I know of that even comes close to explaining the complexity of life, creationists just say.

Once upon a time there was a big GOD and he created EVERYTHING

That’s not an answer that’s like when someone asks you how does lightning strike you say MAGIC…

 

[StAnastasia]

The astronomer suggested …Since I originally heard him say this, Hubble has verified that the black hole at the centre of our galaxy is much much bigger than ever thought. And I dare say the one at the centre of our finite universe.

There is no black hole at the centre of the universe, because there is no centre. And the universe appears to be speeding up in its expansion, such that it will not re-collapse in a “big crunch” analogous to the “big bang.” It will simply go on expanding for tens of billions of years, cooling as iu expands.

 

[Abbadon]

There is no black hole at the centre of the universe, because there is no centre. And the universe appears to be speeding up in its expansion, such that it will not re-collapse in a “big crunch” analogous to the “big bang.” It will simply go on expanding for tens of billions of years, cooling as iu expands.

He said galaxy… I know when I first read it i thought he meant universe to. And also yes there is no big crunch however quantum gravity seems to indicate that there once may have been…

 

[redneck22]

Since I (Maciej Giertych) was mentioned in this forum I wish to correct some misunderstanding. I have attendend the Pontifical Academy of Sciences (PAS) session on evolution 31.Oct.- 4.Nov. 08 in the Vatican and not the Pontifical Council on Culture conference at the Gregorian Univ. 3-7 March 09. My report from the PAS session is available at: giertych.pl/pliki/PAS%20report%20poprawiony.doc
My contribution to the evolution debate is spelled out in my booklet available on: giertych.eu/pliki/Teaching%20on%20evolution%20in%20European%20Schools.doc
Darwin was correct in showing that races form. Now we know exactly how this happens, both naturally and in breeding. There is much evidence supporting this. But all race formation depends on reduction of genetic information. Macroevolution requires increase of information and there is no scientific evidence for this. Until proponents of the theory of evolution are able to demonstrate the process of increasing genetic information the theory is dead. It is best to leave religion out of the scientific discussion. Maciej

Welcome to the forum Dr Giertych, I hope you will contribute here as your scientific understanding of the issues would be invaluable here.

 

[StAnastasia]

He said galaxy… I know when I first read it i thought he meant universe to. And also yes there is no big crunch however quantum gravity seems to indicate that there once may have been…

He said: “And I dare say the one [black hole] at the centre of our finite universe.”

 

[Abbadon]

He said: “And I dare say the one [black hole] at the centre of our finite universe.”

Oh yea your right… damn my bad… And his bad to I would assume.

 

[StAnastasia]

Oh yea your right… damn my bad… And his bad to I would assume.

Abbadon, I’ll check with a cosmologist friend, but it is my understanding that black holes aren’t just out there – they are always associated with a collapsed star which then grows by sucking in other stellar material. So most galaxies probably have a black hole at their centers, but there is no center of the universe in which a black hole might be located. I’ll get back when I hear from him, unless you get back to me first.

StAnastasia

 

[Abbadon]

Abbadon, I’ll check with a cosmologist friend, but it is my understanding that black holes aren’t just out there – they are always associated with a collapsed star which then grows by sucking in other stellar material. So most galaxies probably have a black hole at their centers, but there is no center of the universe in which a black hole might be located. I’ll get back when I hear from him, unless you get back to me first.

StAnastasia

There is currently no evidence (that I know of) to suggest that there is a black hole at the center of our universe. No I think there would be a center, there would be an origin where everything began expanding from, center just means middle of… Also remebering an image the universe looks rather “flat” apparently (by flat i’m sure it’s still a hell of alot of light years thick). I’m kinda happy that this forum system of posting does not require you to post sources. I get away with murder here compared to science forums where writing one short post can take an hour. Every statement of fact is cited…

I just read him wrong I thought he just said there was a black hole at the center of our galaxy which is consistent with current data (or so I have seen). I didn’t know he was making a crazy stretch to Giant black hole at the center of the universe.
There could be a giant inverse something at the center of the universe be cool to find out.

Just did a bit of reading on black holes. Seems the only requirement is extreme gravitational density collapse. Mainly occurring in stars but it seems that early on in the universe it might have just turned up from other events due to the way gravity functioned back then…

 

[StAnastasia]

There is currently no evidence (that I know of) to suggest that there is a black hole at the center of our universe. No I think there would be a center, there would be an origin where everything began expanding from, center just means middle of… Also remebering an image the universe looks rather “flat” apparently (by flat i’m sure it’s still a hell of alot of light years thick)…

Abbadon, “flat” does not refer to a 3-D shape of the universe, but rather to its overall geometry. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shape_of_the_Universe:

“The homogeneous and isotropic universe allows for a spatial geometry with a constant curvature. One aspect of local geometry to emerge from General Relativity and the FLRW model is that the density parameter, Omega (Ω), is related to the curvature of space. Omega is the average density of the universe divided by the critical energy density, i.e. that required for the universe to be flat (zero curvature).”

 

[hecd2]

Macroevolution requires increase of information and there is no scientific evidence for this. Until proponents of the theory of evolution are able to demonstrate the process of increasing genetic information the theory is dead.

This is a common claim, usually made by creationists who have no scientific training. So, it is excellent that, as a professional scientist, you have come to this forum, basing your thesis on the claim. In order for the claim to be credible, you would have to successfully negotiate the following four steps:

1. 
   *]You have to define, rigorously and unambiguously, what you mean by genetic information (including whether it refers to the quantity of information in the genome of an organism, in an actively interbreeding population, in a species or in a habitat).
   *]You have to show how to unambiguously quantify it - by bits, or gene count, or the total length of the genome, or the length of the conserved portion of the genome, or the protein coding length of the genome, or the number of alleles in a population or a species - so that you can tell whether the quantity of whatever you have defined as information in step 1) is more, less or the same from generation to generation
   *]You have to demonstrate that macro-evolution necessarily requires an increase over time in whatever you have defined as information in step 1) according to the method of quantification in step 2)
   *]You must then show that it is impossible for this increase in whatever you have defined as information to occur naturally by well known processes such as point mutations, insertions, deletions, inversions, translocations, duplications and so on.
   
   I am unaware of anyone who has successfully negotiated these four steps - until you do so, your claim that “Macroevolution requires increase of information and there is no scientific evidence for this” is empty. The booklet that you refer us to fails to do so. Will you be able to do so here?
   
   Alec
   evolutionpages.com

 

[Maciej]

According to the present state of our knowledge information is contained in DNA and RNA, particularly in the sequence of nucleotides, a sequence that makes sense. “Making sense” implies that the protein formed according to the information in the DNA and RNA is capable of playing some function in the metabolism of the organism producing it. This information is contained in each cell, in individuals, in populations, in the habitat, wherever there are living organisms. Reshuffling of this information, deleting parts of it, combining bits of it from different organisms etc. is not evolution. It will not allow the transformation of amoeba into an elephant. Such transformation would require new information - new sequences of nucleotides that make sense, new proteins for new functions and organs not to be found in amoeba.
The only hope you have for new information is from positive mutations. Can you give any examples? I can give you hundreds for negative and neutral mutations, but not a single positive one. We are afraid of mutations, we protect ourselves from them and we know they spoil the gene pool (increase the genetic load). Use of mutagenesis in breeding proved a failure and labs are abandoning this route. And one more point - a change that protects an existing function against and a destructive agent (disease, pesticide, herbicide etc) belongs to such phenomena as healing, immunology, elimination of defective cells or organisms etc. but not to evolutionary progress. Maciej