T
The_Catholic
Guest
No, they would not
In a way, “Micro” evolution, eventually becomes “Macro.”
- Status
In a way, “Micro” evolution, eventually becomes “Macro.”
R
redneck22
Guest
The oldest bacteria supposedly dates at 540 million years old. The time period for each generation of bacteria is about 10 minutes. Therefore there is about 50,000 generations per year mutiplied by the supposed 540,000,000 years and you have 27,000,000,000,000 generations of bacteria.
The first generation are the same as todays generation i.e Bacteria, which is no help to the theory of evolution since all bacteria have ever done is reproduce after there kind as the Bible said they would.
I
Isambard
Guest
Thats a bit like saying a rat and an elephant are the same as they are the same “kind” (mammel).
O
Orogeny
Guest
What is your basis for saying that they are the same? Are you claiming that there is only one species of bacteria?
Evolution doesn’t require that the original forms disappear.
Peace
Tim
ps - bacteria have been around a lot longer than 540 million years.
M
M0nkey
Guest
Fair enough.
That would be the logical progression, but just because it makes sense doesn’t mean it’s true. Evolution has not been proven.
B
buffalo
Guest
The environment - radiation - does not cause mutations?I’m 50 years old and that wasn’t what I was taught. If a random mutation is adaptive (improves the fit), it tends to be selected by the environment. But the evironment doesn’t cause the mutation.
Evolution is the natural selection of adaptive mutations. Adaption is not outside of evolution. Do you believe in the inheritance of acquired traits e.g. a giraffe which stretches its neck to reach high leaves will pass on its longer neck to its offspring?
A
anthony022071
Guest
Why didn’t you quote what the Cardinal said in the preceding and following paragraphs? Not quite an endorsement of Darwin’s theory.EDIT: Let’s not forgot what Cardinal Schonborn has already said about Darwin:
"With this ‘Origin of Species’], his major work, Darwin undoubtedly scored a brilliant coup, and it remains a great oeuvre [work] in the history of ideas. With an astounding gift for observation, enormous diligence, and mental prowess, he succeeded in producing one of that history’s most influential works. He could already see in advance that his research would create many areas of endeavor. Today one can truly say that the ‘evolution’ paradigm has become, so to speak, a ‘master key,’ extending itself within many fields of knowledge." (Cat Lec for 10/2/2005, re-translated for his book Chance or Purpose)
Sorry to disappoint all you Darwin haters.
Phil P
< When in 1859 Darwin’s famous book The Origin of Species appeared, the basic message was indeed that he had found a mechanism that portrays a self-acting (selbsttätig) development, without the need of a Creator. As he said himself, his concern was to find a theory which, for the development of the species from lower to higher, did not require increasingly perfective creative acts but rather relied exclusively on coincidental variations and the “survival of the fittest.” Here was thus the notion that we have found a means for dispensing with individual acts of creation. >
< His success should not be attributed entirely to scientific causes. Darwin himself (but above all his zealous promoters, those who promulgated what is called “Darwinism”) imbued his theory with the air of a distinct worldview. Let us leave aside the question of whether such is inevitable. What is certain is that many saw Darwin’s The Origin of Species as an alternative to what Darwin himself called “the theory of independent acts of creation.” To explain the origin of species, one no longer needed such one-by-one creative activity.
The famous concluding sentence added to the end of the second edition of the work certainly provides a place for the Creator, but it is substantially reduced. It reads:
“There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved.” (Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species, all quotations translated from English are taken from the original sources)
I believe that Darwin sincerely intended this in a spirit of reverence, but it is a conception of creation that in the realm of theology we call “Deism.” In the very beginning there is an act of creation: God breathed into a seed, a single form, the germ of all life. It developed from this primeval beginning, according to the laws that he, Darwin, had endeavored to discover, describe, and formulate. No more divine interventions are required. I think that we shall have to concern ourselves with this question in particular from the aspect of faith. >
T
The_Barbarian
Guest
So Schoenborn asserts that Darwin got the science right, but maybe the religion wrong.
That’s what I think, too. In science, all that matters is that he got the science right, as Schoenborn and Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI wrote.
That’s what I think, too. In science, all that matters is that he got the science right, as Schoenborn and Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI wrote.
R
reggieM
Guest
Science has moral, ethical and philosophical dimensions that are integral to the discipline. Scientists are not free to just “get the science right” while ignoring those other dimensions.
B
buffalo
Guest
News Flash! They think they are. That is the basic premise. and the limitations.
They move into philosophy as soon as they leave empiricism. It reminds me of a least common denominator approach.
What is happening is the philosophy of science is ruling the day.
Should sciencology rank up there with astrology?
D
Dale_M
Guest
Well, yes, radiation and carcinogens cause mutations but these are maladaptive to individual survival, and to the continuation of a species.
B
buffalo
Guest
Ahh - now its time to look at epigenetics.
E
edwest2
Guest
Schoenborn is most concerned about how much ideology has entered science. Apparently, it’s not enough to go to work every day as a scientist, publish and go home. Now, on your free time, you can take your science and wave it in front of people you consider ignorant and deluded and ‘pod people,’ and say, See, see, I’ve got all this scientific evidence and there’s nothing out there. You, you and you are just products of a blind, uncaring universe that didn’t have you in mind. That’s the truth. Deal with it.
That’s why Pope Benedict wrote that we are “not haphazard mistakes.”
Peace,
Ed
R
redneck22
Guest
Ok… and all science thas ever observed is that they reproduce bacteria… longer, shorter, darker, lighter, citrate digesting, nylon metabolising, broken bacteria, sick bacteria and funny looking bacteria.
T
The_Barbarian
Guest
Tried to. ID has had some bad experiences the last two years.
What are “pod people?” I know a body shop repairman who has a high school diploma and is rather knowledgeable about evolution. It’s not an elitist thing; anyone with a bit of interest and a willingness to put in a little time can learn about it.
You think that’s what the theory says? I rest my case. You’re not evil, you’re ignorant.
The universe is blind and uncaring. But it’s being run by a loving and caring God.
T
The_Barbarian
Guest
So has accounting. But theology is not a subset of mathematics.
T
The_Barbarian
Guest
Buffalo asks:
IDer and Discovery Institute Fellow Michael Behe testified that ID ranks up there with astrology. In fact, he argued that ID is science in the same sense that astrology is science.
B
buffalo
Guest
But empirical science is a subset of truth. Revelation is the truth.
R
reggieM
Guest
The moral dimension in accounting is a subset of theology, just as the moral and ethical dimensions of all natural sciences are subsets of Theology.
Theology is not a subset of any other science since it’s object of study is higher than that of any other sciences.
E
edwest2
Guest
All truth points to God, but the idolizing of the human mind has deluded scientists into believing God can be explained away. Enter the Bible Explanation Industry which transfers the Word of God to the genes. You are your genes. Your genes, not you, decide. Your genes, not you, choose. Your genes randomly mutate and are naturally selected and by “haphazard mistakes,” man goes… in no particular direction. This is an abdication of human intelligence.
Peace,
Ed
Peace,
Ed
- Status