Evolution and Darwin against Religion and God

  • Thread starter Thread starter John121
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
edwest211 said:
Pope Pius XII, Humani Generis:
  1. If anyone examines the state of affairs outside the Christian fold, he will easily discover the principle trends that not a few learned men are following. Some imprudently and indiscreetly hold that evolution, which has not been fully proved even in the domain of natural sciences, explains the origin of all things, and audaciously support the monistic and pantheistic opinion that the world is in continual evolution. Communists gladly subscribe to this opinion so that, when the souls of men have been deprived of every idea of a personal God, they may the more efficaciously defend and propagate their dialectical materialism.
  2. Such fictitious tenets of evolution which repudiate all that is absolute, firm and immutable, have paved the way for the new erroneous philosophy which, rivaling idealism, immanentism and pragmatism, has assumed the name of existentialism, since it concerns itself only with existence of individual things and neglects all consideration of their immutable essences.
  3. There is also a certain historicism, which attributing value only to the events of man’s life, overthrows the foundation of all truth and absolute law, both on the level of philosophical speculations and especially to Christian dogmas.
Click to expand...
And none of this actually undermines evolution as a scientific model per se, but simply metaphysical schemes such as monism, pantheism, and existensialism that were gaining popularity in the early 1900s and which people were attempting to use evolution to justify, and cases where people were trying to remove God as being the origin of all things.
 
Has anyone else notice that the word “prove” has changed dramatically in the last decade or so? In the sense that it is commonly used today, NOTHING can be “proven.” So “facts” are like snow melting in the sun.

Also “theory” has been made into a bad word. Other than a few “laws” (which are really theories), every scientific idea is a “theory.” And since nothing can be proven…see the problem?

And “truth” is another one. Apparently some people are blessed with the infallible knowledge of knowing the “truth.” The rest of us are just ignorant savages.
 
Gorgias said:
Umm… his background is mechanical engineering , not biology . That’s like saying that your doctor is an expert in auto repair because he has an M.D. …! 🤔
Click to expand...
I agree with your first sentence, but I have two questions for you:
  1. What is your educational and/or professional background?
  2. Do you think it is conceivable for someone who has completed a Ph.D. in Mechanical Engineering from M.I.T. to self-educate in other scientific disciplines?
 
Last edited:
Lion_IRC said:
TOE cannot predict this
Click to expand...
Yes it can. Natural selection is not random and gives predictable results. Malaria kills a higher proportion of non-resistant children than resistant children. Those resistant children grow up to have more offspring than those who died young because they were not resistant. Hence the number of copies of the resistant genes in the population increases.
 
It never ceases to amaze (and amuse) me that those who argue most vehemently against evolution show every indication of knowing next to nothing about it. It would be like me arguing that quanum mechanics is bunk.

And it goes without saying that those very same people invariably hold fundamentaljst views.

And they constantly harp on with claims that evolution is somehow a denial of God. Which is a complete nonsense. Again I will ask if anyone at all can find any example of anyone in this entire forum who has claimed that the evolutionary process is a denial of God.

Anyone? If not, then please…cease and desist.
 
A mutation in the roach’s DNA can cause them to be immune to the bug spray, and if that roach is successful in mating, it will pass on its genes to its offspring. This advantage will eventually cause the much of the roach population to have this mutation in their DNA.
 
CapitalistCatholic said:
A mutation in the roach’s DNA can cause them to be immune to the bug spray, and if that roach is successful in mating, it will pass on its genes to its offspring. This advantage will eventually cause the much of the roach population to have this mutation in their DNA.
Click to expand...
Proving? …
 
Proving that the roach did evolve to develop an immunity to the bug spray. Oh, wait sorry. I guess you would call that microevolution. A big difference I swear!
 
Larry1700 said:
  • What is your educational and/or professional background?
Click to expand...
It’s irrelevant, since I’m not the one going around touting myself as an expert whom people should trust based on the degrees I have or the places at which I earned them. 😉
  • Do you think it is conceivable for someone who has completed a Ph.D. in Mechanical Engineering from M.I.T. to self-educate in other scientific disciplines?
Click to expand...
Yes, but then, his qualifications should read “self-taught non-expert in physics and biology” (just like most of the rest of the world). 😂
 
Last edited:
CapitalistCatholic said:
Proving that the roach did evolve to develop an immunity to the bug spray. Oh, wait sorry. I guess you would call that microevolution . A big difference I swear!
Click to expand...
Yes. A huge difference.

When the roach attained this what was the mechanism?
 
rossum said:
Natural selection is not random and gives predictable results. Malaria kills a higher proportion of non-resistant children than resistant children. Those resistant children grow up to have more offspring than those who died young because they were not resistant. Hence the number of copies of the resistant genes in the population increases.
Click to expand...
Well put.

And the natural selection process as described above did not evolve (a novel characteristic) but merely emphasized an existing characteristic.

So, countless variations of existing characteristics in the descendants of a living being have not evidenced a new characteristic; only the emphasis of existing characteristics best suited for ongoing survival. That is, the parent cannot give to descendants what the parent does not already possess.

Agreed?
 
Last edited:
Let us say that the mechanism is Mutation in the genetic code.
 
o_mlly said:
And the natural selection process as described above did not evolve (a novel characteristic) but merely emphasized an existing characteristic.
Click to expand...
Correct. Random mutations introduce new characteristics; some beneficial, some neutral and some deleterious. Natural selection does not generate those new characteristics, it differentially selects among the new characteristics. Beneficial characteristics (like Malaria resistance) are spread, becoming more common. Neutral characteristics are ignored, while deleterious characteristics are suppressed, tending to become rarer over the generations.
That is, the parent cannot give to descendants what the parent does not already possess.

Agreed?
Click to expand...
Not agreed. The average human has about 75 new mutations that were not present in either parent. That mutated DNA was not already possessed by either parent. Most of the changed DNA is neutral, and so invisible to natural selection. Of the remainder, most is deleterious. We are reasonably well adapted to our environment, so most non-neutral changes are deleterious. A few changes are beneficial and so will be amplified and spread by natural selection.

It is often the case that beneficial mutations are a reaction to a change in the environment. For example, before HIV became widespread a mutation for resistance to HIV would have been neutral at best, providing no advantage. Once HIV spread widely, then HIV resistance became a beneficial mutation.

Beneficial, neutral and deleterious are always determined with respect to the environment.
 
CapitalistCatholic said:
Let us say that the mechanism is Mutation in the genetic code.
Click to expand...
  1. Was it cell directed?
  2. Did the mutation which provided a temporary survival advantage offset by a greater damage to the genome causing the roach to be less adaptable in the future?
 
CapitalistCatholic said:
A mutation in the roach’s DNA can cause them to be immune to the bug spray, and if that roach is successful in mating, it will pass on its genes to its offspring. This advantage will eventually cause the much of the roach population to have this mutation in their DNA.
Click to expand...
But, they will still be roaches, nobody is disputing microevolution.
 
buffalo said:
  1. Was it cell directed?
Click to expand...
No, a single cell does not have the intelligence to direct a mutation.
  1. Did the mutation which provided a temporary survival advantage offset by a greater damage to the genome causing the roach to be less adaptable in the future?
Click to expand...
No. Any piece of DNA can be mutated; and pars history of mutations is irrelevant. See back mutations for an obvious example. Any and all DNA can mutate.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top