Is Darwin's Theory of Evolution True? Part 4.1

[Kei]

I dunno. I have a friend, physicist, some pretty possibly ground-breaking work in the construction of protons but without money it’s like he can’t get a good audience, especially since his work is hand written as opposed to computer typed (he’s pretty poor now, but he used to be a nuclear physicist or something, don’t ask) and the typing software would costs hundreds of dollars because the type of math it is involves things you won’t typically know how to type normally. I’ve seen some of the math, I can’t understand it. I’m not qualified to judge his work, he’s told me some have applauded it.
Anyway, my point is, it’s not always easy to get your research findings out there (sigh).

 

[benjamin1973]

Of course. There’s definitely an academic community. People go to conventions, know each other’s professors, etc. If you aren’t in that world, nobody’s going to know who you are, and it’s going to be hard to get a foot in the door.

But name a single profession worth having where that’s not true. If I studied the Bible for a dozen years, had a revelatory dream, and showed up at a church door with a fistful of notes, what would happen? They’d tell me there are appropriate channels, and politely push me out the door.

 

[Aloysium]

do you think elephants, lizard and fish were created more or less simultaneously

They are being created all the time. So, what you are asking then would be when the first one appeared. And, then the question has to do with what they are, whether we are talking about merely a certain morphologically similar configuration of molecules, or something more interesting, more real than that.

Elephants, lizards and fish differ in more than just their appearance, the adult physical structure that is related to the information contained within the first cell from which each individual specimen developed. That difference is more than the simple fact that they cannot mate to produce offspring. To recap, we have individual organisms that we can study in terms of their anatomy and physiology. We can also come to understand them in terms of instinctive properties. Elephants, lizards and fish differ greatly in how they perceive and organize their world and in their reactions.

So,what we are dealing with cannt be reduced to biochemistry, although it most definitely can be used to describe how the “brick and mortar” come together to form the “home” which they are.

Elephants, lizards and fish are not subjective illusions that we project onto material events happening within a contiuous physical field that would comprise the universe. Individual organisms exist as themselves. And, they do so as expressions of their kind of animal.

The problem with focussing on the material tip of the ontological iceberg that is any creature is that the actual relationships between them is missed and replaced by an illusion, that of evolution. What we have is the ongoing creation of new forms that fit in with what was created previously and utilizing what worked before. At any rate, the bottom line would be that there would have been a first creature of its kind, brought into existence as a new type of being, with a physical structure that defines it within the physical aspect of the world. What it is, is more than a change in morphology due to mutations in the DNA of a forebear, although this can describe how diversity can happen within a genus. The creation of a new kind of organism comes whole, from the beginning of that first creature to its death. That first expression of its kind might be thought of as having a pluripotential genome that enables the artistic and adaptive differences that develop over time between the original model and its offspring.

In other words, the question you ask, to me is not so much irrelevant to the process, but that it can be used to support a fallacy, that in terms of neoDarwinian evolutionary theory is that given enough time, things happening of their own accord will lead to a greater order if that which is not useful is cast aside. To get anything done requires work and organization, not only in human terms but with everything that exists.

 

[Hugh_Farey]

Oh my goodness, I bow both to the truth of the philosophy of your argument, and to the elegance with which you completely avoid answering my question. I think it possible that you really do not have an answer, so am hesitant to push it, but here goes…

So, what you are asking then would be when the first one appeared.

Yes.

So,what we are dealing with can’t be reduced to biochemistry, although it most definitely can be used to describe how the “bricks and mortar” come together to form the “home” which they are.

Quite. I know there’s more to ‘elephantness’ than biochemistry, but am just focussing on the bricks and mortar for now.

Elephants, lizards and fish are not subjective illusions that we project onto material events.

You seem to wish they were, as it would mean that my question was meaningless. But they’re not, and material events happen over a time-scale, as you seem, regretfully, to concede.

The problem with focussing on the material tip of the ontological iceberg that is any creature is that the actual relationships between them is missed and replaced by an illusion, that of evolution.

Not necessarily. There may be a danger of missing the actual relationships, but the wise can avoid it. And evolution is no more an illusion than gravity or football. Or no less. Either way, it is a consistent illusion which helps to explain the observations we make of our material world.

At any rate, the bottom line would be that there would have been a first creature of its kind, brought into existence as a new type of being, with a physical structure that defines it within the physical aspect of the world.

You got it. And when did this happen? Was the “physical structure” of the “first creature of its kind” of elephants, lizards and fish created more or less simultaneously or not?

… In other words, the question you ask, to me is not so much irrelevant to the process, but that it can be used to support a fallacy, that in terms of neoDarwinian evolutionary theory is that given enough time, things happening of their own accord will lead to a greater order if that which is not useful is cast aside.

Never mind all that. When?

There is a bottom line to all this, which I guess you are aware of, which is why you are avoiding the question. You are happy with metaphysics, but more or less ignorant of ordinary science, and have an uneasy feeling that any attempt to connect the two will result in the collapse of both. I don’t think you have anything to worry about. Evolution will fit into your philosophy perfectly well.

 

[buffalo]

Suppose we are able to discover the original programs.

Would there be just one that supports UCD?

Or would there be more than 1 that supports design.

I predict it will conform to what Genesis tells us. We are moving in that direction as we discover more about the genetic code.

The current classification system limits us to the found remnants, but tells us nothing about the original design and program.

 

[Hugh_Farey]

Would there be just one that supports UCD?

It is not impossible that there was more than one original possible hereditable chemistry. However, current genetic analysis leads us to a single version that ultimately gave rise to all living things as a better explanation for observed phenomena than several. Either there was only one, or the others were outcompeted even before the first cells evolved.

I predict it will conform to what Genesis tells us. We are moving in that direction as we discover more about the genetic code.

As you wholly refrain from saying what Genesis tells us, I have no doubt that when you finally realise that evolution is the best explanation for our understanding of life, you will find it conforms very well.

The current classification system limits us to the found remnants, but tells us nothing about the original design and program.

“Tells us nothing” is somewhat rash. ID and Evolution together wholly depend on trying to interpret what the “found remnants” tell us about the “original design and program”.

 

[buffalo]

“Tells us nothing” is somewhat rash. ID and Evolution together wholly depend on trying to interpret what the “found remnants” tell us about the “original design and program”.

The data from the fossil record is too far downstream and corrupted. The picture is rather limited since we have only a few of the puzzle pieces. Again, we found 100 pieces of a 10,000 piece jigsaw puzzle and we claim to know what it completely looks like.

 

[buffalo]

As you wholly refrain from saying what Genesis tells us, I have no doubt that when you finally realise that evolution is the best explanation for our understanding of life, you will find it conforms very well.

FYI - I have been there. I have moved on from evo being the best explanation.

 

[Techno2000]

will lead to a greater order if that which is not useful is cast aside.

Except the dinosaur

 

[Hugh_Farey]

You appear to be returning. Welcome back.

In case this seems premature, ask yourself whether elephants, lizards and fish were created in line with their appearance in the fossil record or not. There’s nothing like being specific to crystallise your thoughts. However, as you won’t answer this fairly simple question, I shall answer it for you. Here are several possible responses, and my answers to them, and you can choose which one is really you for yourself.

1. Elephants, lizards and fish were not created separately. They are all ‘varieties’ of the original proto-animal created by God.
   This is a belief in evolution to a huge extent, and allows macro-evolution on a grand scale. When you realise that the first ‘proto-animal’, and the first ‘proto-plant’ must have looked really very similar, it will only be a short step to realising that they could easily both have derived from the first ‘proto-living thing’, and you’ll be home. Welcome back.
2. Elephants, lizards and fish were created separately, on the fifth and sixth days of creation (in reverse order).
   That being so, they were all around, living and dying, at the same time, from the week of creation onwards. But we find no sign of fossil elephants until hundreds of millions of years after the first fossil fish. Being an intelligent chap, and realising how terribly creationists have to tie themselves in knots to account for the evidence of geology, you will reject this answer. Welcome back.
3. Elephants, lizards and fish were created separately, according to Genesis, but treating Genesis less than literally, and the ‘days’ as ‘long periods of time’, so the fossil record is correct as well.
   In that case, since fossil humans only appear a few hundred thousand years ago, the six days have only just ended. This treats Genesis rather more cavalierly than most creationists. It also means that the ‘act of creation’ as it applies to living organisms, was more an ‘act of destruction’, as waves of mass extinction swept the living world during the course of it. It still leaves you with the Genesis description of fruit trees before marine organisms unless you assume that the order of creation in Genesis can also be taken less than literally, in which case you might just as well go the whole hog and pass onto Number 4. Welcome back.
4. Genesis should not be taken scientifically at all. It was written to serve a different purpose. Elephants, lizards and fish were created separately, according to the fossil record.
   Fine. We can review the fossil record of elephants, and find a transition back in time to a smaller animal, the first created ‘elephant’ at about 55 million years ago. Astonishingly, we can also reconstruct the transition back in time of the manatee, and find that also about 55 million years ago the first created ‘manatee’ was remarkably similar to the first created ‘elephant’. What’s more, from ten million years previously, there are fossil remains of animals with many characteristics common to both elephants and manatees. At this point it becomes increasingly obvious that ‘creation’ looks so like ‘evolution’ as to be indistinguishable from it. Welcome back.

 

[Aloysium]

Suppose we are able to discover the original programs.

Would there be just one that supports UCD?

The only way this could happen would be the discovery of a pluripotential cell containing the information for all the diversity we see now and can imagine once existed and will exist. It would be like the fertilized ovum from which the trillions of cells contained in our bodies are derived. There is no evidence of such a cell or living being.

I believe God is actively involved in each and every moment, not so much micromanaging as He brings everything into existence doing what He has willed it to do. Matter is to act as a building block of living organisms. Without a greater unifying prinicple that we call the soul, living forms revert back to the simple activity and interactions of atoms. The basic chemical interactions of atoms will not organize them into a living form. That information has to be programmed into the organism. Creation is an ongoing process involving the bringing together of matter into a whole that is each individual creature, with its particular anatomic, physiological and instinctive qualities. These qualities were brought into existence with the first manifestation of its kind, a genus perhaps that would go on to diversify as various species.

The idea of universal common descent does not refer to matter or an organism, which contained the information itself. UCD does not eminate from a material being but has to do with a transcendent purpose, an expression of God’s will, manifesting itself in time with the formation of creatures with unique properties that go on to multiply. We come into existence by virtue of that same Source, the Spirit of God, matter organized by the human spirit first brought into existence in the person of Adam.

 

[Aloysium]

And evolution is no more an illusion than gravity

It is an illusion like a belief that all matter seeks its proper place that is under the ground. It may in fact be seeking its proper place within a singularity, but that differs from an understanding that people had before they contemplated the shape of the world.

it is a consistent illusion which helps to explain the observations we make of our material world.

But, we enter into error when we think it has much to do with who we are, and it doesn’t fit any observations we make even going to pick up bread at the corner store.

Was the “physical structure” of the “first creature of its kind” of elephants, lizards and fish created more or less simultaneously or not?

Simulateously from eternity, but not temporally as we exist in relation to the world. In their time, living beings were brought into existence utilizing the information of those beings that existed previously and participated in creating the necessarily appropriate environment. I can’t say and we can’t know if the first placental creature emerged from an egg or fully formed, in either case capable of hosting withing its uterus, the growth and development of its offspring, which formed a placental sac and umbilicus.

You are happy with metaphysics, but more or less ignorant of ordinary science

You keep making these absurd comments. You should not presume you know with whom you are conversing.

 

[Hugh_Farey]

You keep making these absurd comments. You should not presume you know with whom you are conversing.

It is not an absurd comment at all. It is soundly based on your postings on this thread, which slither away from any scientific question, except for the occasional gnomic statement with neither authority or evidence. Of course, you may simply be playing; but then, in a way, we all are. Such is the nature of internet discussion forums.

 

[buffalo]

You appear to be returning. Welcome back.

No. Intelligent design is much much better.

I do not stand on the weakness of the fossil record as you do. As more info comes in supporting ID, a more correct reasoning of the fossil record will sort itself out. Science by its own definition is provisional.

Is Genesis wrong? - NO Is it provisional? NO

Is the fossil record wrong? - Our interpretation most likely is.

I stand with Revelation more now than ever before.

 

[edwest211]

That is correct.

 

[Hugh_Farey]

Is Genesis wrong? - NO Is it provisional? NO

Is that the ‘six-literal-day’ version of Genesis, or the ‘six-interpreted-day’?
And is that ‘fruit trees before marine life’ as well?
Just asking, but nobody seems to want to tell me!

 

[Aloysium]

fruit trees before marine life

As has been previously discussed, what it means in this context is that the way was paved for future creation to flourish. Living organisms consume matter and transform it into themselves. Fruit trees reproduce themselves and offer themselves for the consumption of other creatures that they may thrive and multiply. They take simple elements from the ground and air transforming them into something palatable, something to be enjoyed by animals that have the necessary sensory, digestive and metabolic physiology to utilize the food the trees provide. Before animals can exist the means for their survival must be in place. And that’s the way it happened.

 

[Techno2000]

Before animals can exist the means for their survival must be in place. And that’s the way it happened.

Right,everything has to eat, to fuel a ecosystem.

 

[Hugh_Farey]

Oh golly. Fruit trees. Like apples. On the land. Not in the sea. Fruit trees don’t grow under water. The author of Genesis was declaring that plant life was lesser than animal life. He had no idea whether fruit trees preceded fish or not. All plant life lesser than all animal life. That’s what was important. However, in the chronological terms in which Genesis is couched, his blanket collection of plants is meaningless. Obviously, animals which eat plants could not appear before there were plants to eat, but they weren’t mangoes.

I understand that. I think Aloysium understands that. The chronology of Genesis is figurative, not literal.
When buffalo declares “Is Genesis wrong? - NO”, does he agree with me, or does he stick to the literal chronology?
When edwest declares “That is correct”, does he agree with me, or does he stick to the literal chronology?
When techno2000 says “everything has to eat”, does he agree with me, or does he stick to the literal chronology?

 

[buffalo]

As has been previously discussed, what it means in this context is that the way was paved for future creation to flourish. Living organisms consume matter and transform it into themselves. Fruit trees reproduce themselves and offer themselves for the consumption of other creatures that they may thrive and multiply. They take simple elements from the ground and air transforming them into something palatable, something to be enjoyed by animals that have the necessary sensory, digestive and metabolic physiology to utilize the food the trees provide. Before animals can exist the means for their survival must be in place. And that’s the way it happened.

Catechism: 340 God wills the interdependence of creatures. The sun and the moon, the cedar and the little flower, the eagle and the sparrow: the spectacle of their countless diversities and inequalities tells us that no creature is self-sufficient. Creatures exist only in dependence on each other, to complete each other, in the service of each other.