B
Bradskii
Guest
The pope might disagree. He’s only got 50% of the usual system.
- Status
R
rossum
Guest
It is 0.001% more likely to survive when there is an insufficiency in the water, or perhaps a pond dries up between rainstorms. In a population of 10,000,000 fish, that 0.001% is worth 100 fish. Evolution works on populations: “Individuals reproduce, populations evolve.”
rossum
R
rossum
Guest
No. It is reproducing. The offspring will be an imperfect copy (evolution requires imperfect replicators to work). For example, the average human has about 100 mutations; bits of DNA that did not come from either parent.
The offspring will not be an exact duplicate of the parent. Whether that difference is enough to name a new taxon would require a well trained biologist and a full RNA sequencing of both parent and offspring.
rossum
T
TMC
Guest
Just dropping back in to check on things. It appears we now agree that there is no real theological barrier to evolution, and have moved on to discussing whether the musing of a single anonymous internet user outweighs two hundred years of professional scientific study and experimentation. Does that about sum it up?
A
Aloysium
Guest
Darwin’s Theory is a symptom of modern society’s malaise.
Dissociated from the truth that is love, in the growing isolation, the individual, as you point out, turns to tribalism. As each person absorbs the group’s standards as the only constraint, humanity hacks the world up into smaller bits, fighting and using one another. To explain, but more accurately to justify this state of our affairs, we come up with “Evolutionary psychology”. Tacked on to the material, not really thought out, it proposes that the source of our attitudes and actions is to be found in the instincts, developed through time. The world we find in history and in the daily news would be the inevitable outcome of a selfish gene that would explain the push for survival of the fittest from the world’s beginnings - the struggle of life against life, confrontation and conflict in a deadly universal contest for power and survival, where death ultimately rules.
Our intellect knows what is our final outcome. The wolf that is evaded today, will return, usually with increased brutality, and have us in its grip; all is for naught. So, we deal with our fate as a conscious animal, for the most part not thinking about it, pretending that things are otherwise, until death in one of its many forms causes us to focus on what it means to exist. Until then, we do what we want, what we can, trying to survive. Psychopaths ( Freddie Nietzsche’s superman) go for whatever they can get, the timid become flunkies, many turn inward in disgust, and zealots try to force a transformation of the world into yet another ultimately doomed utopic vision.
So, what are we to do but appreciate what each day brings, give ourselves to our work and to those around us. If all is pointless, why not help a stranger, do something to alleviate their suffering. Once we get that, something changes; we recapture a happiness where there have been only momentary and illusory satisfactions and distractions. One sees the world as it is. Even in the darkness, actually more so there, we find courage, patience, kindness, we find love. In the giving, we see the world for what it is, deeply wounded.
Dissociated from the truth that is love, in the growing isolation, the individual, as you point out, turns to tribalism. As each person absorbs the group’s standards as the only constraint, humanity hacks the world up into smaller bits, fighting and using one another. To explain, but more accurately to justify this state of our affairs, we come up with “Evolutionary psychology”. Tacked on to the material, not really thought out, it proposes that the source of our attitudes and actions is to be found in the instincts, developed through time. The world we find in history and in the daily news would be the inevitable outcome of a selfish gene that would explain the push for survival of the fittest from the world’s beginnings - the struggle of life against life, confrontation and conflict in a deadly universal contest for power and survival, where death ultimately rules.
Our intellect knows what is our final outcome. The wolf that is evaded today, will return, usually with increased brutality, and have us in its grip; all is for naught. So, we deal with our fate as a conscious animal, for the most part not thinking about it, pretending that things are otherwise, until death in one of its many forms causes us to focus on what it means to exist. Until then, we do what we want, what we can, trying to survive. Psychopaths ( Freddie Nietzsche’s superman) go for whatever they can get, the timid become flunkies, many turn inward in disgust, and zealots try to force a transformation of the world into yet another ultimately doomed utopic vision.
So, what are we to do but appreciate what each day brings, give ourselves to our work and to those around us. If all is pointless, why not help a stranger, do something to alleviate their suffering. Once we get that, something changes; we recapture a happiness where there have been only momentary and illusory satisfactions and distractions. One sees the world as it is. Even in the darkness, actually more so there, we find courage, patience, kindness, we find love. In the giving, we see the world for what it is, deeply wounded.
Last edited:
T
Techno2000
Guest
The whole time that was reproducing and mutating where was it getting its food from ?
R
rossum
Guest
You have already asked this question. If you do not bother to read my answers, then it is not worth my while replying to you.
You asked:
I replied:
rossum
E
edwest211
Guest
All of society is less in a malaise than in a constant “revolution” of change. Rearranging right and wrong into legal concepts only, or what pleases me for the moment. Change becomes an idol, the desire for increased novelty being constantly marketed here and through other means. These messages are contrary to our nature. They discourage the growth of communities, secular and religious. Authority is reduced to mass marketing some person or persons or groups that encourage us to, again, deny our human nature, and accept a substitute. Humanity at its best is still deeply wounded but it presses on in the face of obstacles. It sees the natural order and follows it to the best of our ability. Utopias have been proposed and as recent history shows, have pushed some to the edge of reality to a fantasy life where each person is god. Each person has no real desire for the complications of life, especially other human beings. So, life goes on until old age or a life threatening illness and death are seen as non-negotiable and are exactly what they are.
The media models what were once heroes into psychopathic killers willing to scandalize themselves and do deals with the devil, or equivalent, for some temporary greater good - as they perceive it. Our perceptions are molded to some degree. Scandal stops being scandal and becomes ‘this is what some people do.’ There is truth. We can know it. We can be more authentically human by being more Christ-like. The theory that we are biological robots detaches us from the full truth of who we are.
The media models what were once heroes into psychopathic killers willing to scandalize themselves and do deals with the devil, or equivalent, for some temporary greater good - as they perceive it. Our perceptions are molded to some degree. Scandal stops being scandal and becomes ‘this is what some people do.’ There is truth. We can know it. We can be more authentically human by being more Christ-like. The theory that we are biological robots detaches us from the full truth of who we are.
T
Techno2000
Guest
Sorry, just trying to follow what you are saying. lipid bilayer first started out living off of chemicals and later on evolved to use photosynthesis…yes ?Techno2000:
You have already asked this question. If you do not bother to read my answers, then it is not worth my while replying to you.
You asked:
I replied:
rossum
R
rossum
Guest
No. The lipid bilayer forms the cell membrane. The important part is the RNA ribozymes inside the membrane. The membrane just stops the larger molecules diffusing away. Smaller mulecules… (“mulecules”? Hey, I like it!
) … molecules like H2S can diffuse through to provide fuel/food for the proto-cell.Some remained chemotrophs – they still exist – some evolved to eat other cells, becoming heterotrophs. Later still, some cells, algae, evolved photosynthesis.
rossum
T
Techno2000
Guest
Other than chemicals and photosynthesis what did the first life eat ?Techno2000:
No. The lipid bilayer forms the cell membrane. The important part is the RNA ribozymes inside the membrane. The membrane just stops the larger molecules diffusing away. Smaller mulecules… (“mulecules”? Hey, I like it!
Some remained chemotrophs – they still exist – some evolved to eat other cells, becoming heterotrophs. Later still, some cells, algae, evolved photosynthesis.
rossum
R
rossum
Guest
Just chemicals, no photosynthesis at the very start. I have already mentioned hydrothermal vents, which put a lot of energy-rich chemicals into the oceans. There are still chemotrophs living round them now.
rossum
T
Techno2000
Guest
How long could the first life just live off of chemicals and photosynthesis isn’t it supposed to evolve and move forward and become a new creature ?Techno2000:
Just chemicals, no photosynthesis at the very start. I have already mentioned hydrothermal vents, which put a lot of energy-rich chemicals into the oceans. There are still chemotrophs living round them now.
rossum
G
Glark
Guest
The whole “nested hierarchy” thing is very overrated - to put it mildly. In fact, from start to finish, it’s an imaginary concept invented by Darwinists.
And as Steven Jay Gould said, "“The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils.” (From “Evolutions Erratic Pace”, Natural History, vol. 86, (1987) p.14.)
Notice how Gould says “however reasonable” - how quaint. Beware of what a Darwinist considers to be “reasonable”! The theory of evolution is heavily reliant on speculation and baseless assumptions that are quite often preposterous - “reasonable” junk science, in other words.
The bottom line is, armed with a fertile imagination and phantom ancestry “branches”, a Darwinist can fit any creature at all into a “nested hierarchy” - even a platypus. Darwinists justify this farce by adopting the a priori position that all life is related, therefore every creature must somehow fit into the “bush of life”.
Last edited:
G
Glark
Guest
Better still, do yourself a favour and don’t bother. All you’ll get is the untestable hypotheses and worthless speculations of space-cadets masquerading as scientists.
Last edited:
G
Glark
Guest
Excellent post, amigo.
women’s studies … indoctrinates young women with radical feminism. Patently demonic.
academic philosophy … a vehicle for belittling theism and promoting atheism. Patently demonic.
biology … a once noble science that was hijacked many decades ago by the cult of Darwinism. Patently demonic.
It’s hard to imagine a more antiChrist environment that your average Western university, where millions of unsuspecting victims are educated into “doctrines of demons”. Sadly, Satan’s poison has spread to many Catholic universities, which are now “Catholic” in name only.
women’s studies … indoctrinates young women with radical feminism. Patently demonic.
academic philosophy … a vehicle for belittling theism and promoting atheism. Patently demonic.
biology … a once noble science that was hijacked many decades ago by the cult of Darwinism. Patently demonic.
It’s hard to imagine a more antiChrist environment that your average Western university, where millions of unsuspecting victims are educated into “doctrines of demons”. Sadly, Satan’s poison has spread to many Catholic universities, which are now “Catholic” in name only.
Last edited:
G
Glark
Guest
I wonder if there exist any career criminals who aren’t atheists. No fear of God means no fear of judgement - just ask any serial killer.
G
Glark
Guest
No, this is a conclusion I came to after reading Darwinist literature.
Sure it is - if you are willing to defer one’s intelligence to a wild imagination and baseless assumptions. A chunk of a reptile’s jaw just happened to “evolve” into the bones of a mammal’s inner ear. With God, anything is possible, but if you are relying on blind chance … forget it.
[/quote]
Last edited:
G
Glark
Guest
Really? A lung system that is only 0.001% complete is of no use at all, so how does a bunch of cells that is 100% useless confer a survival advantage?
G
Glark
Guest
- How do you reconcile Mark 10:6 with humans evolving billions of years after creation?
- Then you could try explaining why God waited billions of years for Adam to evolve, but decided to create Eve in an instant.
Last edited:
- Status