Conference on Evolution

[StAnastasia]

Hi Barbarian,

I am wondering why you are actually not embarrassed by your statistics since of all the thousands of Phd.s in biology have not been able to put forth a scientific theory for even biochemical evolution. Perhaps it is because biology and evolution have nothing in common. All the Phd.s in the world aren’t and can not help save evolution from the trash bin. No biologist supports evolution in any meaningful scientific way. It is more of a moral kind of support. Biologists work on the assumption that evolution is somehow, probably true. But none of their work actually relies on it being true. It simply is there to provide a kind of contextual background.

Yeremyah, I don’t know what world you live in, but I work with biologists on a daily basis, including Catholic ones. Among the 100,000 or so biologists and allied scientists working in the United States, I do not know a single one who does not assume the fundamental truth of evolution. It is the central unifying principle of all biology. To deny this is to reveal that you live in complete innocence of science and how it works.

StAnastasia

 

[Abbadon]

Yeremyah, I don’t know what world you live in, but I work with biologists on a daily basis, including Catholic ones. Among the 100,000 or so biologists and allied scientists working in the United States, I do not know a single one who does not assume the fundamental truth of evolution. It is the central unifying principle of all biology. To deny this is to reveal that you live in complete innocence of science and how it works.

StAnastasia

Yea I don’t know about calling it a fundamental truth, I don’t like calling anything in science A truth. It is no doubt a fundamental principle with alot of evidence backing it up. Highly supported theory, just like gravity .

 

[StAnastasia]

Yea I don’t know about calling it a fundamental truth, I don’t like calling anything in science A truth. It is no doubt a fundamental principle with alot of evidence backing it up. Highly supported theory, just like gravity .

Truth, principle, theory, fundamental organizing principle – choose your term!

 

[Abbadon]

Truth, principle, theory, fundamental organizing principle – choose your term!

No but truth implies something to science that it does not pertain. It admits of certainty, and science is never certain of anything. I mean we get 99.99% sure, but truth is just a bad term for it.

I’m just being picky no doubt at the core we both agree…

 

[Patrick_Bestall]

To StAnastasia: You work with biologists on a daily basis and do not know of a single one “in America” who refutes evolution? Try looking in another country. How about Professor Louis Bounoure, former President of the Biological Society of Strasbourg who became Director of Research at the National Center of Scientific Research in France. Bounoure wrote: “Evolution is a fairytale for grown-ups”. Or in Canada where I live. Until he died, Professor W. R. Thompson was Director of the (worldwide) Commonwealth Institute of Bilogilcal Control in Ottawa. He wrote the preface to the centenary edition of Darwin’s Origin of the Species. His preface demolished Darwinism gently but completely. The list goes on, but I guess you never heard of these people since they’re not American. And I guess geneticists don’t count either, like Professor H. Nilsson, a Swedish geneticist of world standing; and Dr. Giertych, the eminent Poklish geneticist. And I guess the 650 scientists in the Creation Research Society who each hold a Master’s Degree in Science and better, they don’t count either?
Excuse me but I detect that you have your bias which is every bit as strong as a Creationist. That’s OK so long as you submit to the goal of science, which is to incorporate as much observable data as possible into the fewest number of theories. Hint: Creation science has a place for each new discovery without creating a new theory.

 

[Yeremyah]

Hi I’m a biologist (biochemistry/genetics majors) and evolution has stood up against the trials and tribulation of time. It’s a growing and concise theory that helps us with treating and identifying virus’ and harmful bacteria. It helps us in agriculture, artificially and naturally breeding better crops. In medicine where we can apply principles we learn in mice into other lifeforms. In genetics so we can apply principles we learn from Drosophila into other life forms.

Understanding Evolution is fundamentally important to many aspects of biology and medicine.

Absolutely untrue. Evolution plays no part in understanding anything about biology or medicine, identifying or treating viruses or bacteria, nor does it help mankind breed better crops, etc. In fact it is probably retarding learning in all those areas. They are actually mutual enemies. What part of the theory helps us locate the gene for Lupus? What part of the theory of evolution gave us German Shepherds?

The science of genetics can help with these pursuits, however there is no provable link between evolution and genetics. The theory has guided some in their social policies of euthanasia, genocide, and oppression of the weaker members of society.

Darwin’s original theory has barely stood the test of time at all. As advances are made in the sciences, chunks of theory fall into the ocean and dissolve. New chunks of theory are created, and last for a time, until they too must be discarded. The theory of evolution itself has gone through many transformations, and still is. Yet there are still no plausible explanations as to how biochemical evolution could have occurred. There isn’t even a theory for that chunk of the greater theory. Most if not all of the original theory has been discarded and replaced several times over by scientists who do in fact believe in A theory of evolution. Virtually all of the predictions of the original theory have been proven wrong with modern science, not right. Missing transitions and the high complexity at the cellular are some examples.

 

[Yeremyah]

Yeremyah, I don’t know what world you live in, but I work with biologists on a daily basis, including Catholic ones. Among the 100,000 or so biologists and allied scientists working in the United States, I do not know a single one who does not assume the fundamental truth of evolution. It is the central unifying principle of all biology. To deny this is to reveal that you live in complete innocence of science and how it works.

StAnastasia

You are right to say “assume the fundamental truth” because it really is nothing more than an assumption, and the theory is mostly vague, and completely blank in some critical areas. It simply does not and can not answer the most fundamental questions in biology. The fact that you do not personally know a biologist that doubts the theory means absolutely nothing as to its actual veracity. Biology has developed completely independently of evolution, and even in spite of it. Evolution tries to pass itself off as biology all the time, but there is no scientific connection. It is more like a philosophy or religion, some biologists believe in it, some don’t. They still do the exact same science.

 

[Steve40]

See if there is something on kolbecenter.org/ , good resource.

 

[Patrick_Bestall]

To StAnastasia: I understand why you would think Genesis is very unscientific when it says God “founded the earth upon the seas”. You’re right, our continents do not float on the oceans. But consider another interpretation in the light of Dr. Walt Brown’s Hydroplate Theory. It’s a paper much too long to summarize here, and only a geologist would appreciate the data, but I’ll give you the jist of it.

There was a time when most water was underground, under pressure, with no oceans, just rivers. (Researchers notice that early man had no word for “sea” or “ocean”.) There was a “firmnament above”, a canopy of ice crystals which protected us from life-shortening rays, compressed the oxygen to promote over-size growth, and provided a “green house” for preserving moisture. (After Voyageur II, NASA officials postulated that earth had something like the ice rings of Saturn, but not necessarily narrow structure.)

Then something happened, likely a comet hitting earth, which caused the mantle to fracture, releasing high pressure streams of water like geysers into the stratosphere where the floating ice became supersaturated and came down as extreme rain. (This explains why wooley mammoths have been found fast frozen with food still in their mouth.) The pressure of the prolonged downpour tilted broken surface plates, forming mountains and draining the widespread but relatively shallow flood into the lower levels we know as oceans today.

You can see where I’m going with this. The important thing is that what fundamentalists accept with “blind faith” may also be explained in geological terms as science progresses.

You also thought that Genesis was totally wrong from a scientific point of view when it says that God “laid the foundations of the earth that it should not be removed for ever”. You are right if you interpret that to mean that the earth is in a fixed place, unmoving, because we know it rotates around the sun. But it was a mistranslation. “Foundations” means a place fixed in the heavens which we can call a “fixed orbit” today. And the next phrase says “it should not be removed”. The word is “removed” not “moved” which is what you are seeing. The Church was prepared to admit this mistranslation at the time of Galileo, but wanted to wait because Galileo’s research was flawed. (He got his ideas from Copernicus. Read Catholic Answers Encyclopedia for the truth) They punished him for going to extremes in trying to prove the whole Bible was just a bunch of nice stories. Much like a lot of evolutionists today eh? (I almost typed “evilutionists”.)

 

[Abbadon]

Absolutely untrue. Evolution plays no part in understanding anything about biology or medicine, identifying or treating viruses or bacteria, nor does it help mankind breed better crops, etc. In fact it is probably retarding learning in all those areas. They are actually mutual enemies. What part of the theory helps us locate the gene for Lupus? What part of the theory of evolution gave us German Shepherds?

I wish I could remember exactly what it was called. When you fall sick with a virus/bacteria that is currently unknown you can take a DNA sample analyse it’s genomic sequence identify where it falls in the evolutionary tree and treat it similarly to other things. R34 sounds familiar but I’m not sure.
Malaria has a reminant plastid that is a chloroplast. Malaria is descended from protists, we can now treat it with herbacides as a result.
I’m sure other examples exist, I’ll ask my lecturers 2morrow.

The science of genetics can help with these pursuits, however there is no provable link between evolution and genetics. The theory has guided some in their social policies of euthanasia, genocide, and oppression of the weaker members of society.

Well as we map genomes we notice trends in genetic code, the position of an organism on the phylogenetic tree can be completely replaced by it’s genome. I’m just beginning to learn about it now so I can’t really comment as there is much I yet don’t know.

Darwin’s original theory has barely stood the test of time at all. As advances are made in the sciences, chunks of theory fall into the ocean and dissolve. New chunks of theory are created, and last for a time, until they too must be discarded. The theory of evolution itself has gone through many transformations, and still is. Yet there are still no plausible explanations as to how biochemical evolution could have occurred. There isn’t even a theory for that chunk of the greater theory. Most if not all of the original theory has been discarded and replaced several times over by scientists who do in fact believe in A theory of evolution. Virtually all of the predictions of the original theory have been proven wrong with modern science, not right. Missing transitions and the high complexity at the cellular are some examples.

Of course it changes. That’s what science does with new evidence. But the overall principle that organisms beget other organisms that we are all related, that still stands. Evolution through natural selection. Exactly how and where we are learning more about and refining.

I’d like to ask do you have a better theory?

And why does >99% of the scientific community not seem to think that evolutionary theory is so wrong?

I have to ask just in case. Are you a Poe? (In reference to Poe’s law)

 

[Abbadon]

To StAnastasia: You work with biologists on a daily basis and do not know of a single one “in America” who refutes evolution? Try looking in another country. How about Professor Louis Bounoure, former President of the Biological Society of Strasbourg who became Director of Research at the National Center of Scientific Research in France. Bounoure wrote: “Evolution is a fairytale for grown-ups”. Or in Canada where I live. Until he died, Professor W. R. Thompson was Director of the (worldwide) Commonwealth Institute of Bilogilcal Control in Ottawa. He wrote the preface to the centenary edition of Darwin’s Origin of the Species. His preface demolished Darwinism gently but completely. The list goes on, but I guess you never heard of these people since they’re not American. And I guess geneticists don’t count either, like Professor H. Nilsson, a Swedish geneticist of world standing; and Dr. Giertych, the eminent Poklish geneticist. And I guess the 650 scientists in the Creation Research Society who each hold a Master’s Degree in Science and better, they don’t count either?
Excuse me but I detect that you have your bias which is every bit as strong as a Creationist. That’s OK so long as you submit to the goal of science, which is to incorporate as much observable data as possible into the fewest number of theories. Hint: Creation science has a place for each new discovery without creating a new theory.

How many scientists with degrees in biology? And how many named Steve?

 

[The_Barbarian]

There is no such thing as “creation science.” Creation transcends the methodology of science, and science can say nothing about it. Science has been stunningly successful at understanding the physical universe, and so some have envied science enough to want to borrow it’s prestige.

How silly.

And Nils H. Nilsson recently showed how a complex eye could evolve from scratch. There’s another H. Nilsson with some papers to his name, but he’s a chemist, not a geneticist.

?

 

[The_Barbarian]

To StAnastasia: I understand why you would think Genesis is very unscientific when it says God “founded the earth upon the seas”. You’re right, our continents do not float on the oceans. But consider another interpretation in the light of Dr. Walt Brown’s Hydroplate Theory. It’s a paper much too long to summarize here, and only a geologist would appreciate the data,

Geologists laugh at the story. There are no “data.”

There was a time when most water was underground, under pressure, with no oceans, just rivers.

Odd. Where did the rivers go? And from where did the water in the rivers come?

(Researchers notice that early man had no word for “sea” or “ocean”.)

The earliest language for which we have evidence, Sumerian, used the word “a-ab-ba” for “sea.”

There was a “firmnament above”, a canopy of ice crystals which protected us from life-shortening rays, compressed the oxygen to promote over-size growth, and provided a “green house” for preserving moisture.

Extra oxygen doesn’t make things grow bigger. Put a lizard in a high-oxygen environment, and get back to us about the results. And it’s physically impossible to have an “ice canopy in the sky.”

Then something happened, likely a comet hitting earth, which caused the mantle to fracture, releasing high pressure streams of water like geysers into the stratosphere where the floating ice became supersaturated and came down as extreme rain. (This explains why wooley mammoths have been found fast frozen with food still in their mouth.)

Cite us an example. The only ones like that in the literature were those that drowned or one example covered by a mudslide.

The pressure of the prolonged downpour tilted broken surface plates, forming mountains and draining the widespread but relatively shallow flood into the lower levels we know as oceans today.

We know how mountains form. The process is still going on and we can see it as it progresses. It’s a slow process.

You can see where I’m going with this. The important thing is that what fundamentalists accept with “blind faith” may also be explained in geological terms as science progresses.

You also thought that Genesis was totally wrong from a scientific point of view when it says that God “laid the foundations of the earth that it should not be removed for ever”. You are right if you interpret that to mean that the earth is in a fixed place, unmoving, because we know it rotates around the sun.

Revolves.

But it was a mistranslation. “Foundations” means a place fixed in the heavens which we can call a “fixed orbit” today.

That moves, too. The Earth’s orbit changes.

 

[The_Barbarian]

I am wondering why you are actually not embarrassed by your statistics since of all the thousands of Phd.s in biology have not been able to put forth a scientific theory for even biochemical evolution.

Biological evolution is very well understood. “Biochemical evolution” is not part of the theory. But there are a number of theories that have an increasing amount of evidence for them. The evidence suggests that life was indeed brought forth by the earth as God says.

Perhaps it is because biology and evolution have nothing in common.

You’re not a biologist are you? Guess how I know. Hint: “Nothing makes sense except in the light of evolution.” Christian biologist Theodosius Dobzhansky

All the Phd.s in the world aren’t and can not help save evolution from the trash bin. No biologist supports evolution in any meaningful scientific way.

Name one world-class biologist who doesn’t.

It is more of a moral kind of support. Biologists work on the assumption that evolution is somehow, probably true.

You’ve been badly misled on that. Today, all sorts of research depends on the theory. Barry Hall, for example, has found a way to predict how new antibiotic resistance will evolve so that drug companies can find ways to counter it. Would you like a list of predictions of evolutionary theory that have been confirmed?

 

[edwest2]

Hi I’m a biologist (biochemistry/genetics majors) and evolution has stood up against the trials and tribulation of time. It’s a growing and concise theory that helps us with treating and identifying virus’ and harmful bacteria. It helps us in agriculture, artificially and naturally breeding better crops. In medicine where we can apply principles we learn in mice into other lifeforms. In genetics so we can apply principles we learn from Drosophila into other life forms.

Understanding Evolution is fundamentally important to many aspects of biology and medicine.

Evolution does what? Identifying viruses and bacteria concerns identifying viruses and bacteria, not the past. If some bacteria survive after being exposed to an antibacterial, it’s because they already could, not because they evolved. Bacteria can transfer genetic material between other species of bacteria. This is a built-in ability.

Agriculture? People figured out lots of things that plants can do naturally. They figured out they could splice a branch from one type of fruit tree to grow on another type. And the evolution part is what?

Genetic manipulation by man is not evolution either.

Peace,
Ed

 

[StAnastasia]

Evolution does what? Identifying viruses and bacteria concerns identifying viruses and bacteria, not the past. If some bacteria survive after being exposed to an antibacterial, it’s because they already could, not because they evolved. Bacteria can transfer genetic material between other species of bacteria. This is a built-in ability…Genetic manipulation by man is not evolution either.Peace,Ed

Ed, you should propose your theories to the Pontifical Council for Culture. Perhaps they will organize an anti-evolution conference next year to balance the excellent conference we just had last week. Don’t forget to invite the hundreds of priests and Catholic scholars who were there, to disabuse them of everything they learned during this conference. A well-publicized, well-reported conference is the best way to get your ideas across to a significant audience.

StAnastasia

 

[StAnastasia]

You are right to say “assume the fundamental truth” because it really is nothing more than an assumption, and the theory is mostly vague, and completely blank in some critical areas. It simply does not and can not answer the most fundamental questions in biology. The fact that you do not personally know a biologist that doubts the theory means absolutely nothing as to its actual veracity. Biology has developed completely independently of evolution, and even in spite of it. Evolution tries to pass itself off as biology all the time, but there is no scientific connection. It is more like a philosophy or religion, some biologists believe in it, some don’t. They still do the exact same science.

You seem innocent of any real knowledge of biology. Have you ever studied that science? Have you ever visited a university or a working laboratory? Do you know why 100,000 biologists consider evolution to be the central organizing principle of the science? Do you know why there are no scientific organizations holding sessions at their annual conferences on why evolution “is nothing more than an assumption,…the theory mostly vague, and completely blank in some critical areas”?

StAnastasia

 

[StAnastasia]

See if there is something on kolbecenter.org/ , good resource.

The Kolbe Center is useless with respect to science. It does no research into biological processes, it has no world-class or even second-class biologists on staff. Nothing significant to offer. That’s why it’s largely ignored.

 

[edwest2]

Ed, you should propose your theories to the Pontifical Council for Culture. Perhaps they will organize an anti-evolution conference next year to balance the excellent conference we just had last week. Don’t forget to invite the hundreds of priests and Catholic scholars who were there, to disabuse them of everything they learned during this conference. A well-publicized, well-reported conference is the best way to get your ideas across to a significant audience.

StAnastasia

Why are you working so hard to oversell evolution? The following article was written by a member of the National Academy of Sciences:

forbes.com/2009/02/23/evolution-creation-debate-biology-opinions-contributors_darwin.html

Peace,
Ed

 

[StAnastasia]

Why are you working so hard to oversell evolution? The following article was written by a member of the National Academy of Sciences:forbes.com/2009/02/23/evolution-creation-debate-biology-opinions-contributors_darwin.htmlPeace,Ed

"Philip S. Skell is a computational chemist. He disparages paleontology, and evolutionary biology. He is a creationist, and anything he writes must be interpreted with this in mind. His core argument is that evolutionary theory founders on the; “… origin of life, speciation, the essences of our fossilized ancestors, the ultimate causes of their changes, etc.”

The origin of life, typically studied under the umbrella of abiogenesis, or astrobiology, is conceptually independent of evolutionary theory. Contemporary research is as much chemical as biological. Perhaps more so. As Darwin himself observed, concluding that there was a unique solitary original cell was merely the result of analogy, “But, analogy may be a deceitful guide.” The core of evolutionary theory, common descent and natural selection, is unaffected by any origin of life scenario.

Skell seems unaware that speciation, the emergence of a newly isolated reproductive population is neither unknown, nor uncommon. We have directly observed the emergence of new species, conclusively demonstrating common descent, a core hypothesis of evolutionary theory. Depending on population size, and starting variability, selective pressures can be strongly acting resulting in rapid emergence of new species.

This is a much a “proof” of evolution as dropping a bowling ball on your foot “proves” gravity.

Skell is equally uninformed about the interplay between molecular genetics and paleontology. We have recently seen the publication of a draft genome of the extinct hominid, Homo Neadertalis. More tellingly, there has been a decades long exchange of opinions regarding whale evolution where hypotheses generated from both genetics and morphology have finally converged with the paleontological discovery of several new whale ancestors, particularly Ambulocetus natans, and Pakicetus."

Submitted by Dr. G Hurd

rate.forbes.com/comments/CommentServlet?op=cpage&sourcename=story&StoryURI=2009/02/23/evolution-creation-debate-biology-opinions-contributors_darwin.html&com=57421