Is Darwin's Theory of Evolution True? Part 4.0

  • Thread starter Thread starter Techno2000
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
mVitus said:
My point with dogs and different races is how small genetic changes can impact a species over time. A poodle and a great Dane for example are different from wolves. Not mention Chihuahuas.
And with humans, we all share common ancestors, yet those physical differences became manifested over time, which is a way of demonstrating some of evolution’s principles in regards to change over time.
Click to expand...
This has to do with Mendelian genetics. The workings of the genome are still being studied and what we have are a variety of genes, some dominant and some recessive. The expression of genes is complicated with variable expression seen in the phenotype determined by different areas in the DNA, extranuclear factors and influences from the environment including maternal hormones.

Those differences in chromosomes between members of the same species are attributed to different influences. Neo-Darwinism calls it random and creationists call it God; both are of-the-gaps explanations. We don’t really know. I can speculate as to the direct influence of God, because I know God to exist. I also am acutely aware that matter left to its essential properties will decompose the structure established by an external ordering agent on the atoms of which it is formed. The belief that mold, insects and vermin are spontaneously created from dirt is wrong, not only in the short term but also when it involves billions of years.

I recall a family friend’s dalmatian had pups from some stray mongrel. When they were distributed, we got one that looked like the mom, but with spots at least four times the size. Some were black and a cousin got the one with a feral pattern - black and dark brown stripes on a brown background. What we see are variations in the expression of different genes that go into the shapes and colours seen on animal hides.

As to human beings, skin and hair colour is determined in about 98% of the population by the amount of melanin produced. Red hair is associated with recessive allele on a chromosome that includes the information required to produce the melanocyte-stimulating hormone receptor protein on specialized cells called melanocytes. Stimulation of the receptor causes a cascade of chemical reactions resulting in the production of eumelanin. They thereby control the type of melanin being produced, which by default would be phaeomelanin (yellow or red) and brown or black, when activated. The altered nonfunctional version of the receptor protein, probably caused by a random mutation at some point in the history of mankind, results in a lack of eumelanin and therefore lighter skin and red hair. Here’s a situation where evolutionary theory describes the defects that occur in species. Other examples of this sort of process include Sickle Cell Anemia and Thalassemia, where a genetic disorder has a serendipitous benefit, in these cases protection against malaria.
 
Last edited:
On a Catholic forum, Adam and Eve are the critical factor. They brought Original Sin into the world, not hominids.
 
Here’s a good one. Scientists are having a harder and harder time figuring out what makes a dinosaur fossil. And did you know birds were around with those dinosaurs?

“… inhabited Earth for about 165 million years, until some combination of cataclysmic asteroid and volcanic eruptions wiped out all dinosaurs except the birds.” There couldn’t have been any birds until long after the dinosaurs died out. I didn’t know asteroids or volcanic eruptions were so selective.

Full article: https://www.sciencenews.org/article/new-fossils-are-redefining-what-makes-dinosaur
 
Last edited:
My overall point though is that a species over time can have traits that emerge as dominant depending on environmental factors. In the case of the dogs, what traits humans considered desirable were beneficial mutations that bred. And so dogs are a good example for evolution, alibi on a much expedited scale.

And with humans, again I’m getting at how mutations can change a species over time. As humans spread to, different regions of the earth, different traits offered slight advantages in the different regions. For example with sickle cell anemia, outside of regions with malaria, it’s a rather detrimental mutation. But in those areas, it extends life. With white skin, in Africa under the more intense sun near the equator, it’s awful. But in Europe, it helps better synthesize vitamin D. And when you look at all the many small things in the human genome, (to our eyes) random mutations are a large factor in differentiating how we as humans look in different regions of the world. And each unique look was favored in each region for a reason.

And, here’s me going into some spit-balling, it kind of makes me think of great white sharks. In South Africa the great white sharks have a unique style of breaching to hunt seals. And so I’d imagine that given enough time, we’d eventually start seeing the South African population start to have distinct features eventually leading speciation as the traits for their breaching style continue to be favored. (Assuming human activity doesn’t wipe them out.) Whereas great white in other areas with different prey would have unique traits for them. And if we went far enough, that we’d eventually no longer recognize them as great whites but a new species.
 
AI is programming too. In AI, machines learn based on (name removed by moderator)ut, processing, output, and a reward or punishment. But while people have to program the AI framework, the specific details of any given learned program is not specified: it is arrived at through trial-and-error. This is pretty much how animals work.

It’s one thing to argue that we are physically or mentally programmed. This is obvious, and not in dispute. But a program does not necessarily imply a sentient programmer or a deliberate will. It just requires a system in which (name removed by moderator)ut, processing, output and reward or punishment can occur.
 
Last edited:
benjamin1973 said:
It’s one thing to argue that we are physically or mentally programmed. This is obvious, and not in dispute.
Click to expand...
Fantastic. However, many evos here will argue against it.

Yes, programming needs a programmer by definition. Languages, symbols, plans, instructions and codes always are designed and come from a mind.
 
That is the problem: evolution is not goal oriented. It’s not even an it. It’s a philosophical position. As far as it being necessary to science, let’s exclude the word evolution from scientific articles for a moment, and remove evolution from the equation. There will still be words like “must have” and “maybe” in them. Or we “know” this molecular switch is connected to this particular cell function but we don’t know the exact mechanism of operation. Until they can show the mechanism of operation, no final conclusion can be drawn.
 
Last edited:
Well, you’re going to have to define what you mean by “program.” I’ve literally just explained how AI programs aren’t created by a programmer at all. The framework UNDERLYING them is put into place by the minds of people.

This is much like a Catholic view of evolution: God created the framework, and then allowed organisms to develop freely within it.
 
You still don’t seem to have followed those links that were posted explaining the basics of evolutionary theory.
 
God did not create a nonexistent thing and let “it” do whatever it wanted. No living system is self-programming. And the odds of chance doing it are far beyond reasonable. I don’t think you understand the Catholic view of evolution. I know this particular view is being heavily promoted but it’s not accurate.
 
Last edited:
Absolutely. In specific instances, computers have already far surpassed humans. In 30 years or maybe 50, perhaps people will be praying to Google to make it rain.
 
???

The Catholic position is that God did EXACTLY that, no? Created Adam and Eve out of nothing and then gave them free will. And were they programmed to do good, or were they just given a framework in which they could choose to do good or evil?

In your efforts to argue against evolution, you seem to be making arguments against doctrine as well.
 
Not at all. God did not make biological robots. They had free will. God gave them one command and the Church tells us they freely broke it. Giving everyone Original Sin - a key teaching. Eve was created from Adam’s side after God put him in a deep sleep. Adam was formed by God but not from nothing.
 
All we have to do is unplug them. Or starve them for data.

I do not think they will ever surpass humans.
 
The power grid is largely automated, as are many control systems. It is when machines can overseer the creation and maintenance of other machines that the problems can start.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top