Happy Birthday, Mr. Darwin: Growing Majority of Americans Support Teaching Both Sides of Evolution Debate

[Orogeny]

common ancestry is a fact:-

The common ancestors of ALL humans is Adam and Eve

The common ancestors of all bacteria is bacteria

The common ancestors of all sea horses is sea horses

Thats all science has ever been able to demonstrate empirically and all of the above were created with built in variability and richness of information to be able to survive.

Good that you have been able to follow the discussion.

Peace

Tim

 

[rossum]

common ancestry is a fact:-

Corect.

The common ancestors of ALL humans is Adam and Eve

Incorrect. There is too much variation in the human genome to allow a bottleneck of four alleles (that is two people) since before humans evolved from their ancestors.

The common ancestors of all bacteria is bacteria

Correct.

The common ancestors of all sea horses is sea horses

I am pretty sure that is correct, as far as I am aware sea horses are monophyletic.

Thats all science has ever been able to demonstrate empirically and all of the above were created with built in variability and richness of information to be able to survive.

So what went wrong with the trilobites then? Did the creator ‘forget’ to give them enough variability to survive?

You need to look a bit more carefully at the implications of the nested hierarchy and common descent. All descendants of dinosaurs are also dinosaurs, hence birds are also dinosaurs. All descendants of mammals are mammals. All descendants of deuterostomes are deuterostomes and so forth. Evolution agrees that all organisms reproduce “after their kind”. It is just that kinds can have sub-kinds, for examples mammals are a sub-kind of deuterostomes. All mammals are deuterostomes but not all deuterostomes are mammals. All birds are dinosaurs, but not all dinosaurs are birds and both are also deuterostomes.

rossum

 

[Sideline]

I mean, how much research do you want me to do for you?

Ok, here’s one.

Stanley Salthe

Now there’s a perfect choice. Stanley Salthe, who has since asked to have his name taken off the list. He hadn’t understood the purpose of the document and signed it in a, “Fit of pique.”

If you read his papers, you will see that he is against Natural Selection as an explanation, but does believe in the common descent of species.

That’s… the opposite of what you think… isn’t it?

It’s certainly the opposite of what young Ready thinks. So, his inclusion on the list of scientists doesn’t help Ready all that much. But he will prove an invaluable resource to those who believe that evolution is a fact, and that it is only the emphasis on competition amongst the species that is the problem.

 

[gam197]

Even the pope accepts evolution theory as the way things happened.

Not true.

Someone posts an old article and here we go with another thread on Darwinism. I am so glad his anniversary doesn’t come up for another 50 years - too many trolls.

The Church advocates for open discussion on evolution but that is about it. This is such an important topic in the Church that you can bet if the Church believed in evolution, it would have issued an encyclical stating why.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Very good! The start-off designer doesn’t have to be present, at all times and places, constantly tweaking, so to speak, that evolutionary process. This does not, then, preclude the possibility of something that we call “God” from instigating it all then letting it unfurrow on its own. And, if this is so - which you seem to agree that it appears to be - then wouldn’t you and I perhaps want to thank that start-off designer for the “push-off”? It appears to me that you are not God-less, you are just wrestling with the notion that it has to be the Judeo-Christian God. Are you agnostic in that sense?

I think many Christians are unsophisticated Christians. By that, I mean, they have little or no affinity with science. Then, coupled with the fact that science most likely can co-exist with a start-off designer, and their belief system is shattered. Remember, these are - like us - children. It is far easier to adhere to that which is didactically said to us, in the absense of an expansive laboratory, than it is to use reason and trust in other peoples’ wisdoms to accept much of what’s out there.

Except for the one, omnipotent, and quite possibly, preclusive exigency of “chance”, aka, probability - even if there was a preponderant drive towards an evolved intelligent creature. The “unlikely-ness factor” does not just go away on that account.

Further, “intelligence” has several meanings. (1) It is capacity for reason; and, (2) it is knowledge-items AND reason used to apprehend truth. Dogs and cats have a species of a capacity to reason and we can call that “intelligence”. They have limited reason though. They cannot conceive of, for example, the future perfect tense.

Much of grammar, seems to be superficial to survival, and, therefore, to evolution, in my opinion. I believe we have such grammatical constructs for “altruistic” reasons. The question is left, then, “What altruistic reasons?”

jd

How does avoid Deism ? A Divine Creator can quite well be Deist rather than the Judaeo-Christian God. Arguing against evolution will not by itself insure one against Deism.​

Just a thought, prompted by your first paragraph.

 

[grannymh]

Quote:
The common ancestors of ALL humans is Adam and Eve

Incorrect. There is too much variation in the human genome to allow a bottleneck of four alleles (that is two people) since before humans evolved from their ancestors.

Dear rossum,

The bottleneck of four alleles is the stumbling block for me. I’ve done some reading and asked some questions about it. Yet, it still sounds like speculation. It seems to me that the math which works backwards to allow time for the human genome (?) generations (?) could be adapted to another explanation.I keep thinking about the term variation–maybe there is more variation in the evolutionary theory in general than we realize.

One author mentioned the difference between the cell known by Darwin and the same cell we know today. Maybe there is the same difference between the bottleneck that appears now and the bottleneck that really is.

Blessings,
granny

All human life is sacred.

 

[carmelaltarboy]

Carmelalterboy, excuse me, but did you read your post before submiting it? I don’t care what your stance is, it ought at least be internally coherent and include actual reasoning and facts as acknowledged even by the Church.

oFTEN TIMES WHEN I AM UNABLE TO FIGHT THE ARGUMENT…I TOO CHOOSE TO FIGHT THE PERSON.

 

[Detales]

Every herring hangs by its own tail/tale

 

[reggieM]

What I reject about ID is the idea that God’s creation was so incomplete and halting that God had to intervene so that the Cambrian explosion happened, had to intervene so that reptiles evolved into protomammals, protomammals into mammals, one line of mammals into primates, and one line of primates into humans. That’s the kind of tinkering I don’t believe God engages in. God seeded the universe (to use a Soic-Augustinian idea) with “logikoi spermatikoi” from which the elements of the universe and life were later able to evolve.

StAnastasia

Ricmat asked that you point to ID references to support where you found these ideas (that creation was “so incomplete that God had to intervene”). I’d appreciate a cite of key authors and works. Failing that, I’ll agree also with ricmat’s previous post where he indicated, clearly, that you’re setting up ID straw-men. I’m pretty sure that you’re not familiar with ID theory (what books have you read?). You didn’t even know that Michael Behe is a respected scientist in his own field.

But you could limit your research to Behe’s latest work if you want and show me where he says that God “tinkered” with anything.

 

[reggieM]

Do you claim to have more academic and scientific credentials than every scientist on the Project Steve list?

You answered a simple question with a question.

It’s confirmed that there are scientists on the Dissent from Darwin list that have more scientific and academic credentials than you do.

 

[reggieM]

If you read his papers, you will see that he is against Natural Selection as an explanation…

There is a scientist, who is more qualified than any of the Darwinists here on CAF, including yourself, who rejects the foundation of the theory.

it is only the emphasis on competition amongst the species that is the problem

Orogeny and others here claim that there are no problems at all with evolutionary theory.

Here you’re saying it’s “only” the emphasis on competition among species which is the problem (at least for Salthe). That simply undercuts the primary driver of evolutionary change, thus refuting the theory.

 

[reggieM]

Only the first reason would qualify as a scientific reason. At least you admit that the main reason you reject science is because of your faith.

Given that evolutionary theory is mainly a philosophical construct then that should be an appropriate response.

Now about the evidence. You claim that a lack of evidence exists, yet you also have acknowledged that you are not a scientist. Is it possible that you are missing something or do you have more academic and scientific credentials than every scientist on the Project Steve list?

The scientists who dissent against Darwin have more credentials than you do. Add that, to the fact that you do not provide a convincing defense of Theistic Evolution (which is what you believe, apparently) then I’ll go with the scientists who offer the most convincing answers and who are more qualified than you are.

 

[walsh]

Thank you, CERAD, for your suggestion - I did indeed read (with some difficulty) both The Silmarrilion and The Hobbit but could not really enjoy the Lord of the Rings - neither the book nor the films. Certainly Tolkhien´s brand of ´´Olde English`` sometimes reads like the King James Bible, but my thought in my earlier posting was the aptness and beauty of St.John´s opening verse. I hope I am not infringing any tenents of the Church if I say that I prefer John to Genesis (1,3) ! JRRT´s idea of the Creation in a song is a wonderful idea too and I will certainly go back and read again the works of Iluvatar.

Dominus vobiscum
James

 

[Sideline]

There is a scientist, who is more qualified than any of the Darwinists here on CAF, including yourself, who rejects the foundation of the theory.

Orogeny and others here claim that there are no problems at all with evolutionary theory.

Here you’re saying it’s “only” the emphasis on competition among species which is the problem (at least for Salthe). That simply undercuts the primary driver of evolutionary change, thus refuting the theory.

Maybe you should tell Salthe that he doesn’t believe in common descent. I’m sure he’ll appreciate you informing him of his position.

Why do you think that you understand this stuff better than the people who actually have read those papers? Or those that write them.

 

[grannymh]

There is a scientist, who is more qualified than any of the Darwinists here on CAF, including yourself, who rejects the foundation of the theory.

quote

 

[grannymh]

Given that evolutionary theory is mainly a philosophical construct then that should be an appropriate response.

The scientists who dissent against Darwin have more credentials than you do. Add that, to the fact that you do not provide a convincing defense of Theistic Evolution (which is what you believe, apparently) then I’ll go with the scientists who offer the most convincing answers and who are more qualified than you are.

Who has the convincing defense of Theistic Evolution?

Who has at least a partial defense of Theistic Evolution? Anyone? Any guesses?



Eve & Adam need a friend. Soon.

 

[rossum]

The bottleneck of four alleles is the stumbling block for me. I’ve done some reading and asked some questions about it. Yet, it still sounds like speculation. It seems to me that the math which works backwards to allow time for the human genome (?) generations (?) could be adapted to another explanation.I keep thinking about the term variation–maybe there is more variation in the evolutionary theory in general than we realize.

We have complete sequences for both the human and chimpanzee genomes. Where there are multiple alleles in humans we can compare what we have with what the chimpanzees have. At some loci there are more than four matching alleles that are found both in ourselves and in chimps. Because the alleles match it is highly likely that they were present in our common ancestor with the chimps. Therefore there almost certainly cannot have been a reduction to just two people on the human line since our separation from the chimp line.

Looking at alleles is like looking at the scribal errors in Biblical texts. Where we see matching errors it is very likely that one error was copied from the other rather than two different scribes making identical errors. Bible scholars use such errors to track the origin of the different versions. Biologists use different alleles to trace the origin of different species.

Also by looking at where alleles do not match between ourselves and chimps we can get an idea of how much different genes have changed in the last few million years since the ancestors of the two sepcies separated. In general the measured rate of change is too slow to allow the number of alleles we see today to have developed from such a narrow bottleneck.

I understand that the monogenism/polygenism question is a problem for Catholics. I did some thinking and came up with an idea that might be useful: Start with a population of unsouled upright apes, call them “huma” because they are not quite human yet. God puts human souls into two of them, Adam and Eve, (or puts a soul into one male, Adam, and clones a female, Eve, from him). Adding a soul does not change the original huma DNA at all. We now have a pair of humans, Adam and Eve, in a population of huma. Adam and Eve only mate with each other and have human children with souls. In order to avoid incest and the consequent inbreeding the children need to find mates outside their immediate family so they mate with some of the huma. This is possible because their DNA is compatible with huma DNA; the mating is open to the possibility of creating life. God gives a soul to all hybrid human/huma offspring so all the children with at least one human parent are also human, i.e. they have a soul. Because only the descendants of the initial pair mate with huma, all the children from such matings are descended from both Adam and Eve since they will have both as grandparents, great-grandparents etc.

Over time the number of humans increases and the number of huma declines until the huma are extinct.

In scientific terms we have a large interbreeding population, as shown by the current level of genetic diversity in humans. Theologically all humans are descended from that first ensouled pair.

rossum

 

[redneck22]

We have complete sequences for both the human and chimpanzee genomes. Where there are multiple alleles in humans we can compare what we have with what the chimpanzees have. At some loci there are more than four matching alleles that are found both in ourselves and in chimps. Because the alleles match it is highly likely that they were present in our common ancestor with the chimps. Therefore there almost certainly cannot have been a reduction to just two people on the human line since our separation from the chimp line.

Looking at alleles is like looking at the scribal errors in Biblical texts. Where we see matching errors it is very likely that one error was copied from the other rather than two different scribes making identical errors. Bible scholars use such errors to track the origin of the different versions. Biologists use different alleles to trace the origin of different species.

Also by looking at where alleles do not match between ourselves and chimps we can get an idea of how much different genes have changed in the last few million years since the ancestors of the two sepcies separated. In general the measured rate of change is too slow to allow the number of alleles we see today to have developed from such a narrow bottleneck.

I understand that the monogenism/polygenism question is a problem for Catholics. I did some thinking and came up with an idea that might be useful: Start with a population of unsouled upright apes, call them “huma” because they are not quite human yet. God puts human souls into two of them, Adam and Eve, (or puts a soul into one male, Adam, and clones a female, Eve, from him). Adding a soul does not change the original huma DNA at all. We now have a pair of humans, Adam and Eve, in a population of huma. Adam and Eve only mate with each other and have human children with souls. In order to avoid incest and the consequent inbreeding the children need to find mates outside their immediate family so they mate with some of the huma. This is possible because their DNA is compatible with huma DNA; the mating is open to the possibility of creating life. God gives a soul to all hybrid human/huma offspring so all the children with at least one human parent are also human, i.e. they have a soul. Because only the descendants of the initial pair mate with huma, all the children from such matings are descended from both Adam and Eve since they will have both as grandparents, great-grandparents etc.

Over time the number of humans increases and the number of huma declines until the huma are extinct.

In scientific terms we have a large interbreeding population, as shown by the current level of genetic diversity in humans. Theologically all humans are descended from that first ensouled pair.

rossum

That would have to be the best blend I have ever seen of pseudo-science and pseudo-religion.

 

[Leela]

Yeah, but, you have a little doubt, don’t you? Maybe just a speck, otherwise, I should think that our discussion of this “dualism” would not be of any interest to you either?

I wouldn’t say I experience doubt in my lack of belief. I spend as much time wondering if Christianity is true as you do that Islam is true. But there is certainly a possibility that God exists. I just find the probability to be remote.

I’m interested in the two views I described because one is intellectually superior than the other and I want to support it over the other. Yet, as I said, both views seem to collapse into the same thing when the Christian evolutionists claim that God tweaked the system to bring about humanity.

The view that a human like being was a probable or inevitable result from the beginning at least avoids design as an explanation for theorigin of the species, but I don’t buy the arguments I’ve heard for the inevitability of humanoids.

So I think the Creationists are at least being consistent in disregarding what science has to say, but of course they disregard science at a cost.

Best,
Leela

 

[Jennifer_J]

On the whole I have found that, short of showing a radical Muslim a cartoon of Mohammed, nothing has the capacity to bring out unpleasantness in people as fast as expressing doubt in Darwinism.

Ender

And you don’t find the arrogance of this youth troubling? He thinks he knows it all after a few courses. I’m sorry, people study for YEARS to understand their field of expertise. Would he dare say the same thing to a cancer researcher-- “hey I took a course on cell development and I think you should treat this cancer this way, you are all wrong in your approach” ARROGANCE!!!

Discussion is great and fine, but wide sweeping claims based on a few college courses is insulting to people who are serious about their job, their research, their studies AND their faith. I guess I forgot to mention that not only is my dh an evolutionary biologist, but a devout and faithful Catholic…