Intelligent Design in Science Class

  • Thread starter Thread starter Michaelo
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Orogeny said:
So you are not saying that the number of chromosomes change in individuals but in their offspring. Is that correct? Because you seem to have been saying that the changes you have been describing take place in individuals.

How does this happen? Here you go.

madsci.org/posts/archives/2001-05/989331026.Ev.r.html
scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/04/basics_how_can_chromosome_numb.php

It isn’t as unknown to science as it is to you. Now that it has been explained, I guess that you now accept evolution as much more than conjecture.

Peace

Tim
Click to expand...
Not so much. When I say “evolution” i undertand it to mean “the change in allele frequency in a population over time” This is not hard to swallow. What is much harder to swallow is that all life, at some point, had a common ancestor. This is thouroughly untestable and is little more than an effort to secularize our culture.
 
First, the law of propbability is against evolution. It doesn’t happen in a lab but in a dynamic environment. If an animal carries some type of assumed beneficial mutation, it faces injury, disease, predators, fire and flood, starvation and death before it has a chance to pass it on.

Irreducible complexity is a solid concept. It makes sense. Just like cutting a leg off a four legged chair makes it no longer functional. However, it is a threat to current thinking.

Peace,
Ed
 
CWBetts said:
Not so much. When I say “evolution” i undertand it to mean “the change in allele frequency in a population over time” This is not hard to swallow. What is much harder to swallow is that all life, at some point, had a common ancestor. This is thouroughly untestable and is little more than an effort to secularize our culture.
Click to expand...
Do you have a scientific reason for doubting this or is your position simply a faith-based one? If scientific, can you provide a source for your postion?

Peace

Tim
 
Orogeny said:
No it is not.Conceptually perhaps. In reality, it sure seems very hard to find even one example of IC.

Peace

Tim
Click to expand...
The soup of enzymes needed to clot blood. Any one of them are missing, it doesn’t work. It is a system that could not have come into being piecemeal
 
After viewing a detailed explanation of the motor that powers the flagellum, I understand that it must deal with torque and stress issues from an engineering standpoint. The tail has to be a certain length. The materials involved had to work in unison. It spins at 3000 rpm. This is, in fact, a case of highly improbable assembly coupled with irreducible complexity. A non-goal oriented process is very highly unlikely to provide the precise, interrelated components required.

Peace,
Ed
 
Orogeny said:
No it is not.Conceptually perhaps. In reality, it sure seems very hard to find even one example of IC.

Peace

Tim
Click to expand...
It could be that God’s whole creation is designed so we cannot break it out.
 
edwest2 said:
After viewing a detailed explanation of the motor that powers the flagellum, I understand that it must deal with torque and stress issues from an engineering standpoint. The tail has to be a certain length. The materials involved had to work in unison. It spins at 3000 rpm. This is, in fact, a case of highly improbable assembly coupled with irreducible complexity. A non-goal oriented process is very highly unlikely to provide the precise, interrelated components required.

Peace,
Ed
Click to expand...
Another new finding is it has a clutch.
 
CWBetts said:
The soup of enzymes needed to clot blood. Any one of them are missing, it doesn’t work. It is a system that could not have come into being piecemeal
Click to expand...
talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB200_2.html
40.png
edwest2:
After viewing a detailed explanation of the motor that powers the flagellum, I understand that it must deal with torque and stress issues from an engineering standpoint. The tail has to be a certain length. The materials involved had to work in unison. It spins at 3000 rpm. This is, in fact, a case of highly improbable assembly coupled with irreducible complexity. A non-goal oriented process is very highly unlikely to provide the precise, interrelated components required.
Click to expand...
talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB200_1.html
 
Keep in mind that I do not refute that evolution happens. I do not accept any thoery put forth that says that it occurred by chance, woth no direction whatsoever from God. See biologos.org This site was established by former head of the human genome project, and author of the book The Language of God, Francis Collins
 
CWBetts said:
You seem to hold to the secular humanist variety of evolution, which is an unacceptible view for a Catholic
Click to expand...
For clarity’s sake, please define both the secular humanist variety of evolution and that which is purportedly acceptable for a Catholic.
 
CWBetts said:
The soup of enzymes needed to clot blood. Any one of them are missing, it doesn’t work. It is a system that could not have come into being piecemeal
Click to expand...
Incorrect. Whales and Dolphins lack a part of the system and their blood clots perfectly well. Lampreys lack even more of the system and their blood also clots. It is by examining such simpler clotting systems that we can show evidence of common descent and work out how our current clotting system evolved from simpler beginnings. For a description see The Evolution of Vertebrate Blood Clotting by Ken Miller, who is a Catholic.

rossum
 
CWBetts said:
The soup of enzymes needed to clot blood. Any one of them are missing, it doesn’t work. It is a system that could not have come into being piecemeal
Click to expand...
See rossums link. What next, the flagellum?

Peace

Tim
 
CWBetts said:
Keep in mind that I do not refute that evolution happens. I do not accept any thoery put forth that says that it occurred by chance, woth no direction whatsoever from God. See biologos.org This site was established by former head of the human genome project, and author of the book The Language of God, Francis Collins
Click to expand...
What is random and/or chance to God? Something that is completely random to us is simple to God.

Peace

Tim
 
Michaelo said:
For clarity’s sake, please define both the secular humanist variety of evolution and that which is purportedly acceptable for a Catholic.
Click to expand...
The secual humanist view is that we evolved from single celled organisms through natural selection which was acted on exclusively by natural forces. Catholics may not accept this view because it denies the creative act of God. Catholics are free to accept any form of Creation, Theisitic Evolution, Intelligent Design or whatever, provided that God is given his due credit, creating the universe ex nihilo. Your links are all from sites bent on proving those with religious faith wrong. Look at the link I provided. The goal is to show that science and religion compliment each other, rather than the common view that they are in opposition to one another
 
CWBetts said:
Not so much. When I say “evolution” i undertand it to mean “the change in allele frequency in a population over time” This is not hard to swallow. What is much harder to swallow is that all life, at some point, had a common ancestor. This is thouroughly untestable and is little more than an effort to secularize our culture.
Click to expand...
From your link to biologos.org:

“A cardinal principle of biological evolution is that all living things descended from earlier, less advanced ancestral species. These first free-living organisms are believed to have appeared on Earth about 3.85 billion years ago, making some of the early details of evolution a mystery. As a result , the actual origin of life remains unexplained, and evolutionary theorists do not attempt to explain it. (See Question 24 about The Origin of Life). These original organisms, however, carried information and were capable of self replication. Over very long periods of time, nature’s selection for beneficial mutations — as well as nature’s selection against detrimental mutations — has led to the vast diversity of living things that exists today.”

A common ancestor. Hmm. Do you find it easier to swallow if you read it at Dr. Collins’ site?

Peace

Tim
 
Orogeny said:
From your link to biologos.org:

“A cardinal principle of biological evolution is that all living things descended from earlier, less advanced ancestral species. These first free-living organisms are believed to have appeared on Earth about 3.85 billion years ago, making some of the early details of evolution a mystery. As a result , the actual origin of life remains unexplained, and evolutionary theorists do not attempt to explain it. (See Question 24 about The Origin of Life). These original organisms, however, carried information and were capable of self replication. Over very long periods of time, nature’s selection for beneficial mutations — as well as nature’s selection against detrimental mutations — has led to the vast diversity of living things that exists today.”

A common ancestor. Hmm. Do you find it easier to swallow if you read it at Dr. Collins’ site?

Peace

Tim
Click to expand...
Of course you know he is attempting to reconcile faith and reason. Which is no different than we are attempting to do.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top