B
buffalo
Guest
Yet, we now know and I posted the links that is a killer for Darwinism. Speciation is loss of function.
- Status
A
Aloysium
Guest
This was meant to be in response to Tim’s post above:
Evolution isn’t a potential. It is currently described in terms of similarities and differences in the genome of different organisms. The simpler the organism, the less complex it’s genetic make-up. The Theory is that mistakes happen in replication because nothing ever works 100%, because of radiation, toxins and viruses. There is no inherent potential in atoms and molecules to form a living creature. Something has to bring them together in order to do that. There must exist some external agency, some extraneous organizing principle acting on simple matter to establish what is the tip of the iceberg of life - the physical aspect that we can sense which is one with the actual organism being itself. In other words any nature of living things that would have the potential to change their DNA could not be their material substance. The only changes that DNA can undergo outside of those that have been coded for by the DNA, are destructive. Matter is subject to entropy. There would have to be some other influence behind the potential to change towards greater complexity. Such DNA change becoming actualized could result in adaptive change. The question then arises as to how the DNA was formed. One scenario is that it was created at once and either or both caused or allowed to change. Another is that it was built, brick by brick. In either case matter cannot do it through the processes that make it what it is. Just like Mt Rushmore, something or someone external must guide and therefore be intimately involved in its course.
Evolution isn’t a potential. It is currently described in terms of similarities and differences in the genome of different organisms. The simpler the organism, the less complex it’s genetic make-up. The Theory is that mistakes happen in replication because nothing ever works 100%, because of radiation, toxins and viruses. There is no inherent potential in atoms and molecules to form a living creature. Something has to bring them together in order to do that. There must exist some external agency, some extraneous organizing principle acting on simple matter to establish what is the tip of the iceberg of life - the physical aspect that we can sense which is one with the actual organism being itself. In other words any nature of living things that would have the potential to change their DNA could not be their material substance. The only changes that DNA can undergo outside of those that have been coded for by the DNA, are destructive. Matter is subject to entropy. There would have to be some other influence behind the potential to change towards greater complexity. Such DNA change becoming actualized could result in adaptive change. The question then arises as to how the DNA was formed. One scenario is that it was created at once and either or both caused or allowed to change. Another is that it was built, brick by brick. In either case matter cannot do it through the processes that make it what it is. Just like Mt Rushmore, something or someone external must guide and therefore be intimately involved in its course.
Last edited:
E
edwest211
Guest
A very good reply. A guiding force is required. Definitely.
B
buffalo
Guest
This did not happen before the 2nd law was enforced. Scripture records the universe was in a state of decay after the fall. This dovetails nicely with what science is finding. This decay also affects regeneration, (aka genetic entropy) and speciation is one of the results. It is a broken program.
A
Aloysium
Guest
It makes sense. This world is what we experience except for the glimmers of something far greater and rooted in love.
G
Glark
Guest
You seem to be confused - there is no evolutionary “Tree of Life”. Such a concept is nothing but a FigTree of human imagination. There are little trees, called nested hierarchies, but they are not connected to other nested hierarchies via ancestry. For example, the nested hierarchies of doggies begins with doggies and contains only “evolving” doggies. The nested hierarchy of pussy cats begins with pussy cats and contains only “evolving” pussy cats. The nested hierarchy of E. Coli begins with E. Coli and contains only “evolving” E. Coli. So the reality of life is more like an vast orchard of separate trees - not one, big single tree.
For the sake of truth and out of respect for science, your mythical Tree of Life needs to be chopped down and burnt.
Don’t say things like that. It’s very silly.
Last edited:
G
Glark
Guest
What is “fundamentalism”?
G
Glark
Guest
Saint (Padre) Pio to Father Luigi Villa, 1963: “Be brave, now…for the Church has already been invaded by Freemasonry! … Freemasonry has already made it into the loafers (shoes) of the Pope!”
Last edited:
G
Glark
Guest
Well said. But equality can be used for evil as well as good - a wolf in sheep’s clothing. Look what Communism has done in the name of equality. Same-sex marriage is a direct result of a perverse interpretation of equality. Feminism - surely one of the most destruction weapons Satan ever invented - Is an offspring of the great false of equality.
As someome wise once said, “When the devil comes along, speaking in the name of equality, who can oppose him?”
Last edited:
G
Glark
Guest
This argument is not worthy of someone of your intelligence. Sorry.
G
Glark
Guest
Well, okay - get a load of my latest theory: If you dump a million bricks on a vacant piece of land and come back in a billion years, it’s possible those bricks will have arranged themselves to form a twenty room mansion. The structure may look designed, by it wasn’t. Scientific truth is stranger than fiction!
A
anon65111186
Guest
I’d like to understand what you mean by that because it honestly sounds pretty condescending.
G
Glark
Guest
Lucky you. My brothers and I had to be content with simply a can of petrol and a box of matches.
Last edited:
G
Glark
Guest
It’s a breeze on a computer, but not so breezy on an iPad.
G
Glark
Guest
No Pope or saint is infallible on scientific matters.
Of all the many things a Catholic must believe, none of them is scientific - quite the opposite, in fact. One reason for this is, unlike divine revelation, science is not infallible and is limited to puny human intelligence.
Of all the many things a Catholic must believe, none of them is scientific - quite the opposite, in fact. One reason for this is, unlike divine revelation, science is not infallible and is limited to puny human intelligence.
G
Glark
Guest
Comparing the development of an embryo to Darwinian evolution is silly. It’s not your best work.
A
anon65111186
Guest
Forgive me, I was illustrating that there is potential for change existing in different ways, programmed and unprogrammed. Both are guided though by God. That is my belief, even though the guidance part is extra-scientific.
R
rossum
Guest
Once again the creationism ‘analogy’ fails to include natural selection. Your analogy is useless because evolution includes natural selection and your bricks do not.
rossum
T
Techno2000
Guest
And at no time was it ever not fully functional.edwest211:
Well, okay - get a load of my latest theory: If you dump a million bricks on a vacant piece of land and come back in a billion years, it’s possible those bricks will have arranged themselves to form a twenty room mansion. The structure may look designed, by it wasn’t. Scientific truth is stranger than fiction!
I agree.
Without some form of intelligence driving, you will never get there.
- Status