Is Darwin's Theory Of Evolution True? Part Two

  • Thread starter Thread starter Techno2000
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
buffalo said:
Next thing you know, science will claim they lived in the same village…
Click to expand...
Which will have almost no impact on the theory of evolution. nDNA shows that they did indeed live in a village, along with many others of the same species who were also scattered across large parts of Africa.

Due to the way mitochondria and Y-chromosomes are inherited, we can work back to a single source. The same is not true for the overwhelming majority of human DNA, which is inherited from both parents and has multiple sources.

Once again, your imperfect knowledge of evolution is leading you into error.

rossum
 
ChunkMonk said:
There’s a deep wisdom in this question that those who are mocking you are too simplistic to understand.
Click to expand...
There is a deep lack of knowledge from which this question arises. “If I came from my grandparents, why are my grandparents still around?” “If I came from my parents, why are my parents still around?”

rossum
 
How does a creature with as-yet useless mutations compete with ‘optimized’ creatures who will, at least for the first generations, be competing for the same resources?
 
Very interesting. I’ll read that and get back to you. Good to know others are asking the same questions I am.
 
Techno2000 said:
The anglerfish has a specialized illuminated fishing lure that it uses to attract prey… how did the anglerfish survive waiting for evolution to evolve this lure ?
Click to expand...
Did you see those teeth? Lol.
 
Ah, I see. Yes, the immediate ancestors are at a competitive disadvantage, but there is not just one population in one locality competing for one set of resources. Geographic separation would allow another line to live on. If all the apes had lived in one big colony, cross-breeding would have prevented two lines from diverging, though the one line could drift (evolve) as it adapts better to the environment.
 
Last edited:
The way to jump put of this never ending circle is to focus on epigenetic programming and the language of DNA.

Some will draw you back into the neo-Darwinian paradigm and try to convince you that this could all happen by NS and RM, through blind unguided chance.

When one studies the intricate cell factory the engineering is so obvious.

What makes it all run? The program., the language, the plan…

That means there is the divine programmer. Don’t get stuck in the old paradigm.
 
Perhaps it didn’t start off in the dark and eventually went deeper into the ocean along with its prey over time. Since natural selection is about a change in the environment.

But I see your point in the overall picture though. I don’t see how in principle life could have evolved into these complex creatures from random chemicals on its own without some kind of design behind it.

It could be that God created the natural building blocks and mechanisms of change in order for an evolution of life to even be possible.

I think I see how the mechanism of evolution can possibly work in theory once those building blocks and mechanisms are already in place. But it would be an incredible miracle of miracles should those mechanisms have come into place on their own unaided. Or in other words we can see how adaptation works once we see how dna and reproduction works. But what we can’t see is how you could get to the point where adaptation is even possible without a guiding hand to create those necessary building blocks like dna. Even the cell is a mystery.
 
Last edited:
Programming of Life video
Recommended! More good material. Denying design is most difficult nowadays.

Thanks to the Programming of Life folks the full video is available online. Teachers, look it over and ask the tough questions.​

“Programming of Lifehttp://programmingoflife.com/programming-of-life/ is a 45 minute documentary created to engage our scientific community in order to encourage forward thinking. It looks into scientific theories “scientifically”. It examines the heavy weight theory of origins, the chemical and biological theory of evolution, and asks the extremely difficult questions in order to reveal undirected natural process for what it is – a hindrance to true science.
This video and the book it was inspired by Joe Miano (Programming of Life) is about science and it is our hope that it will be evaluated based on scientific principals and not philosophical beliefs.” (courtesy of PofL website)

Pay attention at 24 minute mark… genetic piano anyone. This is simply a fascinating video that believers and doubters must see.
 
Last edited:
Apes and humans do live in the same ecosystem now. The storytelling involved in promoting this theory is very, very imaginative.

www.sciencedaily.com

Last common ancestor of humans and apes weighed about five kilograms

New research suggests that the last common ancestor of apes -- including great apes and humans -- was much smaller than previously thought, about the size of a gibbon. The findings, published today in the journal Nature Communications, are fundamental to understanding the evolution of the human...
www.sciencedaily.com
 
The promotion and marketing effort cannot afford to end here and everywhere until ALL believe - nothing but a story. A story that has no useful purpose.
 
  1. The Development of Life on Earth is an historical event. In principle, it is no different than studying the battle of Agincourt. The problem with the kind of argument you present here is this: it is quite possible that certain organs favored natural selection in a different manner in a less developed form. Like some ancient battle we only have a fraction of the historical evidence.
  2. Darwin spoke of natural selection not Evolution. Spencer’s philosophy coined the term Evolution and Darwin only used it in the last editions of his famous work. This may be just a question of terms but it also may indicate that the discussion is a philosophical one not a scientific one. Specifically, whether causation is teleological. cf. Nagel’s book or better E. Gilson’s From Aristotle to Darwin…
  3. The problem with ID then is you are playing with their rules. Conceding the game before it starts.
  4. Two articles of Faith are relevant. God creates each human soul directly and the soul is the form of the body. No human soul no human. You are entirely free, as a Catholic, to believe that God directly created the bodies of our first parents but it is a private judgement. And you face the same problem with that mean looking fish. It’s an historical event. Short of Revelation it is impossible to know.
  5. The purpose of Revelation is to give us knowledge necessary or helpful to our salvation.
 
I watched the video. It is informative and nicely produced. Near the end, I think they misrepresented the probability of life forming spontaneously. Of course we don’t believe that a complex cell could form from disorganized matter in one mind-bogglingly improbable step. It is thought to have happened in some number of steps, each having a significant probability such that the chain of events is feasible.

Now, the truth is that scientists don’t know exactly how the earliest life began, but they would have to assume that the first living matter must have been much simpler than any living thing today. Once it acquired a certain set of functions – containment (or at least aggregation), metabolism, and reproduction – then evolution by mutations and natural selection could begin, leading gradually to more complex systems.
 
Last edited:
That is the primary purpose but it also provides us with literal facts. Original Sin is in all of us and after The Fall, Jesus Christ had to be born and He showed us what God could do without using science. We would have no salvation without Him.

"Adam and Eve: Real People

"It is equally impermissible to dismiss the story of Adam and Eve and the fall (Gen. 2–3) as a fiction. A question often raised in this context is whether the human race descended from an original pair of two human beings (a teaching known as monogenism) or a pool of early human couples (a teaching known as polygenism).

"In this regard, Pope Pius XII stated: “When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains either that after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parents of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents. Now, it is in no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the teaching authority of the Church proposed with regard to original sin which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam in which through generation is passed onto all and is in everyone as his own” (Humani Generis 37).

“The story of the creation and fall of man is a true one, even if not written entirely according to modern literary techniques. The Catechism states, “The account of the fall in Genesis 3 uses figurative language, but affirms a primeval event, a deed that took place at the beginning of the history of man. Revelation gives us the certainty of faith that the whole of human history is marked by the original fault freely committed by our first parents” (CCC 390).”
  • Catholic Answers
 
Last edited:
There is no explanation for more complex systems. Single-celled life could be all there is, but it “somehow” self-upgraded? Without guidance?
 
Where did the programming come from?

The odds of one protein folding correctly is astronomical.
 
ColdComfort1 said:
he purpose of Revelation is to give us knowledge necessary or helpful to our salvation.
Click to expand...
How exactly do we know this? In areas where Revelation and human knowledge intersect is one false? Or is your claim that scripture goes to great lengths to make sure it does not record anything scientific?
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top