Is Darwin's Theory of Evolution True? Part Three

[Glark]

It’s obvious to me that since reality is composed of a Universe of billions of galaxies and many trillions of stars, that all the details of existence cannot be summarized in a couple hundred pages of Hebrew texts.

Who is making this claim?

That’s my main problem, and the reason I can’t call myself Christian-- I cannot tolerate people who cannot differentiate between literary figures of speech and statements about historical facts.

Here’s another word you misuse - fact. A fact is information that can be proven to be true. You cannot prove that all life on earth evolved from microbes, so this is not a fact. Evolutionists like you claim that it is a fact, but you are In error, because you can’t prove that it is true.

Here is an example of a fact: The sun rises in the east. No one disputes this is a fact, as everyone can observe it is true.

 

[rossum]

The evo promoters have given two experiments done before DNA (Watson and Crick) was discovered as their laboratory proof.

You are wrong here. DNA was discovered in 1869 by Meischer. Watson and Crick discovered its molecular structure, not its existence. Please learn more science before you make more egregious errors like this. You are not showing yourself in a good light.

Neither the Luria-Delbrück nor the Legerberg experiments relied on the particular structure of DNA for their results. All they relied on was that genetic material carried genetic information, the detail of how it was carried was not relevant to either experiment. If DNA had been a triple helix, both experiments would still be valid.

rossum

 

[Aloysium]

Maybe one more thing.

What is lost through random mutation of the genome is passed on to the offspring unless corrected by intrinsic healing mechanisms.

Some bacteria are unable to produce as many or as large porins because of the glitch that appeared in their genome. This grants them greater survivability when dealing with penicillin (aka antibiotic resistance) to the detriment of the environment.

Others lost their capacity for antibiotic resistance, which they had originally. This occurred because of a different glitch in the genome which was passed on. The bacteria that possessed the original trait, those that did not lose it through random physical events, are making a come back in certain quarters as we eliminate their more damaged brethren.

 

[Glark]

Enlightenment is something you have to do for yourself.

Animals can become enlightened too - such as that deep-sea fish Techno provided a photo of way back.

 

[Glark]

Yeah… saying random mutations does everything is just too vague

If you spell “evolution” backwards you get “vague”.

 

[Glark]

Lol. I stare in the face of oblivion and laugh

If the prospect of eternal oblivion makes you happy, then good luck to you.

 

[Techno2000]

rossum:

Enlightenment is something you have to do for yourself.

Animals can become enlightened too - such as that deep-sea fish Techno provided a photo of way back.

Lol…that’s crazy :crazy_face:

 

[benjamin1973]

Wow. So detailed. Here is one random page. I can produce literally thousands more:
http://palaeo.gly.bris.ac.uk/benton/reprints/2003eolss.html

 

[Glark]

Enlightenment is something you have to do for yourself.

Once a person attains enlightenment, can he get discounts on food, electrical items, cars and stuff?

How did the three members of the rock band, Nirvana, attain enlightenment as such young ages?

 

[benjamin1973]

Hmmmm. Facts are important to you, and they are dependent on being provable?

Okay. . . prove anything the Bible says about the creation of life. Then understand that evolutionary theory is a theory designed to FIT FACTS.

Fact: whales have finger bones in their flippers.
Fact: fossils of dinosaurs show some had feathers.
Fact: bacteria adapt to antibiotics
Fact: prehuman hominids existed

None of these facts is mentioned in the Bible. Nor does anything in the Bible explain why any of these facts exist in this world.

Okay, now your turn. Bring some facts, which meet your stringent criteria of “proof.”

 

[buffalo]

Digging deep into distinctly different DNA

We now suspect that there is a mechanism in all animals that can filter out these mutations before they are passed to future offspring, which could otherwise cause a multitude of diseases affecting the brain," Dr Zuryn said.

In humans, mutations in mitochondrial DNA can cause rare but devastating diseases, especially in organs such as the brain, which relies heavily on mitochondria for energy.

Digging deep into distinctly different DNA

A new discovery has deepened our understanding of the genetic mutations that arise in different tissues, and how these are inherited. Researchers found the rates of genetic mutations in mitochondrial DNA vary across differing tissue types, with the highest rate occurring in reproductive cells.

www.sciencedaily.com

 

[buffalo]

And why I put their names in () Geesh…

Once again, before I rebut, is this your best experimental offering?

 

[PaladinSword]

Do you even physics bro?

We are nihilists Lebowski we believe in nothing.

 

[Techno2000]

Do you even physics bro?

We are nihilists Lebowski we believe in nothing.

That went right over my head.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

benjamin1973:

Your comments about the scientific community being “ruled” by evolutionists is silly

They’re not silly at all. I would imagine that the percentage of scientists who believe in evolution is more than 99%.

Then you should say that the scientific community is populated by evolutionists. There is no “ruling” going on.

What will you do to prove to me that YOUR idea about reality is better than his? Wave the Bible around? Talk about divine inspiration?

Since I am a Christian, I am highly likely to defer my interpretation of reality to the Bible and divine revelation.

That would be fine if the subject is divine revelation. But it is inappropriate when the subject is evolution, just as it would be inappropriate to refer to the bible to determine the authenticity of a Van Gogh painting, the tensile strength of carbon fiber, or which beer tastes better - Bud or Miller.

I don’t have a general distrust of science - I have a general distrust of pseudo-science…

Since what you call pseudo-science is in fact science, it is accurate to say that you have a distrust of science. You can’t just redefine your problems away.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

From an initial state of bacterial genomic perfection, random change took away those aspects of the bacteria’s nature that kept it in balance within the environment. So we get antibiotic resistance due to a decrease in porins and greater susceptibility to antibiotics, through a loss of beta-lactamase production.

So all bacteria were originally created with resistance to penicillin - a drug that did not yet exist because it was only invented in 1928, because God knew it was going to be invented in 1928 and so provided the bacteria with a defense against it at the beginning. And so some of them lost it and some of them didn’t through random mutations. So it seems you do agree with the statement that started all this, that mutations are caused by random events and not by exposure to penicillin. You just think that the mutations are all negative. Other than the fact that there is absolutely no evidence of a “golden age of bacteria” where all bacteria were resistant to penicillin - a drug that was not even around - why should a scientist accept your theory over the one that actually explains things that we observe?

 

[edwest211]

It is quite obvious that any religious information is unacceptable. But what is also obvious is that all scientists working in any category of biology would not change a thing about how they conducted their research if they were told evolution is false. They would go back to their instruments and other tools and continue working as if nothing changed. Because nothing will change.

 

[Aloysium]

I despair about humanity’s incapacity to communicate. I spoke of molds because that is where penicillin is derived. Remember from grade school how Fleming found the bacteria did not grow in an area of the agar plate where some had serendipitously landed? I recall doing the experiment in grade 7, I believe. Or maybe I did it on my own. I think we’re done with this conversation. I have nothing left to add.

 

[Aloysium]

And that’s because the actual science, although in its nascent stages, is sound. We’ll figure it out.

 

[benjamin1973]

You seem to think that scientists start with the final premise and work their way backward. It’s not surprising that you believe this, because that’s 100% how religious thinking works.

The fact is that Darwin came up with the idea of evolution because of observations he made in the field: specifically, observations made among similar bird species in the Galapagos, if my memory serves me well.

All the rest of evolutionary theory is based on ongoing observations. The conclusion that you so hate-- speciation going back to the beginnings of life, is an inference-- a rational extension of observations made as we go further and further back in the geologic records and find simpler and simpler life forms. Think of it as kind of a biological Big Bang-- if you follow that explosion back through time, then you can infer that you will arrive at this state.

Saying, “You can’t prove it” doesn’t work unless you have a theory which better matches the available evidence-- which you do not. You have what seems to be a creation myth of early desert-dwellers, supported with a lot of faith but almost no physical evidence of any kind.

So the choice is this: given you believe in the God of those desert-dwellers, how literally should you take their writings about scientific issues like the development of species? My answer-- not at all. Your answer-- completely.

To me the ideal position for Catholics is this: we will earnestly attempt to understand things based on the available evidence. We will accept evolution until actual evidence demonstrates it to be untenable-- just like the rest of the world does. We will keep a faith in God, because God is certainly great enough to guide evolution, and to plan a billion years ahead that this or that lifeform, this or that mutation, and this or that environmental circumstance would lead exactly to me, and to you, and to the placement of every hair on our heads, as He intended.

Not to take this position, in my opinion, is to deny the living reality of God in this world, and instead to adhere in a cult-like way to the limited understanding of ancient tribal peoples. Surely, God’s plan was not to freeze humanity in that state, or to limit humanity’s knowledge to that state; so I see working against science, including evolutionary science, as an act against the real living God who is surely guiding not only the Catholics, but the atheists, the scientists, and every atom in Creation, all the time.