Creation vs Evolution

[hecd2]

**Continuation

The edition of Nature published two days ago is a humdinger. It contains the complete euchromatic sequence of the human genome, the first empirical support for the frame dragging prediction of rotating masses of General Relativity, a serious challenge to the accuracy of both of the most common phylogenetic techniques that we have just been talking about (maximum parsimony and maximum likelihood), and a marvellous paper on the comparative genomics of puffer fish and humans:
Jaillon et al,‘Genome duplication in the teleost fish Tetraodon nigroviridis reveals the early vertebrate proto-karyotype, Nature 431; 946 -957’

The paper is too detailed and involved to summarise in any detail here, but the two major conclusions are that sometime in the ancestry of teleost fish about 230 million years ago there occured a complete genome duplication (if you are interested I can post a summary of the evidence for this); and that the common ancestor of humans and puffer fish (which lived about 400 million years ago) had 12 pairs of chromosomes (puffer fish have 21 pairs and humans 23 pairs) - they even determine on which of the 12 chromosomes of our common ancestor (which was an unknown primitive fish) particular genes reside. They also determine the major chromosomal events that occurred in the puffer fish lineage to convert from the 12 ancestral to the extant 21 chromosomes: a whole genome duplication, two ancient fusions, three recent fusions, one ancient and one recent fission and three major translocations). A similar analysis in the human lineage shows a more complicated pattern of chromosomal rearrangements but correctly predicts the well known recent fusion of two primate chromosomes to form human chromosome 2, the different origins of the two arms of the human X-chromosome, and the fission of a single ancestral chromosome to form chromosome 12 and 22 in the primates.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[hecd2]

SocaliCatholic:

I’m gonna argue that it is impossible to not have faith in something (gift from God to everyone) The only thing that matters is WHAT we have faith in. Was it C.S. Lewis that said:

“I believe in God like I do the sun: not becuase I see Him, but by Him I see everything else.”

Substitute “God” for “natural laws” and you have faith in what natural laws can see.
Substitute “God” for “myself” and you have faith in everything that your abilities can see.

But if we have faith in God, we put our trust into the Creator who is omniescent and sees everything.

Dear Socali, these things are not mutually exclusive. I know many people who have Faith in God, faith in the possibility of doing science and faith that what they observe is closely correlated with reality, with what is out there.

Where we disagree is that I think that what we have faith in doesn’t matter at all, but what does matter is how we live our lives and how we best use whatever faith we have.

I hold a caring unbeliever in much higher regard than the Catholic who knows his or her faith inside out, who is a frequent communicant, but who cares little or nothing about others

TOTALLY agree, up to a point.

If by unbeliever you mean someone like in a jungle who has never heard the Gospel, then yes i agree becuase they are doing they best they can with what they know.

If by unbeliever you mean someone who has fallen away, then I don’t agree becuase an unbeliever who used to TRULY believe God’s Love and should know better.

I actually mean all unbelievers whether they have never heard the gospel or whether they have heard it and question it as I have. I hold all caring unbelievers of whatever provenance in higher regard than the Catholic who knows his or her faith, but who is not a person of goodwill to others.

In fact, to me, the simple fact of whether some other person is a believer or not is of very little consequence.

…just realize the tremendous gift that you can still be in AWE of God’s creation as a scientist AND as a Catholic believe evolution occured(with respect to God), AND worship the Creator at the same time. Who knows maybe when we get to heaven we will know how next million years unfold?

I absolutely agree that you can be a scientist and believe evolution occured and be in awe of nature and worship the Creator. I hold that view very strongly in opposition to Young Earth Creationists who try to make simple biblical literalism, rejection of evolution and belief in a 6000 year old univese articles of faith. But although I strongly believe that one *can *hold all these things simultaneously, it doesn’t change the fact of my agnosticism and apostasy.

Alec
homepage.ntlworld.com/macandrew/Grenada_disaster/Grenada_disaster.htm

 

[hecd2]

SCTA-1:

Alec,Thanks for your (name removed by moderator)ut

I’d be churlish to ignore to this, but hardly know what to say. So thank you very much. In truth, all I do is copy and make a mess of the ideas of the genuinely talented.

And you are right about the inspiration we can get from great science, art, poetry, music and architecture and how far it stands above the abilities of all other animals.

Alec

 

[hecd2]

Bumping for Socali, as this has dropped down the list and there are a couple of replies for him that he might have missed.

Alec

 

[Philthy]

hecd2:

Apologia100: ‘I am not a Darwinian Evolutionist, nor am I a literal Creation Scientist. I believe the truth is more of an amalgamation of the two’

Stobie: ‘This represents my view as well’

Della: ‘I cannot believe in a strict Darwinian evolution because it does not answer some very basic questions about the nature of man’

larryo: ‘Dittos, here’

Timbo: ‘I should also note that I don’t believe in Darwinism. The man wasn’t even a scientist. God created the earth, the animals and humans. Macro-evolution (evolution between species) has not been proven, but I do believe there has been enough evidence to support micro-evolution (evolution within a species such as humans becoming taller throughout many years).’

Della: ‘I do not believe in strict Darwinian evolution’

I don’t mean to be rude, but I wonder if any one of you can define in a way that a modern biologist would agree is accurate, what ‘Darwininism’ or, better, what the modern Theory of Evolution is; and how it works? Can any of the people in this thread who have expressed firm opinions on the matter do that?

Why is it that in the matter of evolution, all sorts of people, lacking the burden of actual knowledge, feel free to express their prejudices and biases in public? These people wouldn’t dream of posting their opinions in a thread debating, say, the implications of the mass of the Higgs boson for fundamental physics, or a thread debating the relative merits of the strict Copenhagen interpretation versus Bohmian mechanics. Or a thread on string theory versus loop quantum gravity. But molecular and evolutionary biology is fair game for people who don’t have the faintest idea about what evolutionary theory actually says.

Why is that? I wonder whether any of you who posted your firm ‘well-informed’ opinions can help me here.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

You always seem so happy Alec - must be that keen mind of yours. Intellect is happiness after all.
I think there are degrees of understanding for people. I don’t think we should propose a test to allow people to express their opinions - just like you got to express yours unedited. At the same time, I don’t htink that Darwin’s theory, as originally stated, is tremendously complicated, do you? Many complicated theories and information has subsequently come to light, but I believe the concept of Darwinian evolution is the topic at hand and what people are commenting on. I understand your point, but to say that people “don’t have the faintest idea” what it is is an overstatement. If your concern is truly one of understanding, why don’t you simply state your understanding of the theory so we can all go forward with a common understanding?

Phil

 

[SocaliCatholic]

hecd2:

Bumping for Socali, as this has dropped down the list and there are a couple of replies for him that he might have missed.

Alec

Alec,

Thank you for being there to explain evolution to me in terms that I could understand. You have taught me a great deal about this subject. I had intended to continue our conversation but I am going to have to reluctantly leave Catholic Answers forums in protest to their closing of certain threads: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=281682#post281682 and out of fear that our discussion may be closed or banned if we continue to discuss evolution past 700 posts.

This is the third time it has happened to a thread I was participating in on this forum simply because it was controversial in topic or lengthy in size. It is simply a waste of everyones time to have to restate everyones posts evertime a topic is closed. It always happens on the topics that I learn the most becuase the stronger the people in arguing in the topics such as your knowledge about evolution is what sheds the most light and forces me to do research to better understand my Catholic faith.

People from non-Catholic faiths such as yourself, learn about us through the charity we put into openly discussing our faith no matter the length. I suspect their are non-charitable (business) motives for closing threads. At this point they can feel free to ban me if they want for acting in protest. I will still go to church every Sunday and continue to be Catholic.

When they press the censor button on me for protesting I hope they remember me next time they go to confession.

May God bless you richly, Alec.

 

[Philthy]

hecd2:

The two things are not at all equivalent. Death will come to us all - that is certain. Whereas Pascal’s wager is a sophisticated way of justifying superstition and mumbo-jumbo.

Here’s my wager: if God exists, he will frown on those who believed in Him only because, on the balance of risk, it seemed the safest thing to do - ie Pascal wagerers. And He will accept those people of good will to their fellow humans, those people who bear love and caring for others, whether or not in good faith they came to a belief in His existence.

Of course the ‘if’ is a big IF.

Alec
homepage.ntlworld.com/macandrew/Grenada_disaster/Grenada_disaster.htm]

How do YOU know? Has every human been accounted for?

 

[hecd2]

Philthy:

hecd2:

I don’t mean to be rude, but I wonder if any one of you can define in a way that a modern biologist would agree is accurate, what ‘Darwininism’ or, better, what the modern Theory of Evolution is; and how it works? Can any of the people in this thread who have expressed firm opinions on the matter do that?

Why is it that in the matter of evolution, all sorts of people, lacking the burden of actual knowledge, feel free to express their prejudices and biases in public? These people wouldn’t dream of posting their opinions in a thread debating, say, the implications of the mass of the Higgs boson for fundamental physics, or a thread debating the relative merits of the strict Copenhagen interpretation versus Bohmian mechanics. Or a thread on string theory versus loop quantum gravity. But molecular and evolutionary biology is fair game for people who don’t have the faintest idea about what evolutionary theory actually says.

Why is that? I wonder whether any of you who posted your firm ‘well-informed’ opinions can help me here.

I think there are degrees of understanding for people. I don’t think we should propose a test to allow people to express their opinions - just like you got to express yours unedited. At the same time, I don’t htink that Darwin’s theory, as originally stated, is tremendously complicated, do you? Many complicated theories and information has subsequently come to light, but I believe the concept of Darwinian evolution is the topic at hand and what people are commenting on. I understand your point, but to say that people “don’t have the faintest idea” what it is is an overstatement. If your concern is truly one of understanding, why don’t you simply state your understanding of the theory so we can all go forward with a common understanding?

Phil

Hi Phil,

I am not advocating censorship or a test to allow people to express their opinions - I hold to, in fact, rather strict anti-censorship views. However, what I think about the *wisdom *of people stating strong views about things that they really do not understand is a different matter. I was genuinely interested in what makes evolutionary biology so radically different as a target for ill-informed opinion compared with some of the other branches of science that I mentioned.

As for whether I overstated the case, I do not believe I did, and the countless kindergarten errors, misrepresentations and regurgitation of plain lies in the several evolution/creation threads on this board support my contention. Not one person who had confidently stated their opinion that the Theory of Evolution is flawed took me up on my challenge to state what that theory actually claims, and I am fairly certain that at the time they stated their opinion, not one of them could. It is muddled (and in some cases, disingenuous) to criticise a scientific theory which one really fails to understand at its most basic, and worse to do so by claiming the absence of evidence when one really has no notion of what evidence actually exists.

If people think that the the Theory of Evolution and their faith are incompatible and choose to follow the dictates of their faith, then I absolutely respect that view. But I do think that if people are going to make public statements about the truth or otherwise of a scientific theory, then it behoves them to understand what the theory actually claims and some of the evidence for it, and to put just a tiny fraction of the effort into studying it that the professionals, who overwhelming accept it, do.

As for my understanding, here is an extremely elementary introduction to the claims and the history of the Theory of Evolution thet you might try. I wonder how many of those who are unshakeably opposed to what they imagine the ToE claims will bother:

evolutionpages.com/intro_evolution.htm

Alec

 

[hecd2]

Philthy:

hecd2:

The two things are not at all equivalent. Death will come to us all - that is certain

. Whereas Pascal’s wager is a sophisticated way of justifying superstition and mumbo-jumbo.

Here’s my wager: if God exists, he will frown on those who believed in Him only because, on the balance of risk, it seemed the safest thing to do - ie Pascal wagerers. And He will accept those people of good will to their fellow humans, those people who bear love and caring for others, whether or not in good faith they came to a belief in His existence.

Of course the ‘if’ is a big IF.

Alec
homepage.ntlworld.com/macandrew/Grenada_disaster/Grenada_disaster.htm

How do YOU know? Has every human been accounted for?

Dear Phil,

I assume you mean, how do I know that death is certain? In exactly the same way that I know that if I drop a ball off a tower in Pisa it will accelerate towards the earth’s centre of mass with an initial acceleration of 9.81 ms^-2. In 100% of all cases observed that is what happens. Ditto with human (or indeed all organism’s) death. We have 100% observational evidence for death and zero observational evidence for corporeal immortality. The incontrovertible fact is that you and I will both die. Or do you think differently?

Alec
homepage.ntlworld.com/macandrew/Grenada_disaster/Grenada_disaster.htm

 

[SocaliCatholic]

hecd2:

Bumping for Socali, as this has dropped down the list and there are a couple of replies for him that he might have missed.

Alec

Hi Alec,

Sorry for not responding to your posts. I really feel like protesting against Catholic Answers right now for censoring certain topics and censoring long threads.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=281682#post281682

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=16789&page=4

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=1240&page=5

I don’t think it is very charitable to interfere with people’s discussions who have honest disagreements. Every conversion process does not take exactly 600 posts to accomplish. It makes me not want to participate in good discussions anymore becuase you know as well as I do from the various evolution threads that the thread will be censored after a few hundred posts and everything will have to be re-explained to the new comers time after time. Ironically the long controversial threads like the one here with you are the ones that I learned the most from.

They will probably even try to hit the ban button on me for voicing my opinion on censorship.

May God bless you richly, Alec

 

[Timothy888]

T.A.Stobie:

This represents my view as well.

That is that God is intimately involved with His creation at all times.
so it matters little one way or the other.

 

[Steve_Andersen]

buffalo:

It had a beginning, ask yourself why.

Well

Technically it didn’t have a beginning since time and space break down under those conditions

There was no time before the big bang since there was no time before the big bang
(if I may make myself obscure)

I’m no cosmologist but according to my layman’s grasp of Relativity the singularity must have contained all of space and time since they are linked.

It could be an eternal transcendent God…but it doesn’t have to be to make to theories work.

Besides what does the Big Bang have to do with evolution?

 

[PhilVaz]

Hooray its theistic evolution by a nose!

What are we doing, resurrecting old creation-evolution discussions? Not that I mind.

Phil P

 

[Steve_Andersen]

I guess someone voted in the poll or somehow bumped it back to the top
I started reading the posts and…and…I just couldn’t help myself, I had to post

I’m weak

Besides with the news out of Kansas today I feel compelled to go into pedantic mode

 

[john_doran]

Steve Andersen:

Technically it didn’t have a beginning since time and space break down under those conditions

no, they don’t. our understanding of physics breaks down under those conditions, but space and time either existed before the big bang or they began to exist with it.

 

[Steve_Andersen]

is there a physicist in the house?

like I said my layman’s understanding