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.
curious_cath said:
Leave it to the scientists do deal with science.
Click to expand...
I most certainly do. But, one has a duty to express one’s concerns when we see things are blatantly wrong. Just about everyone in science is involved in their little area of expertise. Evolutionary theory plays no role in day to day applied science, but people pay lip service to it because that’s the mythos of the times - as were the Greek and Roman gods at a point in our history.
 
I am sorry but Cardinal Ratzinger, before becoming Pope Benedict 16, was a champion of developing a Catholic understanding of evolutionary theories. So you should by no means dismiss the concept. After suggestions from Pope John-Paul 2, he was the one declaring that faith in Jesus Christ can be reconciled with evolution.
 
“We cannot say: ‘creation or evolution’, inasmuch as these two things respond to two different realities. The story of the dust of the earth and the breath of God, which we just heard, does not in fact explain how human persons come to be but rather what they are. It explains their inmost origin and casts light on the project that they are. And, vice versa, the theory of evolution seeks to understand and describe biological developments. … To that extent we are faced here with two complementary - rather than mutually exclusive - realities.”

Loading…

www.ncronline.org
 
ratio1 said:
Can you give me the reference?

So on average every 10 generations there is a new enzyme mutation?
Click to expand...
The average human has about 100 mutations, which gives a total of 700,000,000,000 mutations over the whole human population. A lot of those mutations will be in enzymes. Where there is a population, evolution happens in parallel. Humans in Tibet, Kenya and the Andes gained mutations that helped them live at altitude; humans in Europe and other places gained mutations that allowed them to digest milk into adulthood. Different mutations spread in different parts of the population. Your calculation needs to take into account this parallel development.

rossum
 
Richca said:
Again, if homo erectus are human beings (homo sapiens), than it is certainly possible.
Click to expand...
Homo erectus is not Homo sapiens. They are different species with different morphological features. They are both members of the genus Homo, but they are not the same species. Your “if” fails.

rossum
 
rossum said:
about 100 mutations
Click to expand...
Are you referring to SNPs?
How many of these would actually result in gain of function in an actual enzyme?
That should be in the calculation not those immateral SNPs.
 
Pope Benedict

"In the book, Benedict reflected on a 1996 comment of his predecessor, John Paul II, who said that Charles Darwin’s theories on evolution were sound, as long as they took into account that creation was the work of God, and that Darwin’s theory of evolution was “more than a hypothesis.”

“The pope (John Paul) had his reasons for saying this,” Benedict said. “But it is also true that the theory of evolution is not a complete, scientifically proven theory.”

"Benedict added that the immense time span that evolution covers made it impossible to conduct experiments in a controlled environment to finally verify or disprove the theory.

“We cannot haul 10,000 generations into the laboratory,” he said."
 
And the universe just popped into existence with a Big Bang. Where did the energy come from? What did the universe expand into? Nothing? It’s not as simple as saying “the Big Bang happened.”
 
No, I am referring to all mutations, many of which will be SNPs; others will be larger, such as duplication of a whole chromosome.

A small proportion of the initial mutations will be beneficial, the majority are neutral. However those beneficial mutations are preferentially spread by natural selection, and will increase in through the population over the generations.

Given the large pool of initial mutations, natural selection will have enough beneficial mutations to select from.

rossum
 
ratio1 said:
If the only error in my calculation is applying asexual to sexual organisms. Then the following statement is correct?

It takes far far less generations for the primordial primate to have evolved to humans than the generations it need for a bacteria to evolve a new enzyme function. (With the caveat that you can’t compare bacteria and humans. But literally there is no mistake in the above statement?)
Click to expand...
Biologist Ann Gauger and colleague Douglas Axe conducted a lab experiment in which they found that for a bacterial protein to evolve or mutate from performing one function to another function which is presumably what would need to happen according to the darwinian or neo-darwinian evolutionary paradigm would require at least 7 coordinated mutations. They state ‘The waiting time for seven coordinated neutral mutations to arise in a bacterial population is on the order of 10@27 years. To put that in some
sort of perspective, remember that the universe is only about 10@10 years old.’ (Source: Science and Human Origins (2012); chapter 1).
 
Last edited:
Well, there you have it. Not enough time. Even though ‘natural selection’ would have a lot to choose from, it would have to make a series of correct choices in the right sequence. Without intelligence, the waiting time is beyond probability.
 
rossum said:
many of which will be SNPs
Click to expand...
I’d say most of which are SNPs and hence my original point that meaningful mutations that result in new function happens too rarely that there is not enough time for evolution to take place.
 
40.png
rossum:
Chemistry is not blind unguided chance, and chemistry had a lot to do with the origin of life on earth. “Let the earth bring forth…” and the earth is made of chemicals.

rossum
[/quote]

At one time upon reading the scripture text “And God said, ‘Let the earth bring forth…’” or “And God said, ‘Let the waters bring forth…’”, I had considered whether some sort of theory of evolution could be conformable with these texts. Upon further reading, study, meditation, I have abandoned the idea of some sort of evolutionary process that could be read into these texts for the following reasons (a few reasons I’m going to mention, not an exhaustive list).

(1) The waters and the earth did not bring forth the various animals and their kinds on their own but by God’s word, “And God said, ‘Let the…’” What would be the point of God’s work and activity on the fifth and sixth days if the waters or the earth could produce the various animals by themselves by some sort of evolutionary process? Also, the word of God is the Word of God through whom all things were made and without whom was nothing made that was made (beginning of St John’s gospel). By the time of the work of the fifth and sixth days, the earth was ripe for the introduction of life and animals through the preparation of God’s work on the preceding days. But the introduction of the animals on earth required further creative activity of God, the work of the fifth and sixth days.

(2) The verse immediately following “And God said, ‘Let the earth bring forth…’”, the scripture reads “And God made the beasts of the earth according to their kinds…” We find the same immediately following what transpired on the fifth day “And God said, ‘Let the waters bring forth…’ ‘So God created…’”. God himself fashioned and formed the various animals from matter, earth or water, he had already created. Similarly, we read in Genesis 2:19 ‘So out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the heavens…’ The earth brought forth the various animals by it being fashioned, formed, and receiving the various created forms of the various animals by and from God.

(3) The animals were created in one day by the direct creative activity of God. In this sense, evolution is excluded since that is said to take millions or billions of years. Understood in this sense as well, namely, that the animals were created immediately by God -in one day-, than it is irrelevant whether the days of creation are considered as 24 hour days or whether each day is taken as many years or millions or billions of years.

(4) The whole creation narrative of Genesis 1 is presented as the creative work of God. Thus Gen. 2:1-2 says ‘Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the furniture of them. And on the seventh day God finished his work which he had done…’ This same theme is attested to in the rest of the Bible.
 
Last edited:
rossum said:
Where there is a population, evolution happens in parallel. Humans in Tibet, Kenya and the Andes gained mutations that helped them live at altitude; humans in Europe and other places gained mutations that allowed them to digest milk into adulthood. Different mutations spread in different parts of the population. Your calculation needs to take into account this parallel development.
Click to expand...
The other alternative is that the variation is already in the population and nature favors those variation rather mutation. Evidence in the field seems to support variation. Mutation experiments largely show deformed outcomes which are not viable (eg fruit flies experiments). There are field observations which show insect resistance to chemicals are those that already have those pre-existing traits. Hence those that do not have those traits succumb to the chemicals leaving those with resistance alive in the field. Those multiplied eventually that are naturally resistant to the chemicals. (I have copies of those papers in my warehouse of notes somewhere but I think locating them may be very time consuming since I don’t have a tagging system)
 
curious_cath said:
That is right. Evolution is not n experimental science.
Click to expand...
I think those scientists in fruit flies experiments were attempting to do that, but with very little results to show. Flies are still flies , somewhat deformed perhaps by their tweaking/selection.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top