- Status
T
Techno2000
Guest
It’s pretty simple-- those animals which can survive and mate pass on their DNA. If that DNA, whatever it does (thicker skin, scales, etc.) leads to a survival advantage, then the number of individuals in a species with that DNA will increase over generations.
E
edwest211
Guest
And everybody else is just fine.
B
buffalo
Guest
No bias? ROTFL Prediction: This post will be ignored.
Peer Review failure: Science and Nature journals reject papers because they “have to be wrong”
The peer review system has decayed to the point where the culture of the two “top” science journals virtually guarantees they will reject the most important research done today. It is the exact opposite of what we need to further human knowledge the fastest. Science and Nature are prestigious journals, yet they are now so conservative about ideas that challenge dominant assumptions, that they reject ground-breaking papers because those papers challenge the dominant meme, not because the evidence or the reasoning is suspect or weak.
http://joannenova.com.au/2013/02/pe...-reject-papers-because-they-have-to-be-wrong/
Peer Review failure: Science and Nature journals reject papers because they “have to be wrong”
The peer review system has decayed to the point where the culture of the two “top” science journals virtually guarantees they will reject the most important research done today. It is the exact opposite of what we need to further human knowledge the fastest. Science and Nature are prestigious journals, yet they are now so conservative about ideas that challenge dominant assumptions, that they reject ground-breaking papers because those papers challenge the dominant meme, not because the evidence or the reasoning is suspect or weak.
http://joannenova.com.au/2013/02/pe...-reject-papers-because-they-have-to-be-wrong/
E
edwest211
Guest
Oh well. Entrenched ideas and interests have to be promoted. Sad.
T
Techno2000
Guest
What triggered or caused the (survival advantage DNA) to come into existence and passed on ?benjamin1973:
It’s pretty simple-- those animals which can survive and mate pass on their DNA. If that DNA, whatever it does (thicker skin, scales, etc.) leads to a survival advantage, then the number of individuals in a species with that DNA will increase over generations.
Last edited:
H
Hugh_Farey
Guest
Do you honestly think that your responses to my remarks below constitute any kind of defence of Creationism at all? Let’s see…
Just don’t pretend that evolutionists use the same methodology, or that yours is in any way scientific.
So that’s a no. Some kind of reconciliation must be found, but you can’t find it. Well at least it’s a reply. C.
Well, at least you’re not defending your nefarious practice. B-.
And that’s fine! A+. Your answers demonstrate that is not evolutionists who “throwout results they don’t like, cherry pick data, and lap up what they are told,” but creationists, and that they’re proud of it. Well good for you. Stand up for your methodology, I say.[Me:] Did you just accept what you were told about how to interpret the six days without considering how they fitted observations of the natural world? Yes, you did. (“lap up what they are told”)
[You:] I will stand by the constant understanding and teaching of the Magisterium protected by the Holy Spirit, (yes, lapped up) No apologies.
Just don’t pretend that evolutionists use the same methodology, or that yours is in any way scientific.
No, don’t just say you can do it, because I don’t believe you. Do it. Where have I cherry-picked data? Where has Benjamin pretended that a creationist doesn’t believe in creationism? Where has Petra “lapped up” anything (with no apologies)? Come on, don’t just say you can prove we’re as hypocritical as creationists, show us where!
Last edited:
R
ratio1
Guest
So do evolutionists concede that believing in religion and hence creationism, is an evolutionary advantage which has come about by natural selection?
H
Hugh_Farey
Guest
Well, that’s marvellous. An actual answer to a question. And almost a correct one too. That must be a first.
Author: William K Hartmann, a realio trulio bona fide astronomer.
Headline: “The Impact That Wiped Out the Dinosaurs”
and in the banner: “Debris from the explosion was thrown into the atmosphere, severely altering the climate, and leading to the extinction of roughly 3/4 of species that existed at that time, including the dinosaurs.”
And from elsewhere on Hartmann’s site:
“There is a great deal of evidence that supports the idea of a very large impact event that caused the extinction of dinosaurs about 65 million years ago. The dinosaurs may have already been on the edge of survival, and an impact event would have been more than enough to change the Earth’s climate, making it unfriendly and inhospitable for dinosaurs to survive.”
Yup. You definitely got one on me that time.
Last edited:
H
Hugh_Farey
Guest
Eh? We’ll have none of that stealth bombing if it’s all the same to you. “and hence creationism” Did you think I wouldn’t notice?
However…
Individual evolutionists have individual views. Accepted mainstream evolution doesn’t commit itself to hypotheses that are insufficiently supported by evidence, and feels that cultural, rather than genetic heritage, is a bit beyond ‘evolution’ anyway, and that formal definitions of natural selection may not apply.
However, on the evidence presented, it may be that for social animals, collective belief in an authority beyond the species leads to increased social harmony, and thus greater reproductive success, and is therefore of evolutionary advantage.
Nothing to do with creationism.
B
benjamin1973
Guest
This isn’t “added” unless you don’t believe in DNA or in heritability of traits. Let’s try a simple multiple choice test for you. Children tend to look like their parents because:
a) Goddidit.
b) They share their parents’ genetic material.
If your answer is “(a) and not (b)” then I’m going to go find something better to do with my time than type here anymore.
Are you guys going to start talking about the giraffe’s loss of the ability to have a short neck again? Or the loss of ability of whales not to swim?
a) Goddidit.
b) They share their parents’ genetic material.
If your answer is “(a) and not (b)” then I’m going to go find something better to do with my time than type here anymore.
Are you guys going to start talking about the giraffe’s loss of the ability to have a short neck again? Or the loss of ability of whales not to swim?
Last edited:
H
Hugh_Farey
Guest
Now be honest. How many times have you asked that question? Pay attention, and maybe you’ll understand this time.
Firstly, what ‘triggers’ a change in DNA?
DNA can be altered in several ways.
- Any cell can have its DNA changed at any time by the effects of toxic chemicals in the cell, viral invasion, or radiation, either cosmic, solar or from nuclear reactions on earth.
- Any cell can change its DNA by copying mistakes occurring as it divides into two.
- Changes can also occur as the haploid DNA of two gametes combine into a zygote.
The changed DNA may or may not have an effect on the organism.
Secondly, what ‘triggers’ the DNA into changing the organism?
Environmental changes can mean that organisms benefiting from ‘new’ DNA also enjoy reproductive advantage, which enables it to spread throughout a population.
Does that help?
E
edwest211
Guest
I doubt these ‘reproductive advantages’ occur as commonly taught. When any organism reaches 100% reproductive advantage, then what? The process stops?
R
ratio1
Guest
Haha thanks for your reply.
It’s all good.
I like stealth bombing. And I like to be stealth bombed too. Because it checks whether one really has a coherent position/argument. It’s a good test I think. You’ve done well. Thanks!
R
Richca
Guest
Last edited:
R
Richca
Guest
(continued)
Today, however, among theistic evolutionary theologians, catholic or otherwise, the two concepts appear to be confused in one sense and in another sense not. For example, theistic evolutionary theologians would maintain, at least in one variety of evolutionism, that creation out of nothing pertains to the singularity of the Big Bang. This is the scope of God’s divine causality as it pertains to creation or creating in the proper sense of the word (this is why I said ‘in another sense not’). From here God’s providence takes over. But to go from the ‘singularity’ to the world as we observe it now can only be reasonably understood as a ‘creative’ process acting indirectly as it were from God’s providence but directly through creatures. It is in this sense that I said that the two concepts and aspects of divine causality, namely, creation and providence, I believe are confused. This is also where catholic theistic theologians when quoting St Thomas Aquinas often confuse his teaching between the two orders of divine causality, creation and providence which St Thomas clearly distinguishes. Secondary causes fall under the order of divine providence and presuppose creation, they do not cause ‘creation’ nor ‘create’ new natures of things nor create in the proper sense of the word at all.
(to be continued)
Today, however, among theistic evolutionary theologians, catholic or otherwise, the two concepts appear to be confused in one sense and in another sense not. For example, theistic evolutionary theologians would maintain, at least in one variety of evolutionism, that creation out of nothing pertains to the singularity of the Big Bang. This is the scope of God’s divine causality as it pertains to creation or creating in the proper sense of the word (this is why I said ‘in another sense not’). From here God’s providence takes over. But to go from the ‘singularity’ to the world as we observe it now can only be reasonably understood as a ‘creative’ process acting indirectly as it were from God’s providence but directly through creatures. It is in this sense that I said that the two concepts and aspects of divine causality, namely, creation and providence, I believe are confused. This is also where catholic theistic theologians when quoting St Thomas Aquinas often confuse his teaching between the two orders of divine causality, creation and providence which St Thomas clearly distinguishes. Secondary causes fall under the order of divine providence and presuppose creation, they do not cause ‘creation’ nor ‘create’ new natures of things nor create in the proper sense of the word at all.
(to be continued)
Last edited:
B
buffalo
Guest
I have for 14 years.
And yes, I will stand with Genesis, the word of God, rather than flawed human reasoning.
“For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance, he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.”
― Robert Jastrow, God and the Astronomers
Science can purify religion from error and superstition. Religion can purify science from idolatry and false absolutes. Pope John Paul II
B
buffalo
Guest
But they did survive as soft tissue discoveries show. (of course you wil now have to claim soft tissue can survive 65 million years)
B
buffalo
Guest
and now we know the organism can change it itself.
- Status