Darwinism in schools?

[buffalo]

Which permits evolution, of course.

It did not have to happen instantaneously. So, again, I ask, by what mechanism did this occur? Dinosaurs predate human beings, for example, and human beings predate other species. Please describe the mechanism by which life was created on Earth.

I think the Pope’s point is that viewing all of nature with a secular viewpoint is bad and inadequate because it negates the divine order of the universe. At no point does he simply reject evolution or even the “becoming” of humanity, but rather the idea that there was no direction in the process at any point.

Also, as much as I enjoy reading outside sources, I would appreciate your own responses, so I may enjoy a distilled response instead of having to search through entire chapters/books/etc. in order to glean the few relevant statements.

How are you defining evolution?

Prime matter is about potentiality. So, if one thinks of a concept and then creates a seed that then grows into maturity, the seed possesses the potentiality. The seed would be the DNA language/programming itself. Depending on the arrangement of words effects the outcome. A designer might also wish to pack the code so it doesn’t go out of control.

Sometimes one has to go through some work to get the picture.

 

[mitex]

I really don’t see the problem with evolution. Its been taught in Catholic schools and universities around the country.

Usually I only think of protestant Evangelicals who oppose it…

Unless there’s some Catholics here who are Evangelicals by night

 

[buffalo]

I really don’t see the problem with evolution. Its been taught in Catholic schools and universities around the country.

Usually I only think of protestant Evangelicals who oppose it…

Unless there’s some Catholics here who are Evangelicals by night

Indeed it is taught. When one starts to investigate the claims they are left wanting. So you can accept what you were taught and parrot it, or you can dig deeper to come closer to truth.

Some main points:

Natural Selection is now known to be a conservative process and not a creative one.
DNA actively fights against mutations taking hold
Epigenetics
The fossil record shows abrupt appearance, stasis, with limited variation
Junk DNA is no longer
The machinery of the cell is extremely complex.
The DNA language
Protein folding

Look at the resource page here.

http://forums.catholic-questions.org/picture.php?albumid=639&pictureid=11701

 

[LeafByNiggle]

buffalo:

I’m still waiting for your link to an authoritative source that says the Church opposes evolution. (A link to idvolution.org does not count as authoritative). And not just any form of evolution, but the specific form of evolution that is commonly taught in schools.

And I’m still waiting for an operational definition of “front-loaded life”. The definition you gave was not in scientific terms.

 

[buffalo]

buffalo:

I’m still waiting for your link to an authoritative source that says the Church opposes evolution. (A link to idvolution.org does not count as authoritative). And not just any form of evolution, but the specific form of evolution that is commonly taught in schools.

And I’m still waiting for an operational definition of “front-loaded life”. The definition you gave was not in scientific terms.

What authoritative source will you accept? How about a compilation of pronouncements by past Popes? Would that satisfy you?

I am not sure of your criteria? Are you asking for attributes of front loading that are observed?

 

[Farsight001]

Natural Selection is now known to be a conservative process and not a creative one.

A lie

DNA actively fights against mutations taking hold

Lie #2

The fossil record shows abrupt appearance, stasis, with limited variation

Lie #3

Junk DNA is no longer

Lie #4

The machinery of the cell is extremely complex.

No such thing as “machinery of the cell”. Cells are organic, not machine.

The DNA language

No such thing as DNA language either

Protein folding

Completely irrelevant.

It is at this point that I can only suggest you be banned for the sheer number of lies you have repeatedly tried to tell people about evolution, which has far and away crossed into the hundreds by now. Your “resource page” mostly lacks genuine resources even!

 

[Farsight001]

What authoritative source will you accept? How about a compilation of pronouncements by past Popes? Would that satisfy you?

I believe that was already answered.

I am not sure of your criteria? Are you asking for attributes of front loading that are observed?
He said, and I quote, he is asking for an “operational definition” of front loading. Not attributes. Not a description. Not an example. An operational definition. If you don’t know what that is, you have no business trying to educate anyone on ANY subject, let alone an intricate and highly complex scientific one.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

What authoritative source will you accept? How about a compilation of pronouncements by past Popes? Would that satisfy you?

Like I said before, anything on vatican.va

I am not sure of your criteria? Are you asking for attributes of front loading that are observed?

No, I am just asking for a scientific definition of what front-loading of life means. You stated that such a thing, if found to be true, speaks against evolution. Well, I can’t argue against that if you don’t tell me what it means. And we are speaking about science now, not philosophy. So the kind of definition that qualifies as scientific is the “operational definition”. If you disagree with that then you are opposing not only evolution but that entire concept of the scientific method, which requires operational definitions. Since you are so good at finding things on Wikipedia, I’m sure you will have no trouble looking up “operational definition” if you don’t already know what it is.

 

[rossum]

A fish that has no eyes is a loss of function.

Yes it is. Sometimes evolution results in an increase of function. At other times evolution results in a loss of function. Evolution is not unidirectional, it takes the population in whatever direction gives the best short term advantage in their current environment.

Are your sources guessing?

I notice that you have failed to answer my question on providing detail of the calculations performed by your sources. It was you sources that made claims based on the probability of abiogenesis. If they have no actual calculations to back up their figures, then their claims are worthless.

The machinery of cells is complex and fundamental. Early life had this same machinery.

False. Modern cells have machinery for dealing with predators. Primitive cells were chemotrophs, not heterotrophs. Predation was not a problem for early cells. Your sources are obviously ignorant of much that is relevant. Another indications that their calculations are probably flawed.

Source?

I gave the link in my post: horizonpress.com/cimb/v/v2/v2n102.pdf

rossum

 

[buffalo]

Like I said before, anything on vatican.va

No, I am just asking for a scientific definition of what front-loading of life means. You stated that such a thing, if found to be true, speaks against evolution. Well, I can’t argue against that if you don’t tell me what it means. And we are speaking about science now, not philosophy. So the kind of definition that qualifies as scientific is the “operational definition”. If you disagree with that then you are opposing not only evolution but that entire concept of the scientific method, which requires operational definitions. Since you are so good at finding things on Wikipedia, I’m sure you will have no trouble looking up “operational definition” if you don’t already know what it is.

I got lucky on Wikipedia and surprised about History of evolutionary thought

Front Loading - initial and substantial investment made at the beginning. So in our discussion as it pertains to the DNA language, it was optimized in the first life forms.

 

[buffalo]

Yes it is. Sometimes evolution results in an increase of function. At other times evolution results in a loss of function. Evolution is not unidirectional, it takes the population in whatever direction gives the best short term advantage in their current environment.

I notice that you have failed to answer my question on providing detail of the calculations performed by your sources. It was you sources that made claims based on the probability of abiogenesis. If they have no actual calculations to back up their figures, then their claims are worthless.

False. Modern cells have machinery for dealing with predators. Primitive cells were chemotrophs, not heterotrophs. Predation was not a problem for early cells. Your sources are obviously ignorant of much that is relevant. Another indications that their calculations are probably flawed.

I gave the link in my post: horizonpress.com/cimb/v/v2/v2n102.pdf

rossum

That is adaptation. No one is arguing it.

We have to agree to the Universal Probability Bound (or something we both agree moves us beyond chance and into design) Do you accept it?

I will look over the article.

 

[buffalo]

Y

False. Modern cells have machinery for dealing with predators. Primitive cells were chemotrophs, not heterotrophs. Predation was not a problem for early cells. Your sources are obviously ignorant of much that is relevant. Another indications that their calculations are probably flawed.

So early life did not have an ATP Synthase Motor? Source?

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Front Loading - initial and substantial investment made at the beginning. So in our discussion as it pertains to the DNA language, it was optimized in the first life forms.

Still not an operational definition. So to help you out, here is a link. Without such a definition then it is like arguing about whether van Gogh or Rembrandt is the better artist.

 

[edwest2]

I really don’t see the problem with evolution. Its been taught in Catholic schools and universities around the country.

Usually I only think of protestant Evangelicals who oppose it…

Unless there’s some Catholics here who are Evangelicals by night

The problem is quite clear to most Christians. Adam and Eve are real, individual people who actually disobeyed God through their free will. They are the origin of Original Sin which is passed on to all. This is why Jesus Christ was born, to provide a way back to God through accepting Him, His sacrifice and His Lordship over us, which is then completed by water baptism.

The theory, as taught in schools, at best, muddies the waters, and in most cases, does not include critical information about the true identity of Man which Christianity holds to be true. Again, I’m not advocating adding religion to science class, but, in some cases, students are led to believe that man is some fortuitous end result of a process that did not have him in mind. I mean, had a certain trait or traits not been passed on at some point, we could all be reptilian humanoids right now.

Peace,
Ed

 

[edwest2]

Which permits evolution, of course.

It did not have to happen instantaneously. So, again, I ask, by what mechanism did this occur? Dinosaurs predate human beings, for example, and human beings predate other species. Please describe the mechanism by which life was created on Earth.

I think the Pope’s point is that viewing all of nature with a secular viewpoint is bad and inadequate because it negates the divine order of the universe. At no point does he simply reject evolution or even the “becoming” of humanity, but rather the idea that there was no direction in the process at any point.

Also, as much as I enjoy reading outside sources, I would appreciate your own responses, so I may enjoy a distilled response instead of having to search through entire chapters/books/etc. in order to glean the few relevant statements.

Here are the relevant statements:

“The pope (John Paul) had his reasons for saying this,” Benedict said. “But it is also true that the theory of evolution is not a complete, scientifically proven theory.”

Benedict added that the immense time span that evolution covers made it impossible to conduct experiments in a controlled environment to finally verify or disprove the theory."

That’s my position in a nutshell.

Peace,
Ed

 

[buffalo]

Still not an operational definition. So to help you out, here is a link. Without such a definition then it is like arguing about whether van Gogh or Rembrandt is the better artist.

By measuring the optimized code we have the definition. The prediction would be that we will not measure more in current life forms.

 

[Farsight001]

I got lucky on Wikipedia and surprised about History of evolutionary thought

Not from vatican.va

Front Loading - initial and substantial investment made at the beginning. So in our discussion as it pertains to the DNA language, it was optimized in the first life forms.

not a definition.

That is adaptation. No one is arguing it.

We have to agree to the Universal Probability Bound (or something we both agree moves us beyond chance and into design) Do you accept it?

I will look over the article.

No link to the statistical data you claim exists and have been asked for multiple times.

By measuring the optimized code we have the definition. The prediction would be that we will not measure more in current life forms.

No, no we don’t have a definition. In fact, measuring something provides a definition of nothing at all under any context for any word and any measurement. Open a dictionary and read some of the definitions in there. It’s pretty clear that you don’t even have a grasp on what a definition is, which is really quite worrisome.

Do you enjoy completely and utterly ignoring the request of anyone who thinks differently than you?

 

[LeafByNiggle]

By measuring the optimized code we have the definition. The prediction would be that we will not measure more in current life forms.

Would not have more what? I assume you mean complexity? Can you define complexity operationally?

 

[buffalo]

Would not have more what?

How do we define optimization? An index of a sort? A formula? I do not know that OOL research has that quite yet.

But to simplify - say we set the optimization index at 1. The prediction would be that current life would be = to or < 1. If it was > than 1 we would conclude that it was not optimized at the onset.

 

[buffalo]

Would not have more what? I assume you mean complexity? Can you define complexity operationally?

Not complexity but a resulting optimization of the DNA code. A code could be complex but the result would not be optimum. A code could be simple and could be optimum. Or it could be complex and optimum? See what I am getting at?