Evolution

[KarenNC]

**
Tell me what is ‘advantage’? It is an advantage that I’m 182 cms tall?**

In evolutionary terms, depends on your environment and how successful you are in passing on your genes to your offspring. Evolution does not address what an individual organism finds advantageous or desirable. There is no “desire.”

For instance, in situations where the food supply is much harder to come by for many, many generations, it could be more advantageous to be shorter as you would require fewer calories to survive. Those who can find adequate nutrition are usually overall healthier and not subject to the diseases and effects of malnutrition or other diseases, so they are likelier overall to pass on their genes, including those for being shorter, to more offspring. Those offspring then pass on the trait to their offspring and it continues to expand and larger and larger percentages of the overall population become shorter.

**I can tell you that one can only judge this retrospectively. If it survived, then it was ‘fit’ to survive. **

Yep, you got it. Evolution describes the best fit for the process that has happened. It’s not aimed at predicting what will happen, particularly not to a given individual.

**
This is the uselessness of the theory of evolution**

Only when one tries to make it something it isn’t.

That which survived survived!

By George, I think he’s got it!

 

[Orogeny]

If your statement of evolutionary fact is based on minor adaptation changes within a species, that is one thing. But, are you willing to say that all living organisms evolved from micro-organisms?

Yes, I am. As someone much smarter than me wrote “Since it has been demonstrated that all living organisms on earth are genetically related, it is virtually certain that all living organisms have descended from this first organism.”*

Just because someone believes that evolution makes the most sense, doesn’t make it fact.

You are absolutely correct! That is why I accept the FACT of evolution - it is not based on my belief that it is true, it is based on evidence.

I had the privilege of discussing evolution with one of the foremost botanists of our time. His answer to people like you are, “They see what happens on the outside, but they have no clue of how the inside works.” In other words, it is impossible for a rose to evolve into anything other than a rose. It might change color, smell, features, but it is still and will always be a rose.

Then this “foremost botanist” skipped his genetics class if he really meant what he said in the way you are presenting it. Genetics presents some of the best evidence FOR evolution.

You evolutionists jump from adaptation to complete organism evolution with no evidence or science to back it up.

You haven’t done much research on this, have you?

By the way, I am a Catholic geologist, not an “evolutionist”.

But don’t claim the theory of evolution in its entirety is fact when it is just a theory.

Based on that statement, you don’t understand evolution at all.

Yes, evolution is a fact. Yes, the mechanism of evolution is a theory. To say that evolution is “just a theory” is EXACTLY the same as saying gravity is “just a theory”.There are people who believe that evolution would discount scripture and God. If you convinced them on half-truths and opinion to search elsewhere for the truth, you better know that you are responsible for it.I am not responsible for someone who insists that a literal reading of scripture is the only correct reading. If they question their faith because evolution is a fact, then their problem was never with evolution to begin with.

Peace

Tim

***Communion and Stewardship:Human Persons Created in the Image of God - **The July 2004 Vatican Statement on Creation and Evolution, International Theological Commission, Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger

 

[Orogeny]

All these people seem convinced Evolution’s a fact, or it’s a lie…

I hate to tell y’all this, but Evolution is not science. See, evolution is not a theory about the way things work at present–it is a theory about the way they did happen.

I believe you would get a bit of an argument from geneticists on this. Francis Collins would undoubtedly disagree with the idea that evolution is not happening now.

I personally think there is something to evolution, as a not-even-a-hypothesis model of the development of life (although I’ve seen some things that contradict it, too). But it is not, and never can be, even so established as a theory, let alone a fact.

Well, I guess science needs to check in with you in the future so that we will know if we are doing science.

Peace

Tim

 

[Hastrman]

I believe you would get a bit of an argument from geneticists on this. Francis Collins would undoubtedly disagree with the idea that evolution is not happening now.

Good point; I should have said it is not only a theory about what’s happening now.

Actually no sane person can dispute that, at some scale, it is happening now. What is very much in doubt is how it happened in the past, and, as I said, that’s not susceptible of real laboratory proof.

 

[Pjs2ejs]

Orogeny,

Are you goofing? This is not even a reasonable discussion. It sounds like you are joking about your explanations.

 

[Pjs2ejs]

KarenNC,

In response to your comment about the flower changing. Let’s take dogs. There are so many different types of dogs. Sizes, colors, breeds. You can inbreed til your heart’s content. You may start with a Great Dane and end up with a Chihuahua after several generations. But when it’s all said and done, it will still be a dog, won’t it. Same chromosomes. A dog cannot parent anything other than a dog and a dog cannot have anything other than a dog parent.

Think about it. Adaptations due to environmental effects are superficial changes. It does not change the structure of the chromosomes, the inside.

I’m not denying species evolution. If it happened that way, fine. I’m saying that maybe it didn’t. And maybe those of us who hold to that theory are not kooks. Nothing I have read or seen on Total Evolution has convinced me otherwise.

 

[KarenNC]

Adaptations due to environmental effects are superficial changes. It does not change the structure of the chromosomes, the inside.

Genetic mutations do change the chromosones, hence the name.

 

[Pjs2ejs]

Name one thriving genetic mutation Karen. They die and don’t reproduce.

 

[Montalban]

"Montalban:

Tell me what is ‘advantage’? It is an advantage that I’m 182 cms tall?

In evolutionary terms, depends on your environment and how successful you are in passing on your genes to your offspring. Evolution does not address what an individual organism finds advantageous or desirable. There is no “desire.”

I didn’t say there was a desire. I stated that evolution can’t be used to determine what an advantage is, in advance. It’s thoroughly retrospective. It is to say anything that survived must have had the advantage to survive which is meaningless (see bottom of this post)
"Montalban:

I can tell you that one can only judge this retrospectively. If it survived, then it was ‘fit’ to survive.

Yep, you got it. Evolution describes the best fit for the process that has happened. It’s not aimed at predicting what will happen, particularly not to a given individual.

Which we’ll get to in just a moment!
"Montalban:

This is the uselessness of the theory of evolution

Only when one tries to make it something it isn’t.

Almost there…
"Montalban:

That which survived survived!

By George, I think he’s got it!

But *you *haven’t. It’s a tautology.

 

[KarenNC]

I stated that evolution can’t be used to determine what an advantage is, in advance.

I don’t recall saying anything that indicated I believed it could or should be used so.

 

[Orogeny]

Orogeny,

Are you goofing? This is not even a reasonable discussion. It sounds like you are joking about your explanations.

No, I am not goofing. I’m sorry if you don’t understand my comments.

Peace

Tim

 

[Orogeny]

Name one thriving genetic mutation Karen. They die and don’t reproduce.

Tell that to epidemiologists who daily fight disease-causing microbes that mutate and become resistant to antibiotics.

Peace

Tim

 

[KarenNC]

Name one thriving genetic mutation Karen. They die and don’t reproduce.

Mutations can have a positive, neutral or negative impact on an individual, sometimes a combination of these depending on the environmental circumstances (ie what is positive in one environment may be neutral or negative in another)

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutation

"Changes in DNA caused by mutation can cause errors in protein sequence, creating partially or completely non-functional proteins. To function correctly, each cell depends on thousands of proteins to function in the right places at the right times. When a mutation alters a protein that plays a critical role in the body, a medical condition can result. A condition caused by mutations in one or more genes is called a genetic disorder. However, only a small percentage of mutations cause genetic disorders, most have no impact on health. For example, some mutations alter a gene’s DNA base sequence but don’t change the function of the protein made by the gene…

A very small percentage of all mutations actually have a positive effect. These mutations lead to new versions of proteins that help an organism and its future generations better adapt to changes in their environment. For example, a specfic 32 base pair deletion in human CCR5 (CCR5-32) confers HIV resistance to homozygotes and delays AIDS onset in heterozygotes[1]. The CCR5 mutaion is more common in those of european descent. One theory for the etiology of the relatively high frequency of CCR5-32 in the euopean population is that is conferred resistance to the bubonic plague in mid-14th century Europe [2]"

Also
biology-online.org/2/11_natural_selection.htm

"Consider this argument of natural selection in the case of sickle cell trait, a genetic defect common in Africa.

Sickle cell trait is a situation that occurs in the presence of a recessive allele coding for haemoglobin, a substance in the blood responsible for the transport of gases like oxygen. The presence of the allele is either partially expressed recessively (sickle cell), or fully expressed by a complete recessive expression which results in full blown anaemia. If this particular allele is dominant, no sickle cell trait is expressed in the phenotype.
The above occurrences in the case of a recessive allele result in structural defects of red blood cells, severely reducing the organisms capacity to uptake oxygen.
It was pointed out that in Africa, there is a high frequency of this mutation, where cases of malaria were high.
A substantiated link was made noting those who suffer sickle cell trait or anaemia were immune to the effects of malaria.
This is yet again natural selection at work. Although sickle cell trait or anaemia are not advantageous characteristics on their own, they prove to be advantageous in areas where malaria proves to be a greater threat to preserving the genome (i.e. surviving).
The incomplete dominance of this genetic expression proves favourable either way.
This is how science has understood natural selection since the first studies involving Darwin."

washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/15/AR2005121501728.html

Genetic mutation that accounts for pigment differences in white (Caucasian) skin vs. darker skin

(note: this is to show that genetic mutations are not always lethal and persist because of some advantage in the environment of those with the mutation, not to suggest that white skin is in any way inherently superior)

msu.edu/~shawsar1/genetic_mutation.html

The entire article is worth reading as it addresses this very topic, but I will pull out only a bit
“a mutation in the coagulation factor VII gene was shown to decrease the risk of heart attacks to those who posses it. Another mutation in G protein genes seems to enhance immune function in humans.”

 

[Montalban]

I don’t recall saying anything that indicated I believed it could or should be used so.

And that *is *why it’s a useless theory. Science is often used to make predictions.

You can’t do that with evolution excpet to say that whatever survived just must have done so by evolution.

But, you’re not the only one to use tautology to defend it. Even Darwin himself preferred to use a tautology to summarise it; Survival of the Fittest.

 

[KarenNC]

** Science is often used to make predictions.**

True, but that is not its only purpose. As Merriam Webster puts it science is " the state of knowing : knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding."

There is also value in understanding as accurately as possible how something came to be not just in predicting precisely what might come to be. However, it is not true that predictions cannot be made based on evolution.

True, the theory of evolution does say that those organisms which survived (and continue to survive) did so because they did not die before reproducing when others similar to them did, so there must be some process to explain why those particular organisms survived to reproduce when others did not.

We can predict based on evolution that life is not static. We can predict that genetic mutations will continue to occur and that there is the likelihood that some of those mutations will confer some benefit to the survival of some organisms in their environment while others will not. We can predict that genetic diversity will continue to be one of the greatest defenses against extinction for a particular species by enabling some of its members to survive currently unforeseen circumstances of environmental change.

Evolution describes a process as it is, given current evidence. It does not seek to assign cause, regardless of how much folks on either side of the argument wish that it did so. Science and religion do not seek to answer the same questions and it is a mistake to try to force either one to do the other’s job.

I do not know what the Orthodox Christian teaching on this is, but it is, as far as I know, in line with the Catholic teaching. Have you read Stephen Jay Gould’s “Non-overlapping Magisteria?”

stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_noma.html

In the article he quotes Pope John Paul II’s statement regarding evolution to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences on Oct 22, 1996, which can be found at newadvent.org/library/docs_jp02tc.htm

Do any Catholics know if there has been a change in Church doctrine since this address in 1996?

 

[Montalban]

"Montalban:

Science is often used to make predictions.

True, but that is not its only purpose.

Didn’t say it was.

As Merriam Webster puts it science is " the state of knowing : knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding."

And there’s no knowledge to be gained from evolution except to stand back, look at something that’s already happened and say it happened (by way of evolution).

True, the theory of evolution does say that those organisms which survived (and continue to survive) did so because they did not die before reproducing when others similar to them did, so there must be some process to explain why those particular organisms survived to reproduce when others did not.

That’s still not dealing with the point it’s a tautology.

We can predict based on evolution that life is not static.

That is to state evolution itself, which is that things change. Hardly a ‘prediction’.

We can predict that genetic mutations will continue to occur and that there is the likelihood that some of those mutations will confer some benefit to the survival of some organisms in their environment while others will not. We can predict that genetic diversity will continue to be one of the greatest defenses against extinction for a particular species by enabling some of its members to survive currently unforeseen circumstances of environmental change.

This is a truism. We can predict some organisms will survive, some will die. So far you’re defending a tautology with a truism.

Evolution describes a process as it is, given current evidence. It does not seek to assign cause, regardless of how much folks on either side of the argument wish that it did so. Science and religion do not seek to answer the same questions and it is a mistake to try to force either one to do the other’s job.

There’s many shades and hues to evolution. The Catholic church recognises this (see below from your site)

I do not know what the Orthodox Christian teaching on this is, but it is, as far as I know, in line with the Catholic teaching. Have you read Stephen Jay Gould’s “Non-overlapping Magisteria?”

stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_noma.html

It’s interesting you introduce Gould. Those who support his theory and those that support Dawkins are at odds how evolution proceeded, only that it did. Gould championed rapid change (such as described by his ‘punctuated equilibrium’). Dawkins opposes that, and as noted above Dawkins quite ridiculously also champions models for evolution that involve intelligent design.

In the article he quotes Pope John Paul II’s statement regarding evolution to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences on Oct 22, 1996, which can be found at newadvent.org/library/docs_jp02tc.htm

Do any Catholics know if there has been a change in Church doctrine since this address in 1996?

I think you need to read what he says about man for it undermines the totally ‘directionlessness’ of evolution, as you understand it.
viz
“Consequently, theories of evolution which, in accordance with the philosophies inspiring them, consider the spirit as emerging from the forces of living matter or as a mere epiphenomenon of this matter, are incompatible with the truth about man. Nor are they able to ground the dignity of the person.”
(Ibid.)
I should point out that there’s many versions of evolution, yours is the standard materialistic one. This is opposed by the church, which though it recognises evolution as a process, ascribes a creative force behind it, so it has a purpose.

Gender bias can be the cause of error, or of not immediately recognising truths.

Gender issues have been explained by evolutionists. Some would like to ignore this, but it is part of the way evolution has been taught * by men for men. *As men’s ideas about gender have changed, so have their interpretations of evolutionary evidences.

Darwin postulated that females are ‘‘coy,’’ mating rarely and choosing their mates carefully, presumably betting their odds on the males with the best genes to contribute to their offspring. For their part, males are ‘‘ardent’’ and promiscuous, and fight amongst themselves for female partners. Later theories added that males are promiscuous because they have less to lose by making babies - unlike eggs, sperm are plentiful and small. Plus, females usually do most of the work to raise the offspring”

eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2003-02/su-sag021003.php

See also

stanford.edu/dept/news/report/news/2003/february19/aaassocialselection219.html

 

[Godhead]

(assuming that we did evolve)

To me one of the mysteries of evolution is that we *evolved *to a point that we can understand it.

It’s like the universe *does *have an intent for us

But of course the madness that is Darwinian evolution is that there is no purpose to evolution.

Exactly, I say science without God is a bottomless pit. The blind lead the blind into pits.

 

[Orogeny]

And that *is *why it’s a useless theory. Science is often used to make predictions.

You can’t do that with evolution excpet to say that whatever survived just must have done so by evolution.

That’s not correct. See:talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA210.html

But, you’re not the only one to use tautology to defend it. Even Darwin himself preferred to use a tautology to summarise it; Survival of the Fittest.

For a nice discussion as to why you are wrong about this, see stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/gould_tautology.html

Peace

Tim

 

[Pjs2ejs]

Orogeny,

They are still microbes. Just because I become immune to a disease doesn’t mean I am a genetic mutant. Do you have any fabulous examples of anything that is visible to the naked eye, like a mammal or something. There are none that I no of.

KARENNC, your examples of genetic mutations are of human beings. Before and after your claimed mutation, they were still human beings. Nothing more, nothing less.

 

[Orogeny]

Orogeny,

They are still microbes. Just because I become immune to a disease doesn’t mean I am a genetic mutant. Do you have any fabulous examples of anything that is visible to the naked eye, like a mammal or something. There are none that I no of.

Yes, they are still microbes. Because of genetic mutation, the population of those microbes will eventually develop a resistance to antibiotics. That is one example of a genetic mutation being beneficial. That proves that your statement that all genetic mutations die and don’t reproduce.

You want a bigger example? Why? How about the sickle cell trait? Is that a big enough example?

Peace

Tim