How evolution undermines Salvation

[wildleafblower]

Sorry wrong topic.

 

[The_Barbarian]

“non-random” = “undesigned”

Not always. There are also designed things that are non-random.

“random” = “designed”

Not usually, but there are designed things that are random. (any simulation that depends on random numbers, for example)

And by the way, as I believe I have mentioned before, I am neither a creationist nor an adherent of intelligent design; I am a Confirmed Skeptic of Darwinian Theory.

Wouldn’t “skeptic” indicate some familiarity with the theory itself?

 

[SpiritMeadow]

As usual, slogans are the enemy. Anyone with half a brain who comes here would notice the constant, daily, “just say yes to evolution” rhetoric and realize, “Hey, if it’s so obvious and so scientific and easy enough for a teenager to understand, what is actually going on here?” What is actually going on here is a commitment to spreading the gospel of evolution to everyone precisely because of how this science affects people’s lives.

haven’t seen Nancy Reagan here so far Ed,. but yes some here do encourage people to adopt evolution, and some here have a constant refrain of “its only theory” “its full of holes” and “it hasn’t been sufficiently proven.” So what? Okay you say that evolution is being promoted because of how it affects people’s lives. Since I’m doing some promoting, you better tell me more about how this is affecting lives. I’m apparently out of the loop. Please explain what you mean here.

And to say that “science,” that great, self-correcting, always moving forward concept, is somehow living in this pure place where no mortal shall contemplate it in any other way than say, mathematics, is nonsense. Just google “culture war” to find out what I’m talking about.

Well it would have been nice had you just directly stated what you mean instead of making us guess. Are you referring to how the military pushes forward certain science to develop better ways of killing? And your point is? Are you saying this makes teh techology of weapons development somehow incorrect as science and R and D? I mean in the sense that it promotes faulty science? Because if so, you must prove how the “misuse” of evolutionary theory affects the reliablitity of the science. And of course you must show us how its being misused, unless you simply mean by “atheists”.

On other Christian forums with less strict moderation, those who disagree with the evolutionary gospel are slammed, sometimes viciously, not for their lack of understanding but for their belief in a book of fairy tales and an invisible man in the sky. That’s what it always comes down to when someone does not say yes to evolution. It doesn’t matter if you slaughter animals in arcane rituals, as long as you believe in evolution, you are OK.

I don’t go to them for that reason Ed, they are pretty much uncivilized and foul mouthed children. This is certainly no indictment of evolutionary theory either. If you go to just about any thread that deals with human behavior you will find the same childish antics. Its sport for kids Ed, stay away unless you like that sort of thing.

For Catholics who want to follow Church teaching, textbook evolution is not the whole answer, divine providence is. But the "evolution is a fact’ crowd also want to reinterpret parts of the Bible, ignoring the Magisterium.
Ed

No one here disputes that science is not the entire answer I don’t think, or at least may not be. Certainly those who believe here aren’t taking that position and agree that the Church supplies the missing ingredients. What reinterpretation are you referring to ? And specifically what in the Magisterium is being ignored?

 

[SpiritMeadow]

These things usually follow a pattern, Ed. Several years ago, Dave Armstrong pinned down some strident Darwinists on the Straight Dope site and asked a very simple question, over and over again. None of them ever did give him an answer; all they did was tell him how unscientific and obviously ignorant he was.

He responded by suggesting that since they wouldn’t answer his question, it was likely that they didn’t have an answer, and then they piled on the invective, the insults, the name-calling, the usual standard procedure that inevitably follows when someone questions Darwinism. I have seen this same tactic used over and over and over again, by everybody from high school teachers to molecular biologists with doctorates: don’t discuss variant scientific evidence, just shout down your opponent and call him names, because he dares to disagree with Darwin. (shrug)

Read through it some time when you have a few minutes. It’s really quite enlightening and amusing.

socrates58.blogspot.com/2007/03/dialogue-on-materialist-evolutionary.html

Has it ever occured to you that his question was just that? Unscientific and evincing an ignorant mind? I mean is it possible they were right? even remotely?

 

[edwest2]

“ignorant” That magic word that tells people “if only you understood then you would believe” in evolution. Not so. I am not ignorant. I am fully not accepting a theory that makes no sense. For example, Pope Benedict stated the evolution is not a complete, scientifically proven theory. Cardinal Schoenborn stated that common descent “might” be true. I do not walk around with “science blinders” on, ignoring statements that cast doubt on evolution and singing to the housetops those that do seem to support it, however circumspectly.

God bless,
Ed

 

[The_Barbarian]

“ignorant” That magic word that tells people “if only you understood then you would believe” in evolution.

No. It means, in your case, that you don’t understand what the theory is about. I know of people, such as Kurt Wise, who are fully aware of evolutionary theory and its claims, who still reject it. I’m suggesting that you might be more effective against science if you understood it better.

I am not ignorant.

Just for the record, summarize Darwin’s theory, and then tell us what was modified in the Modern Synthesis to make the current theory. (feel free to Google it; I don’t care if I stump you or not, it would be great if you looked it up and learned)

I am fully not accepting a theory that makes no sense. For example, Pope Benedict stated the evolution is not a complete, scientifically proven theory.

That’s not what he said, is it? But he’s right in the sense that no theory is ever “proven.” Proof is not part of science, because it never produces logical certainty. I encourage you to look up what Benedict actually said about this, for your own benefit.

Cardinal Schoenborn stated that common descent “might” be true.

He differs with the Pontiff, who has pointed out that it is “virtually certain.” But of course, Benedict has a somewhat better grounding in science than Shoenborn, so that might be the reason.

I do not walk around with “science blinders” on, ignoring statements that cast doubt on evolution and singing to the housetops those that do seem to support it, however circumspectly.

Quite the opposite. You walk around with “science blinders” on, ignoring evidence that supports evolution, and singing to the housetops “quotes” you’ve been given that seem to cast doubt on it.

 

[The_Barbarian]

Several years ago, Dave Armstrong pinned down some strident Darwinists on the Straight Dope site and asked a very simple question, over and over again. None of them ever did give him an answer; all they did was tell him how unscientific and obviously ignorant he was.

Well, that sounds like the magic bullet, doesn’t it? Ask me.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

“ignorant” That magic word that tells people “if only you understood then you would believe” in evolution. Not so. I am not ignorant.

I am fully not accepting a theory that makes no sense. For example, Pope Benedict stated the evolution is not a complete, scientifically proven theory. Cardinal Schoenborn stated that common descent “might” be true. I do not walk around with “science blinders” on, ignoring statements that cast doubt on evolution and singing to the housetops those that do seem to support it, however circumspectly.

Ed

But 19 times you did exactly that ed, yuou said you agreed with benedict that some form of evolution was used, but that science was not the complete answer, in that God was the creator and evolution is thus part of his creation. Why have you decided to go back to a full NO EVOLUTION stance?

 

[The_Barbarian]

Several years ago, Dave Armstrong pinned down some strident Darwinists on the Straight Dope site and asked a very simple question, over and over again. None of them ever did give him an answer; all they did was tell him how unscientific and obviously ignorant he was.

One more time: ask me.

 

[Wolseley]

One more time: ask me.

I was told by the house doorman that you need to pick up all those gauntlets before somebody trips over one of them and falls. Trash bags are in the maintenenance closet off to your left, there.

That having been said, I’m going to use the usual tactic of Internet Darwinists and tell you to go to site and read it yourself: socrates58.blogspot.com/2007/03/dialogue-on-materialist-evolutionary.html

You’ll get the full, unexpurgated version of what he’s looking for, and I am confident that you, of all people here, can provide for him what they couldn’t. I’d take up one of those gauntlets you have laying all over the place in here, but Dave is much better suited for this sort of thing than I am, and besides, I plan to give up contentious and pointless debate for Lent.

Cheers, and best of luck.

 

[Wolseley]

Or, you could try this one: socrates58.blogspot.com/2007/03/dialogue-with-atheists-on-evolution-of.html

 

[The_Barbarian]

How could an eye evolve from a light-sensitive spot? Pretty simple. In fact, in some phyla, we still have most of the transitions available as living creatures. Let’s get started.

First off, all organisms are to a degree light-sensitive, since very bright light affects all sorts of nerves. If you close your eyes on a bright summer day, and walk from the shade into the open sun, you will detect it by nothing more than exposed skin. However, if you have someone paint a black spot on your back and try it again, you will find that you have increased the sensitivity of your skin as an organ of sight noticably.

You might also note that your face is more sensitive than say, your leg. More nerves.

So the first steps are a pigmented spot, and/or more nerves. Nothing more than the variation found in most species.

Of what use is this? Being able to orient to the light is a very useful, even essential skill for many organisms. All that’s needed is for the spot to be on one side, so that the direction is noted. So now the organism can not only tell light from darkness, but tell the direction.

What’s next? Well, if the spot is slightly depressed, the rim of the depression will cut off the light if it’s at an extreme angle. What good is that? Well, it increases the acuity of the organ, allowing it to more accurately locate the light source. Again, a useful adaptation. A deeper pit works even better, and a narrower passage for the light also works better. Very simple variations, and each step useful.

But something happens as the pit gets deeper and the opening narrower. As the opening gets smaller, diffraction takes place, and the light becomes focused (you can simulate this effect by looking at very small details of an object through a tiny hole) And so a fuzzy image is now available. No designer necessary; the increasing acuity was exapted to a new function.

If the pit is filled with a clear fluid, then it will not be gunked up by debris. Again, nothing remarkable; this is already part of most organisms. But then, because fluids refract light, the focus can be made sharper. And if the opening is protected by a thin layer of skin, then any bulge in that layer can produce a better image.

Of course, the nerve cells can gradually become more sensitive to light; each gradual change is useful and therefore no discontinuous change is required. A continuum of such increasingly sensitive retinas is known in nature.

The iris, of course, is merely a very thin muscle, adapted from mesoderm, like the others. Likewise, the muscles that form to move the eyeball. Vertebrate eyes are formed from neural tube cells, being essentially an extension of the brain, and thereby maintain the capsule of other nervous tissue, separate from the connective tissue around it.

That didn’t seem very difficult. It’s noteworthy that we see this happening again, in the infrared band in reptiles. The most primitive examples are lizards with simple patches of heat-sensitive cells on their faces. Some snakes have depressions to hold them, and others have deep depressions. Pit vipers have the constricted openings to allow diffraction, and have evolved a heat retina. The information from these “eyes” is interpreted in the optic tectum, to form a composite visual/infrared image. “Small, warm, and moving” elecits a strike.

Would you like to see a series of increasingly evolved eyes in a phylum or two? Of necessity, I’ve had to be sparse with words. If you’d like more detail in some spot or another, let me know.

 

[The_Barbarian]

I think Behe has withdrawn his earlier assertion that no one in biochemistry was studying the orgin of organelles. A quick search shows one in 1967.

The evolution of blood clotting shows papers on it from 1947:
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18129759?ordinalpos=667&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

Behe was really off base on that one. I believe he no longer makes that claim.

Any other “magic bullets?”

 

[Wolseley]

How could an eye evolve from a light-sensitive spot? Pretty simple. In fact, in some phyla, we still have most of the transitions available as living creatures. Let’s get started.

Very well, I’ll play along, but not for an extended period of time. These engagements tend to be dreary and pointless, but since you enjoy them, I’ll humor you.
Barbarian:

So the first steps are a pigmented spot, and/or more nerves.

What brings on the pigmentation? What source cause is there for an animal to develop a dark spot?
Barbarian:

What’s next? Well, if the spot is slightly depressed, the rim of the depression will cut off the light if it’s at an extreme angle.

How does the spot depress itself?
Barbarian:

A deeper pit works even better, and a narrower passage for the light also works better. Very simple variations, and each step useful.

How does a dark spot become deeper and narrower?
Barbarian:

As the opening gets smaller

Now its getting smaller as well. By what process?
Barbarian:

diffraction takes place, and the light becomes focused (you can simulate this effect by looking at very small details of an object through a tiny hole)

I can simulate nothing of the kind. I already have eyes----I cannot hope to simulate a dark spot on my skin becoming deep, narrow, and small, and then somehow magically being able to focus light. My eyes will function as they’re designed to function. Now as for dark spots—well, I have some freckles and moles, but…
Barbarian:

And so a fuzzy image is now available. No designer necessary; the increasing acuity was exapted to a new function.

Uh-huh.
Barbarian:

If the pit is filled with a clear fluid, then it will not be gunked up by debris.

How does it get filled up with fluid? Where does the fluid come from? What generates the tissue changes necessary to deliver the fluid to the dark, recessed, narrow spot?
Barbarian:

But then, because fluids refract light, the focus can be made sharper. And if the opening is protected by a thin layer of skin, then any bulge in that layer can produce a better image.

So now the skin is growing over the surface of the pit, like a wooden cap being placed on a well. This just gets better and better.
Barbarian:

Of course, the nerve cells can gradually become more sensitive to light; each gradual change is useful and therefore no discontinuous change is required. A continuum of such increasingly sensitive retinas is known in nature.

Uh-huh.
Barbarian:

The iris, of course, is merely a very thin muscle, adapted from mesoderm, like the others. Likewise, the muscles that form to move the eyeball.

Whoa, whoa, hold on a minute, now—we’ve just somehow jumped from a dark, fluid-filled pit on the surface of the skin to an eyeball, and the corresponding muscles to maneuver it. When, exactly, did this development take place?
Barbarian:

Vertebrate eyes are formed from neural tube cells, being essentially an extension of the brain, and thereby maintain the capsule of other nervous tissue, separate from the connective tissue around it.

That’s wonderful, but it tells me nothing about how a fluid-filled pit turns into an eyeball.
Barbarian:

That didn’t seem very difficult.

Magic never is. Reality is harder.
Barbarian:

It’s noteworthy that we see this happening again, in the infrared band in reptiles. The most primitive examples are lizards with simple patches of heat-sensitive cells on their faces.

When they turn into eyeballs, you might have something there. Until then, it’s still nothing more than speculative magic.
Barbarian:

Some snakes have depressions to hold them, and others have deep depressions. Pit vipers have the constricted openings to allow diffraction, and have evolved a heat retina.

Five million years from now, then, we’ll have snakes with multiple eyes? For what purpose?
Barbarian:

The information from these “eyes” is interpreted in the optic tectum, to form a composite visual/infrared image. “Small, warm, and moving” elecits a strike.

It’s still not an eyeball.

Would you like to see a series of increasingly evolved eyes in a phylum or two? Of necessity, I’ve had to be sparse with words. If you’d like more detai in some spot or another, let me know.

If you must. Personally, I don’t see how diversity in various species of organism proves anything other than diversity, not development. But I know you get a huge charge out of all this, and I, of course, being the ignorant unscientific foil, get the lower apartment in the outhouse, so go ahead. But be advised, I will weary of the game soon.

 

[drpmjhess]

Would you like to see a series of increasingly evolved eyes in a phylum or two? Of necessity, I’ve had to be sparse with words. If you’d like more detail in some spot or another, let me know.

Brilliant The Barbarian. Wish you had been at “The Evolutionary Epic” conference in Hawaii at which I just spoke, on Catholicism and evolution.

Petrus

 

[SpiritMeadow]

I was told by the house doorman that you need to pick up all those gauntlets before somebody trips over one of them and falls. Trash bags are in the maintenenance closet off to your left, there.

That having been said, I’m going to use the usual tactic of Internet Darwinists and tell you to go to site and read it yourself: socrates58.blogspot.com/2007/03/dialogue-on-materialist-evolutionary.html

You’ll get the full, unexpurgated version of what he’s looking for, and I am confident that you, of all people here, can provide for him what they couldn’t. I’d take up one of those gauntlets you have laying all over the place in here, but Dave is much better suited for this sort of thing than I am, and besides, I plan to give up contentious and pointless debate for Lent.

Cheers, and best of luck.

Yes dave seems to have a very lucrative looking business at that site does he not, selling all his tracts…hmmmm…

 

[drpmjhess]

Yes dave seems to have a very lucrative looking business at that site does he not, selling all his tracts…hmmmm…

SpiritMeadow, is creationism lucrative? I wish you could have been at the Evolutionary Epic" conference on Oahu last week – it was a rich discussion across many disciplines – cosmology and phyysics, biology, anthropology, pedagogy, philosophy, poetry, literature and theology. We had a special focus session on Catholicism and evolution, with I convened with a Dominican nun and a Jesuit priest.

Petrus

 

[The_Barbarian]

Brilliant The Barbarian. Wish you had been at “The Evolutionary Epic” conference in Hawaii at which I just spoke, on Catholicism and evolution.

Thank you. I wish I had been able to attend. There is much going on in biology now, and the interface between faith and science is a very interesting subject. Are papers available on the net?

 

[Wolseley]

Yes dave seems to have a very lucrative looking business at that site does he not, selling all his tracts…hmmmm…

And this proves evolution exactly how?

That’s one for the National Academy of Sciences: “Darwinist evoltuion has been proven to be fact, because Dave Armstrong sells books on his personal blog!”

Might even be grounds for a Nobel Prize.

And how does a fluid-filled pit transmogrify into an eyeball?

 

[The_Barbarian]

B. observes:
So the first steps are a pigmented spot.

…pigmentation?

Pigmentation pre-exists for cover or protection from sun.

What source cause is there for an animal to develop a dark spot?

Normal random variation. If it happens to be some benefit, it tends to spread.

B. observes:
If the spot is slightly depressed, the rim of the depression will cut off the light if it’s at an extreme angle.

How does the spot depress itself?

See previous.

B. observes:
A deeper pit works even better, and a narrower passage for the light also works better. Very simple variations, and each step useful.

How does a dark spot become deeper and narrower?

Natural selection. There is always variation.

B. observes:
As the opening gets smaller

By what process?

In any group of individuals, the opening will vary in size somewhat. If there’s a selective value to a smaller opening, those organisms having them will tend to leave more offspring.

Barbarian observes:
diffraction takes place, and the light becomes focused (you can simulate this effect by looking at very small details of an object through a tiny hole)

I can simulate nothing of the kind.

Make a tiny hole with your thumb and forefinger, and see how it allows you to see small details better.

Barbarian observes:
No designer necessary; it was exapted to a new function. Evolution just modifies something already there.

Barbarian
If the pit is filled with a clear fluid, then it will not be gunked up by debris.

How does it get filled up with fluid?

For example, the opening happens to be closed by a thin layer of tissue.

Where does the fluid come from?

Tissue fluid, for mollusks and vertebrates. Endoderm, in our case.

B. observes:
Because fluids refract light, the focus can be made sharper. And if the opening is protected by a thin layer of skin, then any bulge in that layer can produce a better image.

So now the skin is growing over the surface of the pit, like a wooden cap being placed on a well.

No. Such things happen naturally. If it happened to be useful, then it would tend to be retained.

Barbarian
The nerve cells can gradually become more sensitive to light; each gradual change is useful and therefore no discontinuous change is required. A continuum of such increasingly sensitive retinas is known in nature.

The iris is a very thin muscle, adapted from mesoderm, like the others. Likewise, muscles that form to move the eyeball.

Whoa, whoa, hold on a minute, now—we’ve just somehow jumped from a dark, fluid-filled pit on the surface of the skin to an eyeball, and the corresponding muscles to maneuver it. When, exactly, did this development take place?

In humans, it’s because the eye is formed by the neural tube, which separates the eye from the surrounding matrix (hence eyeball) A late process in the evolution of eyes. And muscles are variable in detail; you have several that do nothing at all, for reasons that are not clear. On the other hand, such muscles, if they provided some benefit, would tend to be retained.

That’s wonderful, but it tells me nothing about how a fluid-filled pit turns into an eyeball.

It might be that until you learn a little more about biology, it will not be accessible to you. Most people can see it without much trouble. A book on comparative anatomy of vertebrates might be useful.

B. observes:
It’s noteworthy that we see this happening again, in the infrared band in reptiles. Most primitive are lizards with simple patches of heat-sensitive cells on their faces.

When they turn into eyeballs, you might have something there.

It’s another demonstration of the way such things form.

Some snakes have depressions to hold them, and others have deep depressions. Pit vipers have the constricted openings to allow diffraction, and have evolved a heat retina.

Five million years from now, then, we’ll have snakes with multiple eyes?

We do now. They are just simple eyes.

For what purpose?

Read on.

Barbarian observes:
The information from these “eyes” is interpreted in the optic tectum, to form a composite visual/infrared image. “Small, warm, and moving” elecits a strike.

It’s still not an eyeball.

Right. It’s in a much simpler stage. But it clearly shows how eyeballs can evolve.

Would you like to see a series of evolved eyes in a phylum or two? I’ve had to be sparse with words. If you’d like more detail in some spot or another, let me know.

(apparently not)

No surprise there.

… I, of course, being the ignorant unscientific foil, get the lower apartment in the outhouse,

Not knowing what one is talking about, is a disability, yes.