O
Orogeny
Guest
I’ve watched the first 10 minutes or so. Hard to hear, the audio is poor.
Does the extended synthesis include God as a cause? This isn’t like spoiling a movie.
Peace
Tim
Happy Birthday, Mr. Darwin: Growing Majority of Americans Support Teaching Both Sides of Evolution Debate
- Status
Does the extended synthesis include God as a cause? This isn’t like spoiling a movie.
Peace
Tim
O
Orogeny
Guest
W
walsh
Guest
Seems I did something wrong in trying to add my agreement to what seeked to me a sensible comment from aggiecatholic05 - but when my post came out, there was only a copy of aggiecatholic05´s comment - sorry to take up peoples time - I am still learning how to participate in this kind of ´´thread``, So here goes my comment again - I promise that , if it does not come out thsi time, I will go back to the Independent crossword!.
Here is what I wanted to say to agiuecatholic!
Right on, aggiecatholic05 - nothing I have read in scientific papers and discussions explains how the Universe (and us) came about so well as ´´ In the beginning was the Word…`` , Does any other book or story opening read so well? ´´In the beginning… I don´t know the how or the when (and never met anyone who did), and I trust what our Faith tells me about the why, but now at 81, must lay my hopes on a little clarification from the only One who really knows.
James - Brazil
Here is what I wanted to say to agiuecatholic!
Right on, aggiecatholic05 - nothing I have read in scientific papers and discussions explains how the Universe (and us) came about so well as ´´ In the beginning was the Word…`` , Does any other book or story opening read so well? ´´In the beginning… I don´t know the how or the when (and never met anyone who did), and I trust what our Faith tells me about the why, but now at 81, must lay my hopes on a little clarification from the only One who really knows.
James - Brazil
R
reggieM
Guest
Science does not and cannot know such things.
I agree that the Gospel of St. John is a sure guide to the mystery of God’s creation.
M
Monty_Arch
Guest
Better yet, see /www.expelledexposed.com/
J
JDaniel
Guest
This is so inane as to cause its own disinheritance of an intellectual response.
You wrote:
Inherent in your thesis is an implied refutation of God.
Circular. Please re-phrase so someone can understand what you’re saying.
Please re-read your last sentence. Then, upon discovering the almost well hidden bias, try to explain how you’ve never taken a side in the debate.
Genes? “Survival mechanisms for genes” to produce, what (?), more genes? So, now the “gene” is God? And thus, the Final Cause of all beings is the almighty gene?
jd
L
Leela
Guest
You are the one who brought up “final causes.”
You are reading more into what I said than I intended. I don’t think it is possible to refute the existence of any gods.
I know what I wrote, and I still don’t find anything philosophically interesting in the free will/determinism dualism.
Since you find the idea of final causes inane as I do, I can’t see how we could disagree that the idea of gene survival as a final cause rather than an eficient cause (people don’t generally ever talk about any other sort) is inane.
Best,
Leela
E
Ender
Guest
"Baloo:
Ender
I feel a bit like Sisyphus but let me - again - point out that Baloo’s comment was about Darwinism while your response was about evolution … and these are different concepts despite the fact that the terms are usually (and incorrectly) thought to be synonymous.
I believe in evolution. I don’t believe Darwinism correctly explains it.
Ender
O
Orogeny
Guest
Does DNA disprove Darwinism?
Can you explain what Darwinism means to you and what part of it is wrong?
Peace
Tim
R
ready
Guest
I took an intermediate level course on the Darwinian Revoution at my University and earned an A in the class without agreeing with Darwin’s theory of common ancestry in the least in my final paper. I find no proof of man sharing common ancestry with apes through evolution at all.
I did, however, find that natural selection could apply to plant and animal species evolving new traits over periods of time under new and changing environmental conditions.
I did, however, find that natural selection could apply to plant and animal species evolving new traits over periods of time under new and changing environmental conditions.
S
StAnastasia
Guest
Yes – it shows all the ways in which “Expelled” is a hoax.
S
Sideline
Guest
I know you have already had a few answers to this question, but they don’t really give any of the evidence, so I thought I would add to it. These are just two pieces of evidence that show we are related to chimpanzees. There are more… many, many more actually. But these are two good ones to start with:
- Malfunctioning L-gulono-gamma-lactone oxidase (GLO). Most mammals can synthesize Vitamin C. Humans, chimps, and oddly enough… guinea pigs, can not synthesize Vitamin C. In other words, if they don’t get it in their diets, they get sick.
It makes sense that humans and chimps would have similar DNA to contend with similar environmental challenges. But why would they have similar mistakes in their DNA?
- Endogenous retroviruses. Retrovirus is a virus that survives by transcribing its RNA into the DNA of the host cell. When the cell replicates the virus’s RNA replicates right along with it. Usually, it dies when the host dies, but it become endogenous if it gets into the gametes. In that case, all of the children of this individual will carry the virus in their DNA.
I was going to give you more pieces of evidence, but I’m getting tired of writing. I’ll leave you with this thought…
Imagine that you were in a court room deciding on a murder trial. The prosecution tells you that the victim scratched the attacker, and samples of the DNA were found under her fingernails. The defendant in the trial matches the description given by neighbours, and the defendant has scratches on his face.
You might not be convinced at this point. After all, lots of people look alike, and lots of people have scratches on their face. But then you find that the defendant has a rare genetic mutation and a disease that affected their DNA. Both the mutation and the retrovirus are found in the DNA under the finger nails.
What would you think then? Would you think that it was just a coincidence?
S
Sideline
Guest
Oh, and for the record…
We did descend from apes. I’m not sure why Rolltide said we didn’t. We didn’t evolve from chimpanzees, or any extant species of ape, but our ancestors were apes. Even more specifically, we were descended from great apes.
The common ancestor of chimps, gorillas, orangutans, and humans was a great ape. The common ancestor of the great apes and the lesser apes (gibbons and baboons) was also an ape. The common ancestor of all the apes was an old world monkey, their ancestor was a primate, the ancestor of all the primates was a mammal, the ancestor of all the mammals was a chordate…
Edit: *I think I made a mistake there. I shouldn’t have put that they were old world monkeys. The rest is right… yeah… the rest of it is right. *
We did descend from apes. I’m not sure why Rolltide said we didn’t. We didn’t evolve from chimpanzees, or any extant species of ape, but our ancestors were apes. Even more specifically, we were descended from great apes.
The common ancestor of chimps, gorillas, orangutans, and humans was a great ape. The common ancestor of the great apes and the lesser apes (gibbons and baboons) was also an ape. The common ancestor of all the apes was an old world monkey, their ancestor was a primate, the ancestor of all the primates was a mammal, the ancestor of all the mammals was a chordate…
Edit: *I think I made a mistake there. I shouldn’t have put that they were old world monkeys. The rest is right… yeah… the rest of it is right. *
R
ready
Guest
We did not descend from apes.
S
Sideline
Guest
Yes we did.
I always love it when people believe that their own personal authority is enough to carry an argument.
Let’s review:
I provided two examples of how the DNA of chimpanzees and DNA of humans are so similar that the most reasonable explanation is that they were inherited from the same common ancestor. Now, it’s true that I didn’t demonstrate that the common ancestor is also an ape, but I thought it was evident to everyone here that we are more closely related to the great apes than we are to other primates.
Your contribution to this conversation is to say you got an A in a course on evolution, and you do not believe there is evolution amongst primates.
Considering that you have completely ignored the evidence provided on this thread, I am not surprised that you were not able to find any evidence that convinced you of common ancestry with apes. You need to consider the evidence before you can find it convincing.
Your argument is underwhelming.
F
Fnord
Guest
Haven’t most if not all of the transitory fossils been shown to be fakes? Also, do people forget about the Cambrian explosion?
O
Orogeny
Guest
F
Fnord
Guest
Thank you for addressing my questions and providing useful contributions to this thread.
R
ready
Guest
I read Darwin in a special course on Darwinism and studied the idea of common ancestry. He presents us with only a theory filled with gaps…unconvincing when scrutinized. Sorry.
E
Ender
Guest
No, but then I never implied that it did. My comment was rather straightforward: evidence for evolution is not necessarily evidence for Darwinism. Surely you don’t dispute that.
I mean by it exactly what you and pretty much everyone else means by it: the currently accepted theory of evolution based largely on Darwin’s theories. I use the term the same way you do.
Actually, that’s not easy to say — and not for the reason that immediately popped into your mind. It’s difficult to get laymen - as opposed to scientists - to even acknowledge that there are any issues at all, let alone that there might be some observations that are unexplained or poorly explained by the theory. This makes discussions difficult.
The significant difference however is that I suspect some form of directed evolution is a more likely explanation. That doesn’t exactly contradict Darwinism but it certainly is not what most Darwinists accept; they are much more comfortable with total chance. Utter randomness I’m sure is part of the appeal.
Ender
- Status