Darwin or Design?

[Michael_G]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael G forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif
Scientifically there is not any known mechanism or observable mode **for increasing genetic information **in an organism except that which man does himself.

Again, incorrect. I refer you to genetic inversion, chromosomal inversion, mis-matched sequence alignments, and all the consequences they entail.

Pax tecum,
Alberich

Not so fast, this is not additional genetic information this is rearranged genetic information which has never been deomonstrated to be benificial and is usually fatal. So you have no mehanism for increasing genetic info which would create a totally different kind. All you have is speculations, not science.

 

[Orogeny]

In order to counter or deny the second law, one must have a mechanism for harnasing energy, a nautrual mechanism to produce life, a natural mechanism show that one kind of creature can transform itself into a totally new kind of creature, it must be observable, reproducible, or it becomes a matter speculation and is no longer science. We observe that mutations are harmful or benign we do not observe benificial mutations, we observe losses of genetic information, we have no know means of increasing usable genetic information in an organism heat from sun or not. The second law of Thermodynamics stands here unless you provide an observable and reproducible mechanism for these events.

I don’t think you understand the argument here. Check this out:

members.aol.com/steamdoc/writings/thermo.html

Arguing that the second law of thermodynamics invalidates evolution is a bad argument. And to say that there are no beneficial mutations is an amazing statement.

Peace

Tim

 

[Alberich]

If we engineer a single celled organism from the chemicals of life it would demonstrate that it took intellegince to do it and nothing more.

It would demonstrate that intelligence could do it; it would not demonstrate that only intelligence could do it.

a missed copy and past should read:
ultimately require new male and female mutated organisms of the same kind, produced at exactly the same time, with gene additions, since we know that species always produce after their own kind

Sorry if I missed a bit somewhere. But I would like to understand your definition of a “kind.”

(See, by the above, I could conclude that two men, Bob and Tim are not of the same “kind,” as they are unable to produce offspring together. So long as this is a scientific discussion, let us be as precise as possible, thereby foregoing any misunderstandings caused by terminology.)

oh really, I believe the number is than anything beyon 10 to the fifth power is consider to be an immposbility of ever happening.

1/10^5 is 1/100000. The odds for being killed on an ATV are roughly 1/290000. These are odds three time worse than 1/10^5, and yet 13 people died in such accidents in 2003. nsc.org/lrs/statinfo/odds.htm

Pax tecum,
Alberich

 

[Michael_G]

If you are copying and pasting from another source, you must credit that source. A reference is needed.

Peace

Tim

Are you just trying to find fault. I wrote the piece it is copied from my own files, and this file is file I wrote.

 

[Orogeny]

Are you just trying to find fault. I wrote the piece it is copied from my own files, and this file is file I wrote.

That’s fine, but you didn’t say that. You just said that you copy and pasted. If you were using something other than your own work, that would require a citation.

Peace

Tim

 

[AquinaSavio]

You are smart enough to not need pictures. Read that link. It is very good even if it is very basic.
Here is another link for you: talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC200.html

I thought you said that there were fossils for transitional forms all over the place. Why don’t you show them to us?

Specifics are important, AquinaSavio. Don’t belittle them. If you want to discuss things, be as specific and accurate as you can.

You’re just playing games.

Well, that isn’t a particularly strong citation.

You’re right…I really didn’t pay much attention to it when I read it. It was a bunch of mumbo-jumbo.

You are speaking of irreducible complexity. You assume that only the end product is usefull.

I guess we would know if those organs were useful if we could ever find some transitional forms.

 

[Orogeny]

I thought you said that there were fossils for transitional forms all over the place. Why don’t you show them to us?

Sorry, but if you look up the references in those links, you will find some.

You’re just playing games.

No, I’m being serious. Learn the proper terminology.

Peace

Tim

 

[Michael_G]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael G forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif
*a missed copy and past should read:
ultimately require new male and female mutated organisms of the same kind, produced at exactly the same time, with gene additions, since we know that species always produce after their *own kind

Sorry if I missed a bit somewhere. But I would like to understand your definition of a “kind.”

Pax tecum,
Alberich

I have already provided a number of examples, dog and wolf same basic kind, horse, zebra, donkey same basic kind.

must demonstrate that a fish eventually became amphbian, reptile became a bird, bear became a ape, dog became a cat, totally different, none of this ancestor buisness is observable, demonstrable and is therefore pure speculation.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael G forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif
oh really, I believe the number is than anything beyon 10 to the fifth power is consider to be an immposbility of ever happening.

1/10^5 is 1/100000. The odds for being killed on an ATV are roughly 1/290000. These are odds three time worse than 1/10^5, and yet 13 people died in such accidents in 2003. nsc.org/lrs/statinfo/odds.htm

Pax tecum,
Alberich

so what I am off by a few decimal points you are not close to a 1 followed by 260 zeros

 

[Magicsilence]

magic << I do not intend to read it, but I would be interested in some photographs of transitional forms, I have only seen between 3-5 in my entire life. >>

Absolute proof!

http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/FunnyTrans.jpg

Sorry Karl, I need to go back over your 1997 article. Looks like you use the word to refer to “gradualism” which is one definition.

Phil P

Hi Phil.

Your post actually reflects exactly what I have encountered.

There are literally no photos of transitional forms.

Once again, I would welcome one single web page with just a few on them to wet my appetite.

Second, whether or not one creature can “transform itself into a totally new kind of creature” is not what evolution is about. Evolution is about the changes in populations over generations. Again–nobody expects to see Bobo, the family dog, birth a litter of kittens. Nobody expects a pineapple to fall out of a tree and change into a banana before it hits the ground. And nobody expects to see a flying fish turn into a bird on it’s umpteenth foray out of the water.

You might not expect Bobo to birth kittens, but you expect him to birth dogs with something that enhances them. A lung membrane, new nerve, misplaced organ etc…

I agree that microevolution can occur in a domestic sense. A dog can have a gene for strong tough fur, over time it becomes almost straw like. But the microevolution you are advocating is what I reject. For example, the development of an eye. Unless you are advocating that the many parts of the eye developed simultaneously, it is impossible to concieve its development.

Speaking of which, are there any transitional forms that show a new feature in development?

I speak not of archaeopytrx, which displays both fully fledged wings, and limbs.

I want the fossil that shows half an eye socket, or a half developed foot. (all half developed things would anyway cause a problem to their owner, I am as yet at a loss to what a half developed muscle would be, other than the cause of spasms, discomfort, and involuntary reactions).

I speak out against evolution because it is logically crazy, and goes against Genesis.

Peace and God Bless.

 

[Orogeny]

I speak not of archaeopytrx, which displays both fully fledged wings, and limbs.

I want the fossil that shows half an eye socket, or a half developed foot. (all half developed things would anyway cause a problem to their owner, I am as yet at a loss to what a half developed muscle would be, other than the cause of spasms, discomfort, and involuntary reactions).

How about half (or at least partially developed) legs and hips?

tiktaalik.uchicago.edu/

The link even has pictures!!!

Peace

Tim

 

[AquinaSavio]

Sorry, but if you look up the references in those links, you will find some.

I will find photographs…or drawings?

No, I’m being serious. Learn the proper terminology.

I know you’re being serious. You try to play head games…that is how you have always argued. I know the proper terminology. I meant to say evolutionists, not paleontologists. Paleontologist don’t have a monopoly on finding fossils, you know. I said that no evolutionist has ever found a transitional form…and that’s true.

 

[Alberich]

I have already provided a number of examples, dog and wolf same basic kind, horse, zebra, donkey same basic kind.

must demonstrate that a fish eventually became amphbian, reptile became a bird, bear became a ape, dog became a cat, totally different, none of this ancestor buisness is observable, demonstrable and is therefore pure speculation.

This is not a precise definition. What about hippos and bears? Bears and horses? Bats and birds? Bats and ferrets? Sharks and whales?

One of the great things about science is its precision. I can discuss beta-2 microglobulin with any immunologist, and she will know *exactly *what I refer to. But with “kind,” I am left with some sort of hazy idea that it can mean any two animals that a given person might think are similar enough. This is the very pinnacle of subjectivity, and precisely why it isn’t used in science.

so what I am off by a few decimal points you are not close to a 1 followed by 260 zeros

The “so what” is that it undermines your authority when you are shown to be dramatically wrong on one mathematical/scientific point. Why should anyone give any other mathematical/scientific point you make any credence?

Regardless, do not conflate possibility (that something can happen) with probability (that something *may *happen). All of existence is a continued occurence of low-probability events.

Pax tecum,
Alberich

 

[Orogeny]

I will find photographs…or drawings?

Why don’t you do some research and find out? You might learn something.

I know you’re being serious. You try to play head games…that is how you have always argued. I know the proper terminology. I meant to say evolutionists, not paleontologists. Paleontologist don’t have a monopoly on finding fossils, you know. I said that no evolutionist has ever found a transitional form…and that’s true.

AquinaSavio, you can believe what you want. I am not playing head games. Precision is needed when discussing science.

You can deny the existence of transitional fossils all you want. They won’t go away. If you really want to make them do so, you need to do the research, get it published and defend your position against scientists who will be VERY precise when they attack your position. If your research is solid and your arguments are well founded, you will succeed in refuting those widely accepted transitional fossils. Just remember who it was that warned you to be precise!

Peace

Tim

 

[Alberich]

You might not expect Bobo to birth kittens, but you expect him to birth dogs with something that enhances them. A lung membrane, new nerve, misplaced organ etc…

I agree that microevolution can occur in a domestic sense. A dog can have a gene for strong tough fur, over time it becomes almost straw like. But the microevolution you are advocating is what I reject. For example, the development of an eye. Unless you are advocating that the many parts of the eye developed simultaneously, it is impossible to concieve its development.

Rather than paste everything here, please allow me to direct you to a user-friendly webpage that discusses this very topic.

tinyurl.com/jte5c

Speaking of which, are there any transitional forms that show a new feature in development?

I speak not of archaeopytrx, which displays both fully fledged wings, and limbs.

I want the fossil that shows half an eye socket, or a half developed foot. (all half developed things would anyway cause a problem to their owner, I am as yet at a loss to what a half developed muscle would be, other than the cause of spasms, discomfort, and involuntary reactions).

I think the page above might help.

I speak out against evolution because it is logically crazy, and goes against Genesis.

Peace and God Bless.

Logically, evolution makes the most possible sense. What’s more, I don’t think it goes against Genesis; many of my fellow Catholics at CA and the Pope find evolution and science to be compatible, too.

So long, I think, as we look to science to answer our “whys” and religion to answer the “hows,” I don’t think we can appreciate either as they deserve.

Pax,
Alberich

 

[PhilVaz]

magic << There are literally no photos of transitional forms. Once again, I would welcome one single web page with just a few on them to wet my appetite. >>

Mars to magic, come in magic. I’m not reading you, your signal is weak…

BEHOLD! Fish to Amphibs!

http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/FishToTetra.jpg

BEHOLD! Half Bird, half Reptile, is it a plane, is it a bird, is it Superman? No its Super-Transitional!

http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/archae2.jpg

BEHOLD! From Goo to You via the Zoo!

http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/homin2.jpg

BEHOLD! Whales with no legs, Whales with 7 legs, Whales with 11 legs, OK I’m exaggerating!

http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/whaleevolution.gif

BEHOLD! Big Horse, Little Horse, everywhere a Horse Horse!

http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/HorseEvolution.gif

BEHOLD! Elephant with no trunk, Elephant with 4 trunks, Elephants with 11 trunks! OK I’m exaggerating!

http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/eleph5.jpg

BEHOLD! The Seacow with Legs that doesn’t MOO!

http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/legseacow2.jpg

Ol McDarwin Had a Farm, A-T-A-T-C-G the DNA “letters”

Phil P

 

[Michael_G]

What is “kind?” In my experience with this term, it is a slippery term used to allow for the fact that some evolution may occur, but that the user of the term does not want to admit to some wider application of evolution. Therefore, given the depth of geologic time, the word “kind” is invented. Fuzzier than species, but is it wider than genus? than family? Since we are discussing scientific theory, please explain “kind” scientifically. To which of the taxa does it correspond?

Additionally, even if you admit that evolution can occur in very small increments, such that A can change into B, and Y into Z, but A cannot change into Z, you still have the following problem. From one point in time, we can observe A change to B. From a later point, we can observe B change to C. Eons later, we may see P (which was once C) change to Q. Eventually, Y (which was once Q, which itself was once A) changes to Z. Microevolution, as a concept wielded by those that would deny evolution occurs, is a double-edged sword.

Pax tecum,
Alberich

Too long since I have studied these biological terminolgy so my kind examples of kind must serve in place of trying to narrow within the biological terminolgy: genus? than family?

variation within kind as A to B is demonstrable, A to Z is not, there are limits within the DNA code as to how much change can occur. Microevolution does not prove Macroevolution

I don’t even know where to begin here.

.

Evolution is about the changes in populations over generations. .

Pax tecum,
Alberich

Therefore Macroevolution is unobservable, and becomes speculation, not science. What you want to do here is take variation within kind and extrapolate it out to macroevolution, which cannot be observed. You know if I went into training I could decrease my time of running a mile within 1 month from 15 minutes down to ten minutes, and a another month down 6 minutes, and another month down down to 3 minutes and in another month by extrapolation I’d be super fast.

Extrapolations have limits, you must be able to demonstrate and observe, extrapolations are by definition speculations

 

[Michael_G]

magic << There are literally no photos of transitional forms. Once again, I would welcome one single web page with just a few on them to wet my appetite. >>

Mars to magic, come in magic. I’m not reading you, your signal is weak…

BEHOLD! Fish to Amphibs!

http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/FishToTetra.jpg

BEHOLD! Half Bird, half Reptile, is it a plane, is it a bird, is it Superman? No its Super-Transitional!

http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/archae2.jpg

BEHOLD! From Goo to You via the Zoo!

http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/homin2.jpg

BEHOLD! Whales with no legs, Whales with 7 legs, Whales with 11 legs, OK I’m exaggerating!

http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/whaleevolution.gif

BEHOLD! Big Horse, Little Horse, everywhere a Horse Horse!

http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/HorseEvolution.gif

BEHOLD! Elephant with no trunk, Elephant with 4 trunks, Elephants with 11 trunks! OK I’m exaggerating!

http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/eleph5.jpg

BEHOLD! The Seacow with Legs that doesn’t MOO!

http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/legseacow2.jpg

Ol McDarwin Had a Farm, A-T-A-T-C-G the DNA “letters”

Phil P

yup, we know that each one in these so called lines all came from the previous over eons of time.

 

[PhilVaz]

MichaelG << yup, we know that each one in these so called lines all came from the previous over eons of time >>

Yes sirree, a little birdy told me "I come from dinosaurs, just look at my feet."

http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/ArchaeopteryxUltraviolet.jpg

Phil P

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

MagicSilence << I can present you with fifty eight peer reviewed publications, 10 books, and several chapters on the Eucharist about how “The Eucharist is only symbolic”. I would say, they’re not good enough. >>

Earth to MagicSilence, come in MagicSilence.

Do you know the difference between a miracle and science?

Do you know the difference between a doctrine of the Church that the Church herself says cannot be tested or detected or falsified by science, and science itself? OK, you do now…

Read Judge Jones decision against I.D. (PDF file)

Everyone else, join me at the other evolution thread while I get warmed up to meet Behe and Wells in person at U.S.F. Sun Dome. I have already quoted Behe in the other thread and he (1) does not have any problems with natural selection as a Catholic, and (2) does not have any theological problems with macroevolution or common descent. See his chapters in the books Uncommon Dissent and Darwin’s Nemesis both edited by Dembski.

JemFinch << I still can’t understand what essential role evolution plays, such that it can inspire such fervor in opposition to those who disbelieve it. >>

It’s very simple. All Truth is God’s Truth, and Truth Cannot Contradict Truth. Evolution is true, the evidence is in. Truth is important. You know it, I know it, the Pope knows it.

Here are some ways to reconcile that truth with faith:

Theistic Evolution from Wikipedia
Evolution and the Church from Wikipedia

Phil P

In addition:​

1. Psalm 19 connects the testimony of the visible creation to God with the Law - both witness to God. Which is why
2. The Fathers and their successors saw the created world as witnessing to God.

This position is not without difficulties - it needs to take account of sin - but it does make the point that all the works of God, not some alone, are the work of one & the same God. And that is one reason of many for not discounting what certainly looks like evidence for evolution - if evolution is a fact, it is one that witnesses to God, by providing some of the details of how He created things. (And the same applies to the question of the origin of the universe - any evidence relating to that there is, witnesses to God & His Wisdom, Who is Jesus Christ; see Colossians 1.16 for more details.)

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Thanks for the articles, I’ll take a look at them.

It occurs to me that the really interesting question regarding evolution as accepted by Christians is, did God get exactly the world He intended, or did He just set the machine in motion and accept whatever it produced? For example, as far as bacterial flagellums (I’m sure that’s not the correct plural), did God somehow insure that they would evolve, or did He not care if they evolved or not, and they just happened to do so?

Of course, being omniscient He knew what He would get anyway. But did He arrange to get the world that exists, or did He simply know that this was the world He would get, without “loading the dice” in any way? In which case, could human beings, created in His image and likeness and with immortal souls, have developed as entirely different types of creatures?

Any doctrine which did not state that the Providence of God extends to the tiniest details in creation would be less than Christian, Biblical, or Catholic.​

The notion that God starts the ball rolling, but does not do more, is an idea popularised by the 18th-century Deists, though Jerome can be quoted in favour of the idea that God is like the Great King of Persia: He looks after the big things only, not after the tiny details too.

Matthew 6 on the Father’s knowing of the falling of each hair of our heads is just one place in the Bible which undermines the “Great King” model. ##