Genesis v Evolution

[Jake_Ellison]

I agree with you that it does help to know something about the other sides point of view if you are going to discuss it. But I don’t think you understand the complexity of a living cell. Mutation is not a valid mechanism for one species to turn into another. Any one who is telling you this is blowing smoke. I would agree that genetic engineering could modify a species funcion but there is no way that random mutation can do it. The mathimatical statistics are astonmical. Plus I only blieve the earth has existed for about 10000 years. Therefore evolution by mutation is impossible. They need the millions and millions of years to support mutation to another species theory. That’s two theories to support one big theory. Somewhere along the lines you have to have some factual information. My rule of thump is if your theory depends upon more than one other theory throw it out and just say you don’t know. They are too arrgent to say they don’t know. But I’m not afraid to say it their heads are too big and their minds are too small. They don’t know how to think outside the evolutionary box.

I don’t think there is much point in me spending too much time replying to this. Rossum has given perfectly decent responces, but it is impossible to remove dogmatic, ingrained beliefs that are blind to any facts. No matter what I say about cumulative selection you still come out with ‘mathimatical statistics are astonmical’ agianst random mutation. You fail to see that the mutations are random, the selection is not. Evolution is a mechanism that works perfectly given a large amount of time. If you close your eyes to the age of the earth and say ‘I only believe the world has existed for 10,000 years’ then it is of course imposible for me to argue that evolution has taken place. It took place in a timeframe hugely larger then 10,000 years.

I do understand the complexity of a living cell, any A-level biologist could tell you how complex the living cell is. Its not all that hard to understand. And I am perfectly happy to say there are things I don’t know and don’t understand. I could very well say that you are too arrogant to say that you don’t understand.

(P.S. I don’t know what country your from, but if it is America, then A-levels are British exams, taken from 17-18 years old.)

 

[edwest2]

As I wrote earlier, bacteria have built-in mechanisms to combat harmful foreign substances like antiobiotics. They were designed in before man created antibiotics.

The old age of the earth was assumed at first by early geologists without any other evidence (long before modern dating methods).

There is no evidence that one land animal turned into another land animal. And it is interesting to note that in various replies, the words ‘evidence’ and ‘fact’ are used interchangeably.

God bless,
Ed

 

[SoCalRC]

As I wrote earlier, bacteria have built-in mechanisms to combat harmful foreign substances like antiobiotics. They were designed in before man created antibiotics.

The first antibiotic was found naturally occuring in bread mold. It was not ‘created’ by man. No disrespect, but these sorts of arguments are akin to the ‘perfect planet’ argument. They reflect a lack of understanding of what the scientific theories themselves predict. For example, natural selection predicts that surviving species (and the fossil record shows that vastly more species have gone extinct than survived) will be best suited for their environment.

Caldera: No, I meant 100 billion. The reason is that I was implying a multitude. Galaxys vary in size, from about 50 million to over a trillion stars. An average size of 100 billion gives a more honest estimate if people multiply the two numbers together.

Best Regards

 

[edwest2]

I know about bread mold and I know about synthetic antibiotics. My point is, bacteria are designed, not mutated into function.

The evidence for evolution is unconvincing. I’m convinced God did it as written about in various places in the Bible.

God bless,
Ed

 

[Mirdath]

I know about bread mold and I know about synthetic antibiotics. My point is, bacteria are designed, not mutated into function.

Bacteria did not originally resist synthetic antibiotics. They do now.

Bacteria have figured out how to eat nylon. Nylon did not exist before the early 20th century.

Are you saying that, when presented with a new environmental influence, the action stops, there’s a training montage, and then the new and improved Rocky Bacterium pumps its flagellae at the top of the steps in front of the Philadelphia Museum of Art?

Just – ‘hurk…concentraaaaaaate’ and suddenly I can eat nylon?

The things I could do with this power!

 

[edwest2]

You apparently missed my post about bacteria. Bacteria have built-in ways to deal with harmful outside substances like antibiotics. Plasmid transfer is one. An internet search should get you the relavent details.

Nylon. Boy, how many times I’ve seen that one. If nylon had come from outer space and contained nothing found on earth, I’d be impressed. Point is, if bacteria were not able to digest the chemical combination found in nylon then they wouldn’t be able to eat it. Ask yourself: did the termites come first or the tree? Answer. Both had to be there or the termite would’ve starved to death.

Evolution is a story, as in, not believable.

God bless,
Ed

 

[Mirdath]

You apparently missed my post about bacteria. Bacteria have built-in ways to deal with harmful outside substances like antibiotics. Plasmid transfer is one. An internet search should get you the relavent details.

Another one is the ability to evolve. How else do you intend to explain entirely new strains of bacteria that resist antibiotic substances that weren’t even around when the bacteria were first noticed?

Nylon. Boy, how many times I’ve seen that one. If nylon had come from outer space and contained nothing found on earth, I’d be impressed. Point is, if bacteria were not able to digest the chemical combination found in nylon then they wouldn’t be able to eat it. Ask yourself: did the termites come first or the tree? Answer. Both had to be there or the termite would’ve starved to death.

Bacteria do not eat individual atoms. They’re much, much bigger than that.

 

[Caldera]

SoCalRC:

No, I meant 100 billion. The reason is that I was implying a multitude. Galaxys vary in size, from about 50 million to over a trillion stars. An average size of 100 billion gives a more honest estimate if people multiply the two numbers together.

Understood… It’s not like the stars are actually counted, it’s done by measuring the total amount of light in the galaxy and knowing the mass, you can roughly estimate the number of stars.

I was just being silly.

 

[edwest2]

Another one is the ability to evolve. How else do you intend to explain entirely new strains of bacteria that resist antibiotic substances that weren’t even around when the bacteria were first noticed?

Bacteria do not eat individual atoms. They’re much, much bigger than that.

Some bacteria are naturally resistant. Look up plasmid transfer. Basically, bacteria can exchange small pieces of genetic material between themselves, even different species.

Nyon is a molecule.

God bless,
Ed

 

[Steve40]

I am aware of recessive genes. We have been aware of them since Mendel’s work was rediscovered about 1900.

Rubbish. Please show me a genetics textbook that does not mention recessive genes.

And maybe it is a worse explanation. We can see mutations happening now. We can see the evidence of mutations happening in the past, haemophilia in European royal families for instance. The only available evidence that “someone put it there” is in GM crops where there is evidence that humans made the changes directly. What evidence do you have the “someone put it there”? Without evidence your opinion has nothing to back it up.

Why? What is the point that you are trying to make with population numbers?

If you want proof then you do need evidence. Faith is belief in something without any proof. Since you have no evidence and I do not share your faith then I am free to ignore your personal beliefs about the age of the earth.

An easy burden to carry as I have the scientific literature to back me up. Start with The Age of the Earth.

Scientists like to avoid assumptions because any assumptions are an obvious weakness in any experiment. Scientists have checked that radioactive decay rates remain constant by looking at radioactive decays in distant astronomical objects such as SN 1987a. Scientists have checked that the speed of light is constant by looking at very distant astronomical objects - we know that it has been constant for the last 10 billion years. Please understand that creationist sources are not the best place to learn about science, any more than www.atheists-r-us.org would be the best place to learn about Christianity.

As I said, there are no assumptions - we know that redioactive decay rates have been constant and we know that the speed of light has been constant. These things are checked and measured. What assumptions do you think have been made?

Not in any great quantity, no. However evolution is a theory of random mutation and natural selection. Selection can make ordered information. Natural selection is a way of extracting information from the environment and copying it into the genome. Where a random mutation matches the environment then natural selection amplifies and spreads that mutation. Where a mutation does not match the envionment natural selection will suppress that mutation so it does not get a permanent place in the genome. Selection can and does make ordered information.

No, it is a glaring misunderstanding of creationists who put up a straw man caricature of evolution by only considering randiom mutations whiile ignoring the effect of natural selection. It is your creationist sources who are misunderstanding the theory of evolution.

The Luria-Delbrück paper is here (PDF). You can read it for yourself.

rossum

If evolutions admit that information may be built in through recessive genes than why do they say the change happens by mutation? As for the Royal family mutation causes de-evolution not evolution. Mutations eiher do nothing or cause a deformation. It is order to disorder caused by the random function. This is the natural result.

I don’t need evidence that someone put it there. Ordered design is self evidence of creative thought. This concept is observable and repeatable.

You need very large populations in order for your theory to work. I don’t believe the earth could sustain the population size that you need in the proximity that you need to allow for evolution to occur if it could occur.

I don’t need evidence I’m discussing the religion called evolution theory not science.

Scientists can not avoid assumptions. There are many assumptions that go into the safe design of a car. If engineers like myself must deal in a world of assumptions, then so do theoretical scientists. Let them try and do some real work where their conclusions could kill someone. Otherwise they are second rate scientists at best.

Radio dating requires assuming an initial mass.

The world does not need a straw evolution man. It has already proven itself to be one.

The fact that evolutionists what to scilence discussion of the design of the human person within our schools shows that their ideas can not compete. They have resorted to censurship not scientific debate. It is an ideology that requires indoctrination not a science where questions can be asked.

 

[Mirdath]

Some bacteria are naturally resistant. Look up plasmid transfer. Basically, bacteria can exchange small pieces of genetic material between themselves, even different species.

Humans can do the same thing, only we call it bestiality

Anyway, yes, that’s a mechanism of resistance, sure. Information goes from one bacterium to another, perhaps of a different species – and what do you have then? Something that has adapted to avoid being naturally selected out of the gene pool, and has preserved its gene line for future generations.

Evolution in action.

Nyon is a molecule.

Yes, and one that did not exist until 1935.

 

[SoCalRC]

I know about bread mold and I know about synthetic antibiotics. My point is, bacteria are designed, not mutated into function.

Yes, we understand your point of view. But in trying to stress the point as truth to others, you invented a paradox that does not exist. We observed natural anti-biotics. We harnessed a natural phenomena for human use. Resistant strains do not reflect a pre-emptive plan, they represent mutation. Something we can reproduce in the lab and study at the genetic level.

The lab evidence is so strong that most ‘creation science’ has now capitulated on ‘micro evolution’ and focuses on fighting against the concept of ‘macro evolution’.

As far as I can tell, no one is asking you to change your beliefs. If you want to belief that DirectTV is witchcraft to be shunned, be my guest. But the strong premise of the original thread is that Evolution is somehow heretical and a danger to the Catholic Faith. Pointing out that the Magesterium appears to teach otherwise, that Genesis has many problems with the observable world, and that evolution remains a superior hypothetical fit for our present knowledge in multiple disciplines seems reasonable.

In other words, one side appears to be questioning the other’s knowledge of basic science. The other appears to be charging that those that disagree with them are bad Christians.

Caldera: That was one of the original ways we started to estimate size and composition, but there are many others. For example, by looking at gravitational influences we can also approximate masses involved.

Best Regards

 

[edwest2]

“a hypothetical fit” indeed. If you go to any microbiology text you can read all about the various ways bacteria can defend against any substance that is harmful. You contend that evolution made this possible, I contend bacteria already had the ability to fend off antibiotics before antibiotics were invented. The science is there to support this.

One more thing. Evolutionary indocrinated biologists expected “junk DNA” which would have been proof of numerous failed events that occurred across evolution’s millions of years time span. It turns out the junk (non-coding) DNA was useful after all.

And since I am giving examples anyone can check, I am in no way calling those who disagree bad Christians.

God bless,
Ed

 

[rossum]

You apparently missed my post about bacteria. Bacteria have built-in ways to deal with harmful outside substances like antibiotics. Plasmid transfer is one. An internet search should get you the relavent details.

Plasmid transfer is one of the mechanisms of evolution in bacteria. It is only useful when the source bacterium has a mutation that helps deal with the antibiotic in question. A mutation is the source of that helpful genetic material. Plasmid transfer can help spread resistance once the resistance originates, it cannot originate resistance.

Nylon. Boy, how many times I’ve seen that one. If nylon had come from outer space and contained nothing found on earth, I’d be impressed. Point is, if bacteria were not able to digest the chemical combination found in nylon then they wouldn’t be able to eat it.

Nylon oligomers contain chemical bonds not seen in nature and hence the bacterium needs completely new enzymes to digest it. The bacteria were eating other things first, but some ended up in the effluent pool of a Japanese nylon factory, in amongst all the leftovers of the nylon manufacturing process. We even know what kind of mutation enabled them to digest nylon oligomers, it was a frame-shift mutation:

CAP ANT OPT ONE ART …
CAR PAN TOP TON EAR …

for details see Negoro, S., Kato, K., Fujiyama, K., Okada, H. (1994) “The nylon oligomer biodegradation system of Flavobacterium and Pseudomonas.” Biodegradation. 5: 185-194.

Ask yourself: did the termites come first or the tree? Answer. Both had to be there or the termite would’ve starved to death.

You are incorrect. Trees do not need termites to live. The trees (or tree ferns) were there before the termites. Termites merely made use of an available food supply.

Evolution is a story, as in, not believable.

A talking snake with legs is more believable?

rossum

 

[edwest2]

Yes, a talking snake with legs is more believable. “The Word was made flesh and dwelt among us.” You won’t see that in a science textbook but that is the truth.

It appears “evolution” consists of two parts: science and an associated worldview.

Science interests me temendously. A worldview that ignores and rejects the Creator God goes against my beliefs. The worldview tells people they are biological mechanisms that came from nothing. This type of thinking tends to distract people from the real love of God. Do you see what I’m saying? The science of evolution has become the ideology of evolution. And I say that with respect and with regard to a truthful reading and knowledge obtained from those who hold this worldview.

God bless,
Ed

 

[Jake_Ellison]

Yes, a talking snake with legs is more believable. “The Word was made flesh and dwelt among us.” You won’t see that in a science textbook but that is the truth.

It appears “evolution” consists of two parts: science and an associated worldview.

Science interests me temendously. A worldview that ignores and rejects the Creator God goes against my beliefs. The worldview tells people they are biological mechanisms that came from nothing. This type of thinking tends to distract people from the real love of God. Do you see what I’m saying? The science of evolution has become the ideology of evolution. And I say that with respect and with regard to a truthful reading and knowledge obtained from those who hold this worldview.

God bless,
Ed

Evolution is a science that is accepted by Christains and Atheists alike. Belief in evolution, or agreeing with the theory of evolution does not make you an atheist. But can you really jusify the dissmissal of a theory just on the basis that you feel it afrounts your faith? I hate to reuse this example, but in the past we thought the world was the centre of the universe. The Church wasn’t too happy when the suggestion was made that it wasn’t. Why was this? Because if you don’t accept that we are the centre of the universe, then you don’t accept that we are the most important things in it, and you don’t accept that we are the most important part of Gods creation, made in His image. And that is just unacceptable. It distracts from the real love of God.

 

[edwest2]

Evolution has two parts: science and ideology.

I find the science speculative. But it’s the ideology part that is, to me, the real problem. Go to any atheist forum if you don’t agree with me and see how the ideological aspect of evolution is being used. At one time, a person could’ve said, “I don’t believe in God.” and that would’ve been the end of the story. Now, thanks to the ideology, a person can say, “I don’t believe in God because I believe in evolution.” I actually asked a friend if he believed in God and the reply was, “I believe in evolution.”

“Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.” Richard Dawkins

Yes, I know some Christians believe in evolution. I’m simply bringing out the ideological aspects of it. A worldview that may not be obvious to some. (Note to my brothers and sisters, I’m trying to illustrate a point.)

God bless,
Ed

 

[cpayne]

Dear EdWest2: In this last post, you have a point. However, it’s not a point about evolution as such, but about some evolutionists. What I take from your post is that we should persistently, persistently, persistently point out that when people like Dawkins speak as atheists, they are NOT speaking as scientists, no matter how much Dawkins and company try to conflate the two. But, again, that is not a point about evolution itself.

 

[edwest2]

You noticed the quote by Dawkins but not the rest of my post? People live in a completely involved world. Their beliefs do not rest here while science is over there. People internalize information all the time and it can affect their worldview.

God bless,
Ed

 

[cpayne]

This is true, of course. But my point is that what people do or do not do with information has nothing at all to do with the truth or falsity of that information. The atheistic conclusions that people like Dawkins reach with some scientific information do not necessarily follow from the bare acceptance of the information itself.

Your acquaintance who said, “I don’t believe in God; I believe in evolution,” is simply deluded by people like Dawkins. But (to repeat myself) Dawkins is not speaking as a scientist; he is speaking as an atheist.