Evolution: Catholic High School

  • Thread starter Thread starter Rogerteder
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
rossum said:
How? Reference please.
Click to expand...
Crossovers.

All I have been trying to say is that mutations are only effected from the level of the gene. That doesn’t exclude DNA from the picture, but it does put DNA itself in a secondary role because expression of the changes in nucleotide sequences cannot be produced by DNA. The gene does the job.
 
Alleles can form through mechanisms other than DNA mutation.
Click to expand...
Barbarian suggests:
Tell us how.
Genes do not exist independently from DNA but DNA is less important in evolution than genes and not many people believe that DNA is anything like a fundamental unit of evolution. That is in no way a howler unless you are blinded by molecular notions.
Click to expand...
Barbarian asks:
Would you mind telling us how you think DNA works, and how mutations occur?

(Namesake dodges)
I figured you knew those things, no?
Click to expand...
I note that you claim some expertise in this area, but you’ve expressed some rather unusual ideas about it. I’d just like to know if you know those things. But I think you’ve just given us enough evidence to make a reasonable inference about that.

Incidentally, crossovers don’t produce new alleles. You might want to do some reading up on this before you post stuff like that.
 
rossum said:
Thankyou for that. Now please explain how crossovers happen without involving DNA.
Click to expand...
I never said that DNA wasn’t involved. After all, genes are DNA. DNA is not sufficient to cause mutation until it becomes a gene. DNA of course can change and some would call that mutation. But not me. I don’t recognize an evolutionary mutation until it is expressed in a gene.

But I never excluded DNA. I just said that the gene is the fundamental unit of evolutionary change, not DNA.
 
Rogerteder said:
I assure you I am. As God is my judge. Apology accepted brother.
Click to expand...
You are good to accept the apology – as God calls us to forgive those who sin against us.

I’m glad that he apologized. That is to his credit and it says something good about him.
 
Barbarian observes:
Incidentally, crossovers don’t produce new alleles. You might want to do some reading up on this before you post stuff like that.
Crossovers do produce new alleles when they occur in meiosis.
Click to expand...
No. They merely rearrange the alleles on the two chromosomes. Maybe you should get a copy of Ayala’s “Population and Evolutionary Genetics.” It has a short section in the beginning, explaining these terms, what they mean, and how it applies in evolution.

It appears you have conflated “alleles” and “genomes.”
 
Namesake said:
He seems to be very dogmatic about his view of evolution.
Click to expand...
There’s an understatement.
I think I can safely say that anyone who claims to understand evolution as completely as he does is almost certainly wrong in some if not most of what he claims to understand.
Click to expand...
Evolution is so complicated that very few scientists really understand it, and most scientists won’t claim to understand evolution completely. Even Dawkins doesn’t claim to know what it all means. It could be stated that most, if not all lay people don’t understand it at all. Certainly, a molecular understanding is very limited, and shallow. Ethology might be the best base that we can use to even begin to understand evolution theory. Darwin didn’t understand evolution even though he got people thinking in the right direction. Same as Newton didn’t understand the depth of his maths. He knew the surface of it but he did not understand where that would lead.
Click to expand...
Anyone who claims to understand evolution doesn’t understand evolution very well at all
Click to expand...
That’s why I’m always surprised by the dogmatic evolutionary-believers that I see so often here on CAF.
 
reggieM said:
That’s why I’m always surprised by the dogmatic evolutionary-believers that I see so often here on CAF.
Click to expand...
Your ignorance as to what evolution is and isn’t, is not indicative of any such dogmatic attitude. Or is there some hidden piece of evidence you’d like to present to demonstrate to show that us “evolution-believers” are relying o faith and not fact?
 
Isambard said:
Your ignorance as to what evolution is and isn’t, is not indicative of any such dogmatic attitude. Or is there some hidden piece of evidence you’d like to present to demonstrate to show that us “evolution-believers” are relying o faith and not fact?
Click to expand...
The notion that science must accept only naturalistic-materialist explanations is not based on fact, but is a matter of faith.

The presence of consciousness, self-reflection, memory, capacity for art, language and philosophy in the human person is not explained by evolution. Those who believe that only naturalistic processes account for all of these things are acting on faith, not on the facts given.

All of the Catholic Darwinists here must accept that the human soul was a direct creation of God and not a product of natural evolution. So, I can see that even some evolutionists do not accept that human beings are entirely the result of naturalistic processes.

Many evolutionists, therefore, disagree with your idea that there is no supernatural or no human soul created by God.

On more mundane matters, something like the evolution of the peacock’s tail. It was claimed by evolutionists that this evolved through sex-selection pressure. This was supposedly the “fact” of this dogmatic belief. It was then shown (just this year) that the peacock’s tail plays no role in sex-selection among peahens.

The original notion was not based in fact, but on faith, or belief. Today, the explanation for the evolution of the peacock’s tail is still a matter of faith since there is no factual evidence to support the conclusion.

The same is true in the matter of the evolution of the eye, of the lungfish, the pitcher plant - or all carnivorous plants (which are example of irreducible complexity), the platypus, the Koala’s pouch, snake fangs … many others.

On could simply look at the various evolutionary claims offered about the Cambrian explosion with the emergence of novel body types, a huge jump in complexity and no transitional intermediates. The evolutionary faith-stories surrounding this phenomenon are not supported by fact.
 
Isambard said:
Your ignorance as to what evolution is and isn’t, is not indicative of any such dogmatic attitude. Or is there some hidden piece of evidence you’d like to present to demonstrate to show that us “evolution-believers” are relying o faith and not fact?
Click to expand...
Methodological naturalism relies on faith.
The naturalistic assumption that all natural phenomena can be explained by natural causes,is taken on faith. It cannot be tested or demonstrated to be true.

See post 313.
 
anthony022071 said:
Methodological naturalism relies on faith.
The naturalistic assumption that all natural phenomena can be explained by natural causes,is taken on faith. It cannot be tested or demonstrated to be true.

See post 313.
Click to expand...
Your post was false. Or do you consider all self-replicating systems to have “life”?
 
Self-replicating what? Can you give an example that might be confused with something alive?

Peace,
Ed
 
edwest2 said:
Self-replicating what? Can you give an example that might be confused with something alive?

Peace,
Ed
Click to expand...
Viruses (sp?)
There are also self-replicating complex chemical chains (for which the evidence of ambiogenisis rests).

Then there is obviously non-“life” ie. Virtual viruses, fire, etc etc.
 
Aside from making a one-time copy in some cases, there is no other reproductive capability.

Viruses need living things and their origin is unknown.

Peace,
Ed
 
Replicating molecules do not signify life,they signify molecular energy.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top