Evolution is contradictory?

  • Thread starter Thread starter buss0042
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I’m not intimately familiar with his corpus, but I have encountered a few very peculiar ideas promoted by his followers here on CAF. One in particular was so absurd that if I didn’t know better I would attribute it to the most wacky fundamentalist Protestants, not a Catholic priest. But I don’t want to derail the thread so I’ll leave it at that.
 
And we are part of creation and nature. According to evolutionary theory, we are a species of mammalia. In other words our impact on the environment is a part of natural selection. The maintenance of creation requires care, commitment, time and money, as we are currently doing to maintain the species of the Galapagos and elsewhere on this planet.
 
Last edited:
I’m not intimately familiar with his corpus, but I have encountered a few very peculiar ideas promoted by his followers here on CAF. One in particular was so absurd that if I didn’t know better I would attribute it to the most wacky fundamentalist Protestants, not a Catholic priest. But I don’t want to derail the thread so I’ll leave it at that.
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
 
Science searches for the how, religion for the why.

There is no clash between the two. Back in the 17th C many founders of theory of science were Priests and theists
Things went haywire in the 18th C and were compounded by a very erroneous interpretation of Darwin in the 19thc .
The Big Bang for instance, explains scientifically the creation. Where science is limited here is that the Big Bang can only go forward from the moment of creation. Religion can move either way.

Genesis explains in a Sacred manner, the How.

Both science and religion agree thee will be a catastrophic end to things. Chaos theory and Revelation.

We must really move away from the polarised view of either or, and start looking at how they merge, what gifts has God given us in science.

We are animals, scientifically speaking, we are classified as mammals, we feed our young milk and grow them in our wombs.

We are, religiously speaking, creatures of God. God created us as mammals. …feed our young milk and grow them in our womb. We have souls that are eternal. Other mammals don’t.
 
Last edited:
But, none of this is going in this day and age the earth is very stable .
Absolutely not. In my part of the world, go to East Anglia where Dunwich, once one of the great ports of England, lies now under the sea. Go to Scotland, which is still rising from the sea now that the weight of the ice sheet has been removed. Go to any lake where open water is becoming reed-bound, then carr, then dry land. Go to any river outlet where sand and gravel is forming a delta. Walk along the gravel ridges the tides have formed along parts of England’s South Coast. See the lagoons that have formed behind them.

For goodness’ sake … go to the San Andreas Fault!
 
The Big Bang for instance, explains scientifically the creation. Where science is limited here is that the Big Bang can only go forward from the moment of creation. Religion can move either way.

Genesis explains in a Sacred manner, the How.
The way I see it, Science may come close to describing the process of creation, but it is in its attempt to explain, that it fails. What we do actually, is go back intellectually in time, discerning what happened before things were as they are now until we reach an end, at what would be the beginning in a possible singularity. To some, it is as if the laws of the universe exist as something separate from and preceded the events that are the developing universe.

What we have in Genesis is an explanation of creation in a manner that can be understood, through the grace of the Holy Spirit, by any person of any age, in any age.

Applying the truth of Genesis to the current scientific understanding, what we see is a progressive creation, where new forms of being are created utilizing that which had previously been brought into being. For example, sub-atomic particles as part of an existing creation, were brought together in the creation of atoms, particular forms of being having relational characteristics that result in the periodic table and the electrostatic shapes of molecules. At that point the universe apparently went from an orange plasma to the dark space which we now know. The bringing of organic life into existence was another step in the creative process. Here we find basic material processes united into new whole systems that interact in a novel fashion with their environment. What is physically other is incorporated into their physical being allowing them to replicate, grow and maintain themselves. On a psychological dimension they instinctively perceive, understand and react to elements in their surroundings. The more physically complex the living being, the more complex they are in along the psychological dimension. And then there we are, at the culmination of creation, between angels and animals.

It may not be that important, but I would propose that the days of Genesis could be actual days. We know from Relativity that change occurs at a fixed rate. Velocity is a type of change: mass is a type of change. If we consider every moment as a bringing of events into existence, we can say that only so much happens, and the faster something goes, the less change will occur in that moving object, clocks move and we age slower. A photon having no mass, travels at the maximum speed. A change in distance is all that is happening; to go faster would entail its disappearance. If a day is the basic unit of change, the less there is going on in the universe the greater the number of simpler events would fit into the day. As more complex being fills the universe, the fewer seconds would fill each day. So from our frame of reference the length of day now, would be the equivalent of many billions of days in the past. I don’t know.
 
40.png
Techno2000:
But, none of this is going in this day and age the earth is very stable .
Absolutely not. In my part of the world, go to East Anglia where Dunwich, once one of the great ports of England, lies now under the sea. Go to Scotland, which is still rising from the sea now that the weight of the ice sheet has been removed. Go to any lake where open water is becoming reed-bound, then carr, then dry land. Go to any river outlet where sand and gravel is forming a delta. Walk along the gravel ridges the tides have formed along parts of England’s South Coast. See the lagoons that have formed behind them.

For goodness’ sake … go to the San Andreas Fault!
But, none of this is a catalyst for evolution to produce new species of plants and animals.
 
This is demonstrably false.

Fitness is defined in reproductive terms. Animals which are killed young, or are sterile, or who neglect their young (in the case of social animals) will not succeed in reproducing.
 
In Making Some Antibiotics, Bacteria Put Organic Chemists To Shame

 
But, none of this is a catalyst for evolution to produce new species of plants and animals.
You are wrong here. Changing environments change the relative fitness of existing alleles, and also the fitness of new mutations. Some, though not all, of those changes result in a new species. Less extreme changes will usually result in a new sub-species.

Fitness of a genome is measured relative to the environment. If the environment changes, then so will the fitness.

rossum
 
Last edited:
This is demonstrably false.

Fitness is defined in reproductive terms. Animals which are killed young, or are sterile, or who neglect their young (in the case of social animals) will not succeed in reproducing.
But, that doesn’t affect the species as a whole.Their reproductive system keeps producing more of the same kind to compensate for that, which is why a fish for example lays thousands of eggs, and maybe only a few making it to adulthood.
 
40.png
Techno2000:
But, none of this is a catalyst for evolution to produce new species of plants and animals.
What makes you think so?
Because, I don’t think evolution can see into the future, and have ready made gills and fins prepared for creatures for when their environment goes underwater. And even if it could, random mutations/evolution would also have to produce a whole underwater ecosystem to support these creatures.
 
Last edited:
But, that doesn’t affect the species as a whole.
Yes it does. If affects the overall genetic makeup of the species. Genes for sterility are reduced in frequency in the population. Beneficial genes spread through the population over the generations in a process like compound interest.

Here is a demonstration I have posted before:

As an example, take a stable population of 1000 organisms; on average each organism has one descendant in the next generation. Now let a beneficial mutation appear with a 1% advantage, so the mutated organism will have on average 1.01 descendants in the next generation. For comparison I include ten other mutated organism with a 1% disadvantage. Start with a population of 10 deleterious, 989 neutral (or unmutated) and 1 beneficial mutations. See what happens if we let the population reproduce for one thousand generations:
Code:
Generation  Deleterious   Neutral   Beneficial
----------  -----------   ------    ----------
     0         10.0       989.00          1.00
     1          9.9       989.00          1.01
    10          9.0       989.00          1.10
   100          3.7       989.00          2.70
   500          0.1       989.00        144.77
   700          0.0       989.00       1059.16
  1000          0.0       989.00      20959.16
That is why beneficial mutations are more common overall. They are rare initially, but they are amplified and spread by natural selection. You can also see that the deleterious mutations are eliminated and do not spread, despite being more common initially.

rossum
 
40.png
Techno2000:
But, that doesn’t affect the species as a whole.
Yes it does. If affects the overall genetic makeup of the species. Genes for sterility are reduced in frequency in the population. Beneficial genes spread through the population over the generations in a process like compound interest.

Here is a demonstration I have posted before:

As an example, take a stable population of 1000 organisms; on average each organism has one descendant in the next generation. Now let a beneficial mutation appear with a 1% advantage, so the mutated organism will have on average 1.01 descendants in the next generation. For comparison I include ten other mutated organism with a 1% disadvantage. Start with a population of 10 deleterious, 989 neutral (or unmutated) and 1 beneficial mutations. See what happens if we let the population reproduce for one thousand generations:
Code:
Generation  Deleterious   Neutral   Beneficial
----------  -----------   ------    ----------
     0         10.0       989.00          1.00
     1          9.9       989.00          1.01
    10          9.0       989.00          1.10
   100          3.7       989.00          2.70
   500          0.1       989.00        144.77
   700          0.0       989.00       1059.16
  1000          0.0       989.00      20959.16
That is why beneficial mutations are more common overall. They are rare initially, but they are amplified and spread by natural selection. You can also see that the deleterious mutations are eliminated and do not spread, despite being more common initially.

rossum
If hypothetically, let’s say the amazon jungle environment was to changed over to the same climate as Canada’s environment ,do you believe that ecosystem would evolve to cope with that ?
 
From this article, https://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpage/dna-replication-and-causes-of-mutation-409

it is said that mutations are errors or mistakes in the DNA replication process. Just from this definition, that a conglomeration of errors, mistakes, or accidents in the DNA replication process is going to result by chance as it were in a new ordered organism or species with ordered new parts or organs and processes is unintelligible I believe. It appears to me that a so-called beneficial mutation that results from an error in a single DNA replication process has just as much a chance in the very next DNA replication process to be itself ‘erroneously’ copied or mutated as any other possible part of the DNA sequence. The processes involved in the DNA replication process are not intelligent creatures as if they know and understand what they are doing. They are determined to one effect unless some other impeding cause gets in the way as it were and what results is an error, mistake, or chance as it were mutation. These processes have no idea in themselves as they are totally devoid of knowledge that an error in the copying process might be beneficial or possibly deleterious unless there is some mechanism in the process that picks up the deleterious mutation such as the processes that detect something wrong in our physiology or metabolism when we are sick. The processes are designed to produce an exact copy more or less of the original DNA but the process is so complicated involving the shuffling of billions of atoms in precise sequences that it is an astonishing wonder of God’s creative activity when he created the world of living things that the process does what it actually does and is as accurate as it is.

In your diagram, you have about 21,000 beneficial mutations after 1000 generations. So, in this theory, we have about 21,000 precise beneficial sequential differences in the DNA sequence since the beginning or from the first generation. It appears to me unless I’m mistaken that this is not much different than that if a person flipped a coin one million times say, what are the chances that 21000 flips in a row are going to display a precise sequential pattern? The chances are zero. Or, in a six number lottery draw, what are the chances that 21000 draws in a row are going to display a sequential pattern? I think zero. I’m not sure each single DNA replication process can be considered a sort of compounded like process of the so-called beneficial mutations unless possibly by pure chance which brings us back to producing a sequential pattern in 21000 draws of the lottery in a row which I think is impossible. Again, I see no reason why a single beneficial mutation that results from an error in a single DNA replication process will not itself be ‘erroneously’ copied and mutated possibly back to it’s original state or into some other mutation possibly a deleterious one in the very next or following DNA replication processes. Maybe I’m wrong and missing something here? And if so, what is it?
 
Last edited:
And these random mutations just happen to work their magic perfectly every time to always produce a male and female…how convenient . :roll_eyes:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top