Has science falsified macroevolution?

[M0nkey]

I cant disprove an invisible green dog isn’t magically guiding evolution with its super invisible evolution guiding doggy powers.

The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob is unlike any “invisible green dog” you would do well to study up on God before bashing Him. This only shows you have never EVER seriously looked into it.

Every piece of evidence we have points to evolution being a totally natural process, so if you want to posit a god’s guidance the burden of proof is on you!

Typical atheistic dogma. Prove to me it is a misguided process. In fact, show how anything in nature can possibly be considered “random,” start with gravity, as an example.

 

[buffalo]

’Junk DNA’ not so useless after all

…
Another rethink is due for theories of how the genome has evolved, said Collins.
Until now, researchers had thought that the pressure to survive would relentlessly sculpt the human genome, leaving it with a slim, efficient core of genes that are essential for biological function.
Warehouse of genes
But the ENCODE consortium were surprised to find that the genome appears to be stuffed with functional elements that offer no identifiable benefits in terms of survival or reproduction.
The researchers speculate that there is a point behind this survival of the evolutionary cull. Humans could share with other animals a large pool of functional elements – a “warehouse” stuffed with a variety of tools on which each species can draw, enabling it to adapt according to its environmental niche.

 

[buffalo]

**The Functions of Introns: From Junk DNA to Designed DNA

…** In the past, evolutionary geneticists, once uncertain as to what this apparently superfluous DNA does, referred to introns and other noncoding DNA as “junk.” **Evidence is now being accumulated which indicates that much or most of this DNA may not be junk, but critical for life itself.65 If functions for most or all of the noncoding DNA is found, Darwinism would be without the raw material needed to produce new genes by mutations that can be selected for evolution to occur. Furthermore, much of this new information on the complexity of the genome elegantly provides evidence for both intelligent design and for the concept of irreducible complexity.

**65 A. F. Smit, “The Origin of Interspaced Repeats in the Human Genome,” Current Opinion in Genetics & Development 6, no. 6 (1996): 743-8.s; G. Berx, F. Nollet, K. Strumane, and F. van Roy, "An Efficient and Reliable Multiplex PCR-SSCP Mutation Analysis Test Applied to the Human E-cadherin Gene," Human Mutation 9, no. 6 (1997): 567-74; M. S. Clark and W. J. Wall, Clii-o?nosotiies (London: Chapman and Hall, 1996); and K. F. Schmidt, “A DNA Structure that Tags Genetic Junk?” Science News 144 (1993): 21.

 

[reggieM]

Do you realize how limited the term is? And how misused?

Feel free to identify your views with whatever term you want.

 

[reggieM]

The Functions of Introns: From Junk DNA to Designed DNA

… In the past, evolutionary geneticists, once uncertain as to what this apparently superfluous DNA does, referred to introns and other noncoding DNA as “junk.” **Evidence is now being accumulated which indicates that much or most of this DNA may not be junk, but critical for life itself.65 If functions for most or all of the noncoding DNA is found, Darwinism would be without the raw material needed to produce new genes by mutations that can be selected for evolution to occur. Furthermore, much of this new information on the complexity of the genome elegantly provides evidence for both intelligent design and for the concept of irreducible complexity.

**65 A. F. Smit, “The Origin of Interspaced Repeats in the Human Genome,” Current Opinion in Genetics & Development 6, no. 6 (1996): 743-8.s; G. Berx, F. Nollet, K. Strumane, and F. van Roy, "An Efficient and Reliable Multiplex PCR-SSCP Mutation Analysis Test Applied to the Human E-cadherin Gene," Human Mutation 9, no. 6 (1997): 567-74; M. S. Clark and W. J. Wall, Clii-o?nosotiies (London: Chapman and Hall, 1996); and K. F. Schmidt, “A DNA Structure that Tags Genetic Junk?” Science News 144 (1993): 21.

That was an excellent summary. Darwinian theorists came up with the term “Junk DNA” and it was paraded around as a great proof of their theory. Yet another evolutionary prediction falsified – and this time, the evidence supports more than one aspect of Intelligent Design.

 

[reggieM]

The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob is unlike any “invisible green dog” you would do well to study up on God before bashing Him. This only shows you have never EVER seriously looked into it.

Excellent point. I would think that a person who joined CAF looking for discussions would be interested in learning about God – since that is what this site is for.

 

[Charles_Darwin]

Yup - you only can understand it if you have a degree from a certified evolution propaganda university.

Oh yeah thats right its all a big conspiracy

 

[Charles_Darwin]

The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob is unlike any “invisible green dog” you would do well to study up on God before bashing Him. This only shows you have never EVER seriously looked into it.

Typical atheistic dogma. Prove to me it is a misguided process. In fact, show how anything in nature can possibly be considered “random,” start with gravity, as an example.

LOL its NOT random! You dont even understand the basics of the subject. This is like trying to discuss Newtonian mechanics with people who cant grasp the 10 X table.

 

[Charles_Darwin]

I couldn’t see one mention of I.D in the first paper.

“Humans could share with other animals a large pool of functional elements – a “warehouse” stuffed with a variety of tools on which each species can draw, enabling it to adapt according to its environmental niche.” Sounds like evolution to me.

The second was not a scientific paper, it was creationist clap trap.

 

[Charles_Darwin]

Excellent point. I would think that a person who joined CAF looking for discussions would be interested in learning about God – since that is what this site is for.

Sorry to be the one to break it to you, but your god doesnt exist.

 

[Charles_Darwin]

Yup - you only can understand it if you have a degree from a certified evolution propaganda university.

Actually the real reason is so people can have proper discussions. Its clear you have little to no understanding of evolution. This makes it impossible to discuss.

People like you amaze me, is biology the only are you are uneducated in that you think you know more than the worlds greatest experts. I guess you know more about physics than Einstein, more about acting then De niro, more about playing golf than Tiger Woods?

Please explain to me what goes through your head, why is it you think you know more about biology then the the cleverest biologists on the planet that have dedicated there life’s to the subject, when you don’t even understand the equivalent of the 5 X table?

 

[reggieM]

Sorry to be the one to break it to you, but your god doesnt exist.

I hate to break it to you, but you’re offering some of the most unconvincing arguments (I can’t even consider them that) that I’ve seen on CAF. Like this one you’ve posted here.

I think you’re trying to prove to me that your posts are ultimately meaningless – as your life and universe are. I find that absurd in concept but perfectly consistent. There is no real meaning or purpose in the atheistic-evolutionary world – and that essentially is your point. I therefore shouldn’t pay any attention to you (if I accepted your theory) since what you say means nothing and has no worthwhile purpose.

But because I reject your materialistic-worldview, I believe you are important as a person – created and loved by God.

If you had something to contribute to the topic though it would certainly make this a better use of time.

As it stands, I don’t want to play a game of exchanging insults with you.
You’ve shown your character and interests here (that is, lack of them). Your conversation skills tend towards the insulting, obtuse and incoherent. Then again, science doesn’t do much for the art of language or social interaction since those don’t fit very well into test tubes. Science does seem to be your only interest and thus your presence on a Catholic site oriented to discussions about God is especially strange. But there’s nothing wrong with being a little odd.

I’m sure you have something good to offer and you’re probably a much better person than you seem through your internet personna.

I wish you well and I hope you’ll find what you’re looking for.

 

[buffalo]

Actually the real reason is so people can have proper discussions. Its clear you have little to no understanding of evolution. This makes it impossible to discuss.

People like you amaze me, is biology the only are you are uneducated in that you think you know more than the worlds greatest experts. I guess you know more about physics than Einstein, more about acting then De niro, more about playing golf than Tiger Woods?

Please explain to me what goes through your head, why is it you think you know more about biology then the the cleverest biologists on the planet that have dedicated there life’s to the subject, when you don’t even understand the equivalent of the 5 X table?

Bogus alert!

 

[Kaninchen]

Actually the real reason is so people can have proper discussions. Its clear you have little to no understanding of evolution. This makes it impossible to discuss.

The thing is, why do you care?

If Americans decide that what they need to teach in their schools and universities is 6-day creation, 6000 years ago and pretty stories about humans romping about with velociraptors, then, surely, so much the better from the point of view of Europeans, Chinese etc? The advantages of a major competitor shooting themselves in the head would be very considerable.

Of course, the fact that virtually all serious scientists would head for the hills of academe and industry elsewhere on the planet might have short-term employment disadvantages for the rest of us but, after that, should all be pluses.

What we need to encourage is American science education and academic research concerning themselves with ideas like alchemy, astrology, a geocentric universe, gravity being angels pulling/pushing things down (I’m sure the list is potentially endless).

 

[Al_Masetti]

An interesting, fast read, … entertaining and fun.

A must read. But not difficult.

Cargo Cult Science.

Ethics in science.

By Richard Feynman, one of the top scientists in the world.

1974 Commencement Address at Caltech.

calteches.library.caltech.edu/51/2/CargoCult.pdf

 

[Charles_Darwin]

I hate to break it to you, but you’re offering some of the most unconvincing arguments (I can’t even consider them that) that I’ve seen on CAF. Like this one you’ve posted here.

I think you’re trying to prove to me that your posts are ultimately meaningless – as your life and universe are. I find that absurd in concept but perfectly consistent. There is no real meaning or purpose in the atheistic-evolutionary world – and that essentially is your point. I therefore shouldn’t pay any attention to you (if I accepted your theory) since what you say means nothing and has no worthwhile purpose.

But because I reject your materialistic-worldview, I believe you are important as a person – created and loved by God.

If you had something to contribute to the topic though it would certainly make this a better use of time.

As it stands, I don’t want to play a game of exchanging insults with you.
You’ve shown your character and interests here (that is, lack of them). Your conversation skills tend towards the insulting, obtuse and incoherent. Then again, science doesn’t do much for the art of language or social interaction since those don’t fit very well into test tubes. Science does seem to be your only interest and thus your presence on a Catholic site oriented to discussions about God is especially strange. But there’s nothing wrong with being a little odd.

I’m sure you have something good to offer and you’re probably a much better person than you seem through your internet personna.

I wish you well and I hope you’ll find what you’re looking for.

Firstly one should believe something because it is true, not because it feels good.

Secondly i haven’t insulted you once. I have called into question your understanding of evolution. If you find that insulting there is a very easy solution. Research the subject, Learn what your taking about, that way you wont look silly to anyone with an understanding of the subject, and you will also have REAL reasons for your beliefs.

 

[Charles_Darwin]

The thing is, why do you care?

If Americans decide that what they need to teach in their schools and universities is 6-day creation, 6000 years ago and pretty stories about humans romping about with velociraptors, then, surely, so much the better from the point of view of Europeans, Chinese etc? The advantages of a major competitor shooting themselves in the head would be very considerable.

Of course, the fact that virtually all serious scientists would head for the hills of academe and industry elsewhere on the planet might have short-term employment disadvantages for the rest of us but, after that, should all be pluses.

What we need to encourage is American science education and academic research concerning themselves with ideas like alchemy, astrology, a geocentric universe, gravity being angels pulling/pushing things down (I’m sure the list is potentially endless).

I care for many reason.

I dont believe in imaginary lines. American, Russin, African its all the same to me. Were all people, and i believe in a cooprative society and empathy for my fellow man.

The reason it really matters is the next, Alexander Fleming, Marie curie or Charles Darwin could be living in those areas. People who can make a difference to millions of lifes through out the world, and your not going to produce these type of people teaching junk science.

There seems to already be a massive failing within the education system in the USA. I had never even met someone who believed this nonsense until i came online. These people dont even understand the basics of science or the scientific method. This problem needs to be addressed.

 

[Charles_Darwin]

Bogus alert!

I’m deadly serious and i will still like to know why you think you know more about biology than the cleverest biologists on the planet, who have dedicated their lifes to the subject, when you don’t even understand the equivalent of the 5 X table?

 

[M0nkey]

LOL its NOT random! You dont even understand the basics of the subject.

Random mutations not random? Please, enlighten me. If evolution is a blind process, than show me how that’s not random. Even selective pressures are not necessarily looking for upgrades or improvements, according to your precious theory.

There seems to already be a massive failing within the education system in the USA. I had never even met someone who believed this nonsense until i came online. These people dont even understand the basics of science or the scientific method. This problem needs to be addressed.

Wow. Self-indignation at it’s prime. First of all, the Church gave us the scientific method. Second, public education may be bad, but there are other forms available, it is precisely because of secularization that education suffers. Third, so far you seem to misunderstand Darwinism, God, and the sciences.

 

[Orogeny]

In context this is summarizing current thinking on the subject. The document is parroting science here.

And nowhere in the document is the current thinking refuted or denied.

Then we move on to the next section:

…the Holy Father’s message acknowledges that there are “several theories of evolution” that are “materialist, reductionist and spiritualist” and thus incompatible with the Catholic faith. It follows that the message of Pope John Paul II cannot be read as a blanket approbation of all theories of evolution, including those of a neo-Darwinian provenance which explicitly deny to divine providence any truly causal role in the development of life in the universe. Mainly concerned with evolution as it “involves the question of man,” however, Pope John Paul’s message is specifically critical of materialistic theories of human origins and insists on the relevance of philosophy and theology for an adequate understanding of the “ontological leap” to the human which cannot be explained in purely scientific terms. The Church’s interest in evolution thus focuses particularly on “the conception of man” who, as created in the image of God, “cannot be subordinated as a pure means or instrument either to the species or to society.”

For brevity, I removed part of this paragraph and kept the bolded part since I think this is what you are using to argue that the previous paragraph is just stating scientific opinion and not the Church’s position. This does not refute what is written in the previous paragraph, which was “While the story of human origins is complex and subject to revision, physical anthropology and molecular biology combine to make a convincing case for the origin of the human species in Africa about 150,000 years ago in a humanoid population of common genetic lineage.”

Never refuted so obviously accepted. Roger asked about polygenism vs monogenism. This document makes it clear that the teaching of Humani Generis is not dogma and that we, as Catholics, are allowed to accept polygenism.

Peace

Tim