EVOLUTION: what about this

[buffalo]

Adaptation Plays Significant Role In Human Evolution

ScienceDaily (Jan. 20, 2009) — For years researchers have puzzled over whether adaptation plays a major role in human evolution or whether most changes are due to neutral, random selection of genes and traits.

Geneticists at Stanford now have laid this question to rest. Their results, scheduled to be published Jan. 16 online in Public Library of Science Genetics, show adaptation-the process by which organisms change to better fit their environment-is indeed a large part of human genomic evolution.
“Others have looked for the signal of widespread adaptation and couldn’t find it. Now we’ve used a lot more data and did a lot of work cleaning it up,” said Dmitri Petrov, associate professor of biology at Stanford University and one of two senior authors of the paper. “We were able to detect the adaptation signatures quite clearly, and they have the characteristic shape we anticipated.”

more…

 

[The_Barbarian]

Radiometric dating methods (including isochronic) are rife with subjectiveness, though they are touted as “objective.” You can witness the subjective difficulties in this article on Ar/Ar dating.

Your link seems to refute your argument:

Good examples of proper statistical care being exercised in evaluating 40Ar/39Ar step-heating data, are given, amongst others, in the work of Mussett (1986) and Knight et al. (2003). In the absence of proper care being exercised in these matters by authors/editors/reviewers, it falls on the reader to evaluate 40Ar/39Ar ages prior to making use of them. “Always verify your references” (East, 1998). Failure to adhere to this adage has led to numerous incorrect ages becoming entrenched in the literature, following repeated citation by unsuspecting/uncritical scientists.

Perhaps the math in the body of the report threw you. What the author is saying is that Ar/Ar dating is very good, if one takes care to do it properly.

True of every good analysis, of course. That’s how they got an accurate date for the pyroclastic flow that buried Pompeii, using Ar/Ar dating.

 

[The_Barbarian]

Geneticists at Stanford now have laid this question to rest. Their results, scheduled to be published Jan. 16 online in Public Library of Science Genetics, show adaptation-the process by which organisms change to better fit their environment-is indeed a large part of human genomic evolution.

Darwin’s theory of natural selection is once again vindicated:

All genetic mutations start out random, but those that are beneficial to an organism’s success in their environment are directly selected for and quickly perpetuate throughout the population, providing a uniform, traceable signature.

Although his theory has been repeatedly modified, it’s amazing that his theory of adaptation has stood up so well over time. Change may be random, but adaptation is still the mechanism of evolution.

 

[PEPCIS]

"PEPCIS:

That is not true at all. There are at least three different definitions of “species.” Evolutionists use whichever one fits the particular theory they are trying to promote at any given time. They are inconsistent. They don’t do science rigidly.

When biologists discuss species they don’t go changing the definition other than to make specific adjustments to account for geographic or morphological necessities. You are very wrong in what you claim.

The definition that an evolutionist uses changes depending on what they want to “prove.”

I knew that there would be an ad hominem sooner or later…

namesake:

It was a simple observation. If you decide to make it into an attack on you as a person then that’s up to you. I did not mean it in that way at all.

Scenario: Two men playing a game of chess. One man is losing, so he stands up and punches his opponent as hard as he can in the “kisser.”

The man jumps up and accuses the offender of attacking him without cause, to which the pugilist claims: “If you decide to make it into an attack on you, then that is up to you. I did not mean it that way at all.”

 

[PEPCIS]

"PEPCIS:

Very true. Micro

evolution is a fact. Genomes can change over time, but they never result in different kinds.

If something can change genetically and geometrically according to environment and other factors, then we can at least know one fundamental truth.

Well, that’s what you’re trying to prove, now isn’t it?
MoM:

There is evidently a process of mutational change involved within living organisms; which is influenced by enviromental and genetic factors.

No, that is NOT evident at all. What is evident is that you are extrapolating where you shouldn’t be. Is mutation a direct cause of speciation? In controlled environments, yes, but not in nature.

For example, mutations recorded in fruit fly, bot fly, etc, are done in controlled environments. It has been repeatedly noted that if you remove the controls that the “mutations” revert back. For example, one mutation which caused blindness in the fruit fly reverted back to sightedness when the controls were removed.
MoM:

It is therefore inevitable that many living organisms with the capacity to procreate, given vast periods of time, will give birth to relatively different geometric designs and qualities in respect to various environmental factors; which will also, in turn, branch off in to new kinds or species that will look completely different in comparison to the first generation. Wal-la. A new kind.
It follows logically from the premise of Micro-evolution.

It follows from the mind of an evolutionist, but not in the real world. Evolutionists BELIEVE that this is how Macro-evolution occurs.

Scientists run around defining new species, but that doesn’t make it evolution.

MoM:

The only reason people like you and Edwest are opposed to Evolution is because you have been deceived in to thinking that such and idea is necessarily a threat against Christianity.

That’s because evolution is opposed to Christianity. It’s not hard to establish that, either. For example, those who believe in evolution are primarily made up from the following:

• pro-abortionists
• pro-gay advocates
• rejection of God’s moral law (relativistic)
• atheistic
• Humanistic
• pro-green
• anti-war
• anti-death penalty

Sad, but true.

 

[Dchsknight]

I truly love how everyone on this thread can claim to be a believer and Catholic, and believe the bible but then Claim Evolution is right. Because if you believe the bible then why cant you accept that God made the world in 7 days. 7 24 hour periods. If you cant accept this how are you as catholics going to justify and preach that you believe what Jesus said about the and the Body. how can you justify believing that Jesus is in the Eucharist. Because that is a lot harder to believe then God making the world in 7 days.

By saying you believe God on how he made the world, you saying that you truly dont believe that Jesus is in the Eucharist, that he did not rise from the , that the Pope did not receive power from Christ, that the Catholic church really is a cult, that mary was not born sinless, that she had other children, that Catholics really Do worship Saints and really do deify Mary. (I understand that i will offend some with all that)

The reason i say this is that everyone on this forum seems to forget the names of Two men. CALVIN and LUTHER. These two men caused a great heresy in the church all because they did not want to believe all of the bible, they only wanted to believe in some parts that made them feel better. Picking and Choosing parts of the bible that fit with what YOU think is right, is to be Protestant. If you don’t believe what God said and believe that he made the world, universe, and everything in 7 days then your not catholic your protestant, because you do not believe in all of the bible as being God breathed and useful for Teaching, rebuking, and instruction in Righteousness (2 Tim 3:16). And your unwilling to submit to a Good and holy God, you willing to submit to a Good and God appointed man named Pope Benedict, your not willing to submit to your priests, and your not willing to submit to the callings of the Holy Spirit.

On God the creator of all things

1. If anyone denies the one true God, creator and lord of things visible and invisible: let him be anathema.
2. If anyone is so bold as to assert that there exists nothing besides matter: let him be anathema.
3. If anyone says that the substance or essence of God and that of all things are one and the same: let him be anathema.
4. If anyone says that finite things, both corporal and spiritual, or at any rate, spiritual, emanated from the divine substance; or that the divine essence, by the manifestation and evolution of itself becomes all things or, finally, that God is a universal or indefinite being which by self determination establishes the totality of things distinct in genera, species and individuals: let him be anathema.
5. If anyone does not confess that the world and all things which are contained in it, both spiritual and material, were produced, according to their whole substance, out of nothing by God; or holds that God did not create by his will free from all necessity, but as necessarily as he necessarily loves himself; or denies that the world was created for the glory of God: let him be anathema.

* All that exists outside God was, in its whole substance, produced out of nothing by God. (De Fide)
* God was moved by His Goodness to create the world. (De Fide)
* The world was created for the Glorification of God. (De Fide)
* The Three Divine Persons are one single, common Principle of the Creation. (De Fide)
* God created the world free from exterior compulsion and inner necessity. (De Fide)
* God has created a good world. (De Fide)
* The world had a beginning in time. (De Fide)
* God alone created the world. (De Fide)
* God keeps all created things in existence. (De Fide)
* God, through His Providence, protects and guides all that He has created. (De Fide)

 

[PEPCIS]

Did you read the document? Clearly not. You ought to try it. It is a very good article written by a Christian.

Peace

Tim

I know of a lot of people who “call” themselves Christians. Hitler called himself a Christian. Your point is???

 

[Orogeny]

I know of a lot of people who “call” themselves Christians. Hitler called himself a Christian. Your point is???

Did you read the document?

Peace

Tim

 

[PEPCIS]

Did you read the document?

Peace

Tim

Yes. What can I say? You don’t know how to read well. There is no point discussing it, because you REFUSE to acknowledge the subjective aspects of the paper. C’est la vie.

 

[Orogeny]

Yes. What can I say? You don’t know how to read well. There is no point discussing it, because you REFUSE to acknowledge the subjective aspects of the paper. C’est la vie.

You read the paper and yet you still said “Just as I thought, there is only one method of dating rocks - Radiometric Dating.”? How can that be?

Peace

Tim

 

[mpartyka]

You read the paper and yet you still said “Just as I thought, there is only one method of dating rocks - Radiometric Dating.”? How can that be?

I think he means that even though there are several elements or combinations of elements with which radiometric dating can be accomplished, it’s all still “radiometric dating”, so it all should be dismissed out of hand as one item. I think that’s nonsense, but whaddayagonnado?

–Mike

 

[mpartyka]

…if you believe the bible then why cant you accept that God made the world in 7 days. 7 24 hour periods.

In the absence of evidence to the contrary, we would. But there does exist evidence to the contrary, so we have to modify our simple beliefs into something that not only fits what the Bible says but also fits what the evidence says.

–Mike

 

[Orogeny]

I think he means that even though there are several elements or combinations of elements with which radiometric dating can be accomplished, it’s all still “radiometric dating”, so it all should be dismissed out of hand as one item. I think that’s nonsense, but whaddayagonnado?

–Mike

There is a whole section in that paper that discussed non-radiometric dating. Either he didn’t read the article or he has worse reading comprehension than he accuses me of.

Peace

Tim

 

[Dchsknight]

Then that is protestantism. Christ Said we must have Child like faith, which is the simplest of all faiths. it is pretty simple. The bible’s way, which is God’s way, or changing our faith to fit the evidence of what the WORLD says, which is the Devil’s and leads to hell.

 

[edwest2]

Yep. Science works that way. Even when there is almost complete acceptance of a theory, you still see a lot of different ideas about the details of the theory. It’s that way in biology, and every other science I know about.

Authority, in science, is not very impressive. Results count. So if a well-respected scientist goes off with something that looks very odd, people tend to not accept it until some evidence can be shown. Personal reputation counts, but if you can’t deliver, reputation won’t help much.

Which is why so many people are led astray by scientists who claim something science can’t demonstrate - no God. So which is it? Science, which is done by scientists, is silent about God or not? Science does not act on its own or is it tangible. It is a method used by people called scientists.

So it appears science is not silent about God or the Bible.

The God Delusion - Richard Dawkins

“the alien hiss of religious lunacy” - Sam Harris

“science is corrosive to religious belief” - PZ Myers

My brothers and sisters in Christ, the fact is scientists are out there telling you there is no God, no Creator. You are all just the end result of a series of accidents. Nothing more than animals. God forbid such deception should continue.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Orogeny]

My brothers and sisters in Christ, the fact is scientists are out there telling you there is no God, no Creator. You are all just the end result of a series of accidents. Nothing more than animals. God forbid such deception should continue.

Hey Ed, when you finish your pontificating, can you answer my question regarding Ar/Ar dating? You know, how polystrate fossils or planetary formation somehow invalidate the method?

Peace

Tim

 

[StAnastasia]

The fact is scientists are out there telling you there is no God, no Creator. You are all just the end result of a series of accidents. Nothing more than animals. God forbid such deception should continue.Peace,
Ed

That would be news to the members of the Society of Ordained Scientists.

 

[edwest2]

That would be news to the members of the Society of Ordained Scientists.

And where do most Catholics get their news? TV, the internet and the liberal media. What’s on the cover of People? Have you read the more recent issues of Scientific American? Discover magazine or Popular Science? They are all quoting the party line.

It is good there is a Society of Ordained Scientists but where is their voice heard? The current noise is being generated by atheists and their supporters in science.

Peace,
Ed

 

[reggieM]

“science is corrosive to religious belief” - PZ Myers

One of the most highly respected, popular and influential evolutionary biologists explains what science is. This is the mainstream, consensus view.

 

[reggieM]

Have you read the more recent issues of Scientific American? Discover magazine or Popular Science? They are all quoting the party line.

The evolutionary party-line is as it is …

The Catholics and theists who claim that modern science does not have an atheistic-materialist position are a minority view. They claim that the mainstream voices in evolutionary theory (which means all of modern science) are just “some scientists”.

They point to a believer here or there to claim that there is support for the belief in God among scientists in general.

If their arguments were something like “science *should *have no conflict with the Catholic Faith, but unfortunately today it does” – that would be reasonable and good to see.

But the frank denials of the attitude and atheistic propaganda of the evolutionary mainstream are evidence that there is something wrong.