Evolution chat...

[miguel]

Orogeny:

Just a question, and I am not arguing here, but curious. What level of education do you believe one must have to be able to judge evidence?

If we’re talking about DNA evidence, for example, showing conclusively that humans have the same genes as other primates, with the only reasonable explanation being a common, non-human ancestor, then I suspect the data could get very technical, certainly beyond the grasp of the ordinary high school student. To be able to judge evidence, one must be able to detect defects in logic, etc. To detect defects in scientific arguements, one must be pretty close to the level of the person making the arguements. That’s my opinion.

Orogeny:

Bad assumption, in my honest opinion. When you are speaking of fossilized bones, you must understand that the bones themselves are gone. The actual bone is replaced by minerals, which have no DNA. Which gets to the point I was trying to make earlier. How do you do genetic studies on rocks, which the bones have become?

I don’t know the article you are referencing, but I find it odd that a molecular biologist would even make that argument.

I wish I could point you to it. But it was a prestigious journal (Nature, I think), at least 10 years ago. Some DNA study was done prooving conclusively that all women today carry the same gene. Somehow they were able to trace that gene back to a single woman or small group of women in Africa. But in the discussion of that, the DNA experts pointed out the shortcomings of paleontology in terms of heredity. You reminded me that the bones are fossilized, therefore no DNA. (Actually, that puts to bed a question I’ve had in my mind. Can’t they get DNA from bones? Not if they’re fossilized! Duh!) And that was their point. Without DNA, no conclusive proof of heredity can be made, at least by paleontologists.

 

[Orogeny]

miguel:

If we’re talking about DNA evidence, for example, showing conclusively that humans have the same genes as other primates, with the only reasonable explanation being a common, non-human ancestor, then I suspect the data could get very technical, certainly beyond the grasp of the ordinary high school student. To be able to judge evidence, one must be able to detect defects in logic, etc. To detect defects in scientific arguements, one must be pretty close to the level of the person making the arguements. That’s my opinion.

Fair enough.

I wish I could point you to it. But it was a prestigious journal (Nature, I think), at least 10 years ago. Some DNA study was done prooving conclusively that all women today carry the same gene. Somehow they were able to trace that gene back to a single woman or small group of women in Africa. But in the discussion of that, the DNA experts pointed out the shortcomings of paleontology in terms of heredity. You reminded me that the bones are fossilized, therefore no DNA. (Actually, that puts to bed a question I’ve had in my mind. Can’t they get DNA from bones? Not if they’re fossilized! Duh!) And that was their point. Without DNA, no conclusive proof of heredity can be made, at least by paleontologists.

Yep, those rocks are hard to do DNA sequencing on!

I don’t agree that DNA testing is necessary to establish a lineage, but I am not surprised that a molecular biologist would require it.

Peace

Tim

 

[Orogeny]

I wish I could point you to it. But it was a prestigious journal (Nature, I think), at least 10 years ago. Some DNA study was done prooving conclusively that all women today carry the same gene. Somehow they were able to trace that gene back to a single woman or small group of women in Africa. But in the discussion of that, the DNA experts pointed out the shortcomings of paleontology in terms of heredity. You reminded me that the bones are fossilized, therefore no DNA. (Actually, that puts to bed a question I’ve had in my mind. Can’t they get DNA from bones? Not if they’re fossilized! Duh!) And that was their point. Without DNA, no conclusive proof of heredity can be made, at least by paleontologists.

I just wanted to add one more thing to this. For those who think that scientists are involved in a big conspiracy to convince evolution is true even though we know that it is not, this is a great example of the way science works. Someone collects data, develops a model to explain the data, publish the data and model and there is a public debate. If the model is found to be faulty either because there is a problem with the data or the conclusion, it is rejected. If not, and the debate may run for many years, the model is accepted until/unless new data is described that does not fit the model.

How often do you see a debate amongst young earth creationists? You don’t because they fit the data to the model, not the other way around.

Peace

Tim

 

[miguel]

Orogeny:

Fair enough.

Yep, those rocks are hard to do DNA sequencing on!

I don’t agree that DNA testing is necessary to establish a lineage, but I am not surprised that a molecular biologist would require it.

Peace

Tim

Well, just give 'em enough time and they’ll evolve some DNA.

The journal was Scientific American April 92. Amazingly, I found one of the articles in my desk. It’s not the exact one I remember reading. It was probably one of a series of articles that appeared over a few months.

In 25 words or less, how is a lineage established without DNA?

 

[miguel]

Now I’m really confused. Can you explain the following statement taken from the current issue of Scientific American (11/29/04)? I thought you said fossils don’t have DNA.

“Beth Shapiro of Oxford University and her colleagues analyzed mitochondrial DNA from 352 bison fossils recovered from eastern and western Beringia…”

 

[UnknownCloud]

Eh, somehow they must have been able to find very small particles from the actual animals *from within or about *the fossil…I think they were just being general about how the DNA was found in a dismissable sense.

 

[Orogeny]

miguel:

Now I’m really confused. Can you explain the following statement taken from the current issue of Scientific American (11/29/04)? I thought you said fossils don’t have DNA.

“Beth Shapiro of Oxford University and her colleagues analyzed mitochondrial DNA from 352 bison fossils recovered from eastern and western Beringia…”

The bones must not have been fossilized.

Peace

Tim

 

[Orogeny]

miguel:

In 25 words or less, how is a lineage established without DNA?

talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/phylo.html#cladistics

There! One link!

Peace

Tim

 

[miguel]

Orogeny:

The bones must not have been fossilized.

Peace

Tim

So I need to revise my thinking again. Some fossils may have DNA. The term fossil doesn’t necessarily imply the complete replacement of organic material (i.e., DNA) by minerals. So paleontologists do have more than just “rocks” in their possession. Is that correct?

 

[Orogeny]

miguel:

So I need to revise my thinking again. Some fossils may have DNA. The term fossil doesn’t necessarily imply the complete replacement of organic material (i.e., DNA) by minerals. So paleontologists do have more than just “rocks” in their possession. Is that correct?

That may be the case for recent (geologically speaking) remains. A good example are the frozen mamoths from Siberia.

Peace

Tim

 

[miguel]

talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/phylo.html#cladistics

There! One link!

Peace

Tim

They build the tree of life by categorizing animals according to similar characteristics. And the methods they use to do this are improving as one would expect. And this involves extrapolating back in evolutionary time to what they “infer” must be common ancestors, etc. This is the model. This is the hypothesis. As a layperson, it looks like a good model. But the question remains. Is there sufficient evidence, minus DNA, to confirm the model? Is DNA understood well enough yet to draw conclusions from it? Can they sufficiently explain the evolutionary mechanisms within DNA that brought new species about? Can other explanations for the appearance of new species be ruled out? The fact that the controversy hasn’t died leads me to suspect we’re not there yet. It’s not naive to suppose the opposition from fundamentalists provides incentive to at least some experts to jump the gun just to make their opponents look bad. I don’t know. People have all kinds of motivations, not all of them pure. As a Catholic, I’m not threatened by the evolutionary model (as long as it doesn’t say life was not created by God in the first place). I just want to see reality win, whatever that is.

 

[Orogeny]

miguel:

They build the tree of life by categorizing animals according to similar characteristics. And the methods they use to do this are improving as one would expect. And this involves extrapolating back in evolutionary time to what they “infer” must be common ancestors, etc. This is the model. This is the hypothesis. As a layperson, it looks like a good model. But the question remains. Is there sufficient evidence, minus DNA, to confirm the model? Is DNA understood well enough yet to draw conclusions from it? Can they sufficiently explain the evolutionary mechanisms within DNA that brought new species about?

Well, I can tell you that the vast majority of those people whom you and I would both agree are experts would answer “yes” to those questions.

Can other explanations for the appearance of new species be ruled out?

No, and that is the “theory” part of evolution. The actual process is debatable, but, at least according to the experts, the fact that evolution has occured is not in question.

The fact that the controversy hasn’t died leads me to suspect we’re not there yet.

But that’s just it. There is no controversy in the scientific world, only in the non-scientific world. Very few scientists would conclude that evolution doesn’t occur if they look at the evidence.

It’s not naive to suppose the opposition from fundamentalists provides incentive to at least some experts to jump the gun just to make their opponents look bad. I don’t know.

You might be right about that. The beauty of science, though, is that if mistakes are made, they will be caught eventually.

People have all kinds of motivations, not all of them pure.

I agree 100% with that, on both sides of the argument.

As a Catholic, I’m not threatened by the evolutionary model (as long as it doesn’t say life was not created by God in the first place). I just want to see reality win, whatever that is.

Miguel, you and I don’t disagree at all. That’s exactly where I am at.

Peace

Tim

 

[miguel]

Orogeny:

Well, I can tell you that the vast majority of those people whom you and I would both agree are experts would answer “yes” to those questions.

I guess this is where I’m not so sure. Not long ago, they finished mapping the structure of the human genome. That was a huge, multi-billion dollar exercise. They have a huge code waiting to be de-coded. And from what I’ve been able to gather from non-technical sources, they’ve barely scratched the surface. So based on that, I suspect they have much to learn about mechanisms of evolution in DNA, etc.

 

[WhatIf]

Good morning everyone. I was wondering if anyone could shed some light on speaking with people who believe in Evolution. They believe in God, but state that Evolution is true as well.

Thanks have a great day
Randy

Don’t try to change their mind. Believing in God and The Church is what matters, isn’t it?

 

[UnknownCloud]

The fact of historical evolution is as certain as the fact that you are made of cells, have organs, the capacity to reproduce and the capacity to adapt. The bullcrap of historical evolution is to say that all this ‘life’ is purely an accident and changes (complicates) ‘randomly’.

(special note: it is logical to say that these changes took place randomly in a mathematical sense, but not in a common sense, that is, life maintains no plan or design. To say that life was not a plan or design is to say that the computers we are using right now are as accidental as anything else, and that of course would be ludicrous since it is entirely too obvious that computers are deliberately designed machines).

 

[JMJ_Pinoy]

catholic.com/library/Adam_Eve_and_Evolution.asp

 

[pendoko]

PhilVaz:

pend << We need to understand that EVOLUTION is not science and should not be taught in schools around the world. It should be banned. >>

I take this post as somewhat humorous? Interrelation? Evolution is “descent with modification by natural selection.” Here is your more detailed TalkOrigins definition, with the supporting evidence, and why God and evolution are compatible.

Phil P

I think that you don’t understand EVOLUTION THEORY well. It ***was ***an ORIGIN THEORY, a theory that states that all species had evolved from lower form of species. And therefore, back in time, all species had evolved from ONE SPECIES. And this ORIGINAL species had evolved from the sea or originated from the seas.

BUT now, in our times, evolutionists and non-theists scientists are bending the real meaning of evolution, as you can see from your link, from TALKORIGINS. Just for your own learning, go to that link, copy the meaning of evolution and study now. The definition had changed. Changed from what? From original definition and explanation of Darwin…THE ORIGIN OF SPECIES

Try to change “evolution” to “interrelation”, “evolved” to “interrelated”, from “evolving” to “interrelating” and so on…then, you will see that SCIENCE as should be, is put in the balanced position. Not too much cling on Creation (that favored all religions and theists) and not too much cling on MATERIALISTIC/ATHEISTIC (that favored those religion-haters, non-theists).

As you can see, EVOLUTION shoulbe be banned in all scholls, all textbooks around the world. Why? Because it is a one-sided scientific, unnatural, and atheistic explanation of the facts of nature.

 

[UnknownCloud]

I agree Pendoko…‘evolution’ is a hammer for atheism to bash theists and creationists over the head with. Darwin drew many erroneous conclusions, and many scientist to this day cling to these errors only to keep the atheist counter-strike alive. That is my bird’s-eye-view of the situation at least.

I believe that science should remain science in school. Evolution can be taught as it is understood by science, not by what isn’t understood by science (origin from one species…LOL). Any subject taught in school that somehow impresses the idea that because this or that has happened means no need for God or religion, is not only bigotry but also counter-cultural.

I do not believe that creationism should be taugh as an ‘alternative’ however…creation science is not science, it is theology. I don’t believe there should be any kind of ‘waver’ either placed on science books stating things like 'evolution is just a theory, etc. That is an obvious counter-attack and will end up just angering people over the subject even more.

What we need to do is simply invite ‘evolutionists’ to debates and challenge their ideas and defeat them. That is science!

 

[Tom_of_Assisi]

UnknownCloud:

I agree Pendoko…‘evolution’ is a hammer for atheism to bash theists and creationists over the head with. Darwin drew many erroneous conclusions, and many scientist to this day cling to these errors only to keep the atheist counter-strike alive. That is my bird’s-eye-view of the situation at least.

!

Darwin’s natural selection idea was created by him to show how humanity could have “happened” naturally (without Divine assistance). Of course it is used by atheists to attack Christians. Natural selection makes the atheists’ point.

How can Adam be a myth or a metaphore when Christ and the CCC refer to him as a person?

Why do Catholics who accept the Virgin Birth and the miricles of Jesus think that Genesis is just a story?

What about original sin? Is that just a myth too? Then why do we need Christ as a savior?

 

[Geocacher]

What I think is interesting is that when you use a telescope like the Hubble Space Telescope, you can peer back in time long before the written bibble. Very Deep space as seen by the Hubble Space Telescope, is both a Distance and a ancient time of millions of years ago. We have not been able to see a changing universe many light years from us, because it is so stable and very old. There is an interesting picture on the Internet, that is the deepest photo ever into the distant universe

hubblesite.org/newscenter/newsdesk/archive/releases/2004/07/

I have reason to believe that God’s Time is different than our Time on earth measured by atomic clocks. The number of times the earth has orbited the SUN is tremendous, but did GOD excelerate the time on earth and the universe to get it set up for Man kind? One way to look at this idea is to write a program on a very slow computer, then execute the program on the fastest computer on the Earth. This or anything is possible, but to know how fixed the stars are in the universe at such incredible distances is way beyond our understanding, yet I do know there is a creator of all of this.

I am so fasinated by the rich history of this Earth, but also im interested in the Bible too.

In the Evolution Field of Study, there is a certain amount of **disohonesty **involved in this whole mess, to make it more inviting to people, and to get them away from GOD.

---

WHAT IS YOUR TAKE ON THIS??