Is Darwin's Theory of Evolution True? Part Three

[benjamin1973]

Evolution doesn’t have a goal, and there’s no “need” in physics or chemistry. Nor does evolution help any animals directly. If I need a long neck to reach high leaves, I’m not going to grow one.

It’s much simpler than that: it’s statistics: given enough variability, and a framework in which some patterns will tend to persist longer than others, you’ll end up with some patterns never taking hold and some being extremely persistent. I mean-- we don’t even need to be talking about living things.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

. A continuum of such structures is quite possible. The fact that we don’t know for sure exactly what that continuum was is not an argument against evolution.

A is possible therefore it happened?
That is weak.

It is as strong as it needs to be.

 

[Techno2000]

Evolution doesn’t have a goal, and there’s no “need” in physics or chemistry.

That is too vague…

 

[benjamin1973]

“I don’t know how John arrived in Los Angeles. Therefore. . . the best we can (and should) say is that God put him there.”

I feel if we are really interested in why John is in LA, it’s probably best to assume that John’s there for a reason, and start filling in the details step by step as well as we can until a better picture starts to emerge. And we can safely assume that whatever the mechanism is that got him there, ultimately it comes down to God-- as a given. No mutual exclusion required, but I really would like to learn more about our world than I can read in the book of Genesis.

 

[Aloysium]

It’s the vagueness that keeps it going. Consider that a photosensitive neuron is quite a remarkable achievement for chaotic chemical reactions messing up the genome. One might imagine it “migrating” through a translucent flesh to the surface. It actually doesn’t do that in one organism. But, as chance, the ultimate cause if everything according to the materialist metaphysics of evolutionary theory masking itself as science, would have it, repeated defects in genes caused it to ultimately grow into the complexity that is the eye. We are to believe that given enough time, physical processes randomly occurring, have produced all this. What utter nonsense!

 

[Techno2000]

“I don’t know how John arrived in Los Angeles. Therefore. . . the best we can (and should) say is that God put him there.”

I feel if we are really interested in why John is in LA, it’s probably best to assume that John’s there for a reason, and start filling in the details step by step as well as we can until a better picture starts to emerge. And we can safely assume that whatever the mechanism is that got him there, ultimately it comes down to God-- as a given. No mutual exclusion required, but I really would like to learn more about our world than I can read in the book of Genesis.

But, how could you even reason about John, if he was in LA, 400 billion years ago ?

 

[benjamin1973]

That’s a lot of years. Given that the Earth is about 4.5 billion years old, John would have a lot of 'splaining to do.

 

[benjamin1973]

It’s only vague if you don’t bother to find out the specifics.

It occurs to me that you are applying a massive double standard here. Your source for the creation of species is the Bible, which correct me if I’m wrong says, “So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living thing with which the water teems and that moves about in it, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind.”

Biological and evolutionary scientists have millions of pages of documentation: comparison of fossils, comparison of modern species, DNA samples, geologic testing, carbon dating, and not only that, they are constantly under each other’s eye-- make a dodgy report, and be mocked mercilessly.

 

[rossum]

There were sponges in the Precambrian, and sponges are metazoans. A single blog post does not make for peer-reviewed scientific evidence.

rossum

 

[Aloysium]

It’s only vague if you don’t bother to find out the specifics.

Let’s put aside what you think I don’t know.

The point of the thread is Darwinism, the standard theory of evolution, which is not science, but merely a story into which facts are being jammed to produce the materialist mythos of the times.

The source of creation has been revealed to be God, through the Logos, which became incarnate in Jesus Christ for our salvation. The quoted excerpt from Gensis is correct; God does that and much more.

From me, you will get only the standard arguments that exists in any realm of science concerning the comparison of fossils, DNA samples and everything else involved in the actual science.

The problem is with how it is put together.

Most people agree that the universe has existed for some thirteen billion years, based on some very fancy science. Life on earth seems to have been here for a couple of billion, and during that time it has changed.

Evolutionary theory has usurped science, offering chaos-of-the-gaps as the default cause of all things not known and the ultimate cause of all creation.

Prokaryotes and eukaryotes were a new creation, following that of atoms. Multicellular plant life is a new creation as are animals, as are we ourselves - one humanity in Adam and in Christ.

As to:

Biological and evolutionary scientists have millions of pages of documentation: comparison of fossils, comparison of modern species, DNA samples, geologic testing, carbon dating, and not only that, they are constantly under each other’s eye-- make a dodgy report, and be mocked mercilessly.

I think that’s a big part of the problem. That they must fit it their findings into the evolutionary framework or be ridiculed should be clear indication that what we are looking at is no longer science but a dogma masking as science. It doesn’t happen in most of science, except of course where you get people with personality disorders or in the midst of some academic political struggle over their little fiefdom.

 

[benjamin1973]

I agree with you to some degree. I have problems with the issue of consciousness in particular. Not only can you not study it genetically, you can’t really identify which animals or other physical systems have it. How do you then talk about how it evolves?

Scientists will often reframe things in physical terms: mind is brain function, here’s some brain function, there it’s proof that there is mind here!

That being said, the relationships among fossils, and the explanation of why they end up like that, is compelling. If you want to discard evolution wholesale, then in my opinion you’re discarding common sense. Of course species adapt

The evolutionary narrative also explains some human behaviors in a way that religion fails to. Why are men such dirty dogs, such cheating cheaters? It’s because cheating cheaters get more girls pregnant, have more offspring, and their DNA thrives, creating more cheating cheaters. AFAIK the Bible doesn’t really have much useful to say about WHY people act as they do-- only about what they should do, and what will happen to them when they do it.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

The point of the thread is Darwinism, the standard theory of evolution, which is not science, but merely a story into which facts are being jammed to produce the materialist mythos of the times.

Just your saying that does not make it true, especially since it is contrary to what the consensus of scientists say, and they ought to know what is and what is not science.

The quoted excerpt from Gensis is correct;

According to the Catholic Church, which is my guide for how to interpret the Bible, Genesis is largely (but not completely) allegorical. Please see the Catechism for specifics on which parts of Genesis are literally and scientifically true.

I think that’s a big part of the problem. That they must fit it their findings into the evolutionary framework or be ridiculed should be clear indication that what we are looking at is no longer science but a dogma masking as science.

Your speculation. Please show evidence that all researchers supporting evolution are all behaving this way with this motivation. Speculation does not count.

 

[vz71]

“I don’t know how John arrived in Los Angeles. Therefore. . . the best we can (and should) say is that God put him there.”

I would think higher of the person saying that then I would the one claiming to know the route.

 

[Aloysium]

Please see the Catechism for specifics on which parts of Genesis are literally and scientifically true

I am interested in what you think is allegorical and not a fact that "God created the great creatures of the sea and every living thing with which the water teems and that moves about in it, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind.”

Seems to me that if someone does not believe that, they don’t belive in God.

show evidence that all researchers supporting evolution are all behaving this way with this motivation. Speculation does not count.

Unless one is dealing with a small population where all members can be identified and studied, it is impossible to do an analysis of what all people do or think, simply because it involves all people in the particular category.

It would also be untrue to say that “all researchers supporting evolution are all behaving this way with this motivation” because most would tend to believe it, having heard the story their entire scholsatic lives and the others know what to write in order to get things published and to move ahead. Take as an example Intelligent Design, which has been given the label of pseudoscience; those individuals know what it means to go against the flow.

You assume what I wrote is mere speculation, and as just another internet idiot I don’t expect what I say to be taken as anything more than it says. Take it, leave it, or follow it up.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

I am interested in what you think is allegorical and not a fact that "God created the great creatures of the sea and every living thing with which the water teems and that moves about in it, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind.”

That is not even a problem because even taking it literally, it does not contradict evolution. The allegorical part is when Genesis mentions six days as the actual time during which all of this happened. But merely stating that it happened covers the possibility that it happened as Darwin describes it.

Unless one is dealing with a small population where all members can be identified and studied, it is impossible to do an analysis of what all people do or think, simply because it involves all people in the particular category.

Not true. Statistical sampling is a well-establish science (unless you want to “un-science” that field too!)

It would also be untrue to say that “all researchers supporting evolution are all behaving this way with this motivation” because most would tend to believe it, having heard the story their entire scholsatic lives and the others know what to write in order to get things published and to move ahead.

No. Scientists do not “get ahead” by agreeing with well-established theory. They get ahead by doing something new that challenges established understanding. Finding faults in established theory has been one of the most successful ways of getting ahead for ambitious scientists. All the famous scientists that we read about in science books are famous because they found something that the rest of the world did not accept. If a scientist had solid scientific evidence that Darwinism was completely wrong, you can be sure he would jump at the chance to publish it. There just is no force that suppresses innovative thinking enough to override this easy path to fame and fortune. You are imagining a culture of scientists that is quite contrary to what actually happens.

Take as an example Intelligent Design, which has been given the label of pseudoscience; those individuals know what it means to go against the flow.

They have been unsuccessful not because they went against the flow but because their evidence was lacking.

 

[Aloysium]

even taking it literally, it does not contradict evolution.

You say this in reference to "God created the great creatures of the sea and every living thing with which the water teems and that moves about in it, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind.”

The use of “even” implies that it is a stretch to suppose this.

It’s anything but a Catholic understanding of God and His creation. I suppose I was confused by your use of “Leafbyniggle” as a pseudonym. I don’t want to get into it but you might wish consider what Tolkein, a staunch Roman Catholic in Anglican England, would think of your position.

At any rate, Jesus’s words are clear.

Matthew 6:25-30 Is not life more than food, and the body more than clothes? Look at the birds of the air; they do not sow or reap or store away in barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not much more valuable than they? Can any one of you by worrying add a single hour to your life? “And why do you worry about clothes? See how the flowers of the field grow. They do not labor or spin. Yet I tell you that not even Solomon in all his splendor was dressed like one of these. If that is how God clothes the grass of the field, which is here today and tomorrow is thrown into the fire, will he not much more clothe you—you of little faith?

Random mutations and natural selection - give me a break.

 

[edwest211]

Every year, a new crop of students graduate, and they think evolution is automatically true because they were told it was by their teachers. Yet, using the tools of their trade, they never have to deal with it. Even in the case of bacteria or viruses, “evolution” offers no guidance. How long a drug may remain viable is unknown. There is no evolutionary science to guide them. And that applies to drug development.

Cost of Developing a Single Cancer Drug

This analysis of US Securities and Exchange Commission filings provides a contemporary estimate of research and development spending to develop 10 new cancer drugs.

jamanetwork.com

 

[LeafByNiggle]

You say this in reference to "God created the great creatures of the sea and every living thing with which the water teems and that moves about in it, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind.”

The use of “even” implies that it is a stretch to suppose this.

Not at all. I do take it literally, and I don’t stretch myself in doing this.

I suppose I was confused by your use of “Leafbyniggle” as a pseudonym. I don’t want to get into it but you might wish to look into what Tolkein, a staunch Roman Catholic in Anglican England, would think of your position.

(I am so glad you recognized the source of my screen name! I cry every time I read that beautiful short story.) I suppose it is quite possible that Tolkein would object to Darwinism, and given his exceptional talent for writing, would do so more eloquently than any poster here. Such objections are permissible by Church teaching, as is the acceptance of that theory. As much as I admire Tolkein, I would still disagree with him if he denied evolution. (If you want to see how off-base comments from respected religious thinkers outside of their field can be, just read what G.K.Chesterton has to say about tobacco smoking. Genius in one field does not imply genius in all fields.)

At any rate, Jesus’s words are clear.

Matthew 6:25-30 Is not life more than food, and the body more than clothes? Look at the birds of the air; they do not sow or reap or store away in barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not much more valuable than they? Can any one of you by worrying add a single hour to your life? “And why do you worry about clothes? See how the flowers of the field grow. They do not labor or spin. Yet I tell you that not even Solomon in all his splendor was dressed like one of these. If that is how God clothes the grass of the field, which is here today and tomorrow is thrown into the fire, will he not much more clothe you—you of little faith?

Yes, they are clear. They just don’t deny Darwinism.

 

[benjamin1973]

What if professionals, in this case police, spent years investigating John’s arrival? What if they didn’t know 100% every step, but knew at least some of the points he was at in his journey? Would you say, “Well, you’ve discovered that he stayed at the Best Western sometime in January, that’s not specific enough and anyway you don’t know where he was in February, so. . . God did it!”

 

[vz71]

More like the police claiming that a hotel was stayed at, but we do not know where or when, but John is here now, and it is possible. Therefore it happened.