Is Darwin's Theory of Evolution True? Part 4.0

[Aloysium]

God telling from the cloud is symbolic. A confirmation of a realization that you have already reached. At the transfiguration, Peter, James and John had already seen that Jesus was the Beloved Son. God only confirmed that in their own minds. The transfiguration is not literal history but spiritual evidence.

I have no idea what this means. It sounds like the opposite of a transfiguration, a turning of the truth into junk. I guess it fits perfectly into the framework of evolution, where the beauty and wonder of creation is restated into a materialistic understanding, which ultimately explains nothing.

 

[ratio1]

I haven’t been following this thread or the previous ones. I’m sorry but it’s just too long to read them all.
So I do apologise beforehand if my following question has already been addresssed.

In the past I thought scientists haven’t observed a species evolving into another species. But someone pointed out recent years a bacteria has been observed to evolve into a new bacteria.
I then tried to calculate how many generations it took for that to take place. Then I calculate how many generations it took for apes to become humans for example. My maths could have been wrong but my maths told me that humans evolve MUCH MUCH faster than bacteria if we count generations.

Could someone please point out my mistakes in reasoning or calculations? It sounds too good to be true. (Even though I want it to be true.)

 

[Aloysium]

bacteria has been observed to evolve into a new bacteria.

This statement could represent a number of different scenarios.

Whatever they are the bacteria remain bacteria.

This could represent an adaptation. Let’s say the acquisition of antibiotic resistance. This happens as a result of a transfer of genetic material from one bacterium to another through a plasmid. This sort of resistance has been found in a cave closed off for billions of years. Having a natural resistance to penecillin, which is produced by a mold, is one way that the balance was maintained in their shared environment when it was created. Mutations generally result in a loss of functioning genes as their message is scrambled. At some points in the past, this ability to resist the antibiotic was lost in some bacteria. But there exist mechanisms whereby bacteria can regain it. So you see, no evolution.

 

[ratio1]

I used to agree with you. I really mean evolution not adaptation. there was news about this. i’ll find it for you.

 

[edwest211]

Bacteria always remain bacteria. If exposed to a harmful substance, bacteria can use Horizontal Gene Transfer to exchange bits of genetic material among themselves, including other species of bacteria. This is built in or pre-existing.

 

[ratio1]

no but i’m talking about speciation. isn’t the whole theory of evolution about evolving into a different species?
E coli acquiring bacteria resistance is still E coli.

 

[ratio1]

Loading…

www.newscientist.com

“On the 31500th generation”
That’s the number I used. If we use this number for the apes – humans generations; then it doesn’t make sense the evolution from apes to humans is possible.

 

[Aloysium]

hen I calculate how many generations it took for apes to become humans

Apes did not become human. Human beings have an eternal rational nature; they have free wil and the capacity to love and thereby know God. Animals perceive, feel, “think”, and act in accordance with their instincts. We share some of that psychology, as we physically do brains, stomachs, lungs, skin, muscles and bones. We are made of matter as is all other life, but we individually and collectively are created, not transformed from animals. We are descended from Adam and Eve.

 

[ratio1]

i know i know. But i’m trying to debunk evolution using scientific data rather than philosophical ones.

 

[curious_cath]

Eternal rational nature? Really?! What is that? If human would have had that, we would find written records from eternity! But actually, human intelligence had to develop to a point in time, at about 5000 years ago, when it was able to produce written records.

 

[curious_cath]

Resurrection is part of the profession of faith. It is also an event of deep existential significance about the person called Jesus and the about the fate of human kind.

In contrast, God speaking from the cloud is information sharing about something we have already known. By the way, which language do you think God used to speak from the cloud? Did he use a human language or a language of direct spiritual communication?

 

[ratio1]

so here’s my calculations:

scientists agree that we evolve from apes about 6 millions years ago.
let’s assume each generation is 10 years? (i don’t know how long apes live before they reproduce)
that means there are about 600,000 generations between apes and humans.
from the E coli above it took 31500 generations to get one new enzyme.
using this number, it took 600,000/31500 = 19 enzymatic change to evolve from apes to humans, which is utterly ludicrous!

 

[edwest211]

That is not correct. Scientists claim humans and apes had a common ancestor. That is an assumption and cannot be tested.

 

[ratio1]

so how many years between this common ancestor and first appearance of homo sapiens?

 

[buffalo]

One thing for sure - evolution can explain everything even when it can’t. It seems unfalsifiable.

 

[buffalo]

There is no evolution of bacteria. Start there.

 

[buffalo]

Hall showed before Lenski bacteria could digest it after few generations. Lenski’s took 15000 and in only one of twelve vats.

Afterwords it was shown to happen in 28 days.

 

[Techno2000]

600,000/31500 = 19 enzymatic change to evolve from apes to humans, which is utterly ludicrous!

The ludicrous part is calculating all the so-called environmental changes needed for all this.

 

[Hugh_Farey]

Glark! Good of you to engage, at last. Thank you.

What makes me think Genesis to 2Maccabees are clearly literal history? Er, I’ve read them. This is like asking, “What makes you think the sun rises in the east?”

Ah. I’ve read them too. And I disagree. Suppose I told you I thought the sun rises in the West. You say: “Look! The Sun. That’s the East!” I say: “No, that’s the West.” Would that be it? You might refer me to a reference book, or Wikipedia, or show me a map or compass, or explain how you understand the cardinal points. I’m afraid “Er, I’ve read them” is not a convincing response.

Perhaps you are an atheist, in which case, an serious psychological and emotional barrier prevents you from acknowledging the bleedin’ obvious regarding the historicity of the aforementioned Scriptures.

Cheap Jibe 1. Really, you must try to avoid this sort of thing to be taken seriously. I’m not an atheist.

Or If you are Catholic, it sounds like you’ve been reading too many modern scholarly books written by modern scholarly fools.

Cheap Jibe 2. I am a Catholic. Calling nearly all biologists fools is misguided, in my opinion.

Even Wikipedia describes Joshua to 2Maccabees as “the historical books” … as does every form of Christianity and of course, the Judaism.

You’re surely not going to claim that ‘every form of Christianity’ claims that the historical books are literally true in all respects? That’s not why they are termed ‘historical’. But of course you knew that. However, you do make one fundamental logical error. If you claim that the first seventeen books of the bible are all clearly literal history (or at least historical in style), then I only have to find one to disprove your premise. You, however, have the very difficult job of defending them all, which I see you haven’t. Why do you now start at Joshua? You have abandoned the pentateuch as ‘clearly literally history’. I agree with you there. As I say, the style of Exodus is quite different.

They read nothing like Greek or Roman mythology or Hinduism’s “holy books”, for example.

I’m sorry, but I think they do. Most of the classical myths explore natural or historical phenomena in terms of interactions between mortals and Gods - the siege of Troy, for example, the voyage of the Argos, the adventures of Prometheus and Pandora’s box all come to mind. Sure the stories are different, but the style is noticeably similar.

 

[Hugh_Farey]

The genealogy in Genesis 5 - is this myth, in your opinion? What about the Flood?

Yup, all myths. The names and ages of the patriarchs are invented, and there was no global flood in which all terrestrial animals and people died except those in the ark.
At this point most creationists (not yourself, of course) jump up and down foaming at the mouth and shout: “So you think it’s all nonsense!” or something similar. Which is, of course, not true. Very little of what I read anywhere is historical fact, but I read it because it is useful, thought-provoking or entertaining.

If the OT is loaded with myths, why should the New Testament be any different?

The Bible is a collection of books written for different purposes in different styles at different times. Just because my bookcase has a section of crime thrillers doesn’t mean that all my books are crime thrillers.

The description of major meteorological events as the outcome of conversations between human and divine personalities is entirely typical of mythological presentation.

Storms, floods, earthquakes and volcanoes are often depicted in myths as due to the anger of the gods after humans have failed to appease them. Good weather is often the result of appeasement.