Is Darwin's Theory of Evolution True? Part Three

[buffalo]

2014 : WHAT SCIENTIFIC IDEA IS READY FOR RETIREMENT?

Fully Random Mutations

What is commonly called “random mutation” does not in fact occur in a mathematically random pattern. The process of genetic mutation is extremely complex, with multiple pathways, involving more than one system. Current research suggests most spontaneous mutations occur as errors in the repair process for damaged DNA. Neither the damage nor the errors in repair have been shown to be random in where they occur, how they occur, or when they occur. Rather, the idea that mutations are random is simply a widely held assumption by non-specialists and even many teachers of biology. There is no direct evidence for it.

https://www.edge.org/response-detail/25264

 

[benjamin1973]

Science isn’t true or false. It’s a method of learning about the things we can observe: 1) make some observations; 2) develop an idea that explains the observations; 3) make more observations (including controlled experiments if possible) to determine whether your idea is strong enough.

You seem to think of science as a large institution, much like the Catholic church, and perhaps a competitor to it. It’s not. It’s really just the process of observation and theorization.

Scient ists get stuff wrong all the time. Either they made false assumptions, or new data don’t fit their ideas. That’s fine. Maybe something about the theory of evolution is wrong or incomplete-- but we’ll need new information to determine that, not the philosophical and religious speculations of people who take the Bible literally.

Saying science is might not be true is like saying a hammer might not be true-- or the process of hammering. It might not always be the best tool for the job, but that’s a different issue.

 

[Glark]

They also had the idea of atoms, of non-geocentrism, and so on, arrived at largely by philosophical means. The difference with the ToE is that it was developed exclusively in order to explain observable features, and is not dependent in any way on those philosophical speculations

You seem to have comprehended my post rather poorly: Anaximander’s theory of evolution was not based solely on philosophy, as you claim - as my post states, he was “one of the first to attempt an explanation of the origin and evolution of the cosmos based on NATURAL LAWS” and he was “OBSERVATIONAL”, meaning he used evidence from nature to arrive at his theory of evolution.

Incidentally, it’s ironic that you should claim Anaximander based his ToE on philosophy, when most, if not all, modern-day evolutionary scientists do exactly that: Their starting point for interpreting reality is philosophical - they reject the existence of God and creation and consequently believe that microbe-man evolution is the truth; they then look for an explanation for how said evolution could have occurred, arriving at Darwinism.

Furthermore, your opinion of scientists qualifies as “seriously overrated”. These same scientists whom you claim base evolution on “observations” have somehow failed to observe that there is overwhelming evidence of design in nature and have also failed to observe that inanimate matter giving rise to life is a scientific impossibility. So it seems to me that your much esteemed scientists are either ignorant, blind and stupid, or are a pack of dishonest fools and charlatans.

this is not the position any scientist would take

Here you go again - trying to apply the rules of science to religious faith.

 

[Glark]

Evolution enjoys what’s called a convergence of evidence

Belief in Creation is based on a convergence of evidence too - inner conviction, the Bible, the teaching of the Church, evidence from nature. The evidence is not the same as scientific evidence, but is evidence nonetheless. Faith and reasoning go hand in hand.

Evolution is real.

This is really a faith statement; a belief … because you can’t test your theory that all life on earth evolved from microbes.

 

[rossum]

In this context “clay” = “material chemicals”.

rossum

 

[rossum]

Yet science admits a genetic Adam and Eve. At first they said they were hundreds of thousands of years apart. Then they said they were contemporaries but did not know each other. Maybe in a couple of years they will say they lived in the same village but were not married…

Thank you for that: “in the same village”. M-Eve and Y-Adam were not the only people alive at the time, they lived among a larger population of their species. Whether or not they were exact contemporaries, or whether they even met (Africa is a large place) is not relevant. both had descendants, and we are all their descendants of one or both of them.

rossum

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Interaction-based evolution: how natural selection and nonrandom mutation work together

Below is an outline of the main points made in this paper:

1. Mutation is the outcome of a nonrandom, biological
   process.
2. It follows that mutation combines information from
   multiple loci into one
3. Since the theory proposed here holds that mutation
   is nonrandom and combines information from
   multiple loci, it predicts that the determination of
   mutation is complex. Evidence from cryptic variance
   in the mutation rate across loci and from
   mutation-recombination hotspots is consistent with
   this prediction and has no explanation from
   traditional theory

https://biologydirect.biomedcentral...150-8-24?site=biologydirect.biomedcentral.com

It is very illuminating to look at page 43 for the review of this paper by W. Ford Doolittle.

 

[benjamin1973]

I don’t know much about Anaximander, but I know that the scientific method as we know it is a product of only the past few hundreds of years. Science as we know it is a particular philosophy about how to collect and think about information in the world.

Scientists do not “reject the existence of God and creation and consequently believe that microbe-man evolution is the truth.” They have arrived at the idea of evolution by observation and by a truly massive convergence of many kinds of evidence. They can then look through fossil records and see that as we look further and further back, fossils are more and more primitive.

You still seem to think that science is a single institution-- big-S “Science,” and that there is some conspiracy or some interest in disproving the existence of God at its root. This simply isn’t what science is, or how scientists work.

 

[benjamin1973]

benjamin1973:

Evolution enjoys what’s called a convergence of evidence

Belief in Creation is based on a convergence of evidence too - inner conviction, the Bible, the teaching of the Church, evidence from nature.

Belief in Thor, Zeus or Krshna enjoy the same kind of evidence that your beliefs do. The theory of evolution uses actual evidence: fossils, genetics, and so on. The thing about the evidence for evolution is that you don’t have to already believe in it for the evidence to be credible. If I’m not an evolutionist, the same whale skeletons still have the same 5 finger bones, and I’ll have to come up with some reason why that is the case. if I’m not a Christian, then all the faith, the stories, infallible decrees of the Pope, and everything else don’t mean the same thing to me that they do to you-- any more than stories about Zeus matter to you. You can wave the Bible and point to whatever passages you want, but they aren’t self-sufficient-- there is no convergence of evidence that a non-believe can look at and say, “Yeah. . . there we go.”

 

[Aloysium]

A soul is a religious concept

Dear reader, consider your understanding of these words. Whether or not they correspond to what I am thinking, clearly they cannot convey the intent behind them, you grasp a meaning. It flows from the perception of the screen and these symbols that appear on it. Perhaps your consciousness fixes on the thoughts, or the individual words, or a feeling to which they might give rise. I am attempting to communicate with you.

This is in our nature, to have the one headless person in the entire universe, save what we see in the mirror, connect with everything else including the Cause of all this wonder. That totality is the soul, however confused one’s thoughts might be, the person who thinks, perceives, feels and acts in relation to what is other, which includes even parts of ourselves.

There is a unity in ourselves and in our connections that is of a completely different order than that of chemistry and physics. Science itself part of that order that encompasses and utilizes matter to know and express itself in the world.

All the elements of reality are soulless.

Buddhism is not a symptom of mental illness. What this means is that there is no individual self that does not exist in relation to what is other. Even God is Triune in nature - perfect relationality - eternal and infinite Love. Additionally, things of this world do not cause themselves to exist; the universe, every element of reality derives its existence from God. Buddhism would be the opposite of materialism in both senses of the word. Things do not exist on their own and we should be selfless in our dealings with one another.

 

[Aloysium]

science adheres only to material because it can’t test spiritual things, make hypothesis, or otherwise do experimentation on spirit or soul. It can’t be detected by any tool or measurement, and so we have no reliable way of getting data on “spirit” or “soul” because by it’s nature, soul is invisible and undetectable to the senses.

Soul expresses itself through matter, and that is where science begins and ends. Nothing wrong with that.

What is referred to as the social sciences includes sociology, psychology, economics, political science, history, anthropology, archeology and linguistics, among others. There is also medicine and particularly psychiatry that deals with the person and our ailments. The quest for truth should not be limited by arbitrary restrictions. If we are to study life and mankind in particular, the doors should be open to all methods of knowledge.

As it is, evolutionary theory is a way to sneak in a materialistic (that matter is all there is) philosophical doctrine into the study of the history of life on earth, and exclude others because they are not about matter.

 

[rossum]

This is not the place to discuss Buddhism, Christianity and their different definitions of what constitutes a human being.

You cannot arbitrarily impose one of those definitions on science by fiat. Science only accepts that for which there is scientific evidence. Do you have scientific evidence for a Christian-style soul?

rossum

 

[Aloysium]

The truth is the truth. Unfortunately when we don’t listen and sit in quiet contemplation, praying for enlightenment, the Spirit’s graces of knowledge, understanding, wisdom and counsel, we go totally off track. What is obvious to reason succumbs to ideology.

 

[Aloysium]

Were the animals perfect to? Or imperfect? After all, they fell as well didn’t they?

Bunch of random thoughts:

The garden was in perfect balance. Animals, plants and lesser forms of life are meant to die. It’s the circle of life, hakuna matata; life surrendering itself to life that it may flower in all its diversity.

What we did appears to have been the bringing in of suffering, a rebellion by creation against its destiny.

I don’t know much about this stuff though. Many decades ago I read somewhere of a story that spoke of an earlier fall, possibly including that of angels that explained the existence of the serpent in the garden. But I always put that down to angels and then demons being able to take various forms.

We are meant to take care of the world, but having done damage to our relationship with God, we have become poor stewards. And nature most definitely is feeling that impact.

As the crown of creation, we are destined, in and through Jesus Christ, to bring it all into Divine communion. One may understand this as having happened, and this is all as a process of purification, where ultimately the wheat will be separated from the chaff, which will then be burned.

 

[buffalo]

Most people will not admit the limitations of science. Kudos.

Truth leads the way. Reality leads the way. Revelation leads the way.

You do believe absolute truth does exist, right?

 

[buffalo]

I think you missed my point entirely.

 

[buffalo]

And the response… This is dialogue and criticism… Good

 

[buffalo]

Sure there is. When one uses reason, evidence and logic he can find God. Once that happens keep searching.

Philosophy shows you God. Theology who He is.

Common design fits… Life has the same 500 or so conserved core elements from which the variations can be built.

 

[buffalo]

God, the uncaused cause still exists whether you believe in Him or not.

 

[buffalo]

Yes, methodological materialism is so narrow a view of all that is. I am surprised inquiring minds actually close themselves off to this.