Explaining Darwinism to an Accountant

[edwest2]

To The Barbarian -

About evidence in science. The embryologist can show anyone that an embryo is human. A unique individual. Not too difficult to do. But, even with the evidence, the conclusion is that it’s not a human being.

I submit that it is 100% true that everyone reading this began life as an embryo, but you know what? It doesn’t matter what the evidence says.

Peace,
Ed

 

[rossum]

I submit that it is 100% true that everyone reading this began life as an embryo, but you know what? It doesn’t matter what the evidence says.

<mode=nitpick>
Not strictly true. Some people begin life as half of an embryo - identical twins. Other people begin life as two embryos - chimeras.

rossum

 

[The_Barbarian]

About evidence in science. The embryologist can show anyone that an embryo is human. A unique individual. Not too difficult to do. But, even with the evidence, the conclusion is that it’s not a human being.

What do you think it is, then?

I submit that it is 100% true that everyone reading this began life as an embryo, but you know what? It doesn’t matter what the evidence says.

It is the evidence the Church uses to say that life begins at conception. In the Middle Ages, some Christian theologians said that life began at the first quickening. We know better now, because of science.

 

[Ender]

The presence of these resulted in a prediction that we should see intermediates between organelles and independent organisms. And we have since confirmed the prediction.

This is interesting: Darwinism posits that evolution is completely undirected yet here we have an example of an organism where Darwinists claim to know what it will evolve into: *"*It is a genuine transitional on its way from bacterium to organelle." They may be able to reasonably guess where it came from but, according to their own theory, they should have no idea what it will become in the future. If they know what it will become then evolution cannot be said to be undirected and the theory falls; if they cannot know what it will become (as I contend) then this particular claim falls.

That is considered compelling evidence in science.

When did guessing become compelling evidence?

Ender

 

[rossum]

This is interesting: Darwinism posits that evolution is completely undirected yet here we have an example of an organism where Darwinists claim to know what it will evolve into: “It is a genuine transitional on its way from bacterium to organelle.”

This is not a prediction, it is a retrodiction. Evolution tells us that living things evolved from earlier living things. We see living things with chloroplasts - they are known as plants. We also see independent free-living photosynthetic bacteria similar to chloroplasts. Evolution makes a retrodiction that organisms intermediate between these two known endpoints existed, and might possibly still exist now. Those intermediates have been found - Carsonella. Evolution is not making a prediction because we can see chloroplasts here and now.

If you are going to criticise evolution then please do so on the basis of what evolution actually says, not what you would like it to say.

Consider this syllogism, and why it fails, despite being logically correct:

• Christianity says that the moon is made of green cheese.
• The moon is not made of green cheese.
• Therefore Christianity is wrong.

You are making a similar error.

rossum

 

[edwest2]

<mode=nitpick>
Not strictly true. Some people begin life as half of an embryo - identical twins. Other people begin life as two embryos - chimeras.

rossum

You win the hair splitting award, but my statement is true and can be clearly shown to be true.

Peace,
Ed

 

[edwest2]

What do you think it is, then?

It is the evidence the Church uses to say that life begins at conception. In the Middle Ages, some Christian theologians said that life began at the first quickening. We know better now, because of science.

Knowing about science is not as important as knowing about God.

There is a correct way to look at faith and science which was defined by Pope John Paul II:

“Science can purify religion from error and superstition; religion can purify science from idolatry and false absolutes.”

Peace,
Ed

 

[Ender]

This is not a prediction, it is a retrodiction.

“It is a genuine transitional on its way from bacterium to organelle.” Please, this is clearly a prediction that an existing organism (carsonella) will evolve into an organelle. It may be a “retrodiction” about where it came from but it is undeniably a prediction about where it is going.

This is the kind of defense that got me started questioning Darwinism more closely. If the theory is so undeniably true then why are such indefensible defenses so common? Why not just admit that this particular claim doesn’t hold water and be done with it rather than try to claim that a statement about something expected to happen in the future does not constitute a prediction?

If you are going to criticise evolution then please do so on the basis of what evolution actually says, not what you would like it to say.

If you are going to criticise me then please do so on the basis of what I have actually said. I am stating that the claim made above regarding the projected evolutionary future of an organism contradicts a central tenet of Darwinism, which is that evolution is undirected, therefore one cannot predict an organism’s evolutionary path. If you want a Christian analogue it would be holding simultaneously that Mary was a virgin and that she had a child other than Christ. One of those two statements has to be wrong, just as one of the two statements about evolution has to be wrong - they are mutually exclusive.

Why do you fight so hard to protect a random claim of no particular importance - especially when you have to do so by denying the obvious?

Ender

 

[rossum]

“It is a genuine transitional on its way from bacterium to organelle.” Please, this is clearly a prediction that an existing organism (carsonella) will evolve into an organelle. It may be a “retrodiction” about where it came from but it is undeniably a prediction about where it is going.

You have misunderstood the nature of a “transitional”. Carsonella is a transitional between a free-living photosynthesising bacteria and an obligate symbiont chloroplast. There is no prediction that it will evolve in future to form chloroplasts, indeed probably not since the chloroplast ecological slot is already filled by existing chloroplasts. Carsonella was left behind on the journey, like a 49’er left in the Rockies on his way to California.

If you are going to criticise me then please do so on the basis of what I have actually said. I am stating that the claim made above regarding the projected evolutionary future of an organism contradicts a central tenet of Darwinism, which is that evolution is undirected, therefore one cannot predict an organism’s evolutionary path.

Stating that something is “transitional” is not a statement about the future, it is a statement about the past. Chloroplasts exist here and now, they have already evolved. Carsonella is transitional between two existing lineages, just as amphibians are transitional between fish and land tetrapods. I will allow that the original statement coul have been phrased better, but I think you are reading too much into loose phraseology. How can we “predict” the evolution of something that already exists?

rossum

 

[The_Barbarian]

This is interesting: Darwinism posits that evolution is completely undirected yet here we have an example of an organism where Darwinists claim to know what it will evolve into:

No. It is merely evidence that the endosymbiont theory is correct. As you saw, there is a lot more evidence for it.

It is a genuine transitional on its way from bacterium to organelle." They may be able to reasonably guess where it came from but, according to their own theory, they should have no idea what it will become in the future. If they know what it will become then evolution cannot be said to be undirected and the theory falls;

Do you think a glacier making it’s way downhill is “undirected?” If so, then so is evolution. Remember, Darwin’s great discovery was that it wasn’t random. The problem isn’t with the theory, it’s with your perception of what the theory is.

Barbarian regarding accurate prediction of future evidence:
That is considered compelling evidence in science.

When did guessing become compelling evidence?

The confirmation of hypotheses (which are educated guesses) is compelling evidence. The guesses might or might not be true. The confirmation of such predictions is compelling evidence.

 

[The_Barbarian]

Knowing about science is not as important as knowing about God.

True. The Church is for knowing about God. Science is for knowing about His creation.

There is a correct way to look at faith and science which was defined by Pope John Paul II:

“Science can purify religion from error and superstition; religion can purify science from idolatry and false absolutes.”

Science can refute only scientific claims. When religion makes scientific claims, it ceases to be religion. And yes, science cannot guide you about God, or ethics, or morals.

 

[edwest2]

True. The Church is for knowing about God. Science is for knowing about His creation.

Science can refute only scientific claims. When religion makes scientific claims, it ceases to be religion. And yes, science cannot guide you about God, or ethics, or morals.

This is false. The Church, just like each individual person, examines science. It comes to conclusions about science as science. It exposes scientific falsehoods such as a human embryo is not human. A scientific fact that is being ignored because a small group with money and temporal power has decided that the Church can be ignored on that issue. They have decided what the “greater good” is.

Faith and morals are not just expressed in the Church building. They must be used outside of it. To say no to science that is controlled by misguided men. To point out the scientifically provable truth that is being ignored because those who have power become their own law, and have their own sense of right and wrong.

And when people like Dawkins and Dennet and Harris and Myers go on TV or youtube or start a web site - they are posing as guides. As people, Scientists, with answers. And their institutionalized atheism has to be shown for what it is: science against religion.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Ender]

I will allow that the original statement coul have been phrased better, but I think you are reading too much into loose phraseology. How can we “predict” the evolution of something that already exists?

You could be correct in saying that the comment was simply badly phrased but at least admit that, as phrased, the comment assumes that the evolutionary path of the organism is predictable. *“It is a genuine transitional on its way from bacterium to organelle.” *If I were to say about a car that it was “a stolen Lamborghini, on its way from Kansas City to St. Louis” we can all be pretty sure that the cops in St. Louis would take that as a prediction of the future destination of the car.

Carsonella is transitional between two existing lineages

Carsonella is neither bacterium nor organelle and is *assumed *to be a transitional but there was nothing in the paper that even attempted to identify the organelle that evolved from it so it cannot be known to be a transitional. It may be a reasonable assumption but, again, here is a claim of proof of an aspect of Darwinism that is simply not proof … which is what I said in my first comment on this subject.

Ender

 

[rossum]

You could be correct in saying that the comment was simply badly phrased but at least admit that, as phrased, the comment assumes that the evolutionary path of the organism is predictable. *“It is a genuine transitional on its way from bacterium to organelle.” *If I were to say about a car that it was “a stolen Lamborghini, on its way from Kansas City to St. Louis” we can all be pretty sure that the cops in St. Louis would take that as a prediction of the future destination of the car.

This is evolution, not cars. We still have the Lamboghini in Kansas City - the free living photosynthetic bacteria. We already have the Lamborghini in St Louis - chloroplasts. What we have found is the Lamborghini on its way - Carsonella. There is no one Lamborghini, there are billions of them, and they have left traces of many of the places they have been.

Carsonella is neither bacterium nor organelle and is *assumed *to be a transitional but there was nothing in the paper that even attempted to identify the organelle that evolved from it so it cannot be known to be a transitional.

Many people find it difficult to understand but the definition of transitional does not involve descent, for the simple reason that we can never know if a fossil organism ever had any decendants. A transitional is defined as an organism with characteristics of two different groups (clades). Archaeopteryx is transitional, not because it is the ancestor of modern birds, it probably wasn’t, but because it shares the characteristics of dinosaurs (teeth, bony tail) and birds, (flight, feathers).

Carsonella shares the characteristics of photosynthetic bacteria and chloroplasts so it is ipso facto a transitional. It is probable that it does bear some resemblance to the actual transitional, which was alive billions of years ago and might possibly be the descendant of that transitional but those are questions for further study.

It may be a reasonable assumption but, again, here is a claim of proof of an aspect of Darwinism that is simply not proof … which is what I said in my first comment on this subject.

Science does not do “proof”. The best you will get in science is “beyond reasonable doubt”. No scientific theory is ever proved because every scientific theory can be replaced by a better theory if the evidence requires it. Newton’s gravity was never proved, despite working so well for so many years, and it was replaced by Einstein’s theory which works better for large masses.

rossum

 

[The_Barbarian]

This is false. The Church, just like each individual person, examines science. It comes to conclusions about science as science. It exposes scientific falsehoods such as a human embryo is not human.

The reason you can deny evolution and still be a Catholic, is precisely because the Church does not make scientific conclusions. If it did you would have to make a choice.

The issue of humanity is in the question about a human soul, something beyond the reach of science.

A scientific fact that is being ignored because a small group with money and temporal power has decided that the Church can be ignored on that issue. They have decided what the “greater good” is.

I think you would do better in faith and in science, if you left your political ideas out of it.

 

[edwest2]

To The Barbarian -

Human life has nothing to do with politics. Nothing.

Why do want the confirmation of the Catholic Church about science? Why does it matter to you that the Church says “common descent is virtually certain”? According to your flawed reasoning, that should only be left to science.

No. The Catholic uses science and uses faith, both at the same time. If one or both are misrepresented, then there is a problem. The clear evidence that a human embryo is a human being is being ignored by science. That is wrong.

Peace,
Ed

 

[The_Barbarian]

Human life has nothing to do with politics. Nothing.

Which is why I think you shouldn’t approach it that way.

Why do want the confirmation of the Catholic Church about science?

I’ve told you that the Church doesn’t involve itself with scientific questions, and that it should be that way.

Why does it matter to you that the Church says “common descent is virtually certain”?

The Pope says that, not the Church. And he’s making a scientific observation, not a religious one.

According to your flawed reasoning, that should only be left to science.

Nothing flawed about it. It’s why the Church doesn’t require you to accept evolution.

Science can’t tell you when ensoulment happens, and we have a new human being. The Church can only consider the facts, and apply God’s revelation to us. So, we can consider reproductive ethics in a Christian framework and include the facts, but science can only provide the facts.

 

[edwest2]

Which is why I think you shouldn’t approach it that way.

I’ve told you that the Church doesn’t involve itself with scientific questions, and that it should be that way.

The Pope says that, not the Church. And he’s making a scientific observation, not a religious one.

Nothing flawed about it. It’s why the Church doesn’t require you to accept evolution.

Science can’t tell you when ensoulment happens, and we have a new human being. The Church can only consider the facts, and apply God’s revelation to us. So, we can consider reproductive ethics in a Christian framework and include the facts, but science can only provide the facts.

Nice dodge. The Pope has made scientific observations based on religion and science. The Catholic Church can and does combine the two. It views them as complementary.

This is how each Catholic needs to view science and religion. Catholics need to realize, as Cardinal Schoenborn has pointed out, that scientists have overstepped their bounds. They are promoting an ideology, not science. But it’s not enough to simply point that out. It has to be said as a warning to all Catholics: The scientists you grew up with have embraced atheism. They are using science to convince you that God doesn’t exist and your beliefs are just “magical thinking” (also according to hecd2 who posts here as well).

Facts can be manipulated, as I just pointed out. Dawkins uses the same “mountains of evidence” to say, “We no longer believe in the Greek or Roman gods, I’m simply adding one more.” And for anyone who claims Dawkins is still keeping the door open about God. Please. Give me a break.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Ender]

A transitional is defined as an organism with characteristics of two different groups (clades).

A transition is defined as a passage from one state to another, which is what is inferred by the evolutionary term transitional - although that is not how it is defined. By your definition a duck - a military vehicle that can travel on roads as well as on water - is a transitional between cars and boats even though it clearly is not a transitional between them but a composite of them.

“Characteristics” is a pretty ill-defined term. Is a duck-billed platypus a transitional because it has characteristics of (at least) two different clades?

Carsonella shares the characteristics of photosynthetic bacteria and chloroplasts so it is ipso facto a transitional.

A duck shares the characteristics of cars and boats so it too is ipso facto a transitional. We also know - as a real fact - that it is not … except by definition. Doesn’t this definitional fudging give you even a little discomfort? I never know where these discussions will lead but it seems that every time I pull at some tiny thread things start to unravel like a cheap sweater.

Ender

 

[rossum]

A transition is defined as a passage from one state to another, which is what is inferred by the evolutionary term transitional - although that is not how it is defined.

Evolutin is a science, with its own technical vocabulary. If you are discussing evolution then it is well to have some understanding of the technical vocabulary involved.

By your definition a duck - a military vehicle that can travel on roads as well as on water - is a transitional between cars and boats even though it clearly is not a transitional between them but a composite of them.

Cars, DUKWs and boats are not living organisms, do not reproduce and do not form a nested hierarchy. They are not part of evolution and do not form transitionals in the biological sense.

“Characteristics” is a pretty ill-defined term. Is a duck-billed platypus a transitional because it has characteristics of (at least) two different clades?

The more correct term is “synapomorphies” but I judged that you would not be familiar with the word so I used something more general. Synapomorphy does have an exact definition: “a synapomorphy is a derived character state shared by two or more terminal groups (taxa included in a cladistic analysis as further indivisible units) and inherited from their most recent common ancestor.” - Wikipedia. Note that the word “derived” in this definition also has a very specific meaning in biology. You might also want to look up the definition of “plesiomorphy”

A biological transitional can be defined in terms of synapomorphies, plesiomorphies and derived characteristics.

rossum