Crackpot Challenge Part 2 - Evolution

[grannymh]

**Adam and Eve are the sole parents of the human race. **

Possible myth or possible reality?

Why the discussion?

In themselves, Adam and Eve are not prime time sound bites. But for the curious, knowing human history helps to answer basic life questions such as: Where do we come from? Where are we going? What is our origin? What is our end? There are times when the clash of ideas yields better answers. That is the reason for working the following thesis.

Thesis: The possibility of sole parents of the human race lies within the nature of the human species.

Terms found in post 550. “If there is anything that we can show in the nature of the human species that is evidence for two sole parents then that is a foundation for the proposition.”

Scope of Thesis

1. This thesis invites one to explore the intrinsic value of human life which is beyond the technical limits of evolutionary theory.
2. This thesis supports various elements of evolutionary theory at the same time that it recognizes the presence of the immaterial or spiritual component in the human species and only the human species. Therefore, the intrinsic value of human life is based on a full understanding of the complete human nature.
3. Catholicism places humanity at the pinnacle of creation because its nature is an intimate union of the material body and the immaterial spiritual soul. The human person is peerless in the animal world. Catholicism acknowledges the contribution of “scientific studies which have splendidly enriched our knowledge of the age and dimensions of the cosmos, the development of life-forms and the appearance of man.” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition,
   paragraphs 282-289)
4. So that there is no doubt as to the intent of this thesis, it must be clear that the thesis is not meant to be a debate vehicle with Catholicism. Nor will it debate the existence of God per se. The intent of the thesis is to show free will as an inherent part of the complex human nature. Free will is spiritual. It is the spiritual aspects which demonstrate that the human species is different in kind from all animals.

To be continued in Post 601.

 

[grannymh]

Adam and Eve are the sole parents of the human race.
Continued from Post 600.

1. Charles Darwin’s evolutionary theory entailed his philosophical position that the nature or being of all living things is matter. Consequently, all living species would follow his general principle of universal common descent from the first material forms of life. Aided by genetics augmented by mathematics, Neo-Darwinists pieced together information regarding relationships between living species using phylogenetics to reconstruct evolutionary history.
2. What has happened is that Darwin’s philosophical position that all reality is limited to material being was unable to address the uniqueness of the human species. Instead of expanding the philosophical view to include both the material and non-material reality of humanity, this distinguishing uniqueness of the human species was eliminated. Consequently, man was considered a material being, an animal with higher degrees of certain abilities. The reasoning was that science, by definition, was limited to the natural world. This definition was then used to exclude the non-material.
3. By all means, the realm of science is that of the material and physical world. But that does not automatically exclude the immaterial or spiritual realm from inquiry as if it were non-existent.
   Ah, one says. The immaterial cannot be put under a microscope. True. But that does not exclude the reality of its existence which can be known by the tools of reason, self reflection, logical evaluation, and analytical thought.
4. Darwin’s choice of a material explanation for the human species does not mean that other possibilities must be excluded from analysis especially since there are reasonable grounds for the immaterial or spiritual aspects of human nature. A prime example is man’s natural, inherent ability to act freely, that is, to implement his choice engaging his physical being in so doing.
5. As a consequence of returning the human race to its proper place at the pinnacle of creation, the spiritual aspect of the human species becomes the sufficient reason to reexamine evolution’s assumption of polygenism which is based on only part of the real nature of human beings. The viable, but not adequately explored, spiritual area of the unique human person is the foundation for the possibility of monogenism. This meets the terms found in post 550.

Blessings,
granny

The quest is worthy of the adventures of the journey.

 

[Alethios]

Do you see strata suspended in mid stream so that a relatively younger strata can be deposited beneath it? No? Tell me, then, where do you see older strata overlying younger strata?

We don’t… what are you talking about? Another fantasy strawman…

What does Berthault’s experiment show that is contradictory to known geologic principles? Does his experiment show something other than prograding deposition?

It shows that strata deposition can be rapid or slow, challenging the claim that the depths of the geo column can ONLY be read like a clock running uniformly backwards in time. Varying deposition rates in water flows refute this claim, making it one of at least two possibilities.

I need someone to straighten out my thinking regarding the meaning of " a falsifiable hypotheses". Why should one demand experimental proof which would declare his own hypotheses is false? That would throw out everything.

Speculators don’t want falsifiable experiments; truth-seekers do.

…what would be your advice to a young university student who is caught between two explanations for the same event, one from nature and one from church, which unequivocally contradict each other.

The word 'church' is lower case, so it refers to any Christian denomination.
If 'church' refers to the Catholic Church, then be source-specific - Magisterium, Scripture, Tradition.... or other. 	
If the explanation is from nature, does it follow the scientific method, as defined in the thread rules? 

With these distinctions, there will be no contradiction .....unequivocally.

An encyclopaedia entry that is over a century old and the claims of a bloke from the 5th century, both of which predate modern neurobiology and neurology are irrelevant to my point which stands

.
A fallacy of modernism: what is old is false; what is new is true.

There is no such thing as “random natural selection”.

Ah, but it was just defined.
If mass extinctions aren’t random, then tell us when the next extinction will occur.

Those organisms that survived the worldwide (including sub-sea) conditions that followed the bolide were those that were best adapted to those conditions and those that went extinct were those that wereunable to survive the conditions. Many lineages (including all non-avian dinosaurs) are known to have become extinct, but mammals survived and when the conditions moderated, diversified by descent with variation and natural selection to fill the ecological niches then free owing the demise of other lineages.

None of these conjectures of past events is testable now. Scientific method rules!

original:
Do those who miss a plane flight that crashes and kills all aboard have heritable traits that make it more likely for them to survive and successfully reproduce? Do they have a genetic advantage over the deceased? Puh-leez.

… your hypothesis amounts to the absurd claim that individuals lack heritable traits that make them more or less likely to reproduce.

Our hypothesis points out that most extinctions were purely accidental, having nothing to do with survival fitness.

The P-T and K-T catastrophes are part of the evol. story line, not our claim.
Those that survive mass extinctions may micro-evolve by natural selection… until the next random extinction.

The chief factor for survival of extinction catastrophes are the heritable traits that enable organisms to survive the conditions pertaining in the unusual and difficult conditions in the generations following the catastrophe.

Heritable traits are irrelevant to what extinctions occur in a mass wipeout. Do those who miss a plane flight that crashes and kills all aboard have heritable traits that make it more likely for them to survive and successfully reproduce? Do they have a genetic advantage over the deceased?

original:
So what determines the evolution of new life forms??

Descent with variation, and selection; and the availability of ecological niches.

None of these conjectures of past events is testable now. Scientific method rules!

…all variants of genes originate as mutations. That’s how different alleles of genes arise, and the mutations that give rise to these alleles of haemoglobin are clearly understood (point mutations, frame shifts, translocations, repeats, and so on). …

None of these conjectures of past events is testable now. Scientific method rules!

My evidence is that the alleles are there and mutations occur and explain them. Your evidence?

Mutations observed in the laboratory now are evidence.
Mutations that are imagined to have occurred in the past are not evidence but possible causes.Scientific method rules!

Our evidence? There is none - no (scientific) evidence can uniquely determine the past. There are events that science can’t know… deal with it.

The so-called twin age paradox is not a contradiction and the relevant predictions of relativity are entirely consistent (and have been demonstrated experimentally with atomic clocks) -

What experiment showed that Clock A and clock B each ran slower than the other when in relative motion?

AMDG

 

[Alethios]

…As I have pointed out before, any competent physicist can derive the centrifugal and Coriolis forces using Newtonian mechanics …The same forces can be derived by Lagrangian mechanics for the same situation of a particle on the surface of a rotating body.

So, where’s the clasical newtonian derivation or a reference?

We are still waiting for you to derive these forces on the surface of a static earth.

And we await the classical derivation from a Lagrangian. If the inertial forces can’t be derived from a Lagrangian for a rotating Earth, then the Earth must be static.

You don’t get to choose the rules of evidence. Each reader will decide whose position is better supported by the evidence, regardless of any arbitrary rules you posted at the beginning -

The thread rules are those of Catholic Western tradition. It’s clear to the readers that some are most comfortable without any rules of epistemology, like the scientific method.

The magisterium - a set of beliefs and tenets created and promulgated by a human institution based largely on myth and superstition - hardly the basis for evidence for anything.

The arguments based on Catholic faith do not apply to pagans.

Scholastic philosophy - a branch of philosophy based on Aristotlean and Thomistic ideas, influential and useful in its day, but largely undermined and negated by modern philosophy and science.

Removing scholasticism and the scientific method from the challenge rules are strike two and three,
There is no common ground of discussion possible with no rules of evidence - only a path to false gnosticism, nihilism and then atheism. Avoid this abyss, brother - Kyrie Eleison.

… Refusal to consider the evidence noted.

How can there be evidence without rules for acceptance? This is chaos…
There is no common ground of discussion possible with no rules of evidence - only a path to false gnosticism, nihilism and then atheism. Avoid this abyss, brother - Kyrie Eleison.

Evolution is about change in organisms over time and the fact that happened and that it can be demonstrated does not depend on a species definition (unless you make the silly claim that Acanthostega and Homo sapiens are the same species).

There is no common ground of discussion possible with no rules of evidence - only a path to false gnosticism, nihilism and then atheism. Avoid this abyss, brother - Kyrie Eleison.

Evolutionary biologists can demonstrate the key points of evolutionary theory (descent with modification, selection and common descent) even if no agreed concept of species existed…

We have shown that lobe finned fish have evolved into land-based tetrapods - that does not require a species definition.

No, they can’t, for with no definition of species, there is no meaning to evolution of species! We might as well discuss the evolution of frammistans.

There is no common ground of discussion possible with no rules of evidence - only a path to false gnosticism, nihilism and then atheism. Avoid this abyss, brother - Kyrie Eleison.

The basis for creation (YEC and six-day) beliefs is an unreasoning faith in the literal exegesis of an origins myth handed down from an ancient nomadic people and long demonstrated to be literally false.

There is no common ground of discussion possible with no rules of evidence - only a path to false gnosticism, nihilism and then atheism. Avoid this abyss, brother - Kyrie Eleison.

local electrical discharges at the ocean floor do not produce extended patterns of reversal over huge strips extending hundreds of miles parallel to the ridges as is observed.

There is no common ground of discussion possible with no rules of evidence - only a path to false gnosticism, nihilism and then atheism. Avoid this abyss, brother - Kyrie Eleison.

Homo sapiens is in the animal kingdom; we are Eukaryotes. At the Rome conference, this fact was presupposed by cardinals, bishops, priests, theologians, historians, philosophers, and scientists. There was no discussion of it, because it is not in dispute.

But did the conferees discuss whether homo saps has only an animal nature?

AMDG

 

[grannymh]

Quote from grannymh. It seems to me that researchers are trying to say that free will is the product of matter and physical laws;

Indeed that is what they are saying and what I am saying. We experience free will, but it is a phenomenon of the neurobiology - which is ultimately based on matter. This doesn’t devalue our experiences - but it grounds them in the physical world and eliminates the need for an immaterial cause.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

This response is made in the context of the position–The possibility of two sole parents of the human race lies within the nature of the human species.

The proposition that human free will is experienced universally is automatically assumed when it is referred to as a “phenomenon” of the human neurobiology. Regardless of the discussion over its location, the experience of free will is considered an important element of the human species by scientists as demonstrated by their research. This [free will experience, grounded in the physical world] doesn’t devalue our experiences…" gives another aspect of free will in that it has true value.

When the quote’s concluding statement: “but it grounds them [experiences of free will] in the physical world and eliminates the need for an immaterial cause.” is read in the context of what resides in the human species, two points emerge.

First. When exploring immaterial/spiritual, there is the risk of a circular argument. To avoid that, the spiritual element of the human being with all its qualities, faculties, actions, effects, the whole shebang which characterizes it, is seen a “whole” especially in contrast with other species.

Second. Regarding the cause of the spiritual element, often called a soul, in humans, my intent is to follow the evolutionists who stop short of any kind of abiogenetical theory. While there can be many opinions as to how Homo sapiens, originally at the very beginning, came into existence, the fact remains they exist today. Hopefully, the fact of that existence and all that it implies can be explored in an independent manner.

 

[grannymh]

Why should we assume that reason, free will and abstraction have not evolved? Some other primates demonstrate incipient capacities of this sort. And if they have evolved, how will that threaten religious belief?

This is the question and reasoning proposed: “Why should we assume that reason, free will and abstraction have not evolved? Some other primates demonstrate incipient capacities of this sort.”

Interesting. It is always interesting when “assumptions” are used because that opens the door to reflective thinking. Reflective as in mental concentration and careful consideration as the dictionary points out.

Back in the days of black and white TV, a beginning logic class would start with all grass is green but not all green things are grass. Is it possible to apply that same kind of logic to the stated question and proposed reasoning? Or has the evolutionary theory spawned another syllogism such as all grass is green, therefore all green things are grass?

Blessings,
granny

The quest is worthy of the adventures of the journey.

 

[HereticAmI]

OP: Read the Genesis text. And evening was and morning was, for a day one. There is no report of, evening was and morning was, for a day seven. So it is still day seven. Such rather strongly implies that we have something more than 24 hour days. Lastly, the work in question merely says that God created [bara’] or made 'asah]. The work does not describe the method. Evolution by natural selection could be that method.

I would stick with the evolution by natural selection, since if otherwise, you have the problem of explaining all of the imperfection. There is a hole in your and my eyes owing to the optic nerve(s). All vertrebrates have the hole, but cephalopods do not. You don’t see the blind spot owing to the hole as your brain/mind fills in the hole with what it thinks should be there. And that is just one example of imperfection in the design. You might next consider your toenails, which serve no useful purpose whatsoever [the only purpose they serve is to be cut, to be broken, and to become infected].

Next, have you considered the plasmodium falciparum parasite that causes malaria? Is that parasite too God’s special creation?

In the same vein, consider the Ebola virus. Good for nothing but liquefying one’s internal organs. Is the Ebola virus another act of God’s special creation?

In sum, under a theory or notion of special and/or intelligent design, you are left with having to concede that malicious animals are God’s direct, intentional, and deliberate creation. By way of compare and contrast, evolution by natural selection has God allowing bad things happen, while with special and/or intelligent design, God now directly causes bad things to happen.

Lastly, why all the extinctions [most of which were not caused by humans]? Is your God so feeble that he would special and/or intelligently create a being only to have it go extinct?

Sorry, almost forgot, but to answer the obvious question in light of what I’ve written above, why would God allow bad things to happen re the creation? Well, he allows you to murder me, yes? So why should the creation itself be any different? Oh, sorry, one more, but to cut off the absurd, no, the Genesis text does not report that God created the Ebola virus as a result of the fall. The Genesis text specifically reports on the consequences of the fall, which consequences do not include the Ebola virus, the plasmodium falciparum parasite, etc.

 

[buffalo]

OP: Read the Genesis text. And evening was and morning was, for a day one. There is no report of, evening was and morning was, for a day seven. So it is still day seven. Such rather strongly implies that we have something more than 24 hour days. Lastly, the work in question merely says that God created [bara’] or made 'asah]. The work does not describe the method. Evolution by natural selection could be that method.

I would stick with the evolution by natural selection, since if otherwise, you have the problem of explaining all of the imperfection. There is a hole in your and my eyes owing to the optic nerve(s). All vertrebrates have the hole, but cephalopods do not. You don’t see the blind spot owing to the hole as your brain/mind fills in the hole with what it thinks should be there. And that is just one example of imperfection in the design. You might next consider your toenails, which serve no useful purpose whatsoever [the only purpose they serve is to be cut, to be broken, and to become infected].

Next, have you considered the plasmodium falciparum parasite that causes malaria? Is that parasite too God’s special creation?

In the same vein, consider the Ebola virus. Good for nothing but liquefying one’s internal organs. Is the Ebola virus another act of God’s special creation?

In sum, under a theory or notion of special and/or intelligent design, you are left with having to concede that malicious animals are God’s direct, intentional, and deliberate creation. By way of compare and contrast, evolution by natural selection has God allowing bad things happen, while with special and/or intelligent design, God now directly causes bad things to happen.

Lastly, why all the extinctions [most of which were not caused by humans]? Is your God so feeble that he would special and/or intelligently create a being only to have it go extinct?

Sorry, almost forgot, but to answer the obvious question in light of what I’ve written above, why would God allow bad things to happen re the creation? Well, he allows you to murder me, yes? So why should the creation itself be any different? Oh, sorry, one more, but to cut off the absurd, no, the Genesis text does not report that God created the Ebola virus as a result of the fall. The Genesis text specifically reports on the consequences of the fall, which consequences do not include the Ebola virus, the plasmodium falciparum parasite, etc.

One cannot be sure that viruses or bacteria have not mutated to be harmful. The original intent could have been helpful.

We can see a degradation that continues today.

For something to be designed it is not necessary to be designed perfectly.

For something to be designed it does not always have to do good. Weapons are designed, sometimes they are used for good and sometimes for evil. They are still designed.

 

[Alethios]

Given the scientific knowledge we have about evolution, there can be no doubt, or rather, there should be no doubt that the human body has its origin in the natural biological processes of nature, i.e. biological evolution.

But what scientific evidence is there for such origin - according to the Scientific Method?
Nothing in the past is testable within the limits of the SM.

there is compelling genomic evidence of the similarities between chimps and humans.

But what scientific evidence is there - according to the scientific method?
Nothing in the past is testable without eyewitnesses in the past that can verify the genomic changes that are now being extrapolated from the present,

Regarding evidence, it will not be enough to present papers showing similarities–that is already known and for the most part accepted. To establish closeness or chasm, there should be a material cause and effect approach. If anyone is keeping score, I am approaching this from a materialist view point.

Science ignores immaterial causes, so it cannot claim universal truth.
Finding one material cause for ape-human simdilarities ignores other causes with the same effect.

Why should we assume that reason, free will and abstraction have not evolved?

These three are not physical, and evol. covers only physical changes.
If these three were physical, then they would remain after death.

Some other primates demonstrate incipient capacities of this sort. And if they have evolved, how will that threaten religious belief?

The essential difference between man and beast can’t be found in any physical differences.

There is no evidence primates didn’t evolve, no evidence that they were suddenly plunked down on earth ex nihilo.

There is no scientific method evidence that primates did evolve, no evidence that they were not suddenly plunked down on earth ex nihilo.
Bottom line: there’s no valid evidence of unwitnessed events in the past. So science is confined to present experiments (none of which shows macro-evolution.)

Animals show evidence of self-awareness, intentionality, planning, purpose, group dynamics, the ability to choose, etc. These are precursors to reason and free will. None of this is inimical to theology.

Then when will these precursors be realized in fact? There is no evidence that animals have the ability to reason or make knowledgable choices as a human does. Nor is there evidence that any animals are evolving in that direction.

Thus, it is up to the evolutionist to provide evidence of anything that is being claimed as evolving.

Yes, evolving now, not in the past, with a clear definition of species to support the claim.

God didn’t write with a pen or pencil – God wrote with evolution.

Magisterial source for this flight of fancy?

It is said that He writes straight, but with crooked lines…Evolution being the crooked part.

…how do you account for the fact that so many profoundly religious people – Christian and otherwise – accept evolution? Why do popes and cardinals and bishops and theologians accept the theory?

Why did Jesus choose Judas as an apostle, knowing that Judas would betray him?
Why did Christ choose Peter as his successor on earth, a person He had once called Satan for tempting Him, and who denied even knowing Christ - three times - after it was foretold by the Lord?

St Athanasius asked the same question 16 centuries ago, when the Arian heresy pervaded the Church, as the Darwinian herersy does now. St A - that’s Athanasius - would say today that the Darwinians have the buildings, but we have the faith!

Why do we persist in listening to the opinions of the misinformed and misguided, when the truth has been revealed in Scripture, Tradition and Magisterium?

The issue was that Babuna was pressing his question in the slot between plenary speakers, rather than at a the appropriate discussion time, which was after the plenary speakers. He was speaking out of order, and when he was told to sit down so that we could all listen to the next speaker, he childishly left in a huff and did not bother to come back to ask his question during the appropriate general discussion forum.

The tape shows Dr. Babuna being interrupted at the microphone and unwillingly escorted to the exit.
And it is Dr. Futuyama who storms out in a huff, at the mere mention of a challenge.

Fortunately we have an eyewitness who can correct what the tape shows.

I’m not talking about “theodicy.” Are you sure you know that that word means?

The roots of theodicy mean “to speak for God”. It tries to explain - why there’s evil in the world, if God is good - why He does what He does.

Putting limits on what God can do, to conform to our image of what we think He is, is theodicial.

You’re contradicting yourself if you say both that God infuses the soul at the moment of conception and that the fusion is delayed until embryonic splitting is complete.

First, there’s the strawman - we didn’t say that God infuses the soul at the moment of conception.

The option of delaying ensoulation until there were separate zygotes would not contradict Church teaching.

The Magisterium does not affirm that the soul is infused at fertilization, but that it is probable. This possibility of full human life being present at any moment after conception makes the intentional termination of human life a fatal error in eternal terms.

AMDG

 

[Alethios]

Read the Genesis text. And evening was and morning was, for a day one. There is no report of, evening was and morning was, for a day seven. So it is still day seven. Such rather strongly implies that we have something more than 24 hour days.

Such rather WRONGLY implies that we have something more than 24 hour days…

The days that are counted are days of creation - six. There is no more denumeration of days after six, because there were no more days of creation after six!

Consider the absurdity of requiring that God formerly mark every day since creation - another case of the theodicy of pride.

Lastly, the work in question merely says that God created [bara’] or made 'asah]. The work does not describe the method. Evolution by natural selection could be that method.

More theodicy - you demand that God must describe the method of creation (which He did). It wasn’t evolution , but special creation ex nihilo.
Special creation eliminates the possibility of natural selection.

I would stick with the evolution by natural selection, since if otherwise, you have the problem of explaining all of the imperfection…

The imperfections are due to 2 effects:

1. 
   *]The fact that all creatures are limited ; only the Creator is perfect
   *]The original state of creation was corrupted by the first sin.
   

   There is a hole in your and my eyes owing to the optic nerve(s). All vertrebrates have the hole, but cephalopods do not. You don’t see the blind spot owing to the hole as your brain/mind fills in the hole with what it thinks should be there
   consider your toenails, which serve no useful purpose whatsoever
   have you considered the plasmodium falciparum parasite that causes malaria? Is that parasite too God’s special creation?
   consider the Ebola virus. Good for nothing but liquefying one’s internal organs. Is the Ebola virus another act of God’s special creation?
   how would you, as perfect critic, resolve all these ‘imperfections’?

   The imperfections are of mind as well as body. So, using imperfect logic you reason that we are imperfect…
   
   But your fallible logic may be in error - we may actually be perfect!
   
   What fools these mortals be!
   

   … with special and/or intelligent design, God now directly causes bad things to happen

   God permits - not directly causes - our free will to operate in a world we have caused to be degenerated by our own actions.
   

   …why all the extinctions [most of which were not caused by humans]?

   Death came into the world with the first sin - read the Bible - especially Genesis and St. Paul.
   

   Is your God so feeble that he would special and/or intelligently create a being only to have it go extinct?

   …the Genesis text does not report that God created the Ebola virus as a result of the fall.

   The Genesis text specifically reports on the consequences of the fall, which consequences do not include the Ebola virus, the plasmodium falciparum parasite, etc.

   More theodicy , and more, and more - Why should God allow finite creatures with no spiritual nature to live forever?
   Because you require so?
   
   Why should God allow you to question His divine plan -other than granting us free will?
   
   What are your credentials - as an imperfect creature - to question the Almighty Father?
   
   … All this is what you require, an accounting by God of all His works? Read the last chapters of Job and learn humility, theodicist.
   
   AMDG

 

[grannymh]

The First Principle of science

is
​

“Observe Without Prejudice.”

​

 

[Charles_Darwin]

Is someone trying to say that evolution is not falsifiable? Typical creationists on this thread. Wanting to talk about 10000000 topics at once so none of their bosh claims can be critically examined.

So pick one topic and stick to it. Creationists choice .