Explaining Darwinism to an Accountant

[Camron]

To The Barbarian -

Your posts have helped convince me that all debates about evolution here have only one goal: reject religion and let science be your god.

I admit that the Barbarian can be flippant at times. But that’s not at all what his posts said. So don’t insert false intentions into his words please. You’re just posting rubbish with this Ed.

I am not interested in joining the Atheist New World Order.

Again, you question the faith of others because they accept the science behind evolution and believe it to be compatible with the Catholic faith, which is what the last two Popes have said too.

Why don’t you question the faith of the last two Popes when you make these claims you make?

As Pope John Paul II has written, naturalistic only evolution cannot ground the dignity of man. It can’t. Richard Dawkins wants to make sure everyone believes man is nothing special, just another animal.

Actually, Pope John Paul II did say that the theory of evolution can be compatible, with caution, with the teachings Catholic faith regarding creation.

As just another animal, man has no greater dignity or origin.

The last two Popes apparently accept that God could have used evolution to produce the bodies of man, and they have NOT given into the idea that man has no greater dignity or origin than the other animals either.

His true identity buried, and led by the nose by scientists, man could become something other than what he really is: a creation of God, capable of forming a relationship with Him. But that cannot be allowed since it would make God’s Word, the Holy Bible, relevant.

You’re talking about atheism. Not evolution.

Today, the goal is to replace the Word of God with the word of science.

God forbid.

No. The goal of the Catholic Church is to spread the Gospel of Jesus Christ to the four corners of the world. However, since the topic at hand is the nature of our origins and the compatibility of the theory of evolution with our Catholic teachings on God’s creation, it is fair to correct others on this topic without being accused of trying to get others to reject religion by letting science be their god.

The Barbarian is not trying to replace the Word of God with the word of science. That’s a terrible accusation to a make against him too, Ed, especially considering the nature of this thread too.

Peace,
Ed

Peace

 

[rossum]

First I notice that you did not contest my reference to the Luria-Delbrück experiment. Do you agree that this experimenmt is a reproducible example of evolution in the laboratory and that the first point you made in the post I was replying to was in error?

I am talking about the vast amount amount of reproducable Paluxy River data of the last 25 years.

The Paluxy River evidence does not convince Answers in Genesis; why on earth do you think that it will convince anyone else? As has been pointed out the Paluxy River deposits were supposedly laid down during the Noah’s flood - why were people and dinosaurs walking around on land when the whole earth was flooded? From a purely tactical point of view you would do better to pick a more convincing example than Paluxy as it is so easily rebutted.

There are several books written about these much better than Laetoli footprints which I’m sure you accept as valid.

Laetoli has valid hominid footprints. Paluxy has valid dinosaur footprints. There are no valid human footprints at Paluxy, despite what a few creationists try to tell you.

Both you and they are fundamentalists, you on evolution and they on creation [but they are far more logical as they have NOT done the researh and are more careful than yoiu who sit behind your computer and your computer web site links and pontificate without doing ANY research on origins.

I am not sure that what you typed was what you meant to say. As far as I am aware AiG do very little research, they merely look through the scientific literature to try to pick holes in the theory of evolution. Very little positive research is done on the creationist theory. For example, I have never seen a definitive statement of which strata are pre-flood, which strata were laid down during the flood and which were laid down after the flood. I have never seen a definitive definition of where the boundaries between the created kinds lie.

Oh come now C-14 dating of dinosaur bones and wood are well within the range of 50,000 RC years.

Utter rubbish, and by the way I have a sure-fire weight loss system to sell you for a few dollars (plus post and packing). The rocks dinosaur bones are found in are not datad by radiocarbon but by other methods such as potassium-argon, argon-argon or rubidium-strontium which are valid for those sorts of ages. For an overall survey of radiometric dating mathods see Radiometric Dating - A Christian Perspective.

Please my friend, I know how much you love the theory of evolution so write the carbon dating scientists at over 150 labs that when they get RC dates in the range of 12,000 to 43,000 RC years that their dates are out of spec. Why don’t you write all the Universities that have AMS
C-14 and tell them that? I’m sure they would appreciate your sage advice.

You seem not to be aware of the different methods of radiometric dating that are available to cover different ages. Please read the Roger Weins piece I referred to above. Carbon dating is an excellent method for a certain rage of ages; it is useless outside that range, and all the carbon dating labs are well aware of that fact.

I note that you have failed to provide any references where asked. In any scientific discussion a request for references is always relevant and should be answered. Failure to provide requested references will reflect badly on you in the discussion.

rossum
[/quote]

 

[redneck22]

It’s that kind of behavior that causes scientists to think creationists are idiots. They aren’t, of course, most of them. But ignorance is poorly covered by ridicule. Learn about these things, and you will be better prepared to talk about it.

But for example, Stephen R. Addison, a physicist, has researched on sonar in liquid media, an issue in cetacean biology.

A search turns up:
4forums.com/political/creation-intelligent-design-vs-evolution/711-transtional-forms.html?t-711.html=

As I said in post 187 I’m keen to learn…can you show me where I can read the paper and how it relates to Cetacean biology? The one by Stephen R Addison (who is on “The Steve List”) relating to sonar in liquid media, an issue in cetacean biology.

The above link you provided has some very interesting scientific discussion, but you will need to avoid the comical rantings of LurchView attachment 4546 and CrimView attachment 4547
otherwise there is no help there to the Theory of Evolution and more importantly nothing about Stephen R Addison and his paper.

In the words of Rossum in Post 202

I note that you have failed to provide any references where asked. In any scientific discussion a request for references is always relevant and should be answered. Failure to provide requested references will reflect badly on you in the discussion.

 

[rossum]

In the words of Rossum in Post 202

I note that you have failed to provide any references where asked. In any scientific discussion a request for references is always relevant and should be answered. Failure to provide requested references will reflect badly on you in the discussion.

I am glad you approve. There still remains the question of the references for you claims about carbon dating etc.

I await your response.

rossum

 

[The_Barbarian]

I note that you have failed to provide any references where asked.

Except, of course, for correcting your misconception that that cognitive science is not a biological discipline, (reference provided; I can give you more if you like). The message board I cited for you seems to be dead and the thread truncated. It’s the only cite I remember for the scientist in question regarding cetacean biology.

BTW, you were going to show us some examples of prominent creationists who do not reject evolution for religious reasons. When do you think you’ll be able to provide the requested references?

In any scientific discussion a request for references is always relevant and should be answered. Failure to provide requested references will reflect badly on you in the discussion.

No kidding. So when do you think you’ll be able to do that?

 

[redneck22]

I am glad you approve. There still remains the question of the references for you claims about carbon dating etc.

I await your response.

rossum

rossum, it wasn’t me who raised the issue of “carbon dating” it was Hugh Miller.

 

[rossum]

rossum, it wasn’t me who raised the issue of “carbon dating” it was Hugh Miller.

You are correct. My apologies.

rossum

 

[redneck22]

Except, of course, for correcting your misconception that that cognitive science is not a biological discipline, (reference provided; I can give you more if you like).

Noted

The message board I cited for you seems to be dead and the thread truncated. It’s the only cite I remember for the scientist in question regarding cetacean biology.

ok

BTW, you were going to show us some examples of prominent creationists who do not reject evolution for religious reasons. When do you think you’ll be able to provide the requested references?

Was I ? You won’t be able to find in any of my posts where I stated/implied/agreed/promised that I would provide the same. For a seasoned 3,600 poster you would not want to be accused of creating strawmen.

 

[Ender]

First I notice that you did not contest my reference to the Luria-Delbrück experiment. Do you agree that this experimenmt is a reproducible example of evolution in the laboratory …?

I’m not sure that I would agree. Based on the explanation provided by the link you (helpfully) provided I think this may overstate the case. The experiment *“demonstrates that in bacteria, genetic mutations arise in the absence of selection, rather than being a response to selection. Therefore, Darwin’s theory of natural selection acting on random mutations applies to bacteria as well as to more complex organisms.” *

What was answered was whether genetic mutations occurred randomly or in response to natural selection, and while this is necessary for Darwinism it isn’t sufficient to prove it. It’s like having a definition of a car that includes the claim that “all cars have engines”, proving that the specimen you are examining has an engine, and claiming you have proved that it is therefore a car.

Now I’m not disputing anything that was determined by the experiment or anything else about evolution - I’m only saying that I don’t think this experiment is what you claim it to be: an example of evolution in the laboratory.

Ender

 

[rossum]

Now I’m not disputing anything that was determined by the experiment or anything else about evolution - I’m only saying that I don’t think this experiment is what you claim it to be: an example of evolution in the laboratory.

The definition of evolution is “a change in the genomes of an interbreeding population over time”. That is indeed shown by the Luria-Delbrück experiment - the genomes of the population of bacteria changed over time. The theory of evolution is the best explanation we currently have for how those changes happen.

There is no single laboratory experiment that can show all of the theory of evolution, merely parts of it. Some things are too big to fit into a laboratory, unless your laboratory is the size of a planet and you can wait 4.5 billion years for the results.

rossum

 

[Ender]

The definition of evolution is “a change in the genomes of an interbreeding population over time”. That is indeed shown by the Luria-Delbrück experiment - the genomes of the population of bacteria changed over time.

I accept that this experiment showed changes in bacterial genomes which accords with your definition, I just don’t think your definition quite captures the extent of the theory.

The theory of evolution is the best explanation we currently have for how those changes happen.

Evolution may be simply “change in the genomes”, but Darwinism is a good deal more. If you accept that the terms evolution and Darwinism are not synonymous then, according to the definition you provided, I might accept that the experiment showed evolution but I would not accept that it showed Darwinian evolution (although it clearly accorded with it).

There is no single laboratory experiment that can show all of the theory of evolution, merely parts of it. Some things are too big to fit into a laboratory, unless your laboratory is the size of a planet and you can wait 4.5 billion years for the results

Yes, I accept this … which is pretty much what I said about this single laboratory experiment. Perhaps we’re not in accord on what “show” means.

Ender

 

[Namesake]

I accept that this experiment showed changes in bacterial genomes which accords with your definition, I just don’t think your definition quite captures the extent of the theory.
Evolution may be simply “change in the genomes”, but Darwinism is a good deal more. If you accept that the terms evolution and Darwinism are not synonymous then, according to the definition you provided, I might accept that the experiment showed evolution but I would not accept that it showed Darwinian evolution (although it clearly accorded with it).

Yes, I accept this … which is pretty much what I said about this single laboratory experiment. Perhaps we’re not in accord on what “show” means.

Ender

What’s the difference between evolution theory and Darwinism?

 

[reggieM]

What’s the difference between evolution theory and Darwinism?

Perhaps to refine your question:

… the difference between “evolution” and “Darwinism”.

 

[The_Barbarian]

**What’s the difference between evolution theory and Darwinism?
**

Perhaps to refine your question:

… the difference between “evolution” and “Darwinism”.

Evolution is the observed phenomenon. Darwinism is the first theory that successfully explained it. Darwinism has been modified by a number of ancillary theories to comprise the Modern Synthesis, which is what “evolutionary theory” means in science today.

 

[The_Barbarian]

Evolution may be simply “change in the genomes”, but Darwinism is a good deal more.

Technically, it is “change in allele frequency over time.” But of course, that’s like saying “chemistry is about the interactions of valence electrons.” True, but that implies a lot of important things.

If you accept that the terms evolution and Darwinism are not synonymous then, according to the definition you provided, I might accept that the experiment showed evolution but I would not accept that it showed Darwinian evolution (although it clearly accorded with it).

Indeed, classical Darwinan theory was not right in some details, although Darwin’s four points have held up extremely well, and are still confirmed by all observations. Most notably, Darwin accepted the idea of heritability of acquired characteristics, and didn’t know about genes.

However, common descent, Darwin’s most sweeping claim, has been very well confirmed by a variety of evidence, from independent sources.

 

[The_Barbarian]

BTW, you were going to show us some examples of prominent creationists who do not reject evolution for religious reasons. When do you think you’ll be able to provide the requested references?

Was I ?

I thought so. I asked you to provide some evidence for them, and you wrote:

In any scientific discussion a request for references is always relevant and should be answered. Failure to provide requested references will reflect badly on you in the discussion.

I perhaps jumped to the conclusion that it meant you thought one so requested, should provide evidence.

It’s really a moot point; no one else can find any, either.

 

[Namesake]

I cannot accept evolutionary just-so stories, conjectures, extreme improbabilities and outright deceptions as if those are “science”.

I am not convinced that evolutionary theory is true. I find many criticisms of evolutionary theory to be compelling and logical and attempts to refute them have not convinced me.

What I lose by accepting evolutionary theory without being convinced of its truth is the ability to maintain any critical faculty at all.

Evolution theory doesn’t involve “just so stories” at all. The hard evidence is so compelling that virtually all scientists accept it as the way nature works.

You are very far behind the curve of science. No amount of your objecting will change the evidence. The evidence is vast and essentially well beyond disputation. Science has moved past you a very long way. Your attempts at bringing science back to a time that doesn’t exist in the here and now is pretty silly.

 

[edwest2]

Evolutionary theory as presently constituted is a deception. Bacteria may indeed mutate but they remain bacteria. Bacteria have been found in dirt that turned out to be resistent to natural and synthetic agents. It has been shown that even bacteria of different species can exchange genetic material via lateral gene transfer. This ability is built in.

The grand morphological changes claimed in animals is extremely vague, and unproven. A recent fossil discovery was claimed to be on its way to having hands. This is simply applying a viewpoint on an observation. The hands in question were no more real than the common seal which can walk on its flippers.

Nature has no intelligence. And unless people are willing to believe that ‘nature’ was constantly spitting out fully functional mutations that were somehow selected and passed on by the organism before it was eaten, died or succumbed to disease, then I think the odds are against this happening.

Evolution theory as written in biology textbooks is presented as the whole answer. Nature somehow did something that somehow led all the way up to man. The scientist would say, and, in fact, has said that we are simply a product of a cold, uncaring universe that did not have us in mind. Who knew that man would get spit out one day after numerous mutations and selections? Who knew?

Ask Father Coyne, who represents the tip of the distorted iceberg in the Church. He’ll tell you even God didn’t know. Perhaps he just forgot about the part during Mass when God is referred as Creator of Heaven and earth. But I don’t think that’s the case at all. God has been reduced to a symbol, even by a few priests. Thast’s wrong.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Namesake]

Evolutionary theory as presently constituted is a deception.

There could be a Nobel Prize there if you can get your ideas published in a journal like “Nature”.

 

[hecd2]

Bacteria may indeed mutate but they remain bacteria.

Lynn Margulis showed convincingly that you are quite wrong about that.

Alec
evolutionpages.com