D
Dan123
Guest
If you think it’s true pull up a weather map and show me an air current that’s transitioning into a hurricane.
- Status
A
Aloysium
Guest
Atoms and molecules do not replicate themselves. The information contained in the structure of the DNA molecule participating within the totality of the cell within its environment, is what is replicated. The analogy that is the complex multilayered vision of a material universe fails to capture the reality of life. And, that is why evolution is never going to quite fit was is creation.
Last edited:
A
Aloysium
Guest
Reflecting on my presence here on these forums, as a component of my general relationships, I was reminded of Pope Francis’ recent rendition of the Franciscan prayer for World Communication Day:
Lord, make us instruments of your peace.
Help us to recognize the evil latent in a communication that does not build communion.
Help us to remove the venom from our judgements.
Help us to speak about others as our brothers and sisters.
You are faithful and trustworthy; may our words be seeds of goodness for the world:
where there is shouting, let us practise listening;
where there is confusion, let us inspire harmony;
where there is ambiguity, let us bring clarity;
where there is exclusion, let us offer solidarity;
where there is sensationalism, let us use sobriety;
where there is superficiality, let us raise real questions;
where there is prejudice, let us awaken trust;
where there is hostility, let us bring respect;
where there is falsehood, let us bring truth.
Amen.
I thought I’d share. Who knows what heights of understanding we might know through God’s grace?
Lord, make us instruments of your peace.
Help us to recognize the evil latent in a communication that does not build communion.
Help us to remove the venom from our judgements.
Help us to speak about others as our brothers and sisters.
You are faithful and trustworthy; may our words be seeds of goodness for the world:
where there is shouting, let us practise listening;
where there is confusion, let us inspire harmony;
where there is ambiguity, let us bring clarity;
where there is exclusion, let us offer solidarity;
where there is sensationalism, let us use sobriety;
where there is superficiality, let us raise real questions;
where there is prejudice, let us awaken trust;
where there is hostility, let us bring respect;
where there is falsehood, let us bring truth.
Amen.
I thought I’d share. Who knows what heights of understanding we might know through God’s grace?
T
Techno2000
Guest
No,the conditions have to be just right.
R
Richca
Guest
Progressive creationism beats theistic evolution on essentially all points related to observation, true experimental science, and the catholic faith.
Progressive creationism is in conformity with Holy Scripture, the word of God, and the Genesis 1-2 creation narratives; it is in conformity with the teaching of all the fathers, doctors, and saints of the Church and their interpretation of Holy Scripture and the Genesis 1-2 creation narratives; it is in conformity with all magisterial teaching in the entire Tradition of the Church; all the evidence is in favor that it is in conformity with Jesus’ own teaching and that faith delivered to the Apostles in turn handed down to the Church as evidenced in the faith and teaching of the Fathers of the Church and essentially the Church’s entire Tradition; it is in conformity with the Church’s perennial philosophy especially as found in the doctrine and teaching of St Thomas Aquinas; it is in conformity with observation and experimental science.
Theistic evolution is not in conformity with at least the literal, natural, obvious sense of Holy Scripture and the Genesis 1-2 creation narratives; it is not in conformity with the teaching of the fathers, doctors, and saints of the Church and their interpretation of Holy Scripture and the Genesis 1-2 creation narratives; it is not in conformity with all magisterial teaching and it actually contradicts the Church’s traditional understanding and at least ordinary teaching in its essentially entire Tradition concerning creationism theology; the evidence does not favor that it is in conformity with Jesus’ own teaching and that faith delivered to the Apostles in turn handed down to the Church as evidenced in the faith and teaching of the Church fathers; it is not in conformity with the Church’s perennial philosophy as found in the doctrine and teaching of St Thomas Aquinas; it is not in conformity with observation and experimental science but actually contradicts it.
Last edited:
H
Hugh_Farey
Guest
One out of three. B+
I don’t agree with you at all. I think that for most of the past two thousand years literal six-day creationism was the firm belief of almost all the authorities you mention. Progressive Creationism is a largely unsatisfactory attempt to make modern scientific observation fit biblical literalism in a way that requires a gross distortion at best, or deliberate misrepresentation at worst, of both.
Quite true. But then, Progressive Creation isn’t either. It’s six days and a global flood, I’m afraid.
Well, that’s a lot more debatable, as we have seen, but in my opinion Theistic Evolution is at least as conformable to early Christian theology as Progressive Creation, if not more.
Well, there, of course, I completely disagree, and, in my opinion, the evidence suggesting that it is is completely lacking.
U
Usagi
Guest
They might, yes. Or, over many generations, the traits that contribute best to their survival might combine to give us a creature we would not recognize as a mudskipper. But that’s not something that can be predicted in advance.
T
Techno2000
Guest
How many other organisms do you suppose live in the same environment as the mudskipper ?
U
Usagi
Guest
Probably a great number, especially if you count the microorganisms. Why?
The environment sets the conditions under which some traits may prove more conducive to survival and reproduction than others, but the different organisms don’t have the same range of traits, if that is what you are thinking.
The environment sets the conditions under which some traits may prove more conducive to survival and reproduction than others, but the different organisms don’t have the same range of traits, if that is what you are thinking.
T
Techno2000
Guest
Ok, so what kind of environment conditions do you suppose would trigger random mutations to mutate the mudskipper into becoming a new kind of species of animal .
A
Aloysium
Guest
If we use the example of that crayfish that clones itself, having three x chromosomes and was classified as a new species, it could have happened as a simple glitch in the system, where two x chromosomes were in the egg which would have then been fertilized by a sperm carrying an x chromosome. The offspring of that crayfish would develop without fertilization, from the egg cells of the mother. This of course, is an aberration, an organism carrying a genetic defect, regardless of our having called it a new species.
Outside of spontaneous glitches which occur in any process, because nothin (especially this keyboard) is 100% efficient, there are environmntal factors that can mess with the genome. We put on sunscreen to avoid the carcinogenic effects of high frequency radiation, which can damage the DNA molecule and the processes involved in the replication of cells. Viruses do the same thing, which is why human papiloma virus vaccines are being promoted to prevent cervical cancer. Toxins can similarly effect th replication of cells, and we have seen pesticides and cleaning fluids such as benzene restricted and taken off the market.
The molecular structures of the cell are quite complex, carrying information that could lead in a variety of potential developmental directions. The particular route is influenced by what else besides the DNA is present in the cell as well as the environment. The genome contains additionally information as to how to self correct. It is dependent on the environment in terms of requiring the proper external conditions, such as temperature and humidity in addition to accss to nutrients, oxygen and water.
It should also be remembered that organisms exist as psychological beings, so the degree to which the environment elicits various emotional states, its ability to satisfy the organisms needs, impacts on the parents and also their offspring.
If we understand life in terms of what are individual living beings in themselves, participating with and in relation to their environment, also a collection of indiviual beings, what we define as species only poorly represents reality. The idea is sort of an illusion based on morphology. We can understand there existing different forms of being, from the molecular to the angelic, with us in the middle. There are different kinds of animals below us and each kind can take on a variety of forms.
Random environmentally caused muations are destructive as a rule although people seem to think Sickle Cell and Thalassemia are examples of microevolution. Random mutations, those having to do with the impact of physical interactions in themselves without an external influence, will not affect the structure of the genome in a positive fashion. Speciation where it does occur through such means is through gene deletion. There is nothing “evolutionary” in such a process. There are however what might be ermed random substitutions occuring within the DNA molecule. Note that the probable outcomes are “programmed” within the structure of the molecule itself, and is a mechanism that has been built in to promote diversity. That initial “programming” would have had to have been introduced.
Outside of spontaneous glitches which occur in any process, because nothin (especially this keyboard) is 100% efficient, there are environmntal factors that can mess with the genome. We put on sunscreen to avoid the carcinogenic effects of high frequency radiation, which can damage the DNA molecule and the processes involved in the replication of cells. Viruses do the same thing, which is why human papiloma virus vaccines are being promoted to prevent cervical cancer. Toxins can similarly effect th replication of cells, and we have seen pesticides and cleaning fluids such as benzene restricted and taken off the market.
The molecular structures of the cell are quite complex, carrying information that could lead in a variety of potential developmental directions. The particular route is influenced by what else besides the DNA is present in the cell as well as the environment. The genome contains additionally information as to how to self correct. It is dependent on the environment in terms of requiring the proper external conditions, such as temperature and humidity in addition to accss to nutrients, oxygen and water.
It should also be remembered that organisms exist as psychological beings, so the degree to which the environment elicits various emotional states, its ability to satisfy the organisms needs, impacts on the parents and also their offspring.
If we understand life in terms of what are individual living beings in themselves, participating with and in relation to their environment, also a collection of indiviual beings, what we define as species only poorly represents reality. The idea is sort of an illusion based on morphology. We can understand there existing different forms of being, from the molecular to the angelic, with us in the middle. There are different kinds of animals below us and each kind can take on a variety of forms.
Random environmentally caused muations are destructive as a rule although people seem to think Sickle Cell and Thalassemia are examples of microevolution. Random mutations, those having to do with the impact of physical interactions in themselves without an external influence, will not affect the structure of the genome in a positive fashion. Speciation where it does occur through such means is through gene deletion. There is nothing “evolutionary” in such a process. There are however what might be ermed random substitutions occuring within the DNA molecule. Note that the probable outcomes are “programmed” within the structure of the molecule itself, and is a mechanism that has been built in to promote diversity. That initial “programming” would have had to have been introduced.
Last edited:
M
mVitus
Guest
Sickle cell anemia was actually advantageous as it’s accompanied by a resistance to malaria. So that boosted resistance makes sickle cell anemia something was beneficial and that contributed to its spread.
In first world countries, modern medicine has nullified for the most part that benefit, leaving it only disadvantageous.
Last edited:
A
Aloysium
Guest
It’s not good to suffer from Sickle Cell Anemia. It’s frequency is higher than it would be, were it not for the protective aspect that you mention. I can’t see this as evidence that natural selection promotes growth, development and diversity. It points to quite the opposite, restricting life’s potential. The fact is that humanity has continued to grow, with our genome replete with dysfunctional recessive genes, most not offering any sort of positive effect. This flourishing of our numbers is not due to any random genetic change, but as a result of our efforts as psychological and spiritual beings. At the same time these capacities have worked against us, with the prolieration of sin. Random genetic mutations arising from basic physical forces and natural selection do not explain creation, but its opposite, the impact of sin and death on what was created whole. These unfortunate aspects of the human condition I see as clearly invalidating evolution as a method of creation. Since the fall, humanity has taken quite a hit from the randomness that is inherent in the nature of our constituent parts, divorced from the healing graces that come with a being centred on the Source of all being. There is no way back, but going forward in Jesus Christ we find ourselves renewed and reconnected with our destiny, to be in communion within the Trinity.
Last edited:
B
Bradskii
Guest
I think you have the attention span of a mudskipper.Usagi:
Ok, so what kind of environment conditions do you suppose would trigger random mutations to mutate the mudskipper into becoming a new kind of species of animal .
Random mutations are just that. Random. Environmental conditions do not trigger mutations. That has been told to you 3 or 4 times at least.
If a fish has a mutation that enables it to survive longer in dry conditions, then it will survive longer than those without it. Now pay attention to this bit:
CHANGING CONDITIONS DO NOT TRIGGER MUTATIONS THAT ENABLE AN ORGANISM TO BETTER SURVIVE IT.
Do you understand that? If it gets colder then that does not trigger a genetic change in an animal so that it grows more fur. It’s the animals who have nore fur will survive better. And no, nobody thought it was a good idea to have more fur just in case it became cold. It was just a random genetic variation. So if it gets colder, the animal is in luck. If it gets warmer, then he is not.
So many months and you still have no idea…
Last edited:
D
Dan123
Guest
Would Adam have had sickle cell anemia? If not does that mean he’d have been more likely to contract malaria than a modern human with the condition?
T
Techno2000
Guest
I wish you all would get y’all story straight, so now environmental pressure doesn’t play a role in evolution.
E
Elf01
Guest
No. They don’t play a role in what mutations occur. They play a role in which ones succeed.
B
Bradskii
Guest
Tbis is barely credible…Bradskii:
I wish you all would get y’all story straight, so now environmental pressure doesn’t play a role in evolution.
Environmental changes do not trigger genetic changes. OK? You can’t have forgotten that yet - I only posted it 5 minutes ago.
So lets say that an animal happens to have more fur than his buddy (which you know has absolutely nothing at all to do with whether it has got colder or not - it was just a random mutation).
Now pay attention…
Conditions get colder for whatever reason. Is the animal with more fur better off or not? I’ll save time here by assuming you would say yes. That means, in the grand scheme of things, animals with more fur (due to random genetic changes) will survive long enough to pass on that genetic trait and animals with less will not. This is a simple result of statistics. You only need a small advantage to reap greater be efits over the long term. If you have ever played poker you will know what I mean.
And perhaps conditions get warmer. So the reverse is true. The animal with the warmer coat has the disadvantage and will generally survive less well and not be able to pass on the thicker-fur gene.
So…the environment plays no part in genetic variation but plays a big part in taking out of the gene pool those without a variation that is better suited to the new environmt. And keeping in the gene pool those with a variation that is a better fit.
Hence…the survival of those best fitted. Survival of the fittest in other words.
T
Techno2000
Guest
That’s what I mean,what kind of environmental pressure would be the catalyst for the mudskipper to succeed in evolving into a new animal ?
T
Techno2000
Guest
That’s great, but evolution takes millions of years to work.Techno2000:
Tbis is barely credible…Bradskii:
I wish you all would get y’all story straight, so now environmental pressure doesn’t play a role in evolution.
Environmental changes do not trigger genetic changes. OK? You can’t have forgotten that yet - I only posted it 5 minutes ago.
So lets say that an animal happens to have more fur than his buddy (which you know has absolutely nothing at all to do with whether it has got colder or not - it was just a random mutation).
Now pay attention…
Conditions get colder for whatever reason. Is the animal with more fur better off or not? I’ll save time here by assuming you would say yes. That means, in the grand scheme of things, animals with more fur (due to random genetic changes) will survive long enough to pass on that genetic trait and animals with less will not. This is a simple result of statistics. You only need a small advantage to reap greater be efits over the long term. If you have ever played poker you will know what I mean.
And perhaps conditions get warmer. So the reverse is true. The animal with the warmer coat has the disadvantage and will generally survive less well and not be able to pass on the thicker-fur gene.
So…the environment plays no part in genetic variation but plays a big part in taking out of the gene pool those without a variation that is better suited to the new environmt. And keeping in the gene pool those with a variation that is a better fit.
Hence…the survival of those best fitted. Survival of the fittest in other words.
Last edited:
- Status