Evidence for Evolution

[reggieM]

But what reason would there be [for God] to create Adam with an appendix, if Adam is not going to suffer disease in the first place?

Interesting theological question. The answer will assume a fairly high level of knowledge about God’s plan, intention and method of creation. One might ask “why” in regards to many of the paradoxes of the universe as well.

There’s also an assumption that God’s plans and actions are intended (and possible) to be fully understood by human beings.

I certainly wonder about your knowledge and experience of God. Have you experienced any manifestations of God or direct communication with Him?

Even if you have not, I’d wonder why you wouldn’t consult God about this question yourself. If you have, how have you done so? Have you taken this question in prayer to God for a long period of time? Years praying before the Blessed Sacrament, seeking an answer to the mysteries of the universe?

If you don’t want to take that path towards truly communicating with God and seeking to understand His divine plans (if He even desires to communicate these details to us) – then what can you expect to find on a web-forum?

So you pose a theological question – one that requires a significant understanding of the nature of God, here in this discussion dominated by people who seem to only be interested in the “science” of evolution. You should be able to expect what kind of answers you’ll get.

God could very well be radically different than what you think He is. That is a fact that cannot be challenged with your scientific tools alone.

But you would need to know the nature of God very well in order to answer why He would create things in a certain manner or not.

The other option is to take the atheist view, or the 19th century theist’s view that God has no direct involvement in creation.

 

[The_Barbarian]

In conclusion, aside from the appendix, there have been a bunch of other phoney cases put forward for Evolution.

As you see, the appendix is a complete mystery to creationists, but is easily explained by evolutionary theory. It’s one of the reasons creationism isn’t taken seriously by most people.

But let’s take a look at your other example:

I had a college level Zoology course in the mid-80s with a text book that showed those fetal drawings of humans, pigs, dogs, etc all showing what were claimed to be residual gills, evolution through our embryonic development.

Interesting. I took a comparative anatomy course in the 1960s, and there was no such talk. They did point out that branchial arches, which form gill supports in fish, are adapted to form jaws in other vertetbrates, and the bones of the inner ear.

It would be a pretty old textbook you were using; recapitulation was refuted in the 1800s.

This whole notion has been thrown out.

Over a hundred years ago.

Pure invention yet it was taught as fact in universities 20 years ago.

Which universities? Name a couple; I’d sure like an explanation from those folks.

 

[SeekingCatholic]

A. Well my exposure to pro-evolutionary arguments may be of the dated and unsophisticated variety, but they have not been of a statisical nature, rather they have been more like “gee, doesn’t this monkey look like us”, or because whales breath air, not ideal for the aquatic environment, they must have been land animals which “returned” to the sea. All based on assumptions which essentially link similar looking structures to the theory of natural selection.

Sure. I wasn’t convinced myself until I learned about the genetic evidence. Homology by itself is a very weak argument.

I have never seen a statisical case made in the positive. And the reason is obvious, it might support this tiny microcosim of evidence you have built with the virus, but it makes the big picture, full story seem ridiculous. But you apparently beleive God guided it. With God all things are possible, including my view.

True. But the scientific question is what is more likely based on the data. It’s also possible we were created by space aliens.

A. I have to take your word for it lacking time or ready resources and perhaps even the cognitive ability to become expert in this myself. I can only say again, as with the example of the appendix, things we think we know today we don’t know tomorrow.

Yes, but a simple argument from ignorance won’t do here. In addition to the retroviruses which have inserted at the same place in the genome, there are also those which haven’t. IOW, we have observed data supporting the idea of random insertions, or at least random within the preferred set of integration sites. Further supporting evidence is provided in the mutations occurring in the LTRs (which I didn’t get into in the original post).

A. First, God could do what ever he wanted IS a scientific argument. Aquinas said that Theology was the perfect science as it is based on Divine Revelation. He further said that natural scientific theories must be reconcilable to it or be discarded.

No, it isn’t. St. Thomas’ theological arguments are demonstrably wrong in biology and neuroscience, or at least in what they assumed in those areas. The arrogant idea that theology can dictate to natural science what its findings must be is a good part of the reason why the “warfare between science and theology in Christendom” has been won at every turn by science since the Galileo affair, with theology beating a sullen and ungracious retreat. If we can demonstrate via empirical means to a moral certainty that a theological or philosophical tenet is wrong, insofar as theology or philosophy touch on the natural world, then that tenet is wrong, or at least its application to the natural world. You forget (as do virtually all who make this argument) that theologians are also fallible men. It’s possible for theology to be wrong and science to be right.

The existence of an omnipotent God, not observed (by most of us), is just as scientific as the assumption that species may have descendants of a different species, not observed by any of us. That said I do not feel competent to speculate on what God may do apart from what He has told us he has done and will do.

Looking at the data and inferring what God actually has done from that data is not “speculation”. It is making reasonable inferences. You’re ducking the question I raised about the syncytin production. “God could do whatever He wished” has no explanatory or predictive power. God could also have created everyone last Tuesday with intact memories so as to have only the appearance of history, or He could have created only the appearance of Christianity.

A. I disagree. It is still one (or very nearly). The Angel would perform his duty. If it is his duty to direct the ball to the ground he will do it predictably. It is the nature of Angels, except in the case of the occasional miracle.

If. But why would it be his duty to move the ball there? And why would it specifically be his duty to move the ball there at the specific speed dictated by physics, including corrections for air resistance? And what if instead of a ball, it is a rock which is going to smash someone’s head in? Is it the angel’s duty to kill someone?

A. But of course God knew that Adam would fall. Or do you think that God guided evolution, but in sort of a sloppy way? Did God create Adam (either through evolution or per Genesis from dirt) in the Garden, in perfect form before the fall or not? Don’t know what you’re trying to say here.

I’m trying to say “the appendix has a function” makes no sense in this context. God created Adam fully-formed with an appendix, which has no real necessary function in the garden, but only because He knew Adam would fall? Yes, God guided evolution, but in “sort of a sloppy way”, which supports front-loaded as opposed to a directed evolution. An appendix is an obvious vestigial organ, and denying this is simply denying the obvious.

In conclusion, aside from the appendix, there have been a bunch of other phoney cases put forward for Evolution.

And that’s not an argument. The question is not about phoney cases, but about real ones.

 

[dixieagle]

Barbarian,

I just wanted to say I enjoy reading your posts on this subject. I won’t pretend to say I understand much of the science (I’m more of a Humanities person myself) but I do know that even the Sisters of St. Joseph who taught me in the 50s-60s weren’t much worried by evolution.

I have a son-in-law just about finished with his Ph.D. in Ecology, Evolution and Behavior (computational phylogenetics, specifically) who is one of the best Catholics I know. He has recently given talks on evolution to Catholic youth groups, and because of his quiet example, several of his agnostic colleagues in the lab of a MacArthur Fellowship “genius grant” recipient have begun making inquiries about his Catholic beliefs.

So, please keep on with your calm, clear, enlightening and often humorous explanations of, as my SIL calls it, “God’s modus operandi.” We sure need them!

 

[SeekingCatholic]

Interesting theological question.

And one which you don’t have a good answer for, since you’re ignoring the obvious implication.

The answer will assume a fairly high level of knowledge about God’s plan, intention and method of creation. One might ask “why” in regards to many of the paradoxes of the universe as well.

Uh, no, the answer is really quite simple and obvious. God didn’t create Adam fully formed with an appendix. The appendix is a vestige of the evolutionary process He used to create Adam. If that qualifies as a “fairly high level of knowledge about God’s plan, intention, and method of creation” then so be it.

There’s also an assumption that God’s plans and actions are intended (and possible) to be fully understood by human beings.

I certainly wonder about your knowledge and experience of God. Have you experienced any manifestations of God or direct communication with Him?

Even if you have not, I’d wonder why you wouldn’t consult God about this question yourself. If you have, how have you done so? Have you taken this question in prayer to God for a long period of time? Years praying before the Blessed Sacrament, seeking an answer to the mysteries of the universe?

If you don’t want to take that path towards truly communicating with God and seeking to understand His divine plans (if He even desires to communicate these details to us) – then what can you expect to find on a web-forum?

So you pose a theological question – one that requires a significant understanding of the nature of God, here in this discussion dominated by people who seem to only be interested in the “science” of evolution. You should be able to expect what kind of answers you’ll get.

God could very well be radically different than what you think He is. That is a fact that cannot be challenged with your scientific tools alone.

But you would need to know the nature of God very well in order to answer why He would create things in a certain manner or not.

The other option is to take the atheist view, or the 19th century theist’s view that God has no direct involvement in creation.

Simply an argument from ignorance.

And yet all you need to do is open up a science textbook to see how contingent processes are involved in physics and biology, and read a Magisterial document saying that contingent processes can be part of God’s plan of creation.

 

[mulligan59]

As you see, the appendix is a complete mystery to creationists, but is easily explained by evolutionary theory. It’s one of the reasons creationism isn’t taken seriously by most people.

A. Did you miss the point? The appendix was formerly consider a vestige, used by some bark eating ancestor perhaps. Now they know it has a function. So it is in fact no problem for Creationists.

But let’s take a look at your other example:

Interesting. I took a comparative anatomy course in the 1960s, and there was no such talk. They did point out that branchial arches, which form gill supports in fish, are adapted to form jaws in other vertetbrates, and the bones of the inner ear.

It would be a pretty old textbook you were using; recapitulation was refuted in the 1800s.

A. Integrated Principles of Zoology, Fifth Edition, Msoby 1974, page 756. Shows Fish, Reptile, Bird , Man. Perhaps I saw the pig in High School…

Over a hundred years ago.

A. Took them a long time to correct the books then…

Which universities? Name a couple; I’d sure like an explanation from those folks.

A. The Pennsylvania State University

 

[mulligan59]

Yes, but a simple argument from ignorance won’t do here. In addition to the retroviruses which have inserted at the same place in the genome, there are also those which haven’t. IOW, we have observed data supporting the idea of random insertions, or at least random within the preferred set of integration sites. Further supporting evidence is provided in the mutations occurring in the LTRs (which I didn’t get into in the original post).

A. Well it’s the best I can do because I am ignorant. Maybe that same sight is super preferred, maybe the only one possible for the particular virus. Or maybe God just put it there. You’re still basing your conclusion on a tiny (literally and figuratively) interpretation of a phenomenon that still leaves about an Ivory soap percentage of purity of the puzzle unanswered. Yet you are willing to throw away sacred scripture over it. That’s intellectual pride.

No, it isn’t. St. Thomas’ theological arguments are demonstrably wrong in biology and neuroscience, or at least in what they assumed in those areas. The arrogant idea that theology can dictate to natural science what its findings must be is a good part of the reason why the “warfare between science and theology in Christendom” has been won at every turn by science since the Galileo affair, with theology beating a sullen and ungracious retreat. If we can demonstrate via empirical means to a moral certainty that a theological or philosophical tenet is wrong, insofar as theology or philosophy touch on the natural world, then that tenet is wrong, or at least its application to the natural world. You forget (as do virtually all who make this argument) that theologians are also fallible men. It’s possible for theology to be wrong and science to be right.

A. Science proclaims itself the victor, but NASA still uses a stationary Earth model for space probes. Most “theolgians” are wrong. But the Church isn’t. Regarding St. Thomas, the claim is simply that Divine Revelation trumps natural science. That’s all. If your conclusion seems to put you at odds with the church, better re-examine your premise. You’ve made a mistake. This is the essence of trusting God. Now of course every theologian is not in possesion of Divine Revelation.

Looking at the data and inferring what God actually has done from that data is not “speculation”. It is making reasonable inferences. You’re ducking the question I raised about the syncytin production. “God could do whatever He wished” has no explanatory or predictive power. God could also have created everyone last Tuesday with intact memories so as to have only the appearance of history, or He could have created only the appearance of Christianity.

A. I’ll concede it has no predictive power, but it certainly has explanatory power. And I stand by it.

If. But why would it be his duty to move the ball there? And why would it specifically be his duty to move the ball there at the specific speed dictated by physics, including corrections for air resistance? And what if instead of a ball, it is a rock which is going to smash someone’s head in? Is it the angel’s duty to kill someone?

A. I don’t know how duties are assigned in Heaven. In fact I don’t know if Angels are charged with enforcing the laws of gravity or not. Probably the best explanation for it though. How does science explain it? How does science explain the tremendous heat deep in the earth? I know, it just hasn;t had time to cool yet (how many billions of years?) O and as far as the Angels having the duty to kill someone; yes clearly they sometimes do. It was an Angel sent to bring death to the first born of the Egyptians. God sentenced man to die a natural death due to Adam. So I suppose other Angels must have been given this charge from time to time as well. But I did not introduce the subject of Angels, you did. I was merely trying to point out that logically, I don’t see the difference between gravity and an Angel. But it is kind of a chicken and egg argument, isn’t it?

I’m trying to say “the appendix has a function” makes no sense in this context. God created Adam fully-formed with an appendix, which has no real necessary function in the garden, but only because He knew Adam would fall? Yes, God guided evolution, but in “sort of a sloppy way”, which supports front-loaded as opposed to a directed evolution. An appendix is an obvious vestigial organ, and denying this is simply denying the obvious.

A. You admitted that the appendix has a function, So which is it? But my only point in bringing it up was to illustrate that science sometimes gets it wrong, for a time, but that hasn’t stopped scientists from jumping to use pre-mature conclusions as evidence for evolution. Perhaps evidence of that philosophical predisposition you referred to in your opening remarks. I have one too, but I’m taking the side of the Angels.

And that’s not an argument. The question is not about phoney cases, but about real ones.

A. Again - the phoney cases represent evidence that your current case may someday prove phoney. That’s all.

QUESTION FOR YOU: What do you really beleive about God’s role in it all, from your evolutionary perspective?

 

[The_Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
As you see, the appendix is a complete mystery to creationists, but is easily explained by evolutionary theory. It’s one of the reasons creationism isn’t taken seriously by most people.

Did you miss the point? The appendix was formerly consider a vestige, used by some bark eating ancestor perhaps. Now they know it has a function. So it is in fact no problem for Creationists.

You’ve just been misled about the meaing of “vestigial.” It doesn’t mean “no longer has a function.” It means “doesn’t have the original function.” And it’s always been that way. It was so defined by Darwin in “The Origin of Species.” The appendix has no specialized functions, now, but creationists point out a couple of useful things it does:

1. It has some lymphoid tissue, although it is unnecessary, since the Peyer’s Patches in the large intestine are more than adequate.
2. It covers up what would otherwise be a hole in the large intestine. (some have seriously offered this one)

But it’s a moot point. It’s vestigial, because it no longer has the original digestive function in humans.

Barbarian observes:
Interesting. I took a comparative anatomy course in the 1960s, and there was no such talk. They did point out that branchial arches, which form gill supports in fish, are adapted to form jaws in other vertetbrates, and the bones of the inner ear.

It would be a pretty old textbook you were using; recapitulation was refuted in the 1800s.

Integrated Principles of Zoology, Fifth Edition, Msoby 1974, page 756. Shows Fish, Reptile, Bird , Man. Perhaps I saw the pig in High School…

They still show photographs of vertebrate embryos, because they look so much alike at the beginning of gestation. But if you’ll look in your textbook, you’ll notice that they don’t say that mammals have gills in utero. They point out the branchial arches which were originally to support feeding apparatus (not gills) in primitive chordates. But they don’t say mammals get gills. In higher chordates that are fish, these feeding arches produce gills and in the higher fish, they also produce jaws. In tetrapods, they produce jaws and other skull structures. But it doesn’t say what you thought it did. Another myth debunked.

Barbarian on the last time people taught recapitulation:
Over a hundred years ago.

Took them a long time to correct the books then…

Check again, and you’ll see that it’s not what you were told.

Barbarian asks:
Which universities? Name a couple; I’d sure like an explanation from those folks.

The Pennsylvania State University

Odd then, that on their embryology web site, they don’t say anything remotely like that:
personal.psu.edu/users/r/j/rjf152/embryo.html

 

[The_Barbarian]

Dixieagle, thank you for your kind words. I’m in awe of your son-in-law, for his quiet evangelism by example, as well as for his chosen field. I owe it to my students to keep up, and I’m currently struggling through an up-to-date textbook on social evolution.

It’s been decades since my last class in statistics.

 

[reggieM]

God didn’t create Adam fully formed with an appendix.

I’d like to see the scientific evidence for this. When did God create Adam? What was his body like in a state of blessedness? How did his body change after the commission of original sin and the entry of evil in the world?

Simply an argument from ignorance. And yet all you need to do is open up a science textbook

Apparently, you do not have ignorance about these matters and can find the answers in a science textbook.

Could you point me to the textbook that explains how God created Adam and what his body looked like at that point? Perhaps the textbook will explain the conditions governing the Garden of Eden also – as well as where the tree of knowledge of good and evil was.

Or then again, perhaps you’re ready to deny original sin and the creation of Adam in favor of the evolutionary view – I don’t know.

 

[reggieM]

God created Adam fully-formed with an appendix, which has no real necessary function in the garden

Again, I would love to see the science that supports this idea.

Perhaps it is in one of your textbooks. I’m looking here specifically about the pre-fall condition of nature and how the presence of evil has affected nature itself.

Certainly, that is a major factor in estimating the rate of change in evolutionary processes since before original sin, nature would not be obstructed by evil.

It might be a bit difficult to test conditions in nature before the commission of the first sin though. All of the universe today is affected by that sin.

Again, you claim not to be ignorant of these matters (or so it seems), so I wonder how you could have direct experience of a sinless universe or how you could make scientific pronouncements about what nature looked like before the appearance of evil in the world.

There is the other option, of course, which atheist evolutionists take and that is to deny that there ever was an original sin.

 

[SeekingCatholic]

A. Well it’s the best I can do because I am ignorant. Maybe that same sight is super preferred, maybe the only one possible for the particular virus. Or maybe God just put it there. You’re still basing your conclusion on a tiny (literally and figuratively) interpretation of a phenomenon that still leaves about an Ivory soap percentage of purity of the puzzle unanswered. Yet you are willing to throw away sacred scripture over it. That’s intellectual pride.

We’ve gone over the likelihood of those two possibilities and shown them to be vanishingly small. Your argument is a simple argument from ignorance. Whereas mine is an argument from knowledge. We know how ERVs insert because we’ve observed it in the lab. What reason is there to think a given ERV would have specific insertion site preference, much less 12 of them? What reason is there to think God would use an ERV for syncytin production, when He would need to simply insert a single gene, or an env gene, without the gag and pol, and without the LTR.

I’ve shown the rest of the puzzle to be readily explained by directed or front-loaded evolution. And, ERVs are not the only piece of genetic evidence for evolution. It’s not “intellectual pride” to say this. It’s simply the truth.

BTW, would you mind previewing your posts to get the quotes right?

A. Science proclaims itself the victor, but NASA still uses a stationary Earth model for space probes.

No, it doesn’t. It doesn’t assume the entire universe revolves around the earth once per day.

Most “theolgians” are wrong. But the Church isn’t. Regarding St. Thomas, the claim is simply that Divine Revelation trumps natural science. That’s all. If your conclusion seems to put you at odds with the church, better re-examine your premise. You’ve made a mistake. This is the essence of trusting God. Now of course every theologian is not in possesion of Divine Revelation.

Divine Revelation can’t “trump” natural science, for truth can’t contradict truth. Theologians can misunderstand Divine Revelation though. If a theological principle comes into conflict with clear evidence from the natural sciences, the theology is wrong.

A. I’ll concede it has no predictive power, but it certainly has explanatory power. And I stand by it.

Then you just conceded the debate, for science wants to find the explanation with the most predictive power, for that is the explanation most likely to be the truth (and this can be proven mathematically). If the scientific model has more predictive power then your “God did whatever He wanted” model, then, by definition, there is scientific evidence. You are also incorrect that your explanation has explanatory power. If a given model can fit any set of data whatsoever, it has no explanatory power, for it explains nothing.

A. I don’t know how duties are assigned in Heaven. In fact I don’t know if Angels are charged with enforcing the laws of gravity or not.

Exactly. You don’t know. Which is why gravity has more explanatory and predictive power than angels.

Probably the best explanation for it though. How does science explain it? How does science explain the tremendous heat deep in the earth? I know, it just hasn;t had time to cool yet (how many billions of years?)

Through radioactive decay. Heat is still being generated in the earth through those billions of years.

I don’t see the difference between gravity and an Angel. But it is kind of a chicken and egg argument, isn’t it?

Occam’s razor leads us to dismiss the angel explanation when gravity provides us with a perfectly good one.

A. You admitted that the appendix has a function, So which is it?

It only has a function given the presence of disease. But disease didn’t exist in the garden. So it had no useful function in the garden, but only after the fall.

But my only point in bringing it up was to illustrate that science sometimes gets it wrong, for a time, but that hasn’t stopped scientists from jumping to use pre-mature conclusions as evidence for evolution.

No, it hasn’t, but it doesn’t follow because pre-mature conclusions were sometimes used that all of the conclusions used as evidence for evolution must be pre-mature and could not be well-founded.

Perhaps evidence of that philosophical predisposition you referred to in your opening remarks. I have one too, but I’m taking the side of the Angels.

As long as you’re honest enough to admit you have a philosophical predisposition and hence a bias, I’m okay with that. If you admit that no evidence would ever convince you of evolution, I’m okay with that too, as I said in the OP.

A. Again - the phoney cases represent evidence that your current case may someday prove phoney. That’s all.

No, they don’t. It’s like saying, because some diamonds are fake, the diamonds in my hand could be fake, despite any tests I have performed on them. Nothing in my case has been exaggerated. Everything has been purely factual.

There actually is some evidence for evolution from embryology BTW, which we now can understand much better due to better microscopes and so on.

QUESTION FOR YOU: What do you really beleive about God’s role in it all, from your evolutionary perspective?

I think the data best supports a front-loaded evolution - the initial conditions were set such that it would more or less take the path it did.

 

[Thing]

Yes, there are dozens of them. Would you like to see some more?

Well, since you asked. But I would be more interested in this:
Leggitt, V.L., Buchheim, H.P., and Biaggi, R.E., 1998. The stratigraphic setting of three Presbyornis nesting sites: Eocene Fossil Lake, Lincoln County Wyoming. National Park Service Paleontological: Technical Reports of the National Park Service.
I cannot get it.
Or anything you know of flamingo nesting sites on fossil lake…you asked…

 

[mulligan59]

Odd then, that on their embryology web site, they don’t say anything remotely like that:
personal.psu.edu/users/r/j/rjf152/embryo.html

A. Look, some 25 years ago (and the book is over 30 years old), they didn’t have websites. I’m sure the info is up to date by now. Look, I produced the book (actually surprised me, wasn’t sure I could, really was working from memory). Do I also have to prove I attended Penn State (graduated from Temple)? There’s no point here. I admittedly can’t go tow to tow with you on the science, I’m just not up on it. My beliefs (as Seeking Catholic puts it) stem primarily from my philosphical predisposition.

 

[mulligan59]

BTW, would you mind previewing your posts to get the quotes right?

No I wouldn’t mind, but I’m afraid I’m clueless as to how to do it.
SeekingCatholic;3518460:

No, it doesn’t. It doesn’t assume the entire universe revolves around the earth once per day.

Well it the Earth is assumed stationary, then what else can they assume about the rest of it? I guess near for near Earth missions it might not matter.
SeekingCatholic;3518460:

Divine Revelation can’t “trump” natural science, for truth can’t contradict truth. Theologians can misunderstand Divine Revelation though. If a theological principle comes into conflict with clear evidence from the natural sciences, the theology is wrong.

I have to believe that if the science appears to contradict the magisterium, then the science s mistaken regardless of the apparent strength of the evidence. Science would not anticipate a crucified man rising from the dead. This is the essence of what I’m saying, nothing more.
SeekingCatholic;3518460:

Then you just conceded the debate, for science wants to find the explanation with the most predictive power, for that is the explanation most likely to be the truth (and this can be proven mathematically). If the scientific model has more predictive power then your “God did whatever He wanted” model, then, by definition, there is scientific evidence. You are also incorrect that your explanation has explanatory power. If a given model can fit any set of data whatsoever, it has no explanatory power, for it explains nothing.

What does “God can do what ever he wanted” not explain? On the other hand, what does evoltution “predict”, that has not already occured?
SeekingCatholic;3518460:

Exactly. You don’t know. Which is why gravity has more explanatory and predictive power than angels.

Unless science has imparted some esoteric meaning to the words “explain” and “predict”, I’m not following you. Well actually, even it it hasn’t, I’m still not following. Sure, gravity predicts, we assume that Newtons observations will be observed in the future, and then they are. But it doesn’t explain. To say that the angles are what actuates the phenomenon we experience as gravity is an explanation. But it isn’t mine. I’m open to it, but I’m not proposing it. But this kind of squable isn’t advancing the ball for us.
SeekingCatholic;3518460:

Through radioactive decay. Heat is still being generated in the earth through those billions of years.

Is it the kind of radiation then that can be measured on a geiger counter? Has it? (I actually don’t know, its an honest question).
SeekingCatholic;3518460:

It only has a function given the presence of disease. But disease didn’t exist in the garden. So it had no useful function in the garden, but only after the fall.

And again, if God predicted the fall, which he would have, then why could he not have installed it originally?
SeekingCatholic;3518460:

No, it hasn’t, but it doesn’t follow because pre-mature conclusions were sometimes used that all of the conclusions used as evidence for evolution must be pre-mature and could not be well-founded.

I absolutely agree. I only mean that it doesn’t prove anything with metaphysical certitude. And I think you agree here, your point is that the probabilities, tainted with some rationality, lead to this conclusion.
SeekingCatholic;3518460:

As long as you’re honest enough to admit you have a philosophical predisposition and hence a bias, I’m okay with that. If you admit that no evidence would ever convince you of evolution, I’m okay with that too, as I said in the OP.

And I am probably exactly as you characterize me. I’m not sure that “no” evidence would ever convince me, but yes, I am strongly opposed to it. Not because I’m just stuborn, but because the big picture, the whole story doesn’t flow for me. It is illogical. Natural Selection works in microcosims, like the NBA, or with brown moths and dark trees. But what survival advantage do we humans have, in an absolute sense, over say a cockroach?
Consider how really frail and unequiped the higher animals come into the world compared to say a microbe. Where is the impetus for higher development in the world of chance mutations? This is why I don;t accept it and it is the only basis on which I can argue. Clearly I cannot keep up with you in specialized areas of scientific discovery in which you are well studied.

 

[The_Barbarian]

Science proclaims itself the victor, but NASA still uses a stationary Earth model for space probes.

No, it doesn’t. It doesn’t assume the entire universe revolves around the earth once per day.

Absolutely, it doesn’t. Ever wonder why all satellite launching sites for all nations are as close to the equator as possible? It’s because they want to maximize the added momentum of the Earth’s speed at the equator, as opposed to higher latitudes.

And it works. Less energy is needed to put a load into orbit, when launched from lower latitudes. Which is another fact that refutes a “stationary Earth model.”

 

[The_Barbarian]

Look, some 25 years ago (and the book is over 30 years old), they didn’t have websites. I’m sure the info is up to date by now.

Then, too. 40 years ago, I was studying embryology. I know what was in the books then, and it isn’t what you think it was. No university was teaching that, and you certainly couldn’t get an embryology textbook that said so.

Look, I produced the book (actually surprised me, wasn’t sure I could, really was working from memory).

The “blue edition” with the cougar on the cover? 1966. That one doesn’t say what you think it does.

Do I also have to prove I attended Penn State (graduated from Temple)? There’s no point here. I admittedly can’t go tow to tow with you on the science, I’m just not up on it. My beliefs (as Seeking Catholic puts it) stem primarily from my philosphical predisposition.

Fine for religious beliefs. But philosophical presuppositions are poison in science. If you want to do science, you have to set them aside, and let the truth take you where it will.

 

[The_Barbarian]

(Barbarian offers to show more transitional forms of cynodont therapsids)

Well, since you asked. But I would be more interested in this:
Leggitt, V.L., Buchheim, H.P., and Biaggi, R.E., 1998. The stratigraphic setting of three Presbyornis nesting sites: Eocene Fossil Lake, Lincoln County Wyoming. National Park Service Paleontological: Technical Reports of the National Park Service.
I cannot get it.
Or anything you know of flamingo nesting sites on fossil lake…you asked…

Hmm… I know almost nothing at all about fossil flamingos, (interesting name, Presbyornis “old bird”)

But, I know a bit about the origin of Phenocopteris plasticus. Learn about it here:
geocities.com/neander97/features/flamingo-C.html

Oh, and if you’re determined to worry about fossil flamingos, try this:
sil.si.edu/smithsoniancontributions/Paleobiology/pdf_hi/SCtP-0062.pdf

Pages 9 and 10.

And while a backwards-operating knee would be a challenge for evolutionary theory, in the absence of evidence for a rotation at the hip, never fear; the “knee” of the flamingo is really the ankle; the knee is further up, on the relatively shortened femur.

http://www.geocities.com/neander97/features/flamingos/Flamingos-stop.gif

 

[SeekingCatholic]

No I wouldn’t mind, but I’m afraid I’m clueless as to how to do it.

Use “Preview Post” before submitting. You haven’t closed your quote tags (by putting / quote] (with no space after the /) at the end), which makes your posts very difficult to read.

Well it the Earth is assumed stationary, then what else can they assume about the rest of it? I guess near for near Earth missions it might not matter.

Variation in earths’ rotational speed due to tides has been directly observed, so there is no assumption here. For a space mission you will use whatever frame is more convenient for the purposes of the calculations, but a frame with a rotating universe is never used.

I have to believe that if the science appears to contradict the magisterium, then the science s mistaken regardless of the apparent strength of the evidence.

Then you would have to be a geocentrist. If you are, then you are at least consistent, which is more than can be said for virtually all others who use this argument.

Science would not anticipate a crucified man rising from the dead. This is the essence of what I’m saying, nothing more.

No, indeed it wouldn’t. Although natural science can be sometimes used to confirm or disprove alleged miracles.

What does “God can do what ever he wanted” not explain? On the other hand, what does evoltution “predict”, that has not already occured?

Because “God can do whatever He wanted” doesn’t explain why He did the specific thing He did, in preference to an infinity of other things He could have done. In other words, the likelihood of observing the data we do under the model “God can do whatever He wishes” is infinitesimally small. Whereas there are severe constraints placed on an evolutionary model. Why don’t we find a rabbit in the preCambrian? God could have created a preCambrian rabbit, whereas that cannot be under an evolutionary model. Evolutionary models today can predict antibiotic resistance, for instance, and even the production of much superior enzymes when artificial selection is used.

Unless science has imparted some esoteric meaning to the words “explain” and “predict”, I’m not following you. Well actually, even it it hasn’t, I’m still not following.

Yes, these have specific meanings. A model’s explanatory power means how much it restricts the subsets of data which fit. That it is why a model that can fit anything has no explanatory power. It is why if we can fit a straight-line model we do not start adding in extra terms. The more parsimonious model is much more likely the correct one. A model’s predictive power means in the future, how well it can model future data. Add in too many terms (or ad hoc assertions) and the error bars become huge.

Is it the kind of radiation then that can be measured on a geiger counter? Has it? (I actually don’t know, its an honest question).

You can certainly observe alpha and beta decay in the lab.

And again, if God predicted the fall, which he would have, then why could he not have installed it originally?

He could have. This would mean His purpose in creating the appendix would have been to preserve human health after the fall. However, the appendix can hardly be said to serve that purpose well, given the vast numbers of people who have died from appendicitis, and the very minimal help the appendix gives to human health (only in a specific situation, when the resident flora in the colon were depleted through a severe but non-fatal infection).

I absolutely agree. I only mean that it doesn’t prove anything with metaphysical certitude. And I think you agree here, your point is that the probabilities, tainted with some rationality, lead to this conclusion.

Nothing can ever be proved with metaphysical certitude using inductive reasoning, which is what science uses. Science can only deal in probabilities.

Consider how really frail and unequiped the higher animals come into the world compared to say a microbe. Where is the impetus for higher development in the world of chance mutations? This is why I don;t accept it and it is the only basis on which I can argue. Clearly I cannot keep up with you in specialized areas of scientific discovery in which you are well studied.

I don’t accept that all mutations are the result of “chance”.

 

[mulligan59]

Use “Preview Post” before submitting. You haven’t closed your quote tags (by putting / quote] (with no space after the /) at the end), which makes your posts very difficult to read.

I got it. I don’t have to preview them perse’ I just need to close the quotes. Thanks.

Variation in earths’ rotational speed due to tides has been directly observed, so there is no assumption here. For a space mission you will use whatever frame is more convenient for the purposes of the calculations, but a frame with a rotating universe is never used.

I thought that Sungenis had an answer for all of these arguments; that is to say that physical models could be constructed either way. The gyroscope effect of the moving universe handles your tides and Barbarian’s equatorial launch boost. I don’t say that heliocentrism doesn’t work, and isn’t “'more likely” based on Newton’s physics, but it isn’t impossible to explain it the other way,

Then you would have to be a geocentrist. If you are, then you are at least consistent, which is more than can be said for virtually all others who use this argument.

You know the part of me that roots for the underdog, that loves lost causes, and wants to see the Church vindicated is intrigued by Geocentrism. Imagine the look on say Christopher Hitchens face if it were proven true. So yes, I like the concept, but I don;t find the spinning Earth as viscerally abhorent as evolution. But it makes sense to me that God would do it that way.

No, indeed it wouldn’t. Although natural science can be sometimes used to confirm or disprove alleged miracles.

Because “God can do whatever He wanted” doesn’t explain why He did the specific thing He did, in preference to an infinity of other things He could have done. In other words, the likelihood of observing the data we do under the model “God can do whatever He wishes” is infinitesimally small. Whereas there are severe constraints placed on an evolutionary model. Why don’t we find a rabbit in the preCambrian? God could have created a preCambrian rabbit, whereas that cannot be under an evolutionary model. Evolutionary models today can predict antibiotic resistance, for instance, and even the production of much superior enzymes when artificial selection is used.

Isn’t observing what God did do (and retrospectively attributing it to Him) as valid (logically) as looking at what is and ascribing it to evolution? That’s all I’m saying. And isn’t artificially selecting superior enzymes to speed up the process analogous to breeding funny looking dogs or faster horses? But we can only enhance the prevalance of pre-existing potential, nothing brand new results.

Yes, these have specific meanings. A model’s explanatory power means how much it restricts the subsets of data which fit. That it is why a model that can fit anything has no explanatory power. It is why if we can fit a straight-line model we do not start adding in extra terms. The more parsimonious model is much more likely the correct one. A model’s predictive power means in the future, how well it can model future data. Add in too many terms (or ad hoc assertions) and the error bars become huge.

I’ve seen models with a very high R squared value that had no practical relevance in the end. Been driving us crazy trying to measure nitrate concentration using ion specific electron probes. You really have to understand the significance of all the variables.
But again, I can’t stay with you on factual observances I haven’t shared. I just can’t buy it in my gut.

He could have. This would mean His purpose in creating the appendix would have been to preserve human health after the fall. However, the appendix can hardly be said to serve that purpose well, given the vast numbers of people who have died from appendicitis, and the very minimal help the appendix gives to human health (only in a specific situation, when the resident flora in the colon were depleted through a severe but non-fatal infection).

That he could have was my only point. As to how well it works, good point, but now you’re arguing as “non-scientifically” as I am. Of course I like it better. Hey, hey made some of us near sighted. Who’s to know why?

Have to walk the dog, take my wife out and save my marriage. Be gone a while.

I don’t accept that all mutations are the result of “chance”.

So then God put in motion, to work out to a particular end?

You know human babies especially are so frail. It seems to me we had to start out whole and be taught from the beginning. We really aren’t well suited to this natural world.