Evolution

[agangbern]

Evolution theory doesn’t rule out a creator. Evolution theory as it exists today just isn’t interested in God, or any concept of a designer. Keep those ideas within religion where they belong.

Whose evolution theory are you referring? Would you particularly state that evolution theory here with corresponding link?

 

[Namesake]

Whose evolution theory are you referring? Would you particularly state that evolution theory here with corresponding link?

There is not an evolution theory that belongs to any one scientist therefore your first question can’t be answered.

For me to state a theory at your request, especially considering your first question, wouldn’t be helpful because the theory of evolution can’t be stated concisely.

Hopefully it will be enough to say that as currently accepted by the vast majority of biologists evolution is marked by a change in allele frequency within a population. The way that happens is probably mostly by random gene changes through natural selection. The main mechanism is competition and reproduction.

Another way of understanding evolution theory is descent with modification which is just another way of saying common ancestry of all life on the planet. Basically we (all living things) have descended from molecules that could replicate leading to the first prokaryotic cells, then eukaryotic cells, then…here we are. This process took some time, in fact it took billions of years, but here we are.

Evolution theory is the basis of all of our understanding of biology so it’s a remarkable theory and very important to our daily lives. That makes Charles Darwin one of the most important scientists in the history of the world. Probably at least on the same level of importance as Newton, maybe even more brilliant than Newton.

The point I was trying to make was that no where within the science of biological evolution is there a place for a supernatural creator. Evolution theory doesn’t reject God. Evolution theory just isn’t interested in God. Evolution theory is just about natural, not supernatural ideas.

If you want supernatural stuff stick with religion because religion is all about God. Evolution is all about nature.

 

[Namesake]

Newton was an Arian in denying the Trinity which means his investigations into creation does not acknowledge inspiration as a means to provide clearer details of terrestrial/celestial phenomena and show that we inhabit a much older and grander planetary stage.When Christ said 'Without me you can do nothing" I take it that those blessed with the intuitive intelligence to recognise just how inspiring he is also experience the same inspiration when dealing with creation and all creative activities.I assume those who are not Christians would take the saying of Jesus to mean something less than inspiring and even dictatorial when it is a truly lovely within the Trinity.

That’s the problem,when you are all head and no heart you see science and religion as separate entities pursuing separate agendas - ‘religion teaches you how to go to heaven,science teaches you how the heavens go’ sort of junk,when you have that Christian inspirational touch it is possible to know how to treat creation in a broad context and how to be precise when needed,at least in matters of terrestrial/celestial investigation.

Newton basically give empiricism a footing in attempting to reduce astronomy down to the level of the lab by distorting astronomical insights just as an Arian would do.The more agressive stance is that empiricists and their agenda will run for cover when exposed by a Christian who is not enamored by Arian/empirical principles.Pity that Christians are tangled up with the symptoms of empiricism such as Darwin’s injection of a ‘cause’,not so much those who play along with empiricism and its ugly Arian head but those Christians who simply wish to praise and understand God at their own level of understanding.I like Oscar Wilde’s commentary on this -

“Like all poetical natures Jesus loved ignorant people. He knew that in the soul of one who is ignorant there is always room for a great idea. But he could not stand stupid people, especially those who are made stupid by education: people who are full of opinions not one of which they even understand, a peculiarly modern type, summed up by Christ when he describes it as the type of one who has the key of knowledge, cannot use it himself, and does not allow other people to use it, though it may be made to open the gate of God’s Kingdom.”

Fear science indeed !,it is time for Christians to regain their scientific heritage from the hijacking of it and its insights by dumb empiricists.

Could you distill that into simple English for those of us who are way too dumb to translate your…prose?

 

[agangbern]

There is not an evolution theory that belongs to any one scientist therefore your first question can’t be answered.

It therefore appears that evolution theory is a theory whereby no one can be held to account for. But this cannot be. You shall account now for this theory, whatever it is in your mind.

Hopefully it will be enough to say that as currently accepted by the vast majority of biologists evolution is marked by a change in allele frequency within a population. The way that happens is probably mostly by random gene changes through natural selection. The main mechanism is competition and reproduction.

Who are these “vast majority” you are talking about? Would you give us the names of those you know among them? And at least you can now present here some links to them for further verification.

Another way of understanding evolution theory is descent with modification which is just another way of saying common ancestry of all life on the planet. Basically we (all living things) have **descended from molecules **that could replicate leading to the first prokaryotic cells, then eukaryotic cells, then…here we are. This process took some time, in fact it took billions of years, but here we are.

Evolution theory is the basis of all of our understanding of biology so it’s a remarkable theory and very important to our daily lives.

Where did those molecules come from? And what is the nature of that molecule? Please explain to us this thing according to evolution theory, which according to you is “the basis of all our understanding of biology.”

 

[soma]

Great scientists who were catholic.
Louis Pasteur the Germ Theory of Disease Catholic
Galileo Galilei the New Science Catholic
Antoine Laurent Lavoisier the Revolution in Chemistry Catholic
Nicolaus Copernicus the Heliocentric Universe Catholic (priest)
Erwin Schrodinger Wave Mechanics Catholic
Andreas Vesalius the New Anatomy Catholic
Marie Curie Radioactivity Catholic (lapsed)
Enrico Fermi Atomic Physics Catholic
Gregor Mendel the Laws of Inheritance Catholic (Augustinian monk)
Alexander Fleming Penicillin Catholic

 

[Namesake]

It therefore appears that evolution theory is a theory whereby no one can be held to account for. But this cannot be. You shall account now for this theory, whatever it is in your mind.

I did that.

Who are these “vast majority” you are talking about? Would you give us the names of those you know among them? And at least you can now present here some links to them for further verification.

Maybe you could start with Steven Jay Gould.

stephenjaygould.org/bibliography.html

When you get done reading all that could you please submit a detailed critique of each publication? Then I will provide another list for you to read and critique. OK?

Where did those molecules come from? And what is the nature of that molecule?

Evolution theory doesn’t address the question of where the molecules came from. Probably they came from inorganic molecules that became more and more complex and combined with carbon atoms to form organic molecules. Eventually (several million years) those molecules “learned” how to self replicate and after a long time (a few million years at least) they “figured out” how to protect themselves with a barrier which became a cell wall, and so on (several more million years) until an actual cell with organelles was formed. Then after a few billion years one of those cells started to swim, then a few more million years and something started to breath air and crawl on land…and on it went.

Please explain to us this thing according to evolution theory, which according to you is “the basis of all our understanding of biology.”

The origin of species explains how all life forms on our planet came to be. On the basis of that we can understand how the various life forms interact, how they have changed through geologic time, and we can make predictions of how they might change in the future. One easy to understand idea is how we can predict what influenza virus might be the next one to afflict us and thereby we can develop a vaccine against it.

Another way we are beholden to the theory of evolution is the way we breed domestic animals. We understand how gene theory works and we understand how to manipulate genes for certain beneficial traits. For example, we can breed dairy cows to give huge amounts of milk and we can adjust the butter fat content of the milk so it’s just what the market wants. That is dependent on evolution theory, as well as basic genetics like Mendel described. We can breed beef cattle in a similar way to maximize the meat production coupled with ease of calving and years of a cow’s productivity which equates to profit for the rancher.

We understand how to stay just a little bit ahead of bacterial modifications and develop antibiotics to treat resistant nosocomial infections, although that is getting a lot harder to do. But we can do that because we can model changes in bacterial genomes because we understand descent with modification. That’s how bacteria become resistant to antibiotics.

Is that enough of an answer for you? I hope so because I am going to retire for the night. Talk to you again soon I hope. There is so much more for you to learn. It took me 11 years in college and thirty+ years following that of post doc stuff to even begin to understand this stuff.

Actually, anyone who says they understand evolution really doesn’t understand evolution. It’s just too complicated for one person to understand it completely.

 

[Namesake]

Who are these “vast majority” you are talking about? Would you give us the names of those you know among them? And at least you can now present here some links to them for further verification.

I just came across this a few minutes ago.

sciam.com/podcast/episode.cfm?id=count-on-steves-to-defend-darwin-09-02-20

 

[grannymh]

I just came across this a few minutes ago.

sciam.com/podcast/episode.cfm?id=count-on-steves-to-defend-darwin-09-02-20

Great minds run in the same channels. I just replied to your post on "Evolution: a Catholic Solution? " with an item from the January issue of Scientific American magazine.

Small world?

 

[agangbern]

Maybe you could start with Steven Jay Gould.

stephenjaygould.org/bibliography.html

You were joking. You just gave me a list of books/writings of, or edited by,S. Gould. I don’t even have an idea which book contains your discussion about evolution theory. I want to go direct to the book, if not the very page, which supports your ideas.

But as it is, the link shows nothing supporting evolution theory. Some of the books/writings do not even open.

 

[agangbern]

I just came across this a few minutes ago.

sciam.com/podcast/episode.cfm?id=count-on-steves-to-defend-darwin-09-02-20

And here is the main content of that link:

“Count On Steves to Defend Darwin
The National Center for Science Education initiated Project Steve in 2003 to count scientists named Steve (or Stephanie) who accept evolution, in response to lists of anti-evolution PhDs. The long-running effort, also a tribute to Stephen Jay Gould, crowned its thousandth Steve, a proxy for approximately 100,000 scientists, at last week’s AAAS meeting. Steve Mirsky reports”

Clearly, that link shows nothing enlightening about evolution theory itself.

 

[The_Barbarian]

Clearly, that link shows nothing enlightening about evolution theory itself.

It merely demonstrates that the vast majority of people with doctorates in biology accept evolution.

What aspect of evolutionary theory do you think is not well-documented? I’d be pleased to see if I can find some evidence for you.

 

[agangbern]

It merely demonstrates that the vast majority of people with doctorates in biology accept evolution.

What aspect of evolutionary theory do you think is not well-documented? I’d be pleased to see if I can find some evidence for you.

Just explain here what is evolution theory, and support your explanation with quotes and links from those who performed experiments supporting that theory. Don’t give me a list of various books as what namesake did. And I don’t blame him but thank him for doing that. Just quote the book and give the link to that quote, ok?

 

[The_Barbarian]

Just explain here what is evolution theory, and support your explanation with quotes and links from those who performed experiments supporting that theory.

Sure:
Evolutionary theory is concerned with the way populations change over time.
Darwin first worked out the basic principles of evolution:

1. More are born than can live; not all will survive to reproduce
2. All organisms vary slightly from their parents
3. Some variations affect the likelihood of surviving to reproduce
4. These variations become widespread, and over time many such events are the cause of the diversity of living things.

In the early 1900s, the rediscovery of genetics led to the Modern Synthesis, which modified Darwin’s theory. The new theory included random mutation which along with Darwin’s mechanism of natural selection, produced changes in living populations.

There have been other modifications since then, such as the neutralist theories, punctuated equilibrium, and so on. None of these change the basic ideas of Darwinian evolution, but have modified the details as evidence requires.

Mendel, by showing that inheritance was particulate rather than humoral, solved the question of persistance of rare traits and the issue of Lamarkism.

The work of Morgan established that genes are real entities, and natural selection was understood to affect allele frequencies.

Luria-Delbruck showed that mutations are indeed random and that they do not occur in response to need.

Gould explained the relative rarity of species transitions (and the abundance of transitions at higher taxa) by explaining Mayr’s observation that aberrant species tend to be in isolated places. Most speciation appears to be allopatric, caused by isolation of a small population from the rest of the species.

And the work of Watson and Crick established the mechanism by which mutation works.

Don’t give me a list of various books as what namesake did. And I don’t blame him but thank him for doing that. Just quote the book and give the link to that quote, ok?

Science works by evidence, not quotes. I’m away from my library, but I’ll see what I can do tonight for you.

 

[oriel16]

Sure:
Evolutionary theory is concerned with the way populations change over time.
Darwin first worked out the basic principles of evolution:

1. More are born than can live; not all will survive to reproduce
2. All organisms vary slightly from their parents
3. Some variations affect the likelihood of surviving to reproduce
4. These variations become widespread, and over time many such events are the cause of the diversity of living things.

.

Darwin’s ‘cause’ for evolution is,in fact,contained in the title -

“On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life.”

You are trying to mix genetics with Darwin’s original borrowing of an essay on national supremacy to make it sound reasonable.

Let me show the original ‘cause’ for the diversity of life as Darwin expresses his ‘eureka’ moment.First Malthus to get a feel for it -

“Till at length the whole territory, from the confines of China to the shores of the Baltic, was peopled by a various race of Barbarians, brave, robust, and enterprising, inured to hardship, and delighting in war. Some tribes maintained their independence. Others ranged themselves under the standard of some barbaric chieftain who led them to victory after victory, and what was of more importance, to regions abounding in corn, wine, and oil, the long wished for consummation, and great reward of their labours. An Alaric, an Attila, or a Zingis Khan, and the chiefs around them, might fight for glory, for the fame of extensive conquests, but the true cause that set in motion the great tide of northern emigration, and that continued to propel it till it rolled at different periods against China, Persia, italy, and even Egypt, was a scarcity of food, a population extended beyond the means of supporting it.” Thomas Malthus

Then Darwin’s ‘eureka’ moment based on that national supremacy commentary -

“One day something brought to my recollection Malthus’s “Principles of Population,” which I had read about twelve years before. I thought of his clear exposition of “the positive checks to increase”—disease, accidents, war, and famine—which keep down the population of savage races to so much lower an average than that of civilized peoples. It then occurred to me that these causes or their equivalents are continually acting in the case of animals also… because in every generation the inferior would inevitably be killed off and the
superior would remain—that is, the fittest would survive.… The more I thought over it the more I became convinced that I had at length found the long-sought-for law of nature that solved the problem of the origin of species.” Charles Darwin

How,for goodness sake,can any Christian even consider trying to tone down the undercurrents of national supremacy that run through the ‘cause’.The empiricists positively refuse to see it and start talking about some personal attribute of Darwin to make it sound like it is reasonable but it is about as anti-scientific as it is possible to be.

It is some sort of indoctrination among people that I cannot comprehend,Darwin is pretty explicit despite the fact that it is almost impossible to transfer a document on human national traits to biological evolution and the diversity of life.

Who knows Barbarian !,maybe those who think the empirical way will eventually evolve into chimps,no offence to the chimps.

.

 

[oriel16]

In the early 1900s, the rediscovery of genetics led to the Modern Synthesis, which modified Darwin’s theory. The new theory included random mutation which along with Darwin’s mechanism of natural selection, produced changes in living populations.

.

I have to laugh at the crude ‘natural selection’ as opposed to ‘supernatural selection’ as the empiricists would have it.

Try political supremacy selection vs natural/supernatural selection as a more appropriate reflection of the empirical view.

The idea of supernatural here is not extraneous to nature but something magniifcent in the background.

 

[The_Barbarian]

I have to laugh at the crude ‘natural selection’ as opposed to ‘supernatural selection’ as the empiricists would have it.

God made it this way. Nature may seem “crude” to you, but I think He knew what he was doing. At any rate, it’s rude (to say the least) to laugh at His works.

 

[The_Barbarian]

Darwin’s ‘cause’ for evolution is,in fact,contained in the title -

“On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life.”

You are trying to mix genetics with Darwin’s original borrowing of an essay on national supremacy to make it sound reasonable.

It’s called “the modern synthesis.” Early in the last century, Darwinian theory was combined with genetics to produce modern evolutionary theory.

Let me show the original ‘cause’ for the diversity of life as Darwin expresses his ‘eureka’ moment.

The cause is mutation, acted upon by natural selection. Would you like to see the evidence for this?

Oh, sorry, you don’t like evidence.

Evidence can be so constraining, um?

 

[oriel16]

It’s called “the modern synthesis.” Early in the last century, Darwinian theory was combined with genetics to produce modern evolutionary theory.

It’s called an Arian outlook .It is impossible to misread the ‘cause’ as anything other than an essay on national supremacy.The terrible fact is not Darwin’s explicit statement as to his origins for biological evolution but the complete lack on interest among people who call themselves Christians here.It is as though their scientific heritage never existed and especially the ability to ignore the actual evolutionary framework within evolutionary geology,not only that,the Arian strain has made it inside Christianity and is rotting it from that position.

I am a Christian because I can see the consequences of an anti-scientific view such as you are promoting and men once died to protect civilisation from being attacked by these ideologies.

The cause is mutation, acted upon by natural selection. Would you like to see the evidence for this?

Oh, sorry, you don’t like evidence.

Evidence can be so constraining, um?

Wonderful of you to know the ‘cause’ of creation and the diversity of life arising from an essay on national supremacy,if you get that far then you do not need God as you are god.

Either way,I too have evolved my position and thinking over the last few weeks spent here and thank God I have my faith and the gift He give me to handle the realisation that this is a strictly Arian atmosphere when people cannot read ideologies with the same horror I see before me.The gas chambers closed because men fought and died against false ideologies but the empiricist/Arian one is the most cunning and difficult of all.

 

[The_Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
It’s called “the modern synthesis.” Early in the last century, Darwinian theory was combined with genetics to produce modern evolutionary theory.

It’s called an Arian outlook .

Nope. You do that, but you seem to be the only one.

I am a Christian because I can see the consequences of an anti-scientific view such as you are promoting

Two errors there. First, science is by nature empirical, and always has been.

Second, seeing the consequences of anti-scientific views is not what makes one a Christian.

 

[oriel16]

Barbarian observes:
It’s called “the modern synthesis.” Early in the last century, Darwinian theory was combined with genetics to produce modern evolutionary theory.

.

That is called “making up the story as you go along” and maybe other Christians feel a desire to take a very anti-scientific view of the matter in going along with you but you will never shake the national supremacy core out of Darwin’s ‘cause’

Nope. You do that, but you seem to be the only one.

.

I am sorry,I do not deal in consensus nor can I be swayed by long and impressive figures supporting a false conclusion such as the ‘theory of gravity’ which amounts to attempting to reduce astronomy down to the ‘experimental lab’ by distorting existing astronomical insights to make planetary motion look like terrestrial ballistics.

That is where the damage was done and encountering Newton’s attempt is like meeting something akin to Frankenstein’s monster with bits and pieces cobbled from everywhere.The fact is that the original astronomical insights are fairly easy to understand with modern imaging with the original texts of the great astronomers in support.

Two errors there. First, science is by nature empirical, and always has been.

Second, seeing the consequences of anti-scientific views is not what makes one a Christian.

Why should you care,the empiricists have the full attention of the wider population and the Christians seem to enjoy playing the role assigned to them by the empiricists,some sort of moral authority wrapped up in superstition versus the ‘enlightened’ empiricist struggling to understand the mysteries of the Universe sort of thing.What is actually occuring is that genuine education and investigation is getting replaced more and more by indoctrination.Nobody discovers anything anymore but just the anonymous consensus of "Scientists say this or Scientists say that ",at least in those matters which are outside the scope of empiricism like astronomy and evolutionary biology/geology.

The great answer that the author of Job still rings true for although we can discover the grandeur and oldness of creation and even peer down to the tiniest of scales and go some way towards appreciating how all things mesh to make existence possible,our temporal lives did not witness creation unfolding even if we only now see its echos -

Then the LORD answered Job out of the whirlwind, and said,
Who is this that darkeneth counsel by words without knowledge?
Gird up now thy loins like a man; for I will demand of thee, and answer thou me. Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding. Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it? Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof; When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?
Or who shut up the sea with doors, when it brake forth, as if it had issued out of the womb?
When I made the cloud the garment thereof, and thick darkness a swaddlingband for it,
And brake up for it my decreed place, and set bars and doors,
And said, Hitherto shalt thou come, but no further: and here shall thy proud waves be stayed?
Hast thou commanded the morning since thy days; and caused the dayspring to know his place;
That it might take hold of the ends of the earth, that the wicked might be shaken out of it?

etext.virginia.edu/etcbin/toccer-new2?id=KjvBJob.sgm&images=images/modeng&data=/texts/english/modeng/parsed&tag=public&part=38&division=div1

In trying to make yourselves look great among men you look miserable before God’s creation.I know my Christian scientific heritage is part of the ‘Behold’ that presses in on us every waking moment as that dynamic which moved the author of Job if we make an effort to see it and add to it whenever possible but to inject a ‘cause’ for the diversity of life in creation is something so repugnant that creation freezes and withers instantly before men and God disappears with the intuitive/inspiring intelligence that makes him known.

Empiricism is not science if it comes down to it,it is an Arian strain which has wrecked more havoc than the awful split in Christianity at the time of the Reformation .It is worse than the last Arian intrusion back in the era of Jerome insofar as the Church had many people of wisdom within its ranks but today in a different story.

I will get my answer after the meeting in Rome but I fear I already know what it is.