Genetics and Neanderthals

  • Thread starter Thread starter Faith1960
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
samiam1611 said:
What would it take to convince you?
Click to expand...
I used to be convinced (sort of) until I looked deeper into it, specifically the findings of the last 10 years or so.

A new paradigm is emerging. The top evo’s admit the modern synthesis is no more. Now they are onto self-organization. The fairytale is growing.
 
buffalo said:
I used to be convinced (sort of) until I looked deeper into it, specifically the findings of the last 10 years or so.

A new paradigm is emerging. The top evo’s admit the modern synthesis is no more. Now they are onto self-organization. The fairytale is growing.
Click to expand...
Do you accept any sort of common descent? For instance, do you accept the common ancestory of dogs, wolves, and foxes?
 
samiam1611 said:
Do you accept any sort of common descent? For instance, do you accept the common ancestory of dogs, wolves, and foxes?
Click to expand...
Wolves - dogs are domesticated wolves, so yes they have common ancestry.

Adaptations or breeding are not what we are speaking of when we use the term common ancestry.
 
buffalo said:
Wolves - dogs are domesticated wolves, so yes they have common ancestry.

Adaptations or breeding are not what we are speaking of when we use the term common ancestry.
Click to expand...
how about canids and felids? do you accept their common ancestory?
 
buffalo said:
Different cats from the cat family are still cats. So yes.
Click to expand...
no i mean cats and dogs have a common ancestor according to evolution. do you agree with that?

lions and tigers have a common ancestor, and you accept that. so do polar bears and pugs (if you go back far enough). do you accept that?

you know, species, genus, family…where do you draw the line?
 
samiam1611 said:
no i mean cats and dogs have a common ancestor according to evolution. do you agree with that?

lions and tigers have a common ancestor, and you accept that. so do polar bears and pugs (if you go back far enough). do you accept that?

you know, species, genus, family…where do you draw the line?
Click to expand...
No. The line is now blurred. Genetic mapping will further delineate that.

The fossil record shows abrupt appearance, then stasis and variation within. The very same features appear to have appeared over and over again. This is a problem for unguided evolution. It is a case for common design.
 
buffalo said:
Perhaps, but unlikely.
Click to expand...
Common and likely.

Start with some DNA:

GATTACA

Now duplicate it - duplication is a common mutation:

GATACAGATTACA

Not have a point mutation - very common. Most humans have well over 100 point mutations:

GATTACAGAGTACA

Shannon complexity has doubled. Kolmogorov complexity has doubled.

Common and likely.

rossum
 
rossum said:
Common and likely.

Start with some DNA:

GATTACA

Now duplicate it - duplication is a common mutation:

GATACAGATTACA

Not have a point mutation - very common. Most humans have well over 100 point mutations:

GATTACAGAGTACA

Shannon complexity has doubled. Kolmogorov complexity has doubled.

Common and likely.

rossum
Click to expand...
Has the meaning changed?

Have the studied point mutations increased or decreased information? Example?
 
Ahimsa said:
If you are referring to scientific methods, those methods have led scientists to conclude that the living organisms on earth share a common ancestry.

Darwin’s particular theory of how that common ancestry came about (by means of natural selection) is the dominant theory among scientists.

If you are referring to theological methods, specifically Christian, then, yes, God the Father, through God the Son, is certainly believed to be the originator of the cosmos, whether such origination involved evolutionary processes or special, direct creation.

I have no idea what “creation by creation” means.🙂
Click to expand...
Ahimsa: Nothing irritates me more than when someone assumes that I believe one thing because I happen to believe another. And Here I did exactly that to you. Completely scratch out the term “creation by creation” I am not the least bit sure what I meant by it. I am going to stick to “learning” mode for the time being.

Helen
 
buffalo said:
No. The line is now blurred. Genetic mapping will further delineate that.

The fossil record shows abrupt appearance, then stasis and variation within. The very same features appear to have appeared over and over again. This is a problem for unguided evolution. It is a case for common design.
Click to expand...
Do you accept the common ancestry of gorillas and chimpanzees?
 
buffalo said:
Absolutely.

You want more of a ride? Watch this - look at the operations of the cell. Amazing.
Click to expand...
Hi buffalo,

Really enjoyed watching that!! How wonderous!

I haven’t been on here for a while and trying to read and catch up. Only on #132 so far…

Blessings,
CEM
 
grannymh said:
This type of scientific concern is common in our modernistic environment. Today, we are sure that we are meant to know everything about anything just like our Creator. This brings back memories of Satan’s convoluted temptation to “be like gods” which worked at the beginning of human history and continues to work today.

Today, we are like the people who listened to Jesus; we have to make a choice with the “coin” of our allegiance. Do we render to Caesar, the created, or to God, the Creator? (Matthew 22: 15-22) Do we put science, the creation, above its Creator?

One of the few religions which has not wavered or watered down the truth of Adam and Eve as sole founders of the human species, Catholicism bases its firm monogenism stand on Divine Revelation guided by the continual presence of the Holy Spirit. (John, Chapter 14)

To put it simply, all of its amazing discoveries and all of its benefits for humanity do not raise scientific conclusions to the level of Divine Revelation.

Jesus continually stands before us as the Light teaching us the way and the truth. Jesus, truly present in the Catholic Eucharist, reminds us of Divine Revelation. The “coin” of science, in itself is both good and limited within the material/physical world.
On the other hand, God is calling us to share in His divine life because we are *both *rational and corporeal, both spiritual soul *and *material anatomy.

Just like Adam before us, we have to make the same choice between God and creatures. Do we let our trust in God die in our heart? (Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition, paragraph 397)
Click to expand...
I agree with the other poster: Very well spoken!

I would also like to bring to attention the Scripture:

1 Cor 13:8, 12-13
. 8 Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away

12 Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known. 13 And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love.

All knowledge will pass when we pass from this world: What remains are: faith, hope and love.

Therefore, although it is beneficial to learn and understand, mankind will NEVER completely comprehend the complexities of life and its structural beginnings. When we die, of what use would it (this obtaining of knowledge at all costs) have been if we lose our faith along the way?

I choose to trust in God and His word, and even though Genesis is based on “myth” and Genesis 1 is written as poetry, there is undeniable truth found within those passages:

God created all things, mankind being last of His wonderous creation, giving us Free Will and Intelligence.

The more I learn of science and biology the more my faith in God our Father, Creator of all, increases. I don’t “see” any contradictions. I ponder and ruminate on what I have learned (while praying) meditating on these things.

Blessings,
CEM

now to continue with reading all those posts…Phewf!! :eek:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top