Conference on Evolution

[grannymh]

Originally Posted by Abbadon forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif
It’s not simpilar. Genisis is without the explantion of a crerator by far the most simple example. However simplicity does not mean truth. I understand evolution because I know the evidence I see the evidence and i work with the evidence. It’s all about the evidence. And genesis 1-2 has none and infact is inspite of the evidence.

The evidence of what? Aliens using earth as an experiment on sentience… The Matrix…
Humans being humans says absolutely nothing about how we got here.

I hope to understand the beauty of evolution. I was wondering if we could be the evidence of whatever evidence you are talking about needing. We certainly are the evidence of something exquisite.

Blessings,
granny

All life is sacred.

 

[grannymh]

From you, I will take this as a compliment. You have obviously lost all sense of scientific objectivity. Theories need to be questioned that’s what they are for. Once you stop questioning scientific theories you have invented your own religion.

Good luck with your religious faith in a failed theory. You refuse to question the most obvious problems with evolution theory so I leave you to your ignorance.

Maybe I should take a poll? As a non-scientist, I’m doing a little analytical thinking about evolution. From your perspective what are the two most obvious problems with evolutionary theory besides not knowing the original cause of life? Let me please clarify–I agree with whoever said that evolutionary theory accepts life and goes on from there. Its purpose is not to prove the cause of life.

Blessings,
granny

All human life is worthy of profound respect.

 

[Abbadon]

Maybe I should take a poll? As a non-scientist, I’m doing a little analytical thinking about evolution. From your perspective what are the two most obvious problems with evolutionary theory besides not knowing the original cause of life? Let me please clarify–I agree with whoever said that evolutionary theory accepts life and goes on from there. Its purpose is not to prove the cause of life.

Blessings,
granny

All human life is worthy of profound respect.

The original cause of life is not apart of evolutionary theory. That is abiogenesis.

 

[grannymh]

Quote:
Originally Posted by grannymh http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif
*Maybe I should take a poll? As a non-scientist, I’m doing a little analytical thinking about evolution. From your perspective what are the two most obvious problems with evolutionary theory besides not knowing the original cause of life? Let me please clarify–I agree with whoever said that evolutionary theory accepts life and goes on from there. Its purpose is not to prove the cause of life. *

The original cause of life is not apart of evolutionary theory. That is abiogenesis.

Thank you. Were you not interested in sharing what you considered the two most obvious problems? That’s o.k.

 

[StAnastasia]

BTW I put common ancestor in quotes because the idea of DNA had to come from…We can understand that genetically related means that there are shared genomes. It is my humble observation that there could be another reason for shared genomes. It would be the common source for the life’s building blocks, themselves.
…
The common source of original building material, the play dough, still accounts for the shared properties of the individual first figure with those which had evolved from the separate tenth figure. From an analytical point of view, so far I’ve seen nothing which would directly contradict the idea of common source materials, what composes living cells, as being the cause of an unity in creation.

Grannymh, nice thought experiment, but common descent is proven by identical errors in gene sequencing across species. I don’t think God would have created all species on Day 6 (non-evolutionarily) not only with a shared body plan but with shared patterns of genetic errors.

StAnastasia

 

[grannymh]

Grannymh, nice thought experiment, but common descent is proven by identical errors in gene sequencing across species. I don’t think God would have created all species on Day 6 (non-evolutionarily) not only with a shared body plan but with shared patterns of genetic errors.

StAnastasia

I’m not thinking about days 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1. I’m not thinking of the relatively few species which have identical errors in gene sequencing but with some differences since total would mean clones. I’m thinking about those marvelous first cells. Imagine their potential for evolving. Imagine genomes forming but from what. Imagine a variety of species and their interaction with an unfriendly environment. Imagine what caused the extinction of the dinosaurs. The earth is wide and changing. On day 0, is it necessary to think that life formed in only one simple test tube?

Blessings,
granny

Humanity is the apple of God’s eye.

 

[Abbadon]

Thank you. Were you not interested in sharing what you considered the two most obvious problems? That’s o.k.

I don’t know I do not study evolutionary biology. I could say something that I find confusing about it, but that may have been answered. I would be out of my depth to say the problems. All I know is enough to understand how it works. How we name species and enough to cover me for my field, genetics and bio-chemistry.

 

[Abbadon]

Considering Genetics and Biochemistry are an integral specific part of evolution. Learning all the things that happen makes me go “damn that is wack”. There is just so much it is crazy.

I guess an interesting question for me personally is if denaturing of microtubles during anaphase isn’t enough to power separating of sister chromatids to either side. Then what powers it?

 

[grannymh]

Grannymh, nice thought experiment, but common descent is proven by identical errors in gene sequencing across species. I don’t think God would have created all species on Day 6 (non-evolutionarily) not only with a shared body plan but with shared patterns of genetic errors.

StAnastasia

Just having some more thoughts.
How else could one demonstrate the existence of the spiritual soul except by two similar species?

 

[StAnastasia]

I’m not thinking about days 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1. I’m not thinking of the relatively few species which have identical errors in gene sequencing but with some differences since total would mean clones. I’m thinking about those marvelous first cells. Imagine their potential for evolving. Imagine genomes forming but from what. Imagine a variety of species and their interaction with an unfriendly environment. Imagine what caused the extinction of the dinosaurs. The earth is wide and changing. On day 0, is it necessary to think that life formed in only one simple test tube?

Blessings,
granny

Humanity is the apple of God’s eye.

Grannymh,

(1) I don’t know about your claim that “relatively few species have identical errors in gene sequencing.” I’ll defer to a geneticist on that, but I suspect almost all species have such identical errors with their close kin.

(2) Regarding your “marvelous first cells. Imagine their potential for evolving. Imagine genomes forming but from what?” Again, I’ll defer to a geneticist or an evolutionary biologist, but as a Catholic I find nothing threatening in evolution. God’s glory shines forth more brilliantly through evolution than through a magical, unhistorical six-day creation.

(3) As to your " Imagine what caused the extinction of the dinosaurs," Luis and Walter Alvarez have made a pretty fine case for the Chicxulub bollide being a major contributory factor.

(4) As for your “On day 0, is it necessary to think that life formed in only one simple test tube?” I would answer “No – there were no test tubes then.”

(5) As to your “Humanity is the apple of God’s eye,” I appreciate your sentiment, but I’m afraid of terrestrial chauvinism. I think the universe and all the marvels therein are “the apples of God’s eye,” assuming God has an eye.

Thanks for your provocative reflections.

StAnastasia

 

[grannymh]

(1) I don’t know about your claim that “relatively few species have identical errors in gene sequencing.” I’ll defer to a geneticist on that, but I suspect almost all species have such identical errors with their close kin.

 

[buffalo]

Oh my goodness. Of course it’s dangerous to science when people want to include supernatural ideas within the context of science education. Science is limited to nature. Supernatural stuff goes to the religion or philosophy department.

It’s very dangerous to try to erase the theory of biological evolution because that would undermine everything we know about biology, as well as a lot of other areas of science.

Including ID in science classrooms would be dumbing down science education. That would be a bad thing to do in this world of ever increasing competition in math and science.

The USA is still the best place on Earth to do science but if religious fundamentalists can tear apart evolution theory the USA will lose that distinction. That’s a dangerous thing.

That is why evolutionism can not be present in the science classroom.

 

[buffalo]

Saltations are a weakness.

 

[grannymh]

Saltations are a weakness.

Since saltations can be considered a weakness of current evolutionary theory-----analytically speaking, would that allow for a compatible evolutionary theory in which saltations are a strength?

Blessings,
granny

Human life deserves to be understood.

 

[buffalo]

Since saltations can be considered a weakness of current evolutionary theory-----analytically speaking, would that allow for a compatible evolutionary theory in which saltations are a strength?

Blessings,
granny

Human life deserves to be understood.

The odds are way against it.

 

[grannymh]

Originally Posted by grannymh forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif
Since saltations can be considered a weakness of current evolutionary theory-----analytically speaking, would that allow for a compatible evolutionary theory in which saltations are a strength?

The odds are way against it.

Isn’t the purpose of “odds” to measure the relationship between possibility and probability? Wouldn’t a scientist, like Edison, ignore the odds relationship if he had a strong hunch in favor of a possibility which might not be probable?

Given that one of the definitions for gedanken experiment is that it is a device of the imagination used to investigate the nature of things, why couldn’t there be a compatible evolutionary theory in which saltations are a strength? No injury, no foul.

Blessings,
granny

Humanity is God’s pride and joy.

 

[edwest2]

Grannymh, nice thought experiment, but common descent is proven by identical errors in gene sequencing across species. I don’t think God would have created all species on Day 6 (non-evolutionarily) not only with a shared body plan but with shared patterns of genetic errors.

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.

I suggest you take your eyes off the shiny science object that fills you with such wonder and awe and emotion and look at how God has physically interacted with His Creation and the actual, physical effects of sin.

Peace,
Ed

 

[edwest2]

Grannymh,

(1) I don’t know about your claim that “relatively few species have identical errors in gene sequencing.” I’ll defer to a geneticist on that, but I suspect almost all species have such identical errors with their close kin.

(2) Regarding your “marvelous first cells. Imagine their potential for evolving. Imagine genomes forming but from what?” Again, I’ll defer to a geneticist or an evolutionary biologist, but as a Catholic I find nothing threatening in evolution. God’s glory shines forth more brilliantly through evolution than through a magical, unhistorical six-day creation.

(3) As to your " Imagine what caused the extinction of the dinosaurs," Luis and Walter Alvarez have made a pretty fine case for the Chicxulub bollide being a major contributory factor.

(4) As for your “On day 0, is it necessary to think that life formed in only one simple test tube?” I would answer “No – there were no test tubes then.”

(5) As to your “Humanity is the apple of God’s eye,” I appreciate your sentiment, but I’m afraid of terrestrial chauvinism. I think the universe and all the marvels therein are “the apples of God’s eye,” assuming God has an eye.

Thanks for your provocative reflections.

StAnastasia

To paraphrase Pope Benedict, We are not haphazard mistakes. But the highly venerated Stephen Jay Gould said that if we could rewind evolution things would have turned out differently. That is completely false.

Peace,
Ed

 

[buffalo]

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.

I suggest you take your eyes off the shiny science object that fills you with such wonder and awe and emotion and look at how God has physically interacted with His Creation and the actual, physical effects of sin.

Peace,
Ed

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

 

[grannymh]

To paraphrase Pope Benedict, We are not haphazard mistakes. But the highly venerated Stephen Jay Gould said that if we could rewind evolution things would have turned out differently. That is completely false.

Peace,
Ed

Thank you, Ed.

All of us are evidence that humanity is not the result of haphazard mistakes. :yeah_me: