B
buffalo
Guest
Interesting… I cannot believe He waited around to see what Adam would look like and then somehow because He is outside of time had to have Jesus look the same.
Did Jesus look like Adam or did Adam look like Jesus?
- Status
Did Jesus look like Adam or did Adam look like Jesus?
A
Aloysium
Guest
That’s not what he said, but I infer the same thing.Aloysium:
No, I suspect that Darwin was admitting that he had no explanation for abiogenesis, the origin of life from nonliving matter. That was another of God’s amazing inventions.
R
RandomAlias
Guest
Yes. Probably looked like Mary too.
Last edited:
B
buffalo
Guest
Yes, what?
R
rossum
Guest
If you ask a question containing an “or” then you are likely to get the answer: “yes”.
If God is omniscient then God always knew what Adam would look like.
rossum
R
RandomAlias
Guest
Scripture has it that man was created in the image and likeness of God. That is a puzzle. What did Jesus “look like” before he took flesh from Mary? What does it mean to “look like” before there is a body? Scripture also has it that eye has not seen and the human heart cannot grasp what exists in eternity.
Last edited:
B
buffalo
Guest
M
mVitus
Guest
This question has come up a gazillion times. I’m really wondering why it keeps getting asked. Is it supposed to be some kind of magic bullet? (And I’ve already answered the question before, so you’ll just have to look up my answer if you want to know it [again] because I don’t want any sidetracking from my line of inquiry over yours.)
Last edited:
R
rossum
Guest
Planned? God already knew. Could God have done it differently? Did God have a choice as to how Adam looked or was God rigidly constrained by His own perfect and omniscient foreknowledge?
This is a question for theologians, not for scientists.
rossum
B
buffalo
Guest
We can discuss it here.
M
Metis1
Guest
Wiki has links to such sources if you’d bother to actually have checked it out, it also contains quotes from previous popes and other official sources, and the “Catechism of the Catholic Church” mentions it in brief.
BTW, didn’t I ask you if you were Catholic and you haven’t responded, or am I thinking of someone else here?
BTW, didn’t I ask you if you were Catholic and you haven’t responded, or am I thinking of someone else here?
M
Metis1
Guest
Aren’t you making an assumption-- actually a couple of them? And yet you ask others for evidence?
[no need to respond-- the above is rhetorical]
M
Metis1
Guest
They’re going on all the time throughout much of the academic world, such as in a university 20 minutes from my home here, although they use mostly fruit flies. Indeed, new species have evolved without the use of radiation or chemicals. Maybe google “speciation” and check out the links.
B
buffalo
Guest
Evolution is not addressed in the Catechism.
I am 100% faithful RC.
Previous Pope’s? Which one’s gave their support to macro-evolution?
B
buffalo
Guest
The fruitflies? Grew an extra set of wings? And they die? No, fruitflies do not show evolution. Sure, speciation, means no longer to reproduce with each other. That is loss of a function once had.
R
rossum
Guest
B
buffalo
Guest
So weak…
R
rossum
Guest
An exact response to your loss of function in breeding with the parent species. Equal and opposite loss and gain.
rossum
rossum
B
benjamin1973
Guest
You keep saying “modern science,” when you really mean one or two cherry-picked Christian scientists who want to demonstrate that the Bible should be taken literally. I’m pretty sure that evolutionary scientists, on the whole, do not share that view.
If you want to say “scientists,” you should mean by that “the majority of scientists” or be a little bit disingenuous. I’m pretty sure I could find, somewhere, a scientist who believe in unicorns. Using this as evidence that the world is warming up to the idea of unicorns would be a pretty weak maneuver…
If you want to say “scientists,” you should mean by that “the majority of scientists” or be a little bit disingenuous. I’m pretty sure I could find, somewhere, a scientist who believe in unicorns. Using this as evidence that the world is warming up to the idea of unicorns would be a pretty weak maneuver…
Last edited:
B
buffalo
Guest
The fundamental theorem of natural selection with mutations
Abstract
The mutation–selection process is the most fundamental mechanism of evolution. In 1935, R. A. Fisher proved his fundamental theorem of natural selection, providing a model in which the rate of change of mean fitness is equal to the genetic variance of a species. Fisher did not include mutations in his model, but believed that mutations would provide a continual supply of variance resulting in perpetual increase in mean fitness, thus providing a foundation for neo-Darwinian theory. In this paper we re-examine Fisher’s Theorem, showing that because it disregards mutations, and because it is invalid beyond one instant in time, it has limited biological relevance. We build a differential equations model from Fisher’s first principles with mutations added, and prove a revised theorem showing the rate of change in mean fitness is equal to genetic variance plus a mutational effects term. We refer to our revised theorem as the fundamental theorem of natural selection with mutations. Our expanded theorem, and our associated analyses (analytic computation, numerical simulation, and visualization), provide a clearer understanding of the mutation–selection process, and allow application of biologically realistic parameters such as mutational effects. The expanded theorem has biological implications significantly different from what Fisher had envisioned.
link.springer.com
Instead of a shift to more fitness the reality is a downward shift in fitness over time. The corrected theorem is now congruent with our observations.
Abstract
The mutation–selection process is the most fundamental mechanism of evolution. In 1935, R. A. Fisher proved his fundamental theorem of natural selection, providing a model in which the rate of change of mean fitness is equal to the genetic variance of a species. Fisher did not include mutations in his model, but believed that mutations would provide a continual supply of variance resulting in perpetual increase in mean fitness, thus providing a foundation for neo-Darwinian theory. In this paper we re-examine Fisher’s Theorem, showing that because it disregards mutations, and because it is invalid beyond one instant in time, it has limited biological relevance. We build a differential equations model from Fisher’s first principles with mutations added, and prove a revised theorem showing the rate of change in mean fitness is equal to genetic variance plus a mutational effects term. We refer to our revised theorem as the fundamental theorem of natural selection with mutations. Our expanded theorem, and our associated analyses (analytic computation, numerical simulation, and visualization), provide a clearer understanding of the mutation–selection process, and allow application of biologically realistic parameters such as mutational effects. The expanded theorem has biological implications significantly different from what Fisher had envisioned.
The fundamental theorem of natural selection with mutations - Journal of Mathematical Biology
The mutation–selection process is the most fundamental mechanism of evolution. In 1935, R. A. Fisher proved his fundamental theorem of natural selection, providing a model in which the rate of change of mean fitness is equal to the genetic variance of a species. Fisher did not include mutations...
link.springer.com
Instead of a shift to more fitness the reality is a downward shift in fitness over time. The corrected theorem is now congruent with our observations.
- Status