Is Darwin's Theory of Evolution True? Part 4.0

[buffalo]

However, returning to the 5000 orginal species, and their 50 000 000 or so descendant species. This means that each original species has diversified, on average, into ten thousand new species over time, which if creation only happened a few thousand years ago, as previously suggested, is adaptation or variation on a fantastic scale, compared to which the plodding hand of evolution seems positively tame.

Even though they lost reproductive capability (devolution) they are the same “family” as when they started.

 

[edwest211]

It’s true? And why does anyone need to know that?

 

[edwest211]

Exactly. That appears to be its only use.

 

[mVitus]

That really, I mean really, stretches the definition if a species. And as Hugh_Carey mentioned, and I mentioned before, would mean differentiation occurs at an extraordinarily quick rate. A rate at which I would expect to see the mythical half and half creature walking around today.

And as a question: If all these other species lost the ability to interbreed in your opinion: why not humans?

 

[buffalo]

Our Fragile Intellect

“Trends in Genetics references this paper - Our Fragile Intellect.(download) What is interesting about this is that we peaked 2000-6000 years ago and now are devolving. Or… we started out pristine with the preternatural gifts of bodily immortality and freedom from sickness and have lost it.”

Loading…

idvolution.blogspot.com

 

[buffalo]

MEN HAVEN’T CHANGED IN 270,000 YEARS

This discovery adds to growing evidence that modern humans share the same basic genetic makeup, and that population differences represent relatively minor variations in the overall spectrum of human diversity, said Robert L. Dorit, an assistant professor of biology at Yale University. Dr. Dorit collaborated with researchers from the University of Chicago and Harvard University on the project.

http://www.cccbiotechnology.com/WN/SUA05/ychrom.php

 

[Richca]

I think you are getting a bit closer to a sensible definition of “random” here. Within the laws of physics and given a few billion years, it is perfectly possible randomly to produce the extremely complex organisms we see today, even more so if they derive more or less closely from an original ‘kind’ created spontaneously by God. However, the randomness which resulted in these developments is itself a product of the overall structure of the universe, which, it might be said, is inherently capable of achieving the results it did - which may, after all, actually be inevitable… After all, even if a dice were entirely unbiased, and entirely random in its throw, you can still only get a 1,2,3,4,5 or 6, never a 7 or 8, and given enough tries, you will eventually get ten sixes in a row. If this is the only published result, the illusion that dice was biased in favour of a six will be very strong.

Besides human beings, has the universe or the earth in its billions of years of history ever produced an axe, an arrow or bow, a wheel, a fence, a house or more complex human artifacts such as a watch, a computer, an automobile, a robot, an airplane, or cities? No matter how you scramble the various forces of nature or the elements, I think we can safely assume that the inanimate universe and its forces is not going to produce by itself the artifacts, even the simplest, made by human beings, at least, we have never observed it. This common sensible fact based on observation reveals to us that there is a limit to what inanimate and unintelligent nature can do, which is subject to various laws we have discovered, amazing as itself is. This raises the question that if inanimate nature can’t produce simple human artifacts such as an axe or arrow (these come to my mind presently but others here might be able to come up with even simpler examples), than how is it going to cause the order and high complexity of organisms or animals? Does life even originate from unintelligent inanimate matter and unintelligent inanimate forces of nature? The debate between creationists and theistic evolutionists revolves around, in one sense, to what is to be attributed to direct divine causality in the creation and formation of the world and the distinction of things and to what can be attributed to the effects of second causes. That inanimate and unintelligent second causes are limited to what they can effect is evident from observation and experiment, the laws of nature, and the fact of human artifacts.

Another consideration is that if life and simple or highly complex organisms or animals evolved from inanimate nature and its forces here on earth billions of years ago, why is that not happening now? Obviously, the conditions for life on earth are still present. Have we ever observed a living cell randomly appear from out of the earth, the waters, or the sky?

 

[Techno2000]

…excellent

 

[rossum]

MEN HAVEN’T CHANGED IN 270,000 YEARS

This discovery adds to growing evidence that modern humans share the same basic genetic makeup, and that population differences represent relatively minor variations in the overall spectrum of human diversity, said Robert L. Dorit, an assistant professor of biology at Yale University. Dr. Dorit collaborated with researchers from the University of Chicago and Harvard University on the project.

Y CHROMOSOME RESEARCH POINTS TO HUMAN ORIGINS

Really, buffalo. Please make your mind up. If you keep changing your mind about things then we won’t know what to think.

Here is one of your earlier posts in this thread:

Very consistent with man who is devolving 1-5% per generation.

Are we basically unchanged over 270,000 years or are we devolving by 1 to 5% per generation? You can’t have both; 270,000 years is a lot of generations, so any devolution that you claim exists would be easily detectable over that timescale.

Your claims are not consistent, buffalo. As with so many creationist claims, consilience is not a strong point.

rossum

 

[buffalo]

Sure they are. Read closer before jumping to conclusions. Another point, science and journal articles I link show specific points I am trying to illustrate.

And btw, all Catholics are creationist by definition. I happen to be an IDvolutionist too.

 

[rossum]

Besides human beings, has the universe or the earth in its billions of years of history ever produced an axe, an arrow or bow, a wheel, a fence, a house or more complex human artifacts such as a watch, a computer, an automobile, a robot, an airplane, or cities?

And your proof that there are no alien intelligences anywhere in the universe capable of making a wheel is?

You might also want to look at birds for tool use, such as anvil stones.

rossum

 

[Richca]

And as a question: If all these other species lost the ability to interbreed in your opinion: why not humans?

Did human beings actually interbreed with supposed non-human like animals or transitional hominins according to the evolutionary paradigm and the evolutionary tree of the Homo genus? The following article titled ‘The Fossil Record and the Fall of Darwin’s Last Icon’ is quite interesting. According to this article, all the different made-up species leading to Homo Sapiens (human beings) according to the evolutionary paradigm can either be sunk into Homo Sapiens or the ape-like Australopithecus genus.

http://kolbecenter.org/fossil-record-and-fall-of-darwins-last-icon/

 

[rossum]

Did human beings actually interbreed with supposed non-human like animals or transitional hominins according to the evolutionary paradigm and the evolutionary tree of the Homo genus?

Nephilim?

Our genetics show that there has been some interbreeding with Neanderthals and Denisovans. Do they count as “supposed non-human like animals”?

rossum

 

[edwest211]

Any so-called pre-humans or hominids were animals. Adam and Eve were special creations and the parents of all. Neanderthals were fully human.

 

[mVitus]

Neanderthals were fully human

If I may ask, do you have any official Church documents on that? Or is it based on personal reasoning? (And to make clear: I’m genuinely interested. It would help clear out some uncertainty if there was a Church document explicitly saying Neanderthals were true humans.)

 

[Richca]

Nephilim?

Our genetics show that there has been some interbreeding with Neanderthals and Denisovans. Do they count as “supposed non-human like animals”?

rossum

Did you read the article I linked? The Neanderthals are sunk with Homo Sapiens, i.e., true human beings or simply human beings who are one specie composed of men and women with rational souls. I believe on this thread some posters have posted links to cave art associated with Neanderthals and there are probably other artifacts associated with them that we would consider to be human artifacts or human behavior. Accordingly, as Edwest just responded, the Neanderthals appear to be simply human beings. The article I linked doesn’t have anything on Denisovans unless it goes by another name that the author of the article used. I personally know virtually nothing about the Denisovans to give an opinion here about it and the fossil evidence itself may be very scant to give an opinion one way or the other. What I would say is that similar genome does not necessarily mean either interbreeding or common descent. For example, I do not believe we either descended from fruit flies or interbreeded with them although, if I’m not mistaken, the two genomes are 90% or so similar. Some Neanderthal DNA in modern humans is not a problem as the Neanderthals appear to be human beings and so human beings breeded with human beings as is normally the case.

The Nephilim in the Bible were human beings, apparently a large, as in size, race of humans.

 

[edwest211]

That is a matter of scientific record. There are people with Neanderthal DNA.

 

[buffalo]

We all share genetics with neandertals.

 

[Aloysium]

stretching the idea of communication. When a billiard hits another billiard, energy is transferred but that’s not really any form of communication. It’s a physical reaction.

Let’s start by addressing the encounter between oneself and the world of things, specifically the relationship we have with say, the monitor in front of us. It is a perceptual and cognitive experience in the moment, established between ourselves, as a living light of being that knows, that material being that is other to us. There exists a mutual interaction between the monitor and oneself. Within this relationship, the spirit that defines us enables us to know and act as a causal agent, whereas simple matter can only reAct.

Obviously, things do exist beyond our understanding of them. While facts are the means by which we connect ourselves to the world, clinging to them rather than remaining focussed on the “object” to which they point, will take us deeper into illusion and further from their truth. Although establishing order and shielding us from the abyss, what may appear to be clear ideas can lead us away from life’s mysteries.

This physical universe is not merely an ocean of subatomic particle clusters, but of particular manifestations of material being, like the billiard ball, whole in themselves one moment, united with others in the creation of a new system, and breaking down into its components in the next instant. At a quantum level, events such as photons are known to exist individually as particles hitting a screen, or as a wave in a beam of light occurring within experimental equipment. The theory of relativity speaks of frames of reference. While the concept describes an aspect of our relationship with matter on large scales, it seems unlikely to me that they do not otherwise exist. It would be another attribute belonging to matter, defining the sort of relationships that exist between things on a cosmic spatio-temopral level.

Matter can be understood as existing as a set of properties which define what they do, and how they interact with one another, as distinct forms or absorbed in an ecompassing over-riding system.

All these words point to a way of understanding our world. Calling something a “transfer of energy” rather that the outcome of “a communication” between two physical entities demonstrates how there can be different perspectives on any event, but not necessarily contradictory. The validity of whatever perspective we use is dependent on its capacity to reveal what we are seeking. The idea of building biological computers using DNA, for example, required a shift in thinking about it as a complex molecule tied to every aspect of cell functioning, to one having to do with information and data processing. Considering particles as collections of information, we can understand their interactions as an act of communication.

Of course seeing the universe as a collection of information that is communicated and thereby brings about the next level of information suggests a supreme thinker or designer.

 

[Richca]

And your proof that there are no alien intelligences anywhere in the universe capable of making a wheel is?

I said nothing about alien intelligences. However, if a wheel was found on some distant planet or in another galaxy, it would be reasonable to assume that it was fashioned by some intelligent creature and not the product of inanimate nature. I actually believe that there are ‘alien’ intelligences, not united to a body but entirely spiritual such as the angels and God himself. An angel could probably make a material wheel if he wanted too. I don’t believe there are other intelligent creatures like humans composed of a body and soul in the universe but this is besides the point I was trying to make.

You might also want to look at birds for tool use, such as anvil stones.

Two things here. A bird is a living animal but I was talking about inanimate nature. Even some of the brute animals build things such as bird nests which inanimate nature does not do. If we see a nest in a tree, we acknowledge that a bird must have produced it (we’ve seen birds actually building nests) and not that it just happened to get there by the forces and power of inanimate nature.

I’m not sure how the video of the ‘anvil stones’ has anything to do with what I said. Again, we have here a living animal, not inanimate nature. And secondly, the stone which the bird is using to crack open the shell does not look like an artifact of the bird but simply a thing of nature, a rock. The production of rocks in one form or another appears to be something inanimate nature can effect as is evident from volcanoes and volcanic rock produced from volcanic lava.