V
vern_humphrey
Guest
It is a poor, weak sort of faith that says we must reject science to keep our faith. Looking on the works of God, they feel, threatens their belief in God.
- Status
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
If you by no means don’t want to let mathmatics guide your action, why learn it? Just want to show you know something God didn’t reveal to you?
If you by no means don’t want to let geography guide your action, why learn it? Just want to show you know something God didn’t reveal to you?
If you by no means don’t want to let carpentry guide your action, why learn it? Just want to show you know something God didn’t reveal to you?
So say you – projecting your prejudices on everyone else.
Not very Christian.
D
Digger71
Guest
vern humphrey:
Ummm…Romans umm… 14… 1-4 [clickity ckick] yep, that’s right.
Romans 14:1-4
Incidently:
"13 Then let us no more pass judgment on one another, but rather decide never to put a stumbling block or hindrance in the way of a brother. 14 I know and am persuaded in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself; but it is unclean for any one who thinks it unclean. "
St Paul wrote about this. I forget the exact citation, but it was that some people were so weak of faith that they have to keep to the old rules in Leviticus, but we should not criticise them.
Ummm…Romans umm… 14… 1-4 [clickity ckick] yep, that’s right.
Romans 14:1-4
Incidently:
"13 Then let us no more pass judgment on one another, but rather decide never to put a stumbling block or hindrance in the way of a brother. 14 I know and am persuaded in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself; but it is unclean for any one who thinks it unclean. "
A
abcdefg
Guest
Sorry Digger71, isn’t you who were so pro-homosexuals that I refused to discuss with any longer in that thread. is this what your understanding of out dated law is?
A
abcdefg
Guest
vern humphrey:
Am I right to say ET prodicts inferior will be extincted?
A
abcdefg
Guest
vern humphrey:
What do you plan to use ET for? the only use I have for ET is to make me laugh. how about you?
I use maths to program. I use geography to travel. I don’t know much about carpentry, only as a pasttime. They all guide my action.
What do you plan to use ET for? the only use I have for ET is to make me laugh. how about you?
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
No, you are dead wrong (if “extincted” means “become extinct.”)
Evolution says that those individuals best adapted to their environment will have a better chance of passing their genes along. It doesn’t say all other creatures will become extinct, nor does it say they are “inferior.”
A human, for example, cannot breathe under water. A fish can – and therefore is better adapted to an underwater environment. Does that make humans “inferior?”
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
I use science (including biology) to better understand the world around me.
By the way, what’s “maths?”
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
Thank you for posting that. I do not claim the Church demands we accept evolution. I expect those on the other side of the argument to extend to me the same courtesy – and not demand that I believe the Church rejects evolution.
D
Digger71
Guest
vern humphrey:
I was postig something to support you.
My point is that the creationists are the ‘weak of faith’ in this instance, and abcdefg himself has said you cannot be a real Catholic and beleive in evolution.
I was postig something to support you.
T
thistle
Guest
I agree with you and Vern.
E
EnterTheBowser
Guest
FIrst of all, even if evolutionary theory had no practical use, that would have nothing to do with its truth or falsity. For example, what the hell do we use Hubble’s Law for? Moreover, practical applicability is rather changeable. If all of a sudden evolution had a practical use, would it suddenly become true? And if that practical use dissapeared, would it become false? I certainly hope not.
Moreover, evolution does have practical uses - for example in the prescription of antibiotics. As it is we save the most powerful antibiotics for last - to prevent bacteria from developing resistance. The older antibiotics are used first. Evolution is also why it is important to finish taking antibiotics even after symptoms disappear. Bacteria remain after the symptoms go away, and the remaining population is more likely to have some resistance. It is important to finish the pills so that your body can then destroy the remaining resistant bacteria - otherwise new, deadlier diseases develop.
Moreover, evolution does have practical uses - for example in the prescription of antibiotics. As it is we save the most powerful antibiotics for last - to prevent bacteria from developing resistance. The older antibiotics are used first. Evolution is also why it is important to finish taking antibiotics even after symptoms disappear. Bacteria remain after the symptoms go away, and the remaining population is more likely to have some resistance. It is important to finish the pills so that your body can then destroy the remaining resistant bacteria - otherwise new, deadlier diseases develop.
J
Jason_Meyers
Guest
I already told you that I and my scientist colleagues use evolutionary theory daily to inform our research. The medical treatments of tomorrow (as well as many of them used today) are mostly going to be derived from research that uses evolutionary theory at its core.
Perhaps medicine is just something you laugh at, but there are millions of people who owe their lives to scientists understanding evolution.
JRM
H
hecd2
Guest
Jason Meyers:
The big cheese here is a guy called Michael Land who is the great expert in comparative eye function and structure. He, and many others, continue to claim that although there is certainly regulatory and molecular homology in eyes, structurally and anatomically eyes are polyphyletic and are examples of convergent evolution. They point out that regulatory genes like Pax-6, Shh and many others responsible for body patterning have multiple developmental functions across many different body structures and that their expression in the eye is not necesssarily evidence of structural common ancestry. They also point out that eyes develop in different animals from different tissues and that other structures of eyes, for example the proteins of the lens are not homologous:
See for example:
Michael F Land and Dan-Eric Nilsson, ‘Animal Eyes’, Oxford University Press, ISBN0198509685 , 2002.
Land and others would claim that pre-existing opsins and Pax-6 were co-opted multiple times in the independent development of eyes. In a sense it’s possible to say that eyes are examples of both divergent and convergent evolution - that the fundamental developmental biology and light sensitivity is conserved and an example of divergence, whereas structure and functional anatomy is an example of convergent evolution.
In any case to say that all eyes in all metazoans are *structures *that can be traced back to primitive eyes in a common ancestor (monphyletic) is controversial. What everyone seems to agree is that major critical features in eyes, say crystalline lenses, adjustable pupils, even ararys of light sensitive cells (retinas) etc developed independently in different lineages and are perfect examples of convergent evolution.
Do you agree Jeremy?
Alec
evolutionpages.com
By the way, I forgot to say that although it seems clearer and clearer that metazoan eyes have some common developmental and functional features (for example the fact that Pax-6 and Sonic Hedgehog are conserved in eye development across vertebrate and invertebrates, and the recently discovered fact that both rhabdomeric and ciliary opsins were present in the common ancestor of both vertebrates and at least some invertebrates), the idea that eyes in different evolutionary lineages represent convergent evolution has certainly not gone away.
The big cheese here is a guy called Michael Land who is the great expert in comparative eye function and structure. He, and many others, continue to claim that although there is certainly regulatory and molecular homology in eyes, structurally and anatomically eyes are polyphyletic and are examples of convergent evolution. They point out that regulatory genes like Pax-6, Shh and many others responsible for body patterning have multiple developmental functions across many different body structures and that their expression in the eye is not necesssarily evidence of structural common ancestry. They also point out that eyes develop in different animals from different tissues and that other structures of eyes, for example the proteins of the lens are not homologous:
See for example:
Michael F Land and Dan-Eric Nilsson, ‘Animal Eyes’, Oxford University Press, ISBN0198509685 , 2002.
Land and others would claim that pre-existing opsins and Pax-6 were co-opted multiple times in the independent development of eyes. In a sense it’s possible to say that eyes are examples of both divergent and convergent evolution - that the fundamental developmental biology and light sensitivity is conserved and an example of divergence, whereas structure and functional anatomy is an example of convergent evolution.
In any case to say that all eyes in all metazoans are *structures *that can be traced back to primitive eyes in a common ancestor (monphyletic) is controversial. What everyone seems to agree is that major critical features in eyes, say crystalline lenses, adjustable pupils, even ararys of light sensitive cells (retinas) etc developed independently in different lineages and are perfect examples of convergent evolution.
Do you agree Jeremy?
Alec
evolutionpages.com
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
If I have misunderstood you, my deepest apologies.
The point I was trying to get across is – I don’t demand others “believe” in evolution. I don’t say someone’s not a Catholic if he is not persuaded by the evidence (which is a far better term than “believe” when it comes to science.)
And I ask those on the opposite side to stop demanding I not accept evolution. I ask them to stop saying or implying that Catholics must reject science. 'Cause that ain’t true.
J
Jason_Meyers
Guest
Yes, there is still much to learn about this. Part of the problem (or fun, depending on how you look at it) is exactly how to trace back and relate these things. There are interesting hypotheses that the sensory cells from the ear may be evolutionarily related to the sensory cells from the eye, even though they have quite different functions, morphology, etc.
Your point about convergent and divergent evolution is quite valid though. Even if “eyes” of vertebrates and invertebrates are structurally homologous, the evolution of a camera eye in cephalopods (e.g. squid) and vertebrates is a pretty good example of convergent evolution. And there is a remarkable diversity in the types of eyes present in invertebrates, including my favorite, the eye of a tiny marine animal that has an eye that works like a scanner rather than a camera! (ref)
The amazing world of sensory biology is full of amazing stories!
JRM
Z
zian
Guest
vern humphrey:
I think that would be a British, for example, way of saying “math”, unless it is just a typo.
A
abcdefg
Guest
It’s not a typo. All my English textbooks which follow British English use either “maths” or “mathematics”
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
I thought it referred to something belonging to Cotton Mather.http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon12.gif
A
abcdefg
Guest
vern humphrey:
Both human and fish survive now. and human has aspect superior to fish. if human wish fish be extincted, I don’t doubt fish can be extincted. If fish want humans be extincted, this no where going to happen. Jews almost extincted in WW2 as they can’t fit the environment. according to ET, they’re inferior.
- Status