Has science falsified macroevolution?

[Charles_Darwin]

You asked:

I don’t understand the question, but mutations have something to do with it I would think because that is your explanation for how animals “look”.

Clearly, when you said “make them look EXACTLY” I though it had something to do with the way animals look, but I guess not.

Regarding mutations, we could consider mutations in eyes.

Mutations in eyes cause some problems.

• A genetic mutation that causes a **congenital eye movement disorder **called Duane syndrome
• Branchio-oto-renal syndrome associated mutations in Eyes … BOR-associated mutations lead to a loss of phosphatase activity in Eya1 proteins, while mutations associated with ocular defects
• Mutations in RPE65, a gene essential to normal operation of the visual (retinoid) cycle, cause the **childhood blindness **known as Leber congenital amaurosis
• A novel mutation within the rhodopsin gene (Thr‐94‐Ile) causes autosomal dominant **congenital stationary night blindness **…
• Gene Mutation That Causes **Blindness **in Yemenite Jews Found …
• Retinitis pigmentosa (RP) is one of the most common causes of blindness. … The gene mutations have been identified by vision researchers at the University
• Mutations in GRM6 Cause Autosomal Recessive Congenital Stationary Night Blindness
• Saint Louis University researchers have discovered the mutation which causes one form of retinitis pigmentosa, a type of genetically inherited blindness. They discovered it interferes with a process necessary for healthy cell development. The mutation causes a secretory protein in the capillaries beneath the retina to improperly “fold,” a process necessary for healthy cell development. When the proteins fail to fold quickly enough, a response is triggered that can cause the cells to die.
• Centrosomal-ciliary gene CEP290/NPHP6 mutations result in **blindness **…
• ESCS is a rare **degenerative disease **of the retina … scientists tested 35 ESCS-affected and found that nearly every sample had a mutation".

So, these are loss of function mutations which damage the eyes and ruin vision.

At the same time that these harmful mutations are seen constantly in the human population, there should be beneficial mutations that improve eyesight over time.

By now, humans should be able to see farther than they have in the past.

Some mutations kill eye functions entirely. Others, claimed to be “beneficial” have done nothing to improve vision signficantly in the entire history of the human race.

The same kind of analysis could be done on mutations which cause physical deformities in human beings.

So your question again … why god was limited when he created the animals, to make them look EXACTLY the way they would if they had evolved?

God was not limited and animals do not look like they were the product of mutations. Mutations are still causing blindness and nobody relies on natural selection to fix that problem. Additionally, mutations have not fixed many problems with human eyesight and have not given humans better eyesight in the past 10,000 years.

They have a damaging effect and cause loss of function.

FORGET mutations, we can discuss them next if you like.

Im talking about unique character combinations, so again…

I clearly stated “unique character combinations” NOT similarities. It has NOTHING to do with the way animals look. Were taking about anatomy. I want to know why when god created mammals he was limited to creating them in branched hierarchies? So either explain why god was limited to hierarchies or give me and example of an animal that breaks a nested set.

 

[reggieM]

FORGET mutations, we can discuss them next if you like.

Im talking about unique character combinations, so again…

I clearly stated “unique character combinations” NOT similarities. It has NOTHING to do with the way animals look. Were taking about anatomy. I want to know why when god created mammals he was limited to creating them in branched hierarchies? So either explain why god was limited to hierarchies or give me and example of an animal that breaks a nested set.

Ok, it’s a complex question but a good one. I didn’t understand your focus the first tme. Evolutionary theory is broken into diverse pieces - in this case, you’re looking at twin nested hierarchies. More importantly, you’re looking at the question of why God would do it that way.

It could be a very long answer but I’ll just give it a start.

First, it strikes me that you are looking to science as evidence about God. Or rather, you’re hearing claims about God and then observing that science does not support the claims.

When you ask about God, I’m going to assume you’re talking about the God of Catholic theology – since we’re here on CAF.

This is an assumption though because just previously you described God as the product of “to myth and fariy tales”. So, why would mythological characters or fairies or story-tale characters create nested hierarchies? That’s a problem, sure – but the solution is easy. They could do whatever they want.

In a weird parallel question – why would a person who doesn’t believe in fairy-tale gods spend time posting on a site that believes in such things? It’s the paradox of atheists coming on to CAF to post their ideas or try to win people to atheism.

That’s very much related to your current question: “Why would God … do whatever?”.

So, first I have to know about your expectations of God.
Your answers would be that:

1. There’s no way God could do it
2. There’s no reason God would do it
3. It doesn’t look like God had anything to do with it.

So, the answer to your question starts with what is God’s intention with creation. What is His purpose on the grand scheme? Why did He create the world?

Knowing that will make it easier to understand why He created nested hierarchies or perhaps made it look like those patterns have the meaning ascribed to them, if they have recognizable meaning at all.

God created mankind to share his goodness, truth and beauty. In the same way, the anonymous artists built Chartres cathedral as a work that others can see the beauty reflected in it - for the glory of God.

Mankind’s purpose is to know, love and serve God in this life so to be happy with him in the next.

So, God wants us to know Him. We can do that by studying the things He made in creation – the universe, nature, living things. He wants us to enter into happiness – that is the goal of life. Happiness is the function of love – loving the Good, True, Beautiful. Perfect happiness is from contemplation on those things – and entering into a union with the highest Good. That’s why God created the universe, earth and human life.

With that, God wants us to know Him – and He gives clues in nature. Why “clues” and not just give the full, detailed instructions like any good science teacher would?

That’s probably the biggest hurdle to overcome with many people who are training in scientific, empirical thinking.

We have to keep in mind, that if you start from an atheistic-materialist assumption (or the assumption of common descent), then all your observations are going to tend to fit that assumption, or you will fit them in.

In this case, when asking about God, you have to put aside materialistic assumptions.

We can see that all of life is built from biological constants – DNA, RNA and a few others. These are the same for all of life.

Why would God create all of the diversity of life from the same substances?

Actually, that is evidence against evolution and in favor of God’s design. God would use the same material for the substance of life because it’s a unifying “platform” if you will. It’s the basis of the code that can be seen throughout life.

Why is there only DNA and the other constants through all of life? How could it all arrive uniformly from random causes at the origin of life? There is no evidence of any complex life forms that are build from other non-DNA/RNA substances? Evolution would predict that there would be several “life platforms”, not just one.

The fact that there is one is evidence of God. It’s evidence that God designed life from one set of code.

As for nested hierarchies, those are merely patterns in the genetic results. They’re ordered classifications. The assumption that they mean common descent is a proposal. It could also mean common design. The ordered, nested hierarchies are evidence against evolution also since they frustrate the expected non-patterns that should arise from HGT and transposition. Additionally, they say little about the mechanism of evolution. The hierarchical ordering does not solve the problem of saltation which is easily seen also.

To explain some of these aspects that do not fit the theory, there is the resort to convergent evolution. This concept destroys the idea of lineage since organisms can, supposedly, evolve the same improbable structures independ of their ancestors.

So, why would God do any or all of this? Why make it look like (to some) that nature acted randomly and with fixed physical laws to produce all of life?

continued …

 

[reggieM]

First of all, there’s the assumption that “what it looks like” is really what it looks like. To some, it was obvious that the giraffe’s neck evolved by having to stretch to get leaves at the top of the trees. “Why would God make giraffes look like they evolved by stretching their necks?”

Well, now we know that what it “certainly” looked like, is not what it was.

Why did God create giraffe’s, squirrels, ant-eaters, bluejays and marine creatures that no human being has seen yet?

That brings us back to your expectation. If God had only created human beings, wouldn’t that be sufficient?

It is the nature of God to reveal Himself to His creatures. But we have to know something about the ways of God to understand that. Many, of a scientific bent would do very well to learn more about how to create great art. It’s for this reason that science does not create great works of art – a human aspect is needed. Why?

Art points to subtle clues. If the work is so obvious that it is blatant, there is no mystery to be seen. Why mystery? Many reasons – but mainly, everything that is truly beautiful on a long-term basis, is embedded with mystery. In other words, human beings can’t totally figure it out. How did Mozart come up with such a diverse range of perfectly balanced melodies and memorable, heart-gripping passages that continue to capture the imagination of listeners today? It can’t be deconstructed in a science lab. It’s got mystery at the heart of it.

God’s creation has the same. God made creation so that the most brilliant human minds – every one of them put together for all of human history, could work on the mysteries of life and continue to make progress in understanding and learning. But in many ways, the more that is learned, the greater is the amount of unknown.

It’s designed that way. God wants us to learn – but He also wants to reveal Himself.

Is God then fooling us? To some extent, God does fool those who think they can fully understand nature and life by using the scientific method. He makes it appear as if they understand things. To trap them in errors? No, rather to show that empirical evidence gives some part of the truth, but it is also limited.

Also, it reflects on the question I asked previously. What is humility and what good is it?

 

[Charles_Darwin]

Ok I’m going to keep to the discussion on nested hierarchies, and then I will be happy to discuss anything you like.

Though before I do I was just like to state that this discussion has nothing to do with the existence of a god. It is specifically about evidence for evolution.

Nested hierarchies do not support common design in any way, shape or form. Unless you can provide a logical reason as to why the designer is limited to designing in such a manner.

As for them being evidence against evolution, nothing could be further from the truth. They were actually one of the main reasons for the proposal of the theory. You seem to be talking about individuals. Nested hierarchies are in relation to the entire species. We’re talking about nested sets of entire species. Mutations within individuals are irrelevant.

Now the animal kingdom fits into nested sets. This is not up for debate it’s a fact. I’m not implying nested hierarchies prove evolution; however they are explained perfectly by the theory. However they do post a real problem for creation, which you have yet to explain.

If you want to challenge the validity of nested sets, then all you have to do is give me an example of ONE animal that breaks the set. If not then please explain to me why all the animals were designed in such a strange manner, which coincidently fits evolutionary theory perfectly.

 

[reggieM]

Now the animal kingdom fits into nested sets. This is not up for debate it’s a fact. I’m not implying nested hierarchies prove evolution; however they are explained perfectly by the theory. However they do post a real problem for creation, which you have yet to explain.

I think the point you’re raising is that nested hierarchies support a naturalistic theory (that God is not necessary for the development of life and nature – therefore, there’s no reason to believe that God exists). I think that’s a long stretch to make based on one observation of a pattern in nature. Why would God be forced to make rain fall or to make waves roll on to the beach? Those are patterns in nature that can be observed. Nested hierarchies are patterns of classification. They don’t explain the mechanism of how they came into being. I haven’t disputed that they exist and I haven’t said that there are exceptions to the rule. All mammals are amniotes, all amniotes are tetrapods, etc. First, this consistency and regularity is an indicator of design – not of randomness (and randomness is the only possible *ultimate *origin of these patterns). Additionally, evolutionary processes would prevent nested hierarchies through horizontal DNA transfers, atavism, anagenesis or multiple origins of life (that’s why I mentioned DNA as a biological constant – what happened to the non-DNA forms of life?).

There are conflicts also with the patterns seen in nested hierarchies (which I’m not doubting exist) and the lack of phylogeny that some of the most prominent evolutionary thinkers have recognized (these statement are not posted as quote-mining attempts to refute evolution, but only to stress the point on the lack of phylogeny and the problem of saltations):

“Most families, orders, classes, and phyla appear rather suddenly in the fossil record, often without anatomically intermediate forms smoothly interlinking evolutionarily derived descendant taxa with their presumed ancestors.” (Niles Eldredge., 1989, Macro-Evolutionary Dynamics: Species, Niches, and Adaptive Peaks, McGraw-Hill Publishing Company, New York, p. 22)

“There is still a tremendous problem with the sudden diversification of multi-cellular life. There is no question about that. That’s a real phenomenon.” (Niles Eldredge quoted in Darwin’s Enigma: Fossils and Other Problems by Luther D. Sunderland, Master Book Publishers, Santee, California, 1988, p 45)

“The main problem with such phyletic gradualism is that the fossil record provides so little evidence for it. Very rarely can we trace the gradual transformation of one entire species into another through a finely graded sequence of intermediary forms.” (Gould, S.J. Luria, S.E. & Singer, S., A View of Life, 1981, p. 641)

So, nested hierarchies alone cannot be used as proof of materialistic origins. These could have been designed (pre-planned) as a unifying element in nature. The Creator could have organized these patterns to give evidence of an order found in nature – but one that conflicts with a materialistic view that life evolved randomly from non-living matter.

Does the evidence of nested hierarchies conflict with the idea that God created animals, fully formed, ex nihilo? It would seem to. But I don’t think even the most ardent creationist organisations believe that all organisms were created from nothing and show no natural modifications in the course of history.

Again, my interest in your comments originally was your question about God. Personally, I think you’re supporting your atheistic views on what you’ve determined from the findings of science. In this case, it seems that you’re using nested hierarchies as a proof of the non-existence of God, but I don’t see that conclusion following from that at all.

 

[Charles_Darwin]

No that’s not my point. I clearly stated that this has nothing to do with god, forget god, were talking about evidence for evolution. No more, no less.

Again I’m not trying to explain the mechanisms or DNA, which ironically fully support nested hierarchies. Let’s keep on Topic.

Your way off them mark with your claim HGT would prevent hierarchies. As I explained above HGT occurs within individuals. We are not discussing individuals. We are discussing nested hierarchies or entire gene pools.

Next comes a wild comparison of evolution to “randomness”. Evolution is ANYTHING but a random process.

You then claim not to be quote mining, but you are doing exactly that. For example you quote

“The main problem with such phyletic gradualism is that the fossil record provides so little evidence for it. Very rarely can we trace the gradual transformation of one entire species into another through a finely graded sequence of intermediary forms.” (Gould, S.J. Luria, S.E. & Singer, S., A View of Life, 1981, p. 641)

ee Eldredge’s Life Pulse for an extended discussion and the original [punctuated equilibrium] paper.

-John Wilkins

But later on the same page is found:

There is an alternative, however. Perhaps the fossil record is not so hopeless, and the observation of no change within species and sudden replacement between them reflects evolution as it actually occurs. Recall Chapter 26: Large, successful, central populations are resistant to evolutionary change. Small, isolated, marginal populations may speciate. The process of speciation, though slow to a human observer (hundreds or thousands of years), is geologically fleeting. In most geological situations, and at most rates of sedimentation, a thousand years translates into a single bedding plane, not a thick sequence of rock. Thus, if speciation is the dominate mode of evolution, we should expect to see exactly what we do see: the unchanging species represents a successful central population; its sudden replacement by a descendent records the migration into the ancestral area of a descendant that arose rapidly in a small population at the edge of the ancestor’s geographical range. Thus, it is possible that most evolution occurs in the mode of speciation and that phyletic evolution is relatively unimportant.

So we see that Gould et al. don’t reject evolution, but claim that phyletic evolution takes a second seat to speciation.

• Jon (Augray) Barber

So again, and I’m not going to let this go. Forget DNA, forget mutations and HGT they have nothing to do with the nested hierarchies. We’re talking about entire species. Why did god create the species in nested sets, even when this is a massive constriction?

 

[buffalo]

The Sound of a Nested Hierarchy Shattering

Chromosomal sex determination in the platypus discovered to be a combination of mammal and bird systems. The resemblance to birds is now more than just superficial.

…
Talk.Origins is looking stupid:

Anyone who reads any evolutionary literature, even at a basic level, will quickly find out that birds are thought to have evolved from dinosaurs in the Jurassic about 150 million years ago, and that mammals are thought to have evolved from a reptile-like group of animals called the therapsids in the Triassic about 220 million years ago. **No competent evolutionist has ever claimed that platypuses are a link between birds and mammals. ** Oops.

 

[kalt]

He gave nature the appearance of “having been designed for a purpose” – as Richard Dawkins stated. Why are you not able to see what this famous evolutionist can see?

The animals do not look like they were created by random mutations – since mutations cause a lot of damage to organisms and to DNA.

But why did God create the original forms of various beings to look similar? It was to provide an atmosphere of commonality. When people look at the faces of many different animals they see expressions that humans can relate to. We see animals have eyes which are often expressive. They have attractive features that win our affection and admiration. We see them having similar characteristics - paws that look like hands, beaks that look like noses. Even with plants, we say that they open their flowers to the sun and reach for the light – we see human characteristics in life and that makes the world more friendly for us. The fact that the universe is intelligible at all goes far beyond what you can gather by empiricism.

How do you value the virtue of humility, for example? Do you feel it is something worthless?

I’m pretty sure that a spider’s face is nothing I can relate to. And the hooves of a goat don’t remind me even of an old lady’s gnarled toes. I see the most-similar expressions on the faces of the apes. Not surprisingly, they are our closest relatives.

As to the question of God’s being limited (another poster), why should a choice be seen as a limitation?

 

[kalt]

Not even close to an answer. I would like to know why god was limited when he created the animals, to make them look EXACTLY the way they would if they had evolved.

As for " at least to the philosophical level. After that, you can move to the theological."

Sorry i like to live in a little thing called reality. Im not interseted in “opening my vision” to myth and fariy tales.

I’m not a creationist, but I still see the problem with your assumption that God couldn’t have created animals simply because they look a like, and a limitless God couldn’t have done that.

It’s obvious that choice does not equal limitation. If I choose to create a lasagne, I am not limited to lasagne. I could have created a small sheet cake. Or I could have created both.

You would see the both and assume that I was limited, because they’re out of the same mold (a 9x11 pan). In reality, where you say you like to live, I could have created the lasagne, the sheet cake, a sponge cake in a bundt pan, a layer cake in two round pans, and a roast in the 9x11 pan that doesn’t fit the 9x11 mold. My choice wasn’t proof of limitation. It was proof of free will to create whatever I wanted to create.

As I said, I’m not a creationist, and I don’t deny evolution fact. It’s not just creationists who have a problem with your thinking, because your thinking on the “limited” thing is flawed.

 

[Rogerteder]

Someone forgot to tell scientists!Why not spend many hours learning science rather than watching debates?Actually, if you spent your time learning real science rather than listening to Jonathan Wells or Harun Yahya, you would know that neither of them are telling you the truth.

Peace

Tim

Tim question: yes or no—Do you believe in polygenism or monogenism?

 

[reggieM]

So again, and I’m not going to let this go. Forget DNA, forget mutations and HGT they have nothing to do with the nested hierarchies. We’re talking about entire species. Why did god create the species in nested sets, even when this is a massive constriction?

God created species in nested sets because it is a massive constriction. It proves that God was involved in designing the structure. Evolution would predict transitionals and a disordered arrangement. Instead, we see nested hierarchies and the evidence of pattern and ordered arrangement. The nested hierarchies make it possible for us to see that there are no animials that don’t fit into the classifications given, when there should be millions of examples of species that don’t fit the pattern. Perhaps the most diversely created animal, the platypus, is considered a mammal. It’s not a transitional form.

It’s the very same thing with regard to evolutionary predictions about Junk DNA. A disordered pattern found in DNA was evidence of evolution because it assumed that so-called Junk DNA was a useless evolutionary by-product. Evolution would not predict an ordered, fully-functional language. But instead, it’s been discovered that the evolutionary prediction was false – the order and function of Junk DNA is evidence against what evolution would predict.

The same is true of nested hierarchies.

 

[reggieM]

I’m pretty sure that a spider’s face is nothing I can relate to.

The phrase, “she was like a spider” when she brought men into her web is not uncommon in literature. Come on into my web, said the spider to the fly.
Here’s another, more perfect example:

ACT LIKE A SPIDER TO FIND HIDDEN JOBS
Build your network just like a spider weaves his web, i.e., tightly woven in the center, then gradually expanding in ever-larger concentric circles. …

There are countless others. So, there’s much to relate to – that’s why God created things this way. To teach us something about Himself in analogies of nature.

And the hooves of a goat don’t remind me even of an old lady’s gnarled toes.

Perhaps God didn’t want you to compare them with a lady’s feet. If He did, He would have made them look like human feet – or perhaps, why bother creating goats at all? Some things that God created are for the sheer pleasure of expressing the diversity of life.
Again, the many materialistic-science oriented minds that I see on CAF really should spend some time learning about the arts, and more importantly, learning how to create art. They would then be able to discover much about the Designer – Who is not only the pinnacle of what we call “genius” in mathematics and organizational-design structure – but also in the more difficult task of creating genius-level works of art.

I see the most-similar expressions [with myself?] on the faces of the apes.

Everyone is certainly entitled to their own opinion and I’m not in a position to disagree with you here.

 

[reggieM]

No that’s not my point. I clearly stated that this has nothing to do with god, forget god, were talking about evidence for evolution. No more, no less.

I can understand that to an extent and I’ll try to comply. But there are big problems also.
First, you’re posting here on CAF – a web community that is built around discussions on God. This is not a science forum. So, why would you restrict your interest here to science-alone?

I have to assume that you’re engaging in discussions on CAF because you’re interested in some ideas about God. Otherwise, you would just join a science forum and discuss evolution.

With that, I don’t think it’s surprising for those with atheistic views to want to know some thoughts about God from the Catholics here on CAF.

At the same time, I can also understand another key point – namely, that if evolutionary science is proven true, then this is believed to be evidence against the belief in God.

So, science can be used to support atheistic belief. This is clear, and explicitly-stated by many evolutionary scientists.

Because if this is not the case, then you wouldn’t be focused on one point of evolution alone. In this situation, you’re talking about twin-nested hierarchies, which show a consistent, universal pattern of classification in nature, but do not prove the mechanisms of evolution or the power of natural selection.

Additionally, evolution cannot occur at the species level in populations if it does not occur at the individual level. If there are no mutations, adaptations and modifications at the individual level – how does an entire species separate itself and appear with novel body plans?

Evolution (as it is claimed) actuallly occurs at the individual level – with micro-adjustments which supposedly build to a point where new functional features appear. But nested hierarchies do not give evidence of this gradualism. The fossil record also shows saltation and abrupt appearances of new body types.

 

[reggieM]

The Sound of a Nested Hierarchy Shattering

Chromosomal sex determination in the platypus discovered to be a combination of mammal and bird systems. The resemblance to birds is now more than just superficial.

That thread gives some other examples. There’s a clade that includes horses and bats, but doesn’t include moles or shrews. So, horses are supposedly closer to bats than bats are to moles.

  		Talk.Origins is looking stupid:

Anyone who reads any evolutionary literature, even at a basic level, will quickly find out that birds are thought to have evolved from dinosaurs in the Jurassic about 150 million years ago, and that mammals are thought to have evolved from a reptile-like group of animals called the therapsids in the Triassic about 220 million years ago. **No competent evolutionist has ever claimed that platypuses are a link between birds and mammals. ** Oops.

They might argue (now, thus reversing their prediction) that platypii are some kind of bird-to-mammal transitional form, thus proving the correctness of the classification and that there are some transitionals to be seen. This destroys the prior argument that everything fits nicely into the hierarchy.

Besides that, it’s yet another evolutionary prediction falsified, and one with no additional evidence to give a new version of the story.

The same is true of the falsification of the dinosaur-to-bird story.

 

[kalt]

The phrase, “she was like a spider” when she brought men into her web is not uncommon in literature. Come on into my web, said the spider to the fly.
Here’s another, more perfect example:
ACT LIKE A SPIDER TO FIND HIDDEN JOBS
Build your network just like a spider weaves his web, i.e., tightly woven in the center, then gradually expanding in ever-larger concentric circles. …
There are countless others. So, there’s much to relate to – that’s why God created things this way. To teach us something about Himself in analogies of nature.

Perhaps God didn’t want you to compare them with a lady’s feet. If He did, He would have made them look like human feet – or perhaps, why bother creating goats at all? Some things that God created are for the sheer pleasure of expressing the diversity of life.
Again, the many materialistic-science oriented minds that I see on CAF really should spend some time learning about the arts, and more importantly, learning how to create art. They would then be able to discover much about the Designer – Who is not only the pinnacle of what we call “genius” in mathematics and organizational-design structure – but also in the more difficult task of creating genius-level works of art.

Everyone is certainly entitled to their own opinion and I’m not in a position to disagree with you here.

Now you’re talking about behavior. You use a quote that tells people to imitate the behavior of another creature, and then you claim that that (the suggestion) is proof against evolution?

What are you talking about?

And why are you claiming to know why God created the world as he did? And for that matter, how?

 

[Charles_Darwin]

God created species in nested sets because it is a massive constriction. It proves that God was involved in designing the structure. Evolution would predict transitionals and a disordered arrangement. Instead, we see nested hierarchies and the evidence of pattern and ordered arrangement. The nested hierarchies make it possible for us to see that there are no animials that don’t fit into the classifications given, when there should be millions of examples of species that don’t fit the pattern. Perhaps the most diversely created animal, the platypus, is considered a mammal. It’s not a transitional form.

It’s the very same thing with regard to evolutionary predictions about Junk DNA. A disordered pattern found in DNA was evidence of evolution because it assumed that so-called Junk DNA was a useless evolutionary by-product. Evolution would not predict an ordered, fully-functional language. But instead, it’s been discovered that the evolutionary prediction was false – the order and function of Junk DNA is evidence against what evolution would predict.

The same is true of nested hierarchies.

I’m not sure what to say to this… Nested hierarchies were one of the main driving forces behind the proposal of the theory. If evolution is correct there should be NO animals that break the nested sets. If we found an animal that brakes a nested set that would falsify evolution. You’re proposal that evolution would predict “millions of examples of species that don’t fit the pattern” is just plain incorrect.

I can only conclude you either don’t understand what i mean by nested sets, or you misunderstand the theory of evolution. I’m not trying patronise, but i can explain exactly why nested hierarchies support evolution if you like?

 

[Charles_Darwin]

I can understand that to an extent and I’ll try to comply. But there are big problems also.
First, you’re posting here on CAF – a web community that is built around discussions on God. This is not a science forum. So, why would you restrict your interest here to science-alone?

I have to assume that you’re engaging in discussions on CAF because you’re interested in some ideas about God. Otherwise, you would just join a science forum and discuss evolution.

With that, I don’t think it’s surprising for those with atheistic views to want to know some thoughts about God from the Catholics here on CAF.

At the same time, I can also understand another key point – namely, that if evolutionary science is proven true, then this is believed to be evidence against the belief in God.

So, science can be used to support atheistic belief. This is clear, and explicitly-stated by many evolutionary scientists.

Because if this is not the case, then you wouldn’t be focused on one point of evolution alone. In this situation, you’re talking about twin-nested hierarchies, which show a consistent, universal pattern of classification in nature, but do not prove the mechanisms of evolution or the power of natural selection.

Additionally, evolution cannot occur at the species level in populations if it does not occur at the individual level. If there are no mutations, adaptations and modifications at the individual level – how does an entire species separate itself and appear with novel body plans?

Evolution (as it is claimed) actuallly occurs at the individual level – with micro-adjustments which supposedly build to a point where new functional features appear. But nested hierarchies do not give evidence of this gradualism. The fossil record also shows saltation and abrupt appearances of new body types.

I am very open to discussing god, i was wanting to stay on topic. As i wanted to discuss evidence for evolution and why it is an accepted fact within academia (which is what counts).

Evolution says nothing about the existence of god, however it is devastating to many of the gods proposed by humans, the Christan god being one of them.

Nested hierarchies say nothing about the mechanisms of evolution, however DNA not only fits perfectly with nested sets as proposed by evolution, the mutations can be traced through the sets which all but proves evolution and totally contradicts creationism, again i can explain this in detail if you like?

Evolution does NOT occur withing the individual, mutations occurs within individuals they the evolution is of the species NOT the individual.

Saltation is not by any means sudden or a problem for evolutionary theory.

 

[Orogeny]

Tim question: yes or no—Do you believe in polygenism or monogenism?

That is not a yes or no question, that is an either or question. As a teacher, I hope you structure your questions better.

Polygenism.

Peace

Tim

 

[Rogerteder]

This is a carryover from the “The 6000 year old earth” thread that has exceeded the 1,000 post limit.

Buffalo claimed that science has falsified part of macro-evolution. I am asking for his supporting documentation that macro-evolution has been falsified.

Peace

Tim

Tim question: do you believe in polygenism or monogenism?

 

[Rogerteder]

That is not a yes or no question, that is an either or question. As a teacher, I hope you structure your questions better.

Polygenism.

Peace

Tim

so you deny Pius XII’s teaching in Humani Generis?