Evolution is contradictory?

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

We don’t know how he collected his specimen - whether he spit into it, for instance.

OK - that is why someone else not affiliated should supply the samples and designate the lab. Or go out into the field with him to be a witness that he is not spitting into it.

Something like that needs to happen before the average person should take him seriously. And the lab is probably OK too. I don’t know anything about the lab he used. But let’s consider what is happening with Carbon 14. Carbon 14 has a known half-life of 5730 years. It is this action of radioactive decay that is the basis of C-14 dating. So after 5730 years, half the C14 has decayed. After 11460 years, we are down to 1/4 of the original amount. After 17190 years, down to 1/8. After 22920 years, down to 1/16. After 28650 years, down to 1/32. After 34380 years, we have only 1/64 of the original amount left. This is just starting to get into the range of Miller’s claimed dino bones. 1/64. And here we can see why C-14 dating is said to be unreliable after about 40,000 years. It is not that there is some kind of hard dividing line at 40,000 years. It that the job of dating just gets harder and harder the further out you go. So the very fact the Miller’s samples test near the upper limit of applicability of C-14 dating means that sample cleanliness is even more important. They have to be able to tell the difference between 1% and 0% (which you would get for 65 million years old). Then we also have to ask why Miller did not attempt to date his samples by any of the methods that are more applicable for 65 million year old bones. What is he afraid of?

But to follow up with your suggestion that verification is needed, suppose Miller does not get anyone to verify his findings (which I think is the most likely outcome). What do you expect me to do then? Do you expect me to maintain a “middle ground” belief that 65 million might be right and 40,000 might be right? No. Until that independent verification does come through, I will do the most logical thing, which is to assume the 65 million figure is the correct one.

 

[buffalo]

Date the bones not the rocks.

 

[Aloysium]

deconstructing it to reinvent a falsehood as a truth.

There is no deconstruction in either creation or evolution. Both are philosophical constructions utilizing the raw data that are genetics, chemiatry and the fossil record. Unfortunately, the facts are so entrenched in the mythology, the philosophical system of evolution must be deconstructed to see them cc learly, before they can be arranged in accordance with the more comprehensive and realistic picture that is creation.

I have posted my opinion on geological age, but it may have been missed in this bombardment of posts.

 

[Aloysium]

It’s the fact that the tortoise theory has be proven to be factually false. You do that with evolution and I’ll believe you.

The tortoise is the equivalent of electron clouds of probability. They are both the psychological manifestations of the ways in which we relate to the world of which we are a part.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

It’s the fact that the tortoise theory has be proven to be factually false. You do that with evolution and I’ll believe you.

The tortoise is the equivalent of electron clouds of probability. They are both the psychological manifestations of the ways in which we relate to the world of which we are a part.

Is this poetry class or science? The tortoise theory is plain wrong. It is not an “alternate way of looking at the world.”

 

[Aloysium]

Consistently, those who don’t like what the Church says, or what science says, and don’t even understand the material, resort to this.
Where would I begin? Your statement illustrates that you have no elementary understanding of the science.
You have a responsibility to educate yourself if you are going to blog publicly.

Did that feel good? Seriously, you should first realize that you know nothing about me and that this simply comes across as a demonstration of incapacity to understand and respond to an argument. Address what I say, not who you think I am.

 

[rossum]

you were talking about earlier.

How is this relevant to your claim of something hidden within bacteria when a phage is a separate organism, a virus. As far as I can see you are spouting nonsense here.

Stick to bacteria. Where is this mysterious internal information store that bacteria have that allows them to counteract future antibiotics and is not evolution? You claim that it exists, but you have shown no evidence of it. All you have shown is a reference to phages, which are viruses, not bacteria and so completely irrelevant to your point.

You make a lot of claims, but cannot back them up with relevant evidence. Not a good position if you want to do science.

rossum

 

[o_mlly]

Gee. I dunno. The Smithsonian maybe?

http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/behavior/stone-tools/early-stone-age-tools

I keep getting this mental picture of fish. In a barrel. Must mean something. Who can tell.

That would mean you may be intelligent but does not indicate you are human. In like manner, the fish can imagine you looking at him in the barrel.

The earliest stone toolmaking developed by at least 2.6 million years ago. The Early Stone Age includes the most basic stone toolkits made by early humans.

Well, there you have it! Science says humans existed 2.6 million years ago. The Church has no issue with that claim. Next question.

 

[Aloysium]

Is this poetry class or science? The tortoise theory is plain wrong. It is not an “alternate way of looking at the world.”

Huh? Some posts are rather poetic; this most definitely isn’t science. It’s an attempt at philosophy. Let’s not judge how well we are going.

The “tortoise theory”, if that’s how you concptualize it, is as wrong as is evolutionary theory. Both are actually stories reflecting the way people understand the world in their particular time. The portrayal of the earth as a turtle is rather poetic, giving a sense of organicity and wholeness. That poetry is lost in the materialist versions of what constitutes the ground of existence, of life and how it diversified, devoid as it is of the beauty, the majesty and wonder that creation elicits. Now we don’t expect scientific procedures such as chromatographic tests and statistical analyses, themselves to be that scintillating, but when we weave them together into the fabric of the mythos by which we understand ourselves within the world and in relation to the Ground of our being, that is when God’s glory shines through.

 

[Aloysium]

Where is this mysterious internal information store that bacteria have that allows them to counteract future antibiotics and is not evolution?

It was present in the original form of the creature and was lost through random mutation, later to be regained from those individual bacteria which had retained the code and passed it on via gene transfer.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

Is this poetry class or science? The tortoise theory is plain wrong. It is not an “alternate way of looking at the world.”

Huh? Some posts are rather poetic; this most definitely isn’t science. It’s an attempt at philosophy. Let’s not judge how well we are going.

The “tortoise theory”, if that’s how you concptualize it, is as wrong as is evolutionary theory.

Maybe they are equivalent as general philosophies. But as scientific theories, according the rules of the scientific method, they are not. The tortoise theory (which is just the theory you presented - no conceptualization is implied) is proven false. Evolutionary theory, as a scientific theory, has not. Scientific theories can be proven false. They can never be proven true. Scientists don’t (or at least they should not) use that term. Scientific theories can only be supported by various degrees of evidence. Evolution has a lot of such support, and has never been proven false. That is the difference.

 

[Bradskii]

Bradskii:

Gee. I dunno. The Smithsonian maybe?

http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/behavior/stone-tools/early-stone-age-tools

I keep getting this mental picture of fish. In a barrel. Must mean something. Who can tell.

That would mean you may be intelligent but does not indicate you are human. In like manner, the fish can imagine you looking at him in the barrel.

The earliest stone toolmaking developed by at least 2.6 million years ago. The Early Stone Age includes the most basic stone toolkits made by early humans.

Well, there you have it! Science says humans existed 2.6 million years ago. The Church has no issue with that claim. Next question.

You didn’t want humans. You wanted Homo sapien:

'Tool-making and planning indicate intelligence (as adaptive behavior) but not “sapiens”.

You appear not to understand the difference.

First you denied anything prior to Homo sapien could be intelligent. It was pointed out that prior to Homo sapien we had, for example, tool makers. So you tried to deny that any tools had been made (not the brightest of responses).

So you were shown. Now you have dug them goalposts up again and say that what made them was human anyway. When the term is ‘early humans’. Which would include, from that time, Australopithicus afarensis. One of the most well known of early human species (note the term ‘human’). It’s Lucy’s species, if you know who Lucy was. Australopithecus afarensis | The Smithsonian Institution's Human Origins Program

Lucy was an ‘early human’ to use the Smithsonian’s description. A very long way away indeed from Homo sapien. Indeed, a different sub species. But ‘early human’.

Now please put the goalposts back where you found them and check out the link. Go study some and then come back with any questions you may have. I’m sure you’ll have a lot but someone will be able to help you out.

 

[Bradskii]

rossum:

Where is this mysterious internal information store that bacteria have that allows them to counteract future antibiotics and is not evolution?

It was present in the original form of the creature and was lost through random mutation, later to be regained from those individual bacteria which had retained the code and passed it on via gene transfer.

I’m contacting the guys who present the Nobell. They need to know this asap. Can you get your papers ready and indexed and I’ll let you know where to Fed-Ex them. There’s no need to mention me in your acceptance speech, but I won’t complain if you do.

This is so exciting…

 

[Roseeurekacross]

know a lot about Schweitzer and her work. I

Then why are you buying into what you are buying into. Given , as you state, you know lots about her work, you know how she dates her bones, and her response to issues like young earth creationists attempting to bas*******ize her work for their own agenda.

You are not making sense

 

[Roseeurekacross]

Ah, you really don’t understand how stuff is dated do you. And how we can date

Thanks for playing.

 

[Roseeurekacross]

There is deconstruction in the attempt to bas******ze that work to prove a point.

Did I not make that clear enough.?

And actually if you read up on hermeneutics you will find there is deconstruction in some models in practice in informing biblical meaning.

Opinion does not equal fact, everyone has an opinion, based on preconceived prejudice on any topic.
We don’t employ opinion, in either science or in the study and reading and interpretation of biblical passages. We use tools and methodology for both.

 

[Aloysium]

Where is this hidden information?

Antibiotic Resistance Is Prevalent in an Isolated Cave Microbiome

Antibiotic resistance is a global challenge that impacts all pharmaceutically used antibiotics. The origin of the genes associated with this resistance is of significant importance to our understanding of the evolution and dissemination of antibiotic resistance in pathogens. A growing body of...

journals.plos.org

We report a screen of a sample of the culturable microbiome of Lechuguilla Cave, New Mexico, in a region of the cave that has been isolated for over 4 million years. We report that, like surface microbes, these bacteria were highly resistant to antibiotics; some strains were resistant to 14 different commercially available antibiotics.

I’m getting an automated question by this site as to whether I want to post again the link provided by Buffalo on July 31. I know has appeared several times previously, submitted even by myself. I guess it has a point since people apparently do not read or are incapable of comprehending responses.

 

[o_mlly]

You didn’t want humans. You wanted Homo sapien:

'Tool-making and planning indicate intelligence (as adaptive behavior) but not “sapiens”.

You appear not to understand the difference.

Let me help you out here with some basic definitions.

All humans are homo sapiens.
All homo sapiens are human.
All humans are hominids.
Not all hominids are human.

'Tool-making and planning indicate intelligence (as adaptive behavior) but not “sapiens”.

“Making” a tool out of a rock laying on the ground to break shells open or a using a twig to fetch termites are intelligent acts but not rational acts.

First you denied anything prior to Homo sapien could be intelligent.

No, you got that wrong. I do claim that hominids before homo sapiens lack rational thought. Intelligence is a faculty humans share with other non-rational animals.

Lucy was an ‘early human’ to use the Smithsonian’s description. A very long way away indeed from Homo sapien.

Go back to your definitions. Lucy was a hominid. What does “early” human mean? Are you a “late” human? If one is human then when they lived does not matter. Now, if you meet Lucy in the hereafter and ask her if she is human and she articulates an answer then you’ll know for sure.

 

[Aloysium]

There is deconstruction in the attempt to bas******ze that work to prove a point.

Did I not make that clear enough.?

And actually if you read up on hermeneutics you will find there is deconstruction in some models in practice in informing biblical meaning.

Opinion does not equal fact, everyone has an opinion, based on preconceived prejudice on any topic.
We don’t employ opinion, in either science or in the study and reading and interpretation of biblical passages. We use tools and methodology for both.

People are trying to get at the raw data and to construct a different picture than that contained in the original conclusions. That is how we figured out that the earth revolves around the sun.

Preconceived prejudice is how everything works. That’s what theories are about. The point is to maintain an open mind and to not accept everything we have been told as necessarily being the truth. As we have a conscience, we have our reason, both of which need to be informed.

We must thank God for having established His Church with a Magisterium to guide us.

 

[Aloysium]

This is so exciting…

My very elderly mom still remembers who I am; she will be thrilled!!