Is Darwin's Theory of Evolution True? Part 4.0

[Techno2000]

edwest211:

Nice dodge. Please answer the question.

A man’s gotta know his limits. Getting into a debate about the purpose and value of science is gonna take a lot of valuable time and rob me of peace,
and seeing this is part 4.0 of this circular discussion…probably also a pointless waste of time.

Do some research if you have questions.

Thanks for proving our point… that Darwinism is a house of cards.

 

[Techno2000]

But not knowing is not considered a failure in science. It is the refusal to follow the steps of observation, theorization, and testing which are a failure.

To us it’s like a theory that says man would not need spacesuits to walk on the moon.And everybody believe this to be true, except for a few who disagree and are belittled and criticized for not going along with the program .

 

[Aloysium]

What you are trying to call “devolution” is actually evolution. But I’m a little confused-- you do believe in genetic change of a species over time. Obviously, if two populations are separated (like in different islands) don’t you think that would affect the way in which they “not really devolved”?

Devolution is the process of degradation of the genome which results in serious medical conditions and even death of the unborn. There are built-in protective mechanisms against this including genomic transfer and repair, sexual reproduction which allows for functional back-up copies of genes and would include natural selection as means to prevent malformations to continue. It assumes that there was once a better suited organism whose progeny experienced the random chemical changes that occur as a result of simple noise in the system, the glitches that occur even when there is 0.999 reproducibility, the effect of viruses, radiation and toxins.

I see a problem arising in the identification of the raw data with the story of evolution. Let’s assume the data, which is actually biased by the theory that defines it, is more or less correct; it can like tiles in a mosaic, be organized in such a manner that presents a very different picture than that of Darwinism.

There are many causes behind genetic modification in successive generations. There are transformations even in one life time as the NASA Twin Study demonstrated, revealing that changes occurred in astronaut Scott Kelly’s genes during his year in space, and two years later 7% did not return to baseline. The study compares what happened to Kelly with his identical twin, Mark, who remained on Earth.

It speaks to the fact that all cellular components are linked and interact, that DNA is not some transcendent cause but rather part of an integrated system, which ultimately involves a creature. And, that creature is a whole, a unity of being consisting of what we might differentiate as physiological and psychological dimensions within an encompassing reality that is its existence as itself and as an expression of its kind. The original creature, the first of its kind was created, containing the potential for diversity that we see in the world, some of it planned, some a mistake, the result of random mutations.

 

[buffalo]

Adaptation and common design is the best explanation.

 

[buffalo]

The science shows devolution is the default and life is programmed to fight against it.

 

[edwest211]

Yes. Design with guidance. Otherwise, there’s not enough time to get from point A to the present.

 

[rossum]

Catholics are not the only people who read all or part of the Bible. They are not the only people who interpret it either. The Bible is not exclusively Catholic.

rossum

 

[benjamin1973]

Devolution is not a thing, though the term has mistakenly been used.

“Evolution” means “adapting to the environment.” If for some reason a species adapts to the environment by having smaller and smaller brains, or losing size and agility, it doesn’t matter. It’s still evolution.

“Devolution” implies a purpose. For example, if you believe that mankind is evolving under God’s watchful eye, and it is sin that has caused us to accumulate genetic flaws, then you can talk about devolution. But I don’t believe you are saying this as a scientific theory. . . or are you?

 

[benjamin1973]

I see. I just responded to someone else saying there is no devolution.

What you are talking about with the astronaut is outside my field of knowledge though he’s been mentioned already. I’ll have to step back and read more about it before I can talk about that sensibly. However, degredation of the genome at any level in an individual can be called “devolution” by dictionary terms, but is not the opposite of evolution as it is meant in the Theory of Evolution.

As for multiple generations-- it would only be devolution if it caused the species to be less viable. If it’s less viable because of changes in the environment to which it couldn’t adapt, that still wouldn’t be devolution: it would be a failure to adapt before extinction. If for some reason the genetics drifted over multiple generations despite relatively little change in the environment, to the detriment of that species’ chance of survival, then I might call it devolution, too.

However, I can only think of one example: humans. We are so successful across all Earth environments that we have transcended many of the environmental pressures. The average person may very well become less and less intelligent, if being stupid has a reproductive advantage, which given the birthrate among educated parents vs. uneducated seems to be a possibility.

 

[buffalo]

Devolution is a thing.

dev·o·lu·tion
ˌdevəˈlo͞oSH(ə)n/
noun
noun: devolution

       descent or degeneration to a lower or worse state.

Adam and Eve being the prototypical humans had a pristine genome. Every successive generation has accumulated deleterious mutatations - we devolved.

Dr. John Sanford “Genetic Entropy and the Mystery of the Genome”

“the reality is everybody is mutant”

“so it’s kind of a trade secret amongst population geneticists,any well informed population geneticist understands man is degenerating”
“so in deep geological time we should have been extinct a long time ago”
“the human race is degenerating at 1-5% per generation”
“so personal and so immediate, because there is no circle of life where things where things stay the same, and it’s not an upward spiral of evolution, things keep getting better and better, it is a downward spiral exactly as described in Scripture”

Dr. John Sanford "Genetic Entropy and the Mystery of the Genome"

IDvolution - Where faith and reason intersect. - intelligent design Jim Serafin

idvolution.blogspot.com

 

[benjamin1973]

Be careful about conflating terms. “Devolution” is not primarily used as a biological term. As a biological term, it is strongly connected to a theistic world view.

“Evolution” just means adapting to the environment. If an adaptation causes the species to be stupider, it’s still evolution-- maybe being less intelligent has some advantages in some special cases.

It’s only “devolution” if there is an ideal state of evolution-- i.e. the goal of the species becoming more perfect over time. But this requires someone with the absolute authority to determine what that means-- like God-- or some outcome that is otherwise so crucial that it must be considered the goal of life. Like maybe if life in the Universe evolves, the Ultra species at the end can find a way to prevent the Universe from dying due to entropy.

I think the idea that evolution has a goal is dangerous, because then people will start molding our genetic makeup-- to make people who are more subservient to the Church, for example, or who have higher IQs, or live longer, or whatever.

Deliberate involvement by people in the evolutionary process, I would say, constitutes an infringement on free will, and should be seen as an affront to the Catholic understanding of God’s will.

 

[Metis1]

Here:

The opening chapter of Genesis tells a story of God’s creation of the universe and humankind as being accomplished over the course of six successive days. Some Christian and Jewish schools of thought (such as Christian Fundamentalism) read these biblical passages literally, that each day of creation was 24 hours in duration. Others (such as Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and mainline Protestant denominations) read the story allegorically, and hold that the intent of the biblical account is to describe humankind’s relationship to creation and the creator, that it does not describe an actual historical event, and that the six days of creation can simply represent a long period of time…

According to Rowan Williams: "[For] most of the history of Christianity there’s been an awareness that a belief that everything depends on the creative act of God, is quite compatible with a degree of uncertainty or latitude about how precisely that unfolds in creative time."

Some religious historians consider that Biblical literalism came about with the rise of Protestantism; before the Reformation, the Bible was not usually interpreted in a completely literal way. Fr. Stanley Jaki, a Benedictine priest and theologian who is also a distinguished physicist, states in his Bible and Science:

Adam and Eve, by Albrecht Dürer (1507).
Insofar as the study of the original languages of the Bible was severed from authoritative ecclesiastical preaching as its matrix, it fueled literalism… Biblical literalism taken for a source of scientific information is making the rounds even nowadays among creationists who would merit Julian Huxley’s description of ‘bibliolaters.’ They merely bring discredit to the Bible as they pile grist upon grist on the mills of latter-day Huxleys, such as Hoyle, Sagan, Gould, and others. The fallacies of creationism go deeper than fallacious reasonings about scientific data. Where creationism is fundamentally at fault is its resting its case on a theological faultline: the biblicism constructed by the [Protestant] Reformers.– Allegorical interpretations of Genesis - Wikipedia

Over and over again I have also posted links to Catholic sources that show that a literal interpretation of the creation accounts is only one way to deal with Genesis, but over and over again some here just will not realize that established truth even when it’s shown them in plain old black & white.

 

[ratio1]

they either don’t have enough of a scientific background in the areas of biology, genetics, and physical anthropology,

But then why does the majority of population believe in such a thing without this knowledge? Answer is faith in the scientists!

Science requires healthy scepticism and evaluating critically. Otherwise it’s just a religion.

Again I have no problem in people believing in evolution as long as they know what they are believing in.

 

[Metis1]

BTW, just a reminder that Jesus was a Jew operating out of a Jewish paradigm, and the creation accounts are found in the Torah, which is Jewish. The Church has never assumed that every single word is inerrant or that God supposedly wrote every word of it (see my previous post). It was from some Protestant sources, not Catholic ones, that formulated the concept of inerrancy.

 

[edwest211]

This theory is immune from criticism. It is nothing but a worldview that serves no scientific purpose.

 

[Metis1]

Science is not dependent upon all or even most people accepting it’s findings, and in no way is science a religion since the latter does not use the “scientific method” that is the basis of science.

 

[ratio1]

I believe in all the Biblical miracles, but none, I suspect, in the same way as you.

Just out of interest
What is your view on all the Eucharistic miracles where they have proved the host has turn into cardiac muscle with DNA that represents someone from a middle eastern background?
Is it all a big hoax or what?

 

[Metis1]

Modern biology and genetics uses the findings of the evolution of life forms extensively in research, especially in the arena of micro-biology.

 

[ratio1]

Agree
All I’m commenting is a social observation that people are believing in “science” like a religion. So I’m not having a go at the scientists, I’m having a go at the non-scientists. The people who look at people weird when others question evolution with legitimate scientific criticisms. Isn’t it ironic that those who believe in evolution are acting unscientifically and those who aren’t are?

 

[ratio1]

Now I want to get back to science.
Can someone answer the chicken and egg problem?