EVOLUTION: what about this

[The_Barbarian]

Isn’t that called “natural selection”? Why do you call it “Evolution”?

Natural selection is the selective survival of the fit. Evolution is the resulting change in allele frequency.

 

[StAnastasia]

The macro problem is there appears to be little evidence that random mutation and natural selection can lead to radical changes in a macro organism’s morphology. Fish to humans.Peace,Ed

This is indeed how evolution by natural selection works. And no evolutionary biologist – apart from Dr. Jack Chick – has ever argued for a fish-to-human transition.

 

[The_Barbarian]

This is not evolution.

Yes, that’s evolution. In many cases, the particular mutation causing the new resistance is known.

Bacteria have a built-in ability to react to outside threats. They can even exchange genetic material between different species of bacteria.

Recombination is also evolution. New species can also evolve that way.

But they do not change into something other than bacteria.

That’s like saying it’s not evolution if a starfish evolves into an ape. they are still animals, after all.

The macro problem is there appears to be little evidence that random mutation and natural selection can lead to radical changes in a macro organism’s morphology.

Remarkably, it’s actually happened in a human lifetime. A population of lizards evolved from carnivores to herbivores, an in the process, evolved an herbivore’s digestive system, complete with cecal valves not before seen in this genus.

In 1971, biologists moved five adult pairs of Italian wall lizards from their home island of Pod Kopiste, in the South Adriatic Sea, to the neighboring island of Pod Mrcaru. Now, an international team of researchers has shown that introducing these small, green-backed lizards, Podarcis sicula, to a new environment caused them to undergo rapid and large-scale evolutionary changes.
physorg.com/

Even many scientists were astonished to see how fast a new structure could evolve. In less than thirty years. Imagine that multiplied hundreds of times, to see what could happen in thousands of years.

 

[Luke65]

Natural selection is the selective survival of the fit. Evolution is the resulting change in allele frequency.

Ahh, the famous “change in allele frequency” which has resulted in the great apostasy of our time.

 

[StAnastasia]

Ahh, the famous “change in allele frequency” which has resulted in the great apostasy of our time.

Only if you consider the pope, most cardinals and the bishops, and most priests and nuns and Catholic biologists apostates.

 

[reggieM]

Ahh, the famous “change in allele frequency” which has resulted in the great apostasy of our time.

Exactly. When necessary, evolutionists will describe “Evolution” as: “Some things might change sometime”.

When something changes – Evolution is a proven fact. The intelligent desgin vs unintelligent evolution debate supposedly surrounds this kind of idea.

 

[reggieM]

I enjoy your sense of humor too, StAnastasia.

We have to be careful around him/her because some subtleties will be lost.

 

[The_Barbarian]

Ahh, the famous “change in allele frequency” which has resulted in the great apostasy of our time.

Sounds like a good story. Why not tell us about it? But be careful. Calling the Pope an apostate is probably not a smart thing to do on a Catholic board, um?

Exactly. When necessary, evolutionists will describe “Evolution” as: “Some things might change sometime”.

It’s easier to make such accusations than to support them. Show us a text on evolution that says that evolution is just that. If you just made it up, feel free to ignore the request. We’ll understand.

However, I think you owe everyone here a description of some form of evolution in science texts that is not a change in allele frequency. That’s not a rhetorical question. I’ll be asking again, if I don’t get a straight answer.

 

[c659smith]

You’re wrong. Gravity is not a fact – it is a theory.

I know I do not float and my feet are on the ground. I know if I jump out a plane without a parachute from 10,000 feet I will eventually hit the ground.

I can mathematically theorize my highest speed achieved before I hit the ground.

gravity is a cause of these theories.

Gravity is a law- The relativity of gravity as it relates to mass is theory due to many external forces.

 

[c659smith]

since Darwin’s day, giant steps have been taken in science and technology. Scientists discovered the structure of the cell. They saw with surprise that the cell has a system so complex as to have been unimaginable in Darwin’s time.

Science reveals this design in the cell as sophisticated far beyond our computers and reveals cellular motors, and any minor change in these would be death to the subject.

A change ever so minor creates deseases like cancers, sickle cell,etc… if the cell is changed

Any inter breeding if successful leads to a sterized off spring.

science is far from proving evolution in any sense.

 

[StAnastasia]

I know I do not float and my feet are on the ground. I know if I jump out a plane without a parachute from 10,000 feet I will eventually hit the ground. I can mathematically theorize my highest speed achieved before I hit the ground.
gravity is a cause of these theories. Gravity is a law- The relativity of gravity as it relates to mass is theory due to many external forces.

Nope – you don’t understand the science. Facts sit at an epistemologically lower level than theories; theories explain facts. That you will hit the ground if you jump out of an airplane is the fact. Gravity is the theory that explains it. The theory of gravity includes the law of attraction.

 

[Luke65]

Only if you consider the pope, most cardinals and the bishops, and most priests and nuns and Catholic biologists apostates.

Sounds like a good story. Why not tell us about it? But be careful. Calling the Pope an apostate is probably not a smart thing to do on a Catholic board, um?

Aww, this is precious. Not only can these boys not understand a couple of simple and obvious points, but they just can’t face the fact that Pope Benedict apparently is not an evolutionist. But that’s okay, this is the denial stage. They’ll get over it.

But the original points were these:

Dr. Dominique Tassot:
[Pope Benedict] grasps that micro and macro-evolution are not the same, and I think he believes people accepted an atheistic world view in relation to evolution because they accepted the confusion between micro and macro-evolution. He wants people to understand this important truth.

If you want to be a good Catholic, then don’t confuse people with statements like “Evolution is a fact.” The theory of evolution has been the cause of millions of people losing their faith - apostasy - including Darwin himself, and others like Stalin and Hitler.

Pope says evolution can’t be proven

In a new book, Creation and Evolution, published Wednesday in German, the pope praised progress gained by science, but cautioned that evolution raises philosophical questions science alone cannot answer.
…
“I find it important to underline that the theory of evolution implies questions that must be assigned to philosophy and which themselves lead beyond the realms of science,” the pope was quoted as saying in the book…

“Pope says evolution can’t be proven” - that is how normal people use the word “evolution”.

 

[redneck22]

What’s so funny about this is that antibiotics are the leading scientific cause of multi-drug resistance. Where have you been sticking your head?

Yep, that’s right. Evolution in action.

Peace

Tim

Bacteria have been reproducing Bacteria “after their kind” just as the book of Genesis states, even if you believe the 600,000,000 years that Bacteria have been around its no help to the theory of evolution.

 

[Orogeny]

Bacteria have been reproducing Bacteria “after their kind” just as the book of Genesis states, even if you believe the 600,000,000 years that Bacteria have been around its no help to the theory of evolution.

Why not? What in the theory of evolution would require bacteria to no longer exist?

Peace

Tim

 

[The_Barbarian]

Bacteria have been reproducing Bacteria “after their kind” just as the book of Genesis states,

Actually, it doesn’t say that. Nothing at all about “reproducing after their kind.” Be satisfied with God’s word as it is.

You’re wrong about the rest of it, too. Bacteria have been mutating, producing new species, and so on. Some of them, perhaps a billion years ago, entered cells of other organisms, underwent symbiosis, and produced eukaryotes. Some of them are in every cell of your body; you would die without them. They still carry their own, bacterial DNA, and they reproduce on their own. They are called “mitochondria.”

 

[reggieM]

If you want to be a good Catholic, then don’t confuse people with statements like “Evolution is a fact.”

Exactly right. We’ve seen enough deliberate confusion, obfuscation, and outright deception from the evolutionists seeking to defend or promote their theory. But that does not reflect the mind of the Church on this issue.

"…the theory of evolution implies questions that must be assigned to philosophy" – Pope Benedict XVI

That is a great quote – very important for us all.

The theory of evolution has been the cause of millions of people losing their faith - apostasy - including Darwin himself, and others like Stalin and Hitler.

I cannot imagine how anyone could deny that, but they certainly do so. And yes, even priests and religious have lost the Faith through an embrace of evolutionary-materialism.

“Pope says evolution can’t be proven” - that is how normal people use the word “evolution”.

As we’ve seen many times, evolutionists switch the meaning of words in order to try to win arguments and defend the indefensable. As one person insisted to me, “that’s an example of how language itself evolves”. Very cute. When they want to sound like they have the certainty of truth behind them, they claim “Evolution is a fact”, or “evolution is more certain than gravity”. By this they define Evolution: “Evolution means things change”.

When it is pointed out that there is a confusion of contradictory and absurd proposals and speculations, just-so-stories, reversals, refutations, blatantly ridiculous fairy-tales about how things “might have evolved” and open conflicts between evolutionists themselves on what Evolution means, and certainly on the theory itself, we’ll hear: “That’s the way science is done” (admitting that the term Evolution in its most common meaning refers to “theories”).

 

[StAnastasia]

When it is pointed out that there is a confusion of contradictory and absurd proposals and speculations, just-so-stories, reversals, refutations, blatantly ridiculous fairy-tales about how things “might have evolved” and open conflicts between evolutionists themselves on what Evolution means, and certainly on the theory itself, we’ll hear: “That’s the way science is done” (admitting that the term Evolution in its most common meaning refers to “theories”).

Can you offer evidence that Darwin lost his religious faith because of his discovery of evolution? Can you offer evidence that there is a “confusion of contradictory and absurd proposals and speculations”?

 

[ricmat]

Can you offer evidence that Darwin lost his religious faith because of his discovery of evolution? Can you offer evidence that there is a “confusion of contradictory and absurd proposals and speculations”?

Here’s a recent article on the subject.

It appears that St. Darwin did not directly lose his faith because of evolution. But many of his peers did. And many people today do.

PS I found this quote interesting. It reminds me of some of the folks here.

While Darwin was originally very modest about evolution—a theory to account for transitions from one life form to another—he became increasingly insistent that evolution was an entirely naturalistic system, having no room for miracles or divine intervention at any point. When Darwin’s co-discoverer of evolution, Alfred Russel Wallace, wrote him to say that evolution could not account for man’s moral and spiritual nature, Darwin accused him of jeopardizing the whole theory:

 

[reggieM]

Can you offer evidence that Darwin lost his religious faith because of his discovery of evolution?

Yes, certainly. What do you know about his loss of faith and the influences that contributed to it?

Can you offer evidence that there is a “confusion of contradictory and absurd proposals and speculations”?

Of course I can.

 

[reggieM]

Here’s a recent article on the subject.

It appears that St. Darwin did not directly lose his faith because of evolution. But many of his peers did. And many people today do.

I think this is a much better article - more comprehensive with original source data from Darwin.

Charles Darwin’s views on religion

I would say that his views on evolution and natural selection contributed heavily to his loss of faith.