Is Darwin's Theory of Evolution True? Part 4.1

[edwest211]

Bias? What bias?

Two Astronomers at Iowa State Tied to Statement Denouncing Intelligent Design as “Creationist Pseudoscience”

Two of the five active tenured astronomy professors in the department that denied tenure to Guillermo Gonzalez at Iowa State University are connected to a widely-publicized statement that denounces…

evolutionnews.org

 

[Techno2000]

I never have.

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.

 

[edwest211]

https://www.psi.edu/epo/ktimpact/ktimpact.html

 

[edwest211]

And everybody else is just fine.

 

[buffalo]

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/

 

[edwest211]

Oh well. Entrenched ideas and interests have to be promoted. Sad.

 

[Techno2000]

benjamin1973:

I never have.

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.

What triggered or caused the (survival advantage DNA) to come into existence and passed on ?

 

[Hugh_Farey]

Do you honestly think that your responses to my remarks below constitute any kind of defence of Creationism at all? Let’s see…

[Me:] Did you ever get around to saying how the appearance of elephants, lizards and fish in the fossil strata can be reconciled by them all being created together? No, you didn’t. (“throwout results they don’t like”)
[You:] Once again, the human reasoning of the observations has to be reconciled. As I stated before, give it some time.

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.

[Me:] Did you ever get around to quoting a bit more of The Origin of Species than "Generally the term includes the unknown element of a distinct act of creation”? No, you didn’t. (“cherry pick data”)
[You:] — [nothing] —

Well, at least you’re not defending your nefarious practice. B-.

[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.

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.

Just don’t pretend that evolutionists use the same methodology, or that yours is in any way scientific.

[Me:] Now see if you can do that to any of the evolutionists commenting on this thread.
[You:] I can do it with the source data, the flawed peer review process, the bias in academia, who funds the research, what happens to researchers who go outside the paradigm, etc…

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!

 

[ratio1]

In the presence of divine omnipotence, acquiescence to his rules (both the laws of nature and the Ten Commandments) is likely to lead to greater reproductive success than attempting to overthrow them.

So do evolutionists concede that believing in religion and hence creationism, is an evolutionary advantage which has come about by natural selection?

 

[Hugh_Farey]

The problem is when scientists claim an asteroid wiped out all the dinosaurs.

Shocking. They ought to be struck off. Just name one, would you?

The Impact That Wiped Out the Dinosaurs | Planetary Science Institute

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.

 

[Hugh_Farey]

So do evolutionists concede that believing in religion and hence creationism, is an evolutionary advantage which has come about by natural selection?

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.

 

[benjamin1973]

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?

 

[Hugh_Farey]

What triggered or caused the (survival advantage DNA) to come into existence and passed on?

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.

1. 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.
2. Any cell can change its DNA by copying mistakes occurring as it divides into two.
3. Changes can also occur as the haploid DNA of two gametes combine into a zygote.

This changed DNA can only be passed on if it ends up in the gametes.

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?

 

[edwest211]

I doubt these ‘reproductive advantages’ occur as commonly taught. When any organism reaches 100% reproductive advantage, then what? The process stops?

 

[ratio1]

We’ll have none of that stealth bombing

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!

 

[Richca]

Yes! At last you understand. That’s exactly what we need to do… So why can’t anybody tell us what it is “they actually think”?

I believe it has been stated numerous times and it is quite plain I think to everybody reading this thread what is meant by creation for creationists, namely, God’s direct and supernatural creative activity as opposed to the theory of evolution which involves the appearance or emergence of the various kinds or distinction of beings, such as animal or plants species or stars and planets, from created secondary agents or causes and natural processes including ‘laws of nature.’ Simply put, on the one hand, the creationist explanation involves just that, ‘creation’, which is understood theologically as God’s direct supernatural activity. On the other hand, evolution is a natural process involving creatures and powers or ‘laws’ God placed in nature.

The natural process of evolution at least for the theistic evolutionist is a ‘creative’ process. This is where, in my opinion, things start sounding weird. Strictly speaking and in the proper sense of the word, only God can ‘create’ (cf. CCC#318), "He alone is Creator (the verb ‘create’ - Hebrew bara - always has God for its subject) CCC#290. The foundation of the catholic faith is in the first article of the Creeds: I believe in one God, the Father, the Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, of all things visible and invisible (Niceno - Constantinopolitan creed). Or, the Apostles Creed ‘I believe in God, the Father almighty, creator of heaven and earth.’ To create can only be applied to creatures metaphorically or analogically.

Though theistic evolutionists do not deny God’s providence, in one true sense who created the heavens and the earth if not the singularity, a creature, of the Big Bang? (at least for the cosmic evolutionists). According to this theory and in all truth, I believe it could be said “In the beginning, the singularity ‘created’ the heavens and the earth.” Or, the single first cell ‘created’ mankind and the rest of the animal and plant species. Obviously, this is not what the Bible says nor what the catholic faith teaches is it? Something sounds not right here. In my opinion, I think theistic evolutionism could be construed or argued as a form of idolatry and robbing God the praise and glory that is due Him as the Creator of the ‘heavens and the earth, the seas, and all that is in them’ (Exodus 20:11).

In the Church’s theological tradition, the Church’s theologians distinguished between two aspects of divine causality, namely, as it relates to creation and as it relates to providence or administration. Divine providence, the preservation and propagation of creatures and guiding or directing them to their ends, presupposes God’s work of creation, it is not confused with the divine causality that pertains to God’s work in the creation and formation of the world as we have in Genesis 1-2:1-3. The two ideas, namely, creation and providence are two different words with two different meanings and, traditionally, the Church’s theologians did not confuse them together.

 

[Richca]

(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)

 

[buffalo]

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!

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

 

[buffalo]

“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.”

But they did survive as soft tissue discoveries show. (of course you wil now have to claim soft tissue can survive 65 million years)

 

[buffalo]

DNA can be altered in several ways.

and now we know the organism can change it itself.