Is Darwin's Theory Of Evolution True? Part Two

[Glark]

would you let an atheist surgeon save your life…?

Since an atheist can be trusted with say, heart surgery, an atheist can be trusted to explain the origins of life? Sorry, this is poor and rather naive reasoning.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

goout:

would you let an atheist surgeon save your life…?

Since an atheist can be trusted with say, heart surgery, an atheist can be trusted to explain the origins of life. Sory, this is poor and rather naive reasoning.

The reasoning makes sense because the basis for mistrusting an atheist about science is ill-founded, regardless if that science is heart surgery or genetics.

 

[Glark]

It might have been in the Catechism (CCC) that I read that the Church believes that atheism (“Man is the measure of all things”) will be the last great heresy of mankind. I’ll have to look that up. The theory of evolutiion fits in perfectly with such a heresy.

 

[Glark]

So, going by what you say above, I must assume that you think that Pope Francis is an atheist because he says there’s evidence that we are a by-product of an evolutionary process

I have absolutely no idea why you would assume that.

If you don’t believe me, then maybe google it and see for yourself.

You claim to know a lot about fossils. Do you have a PhD in palaeontology and how many decades have you spent studying actual fossils - as opposed to simply reading other people’s opinions on them? Literally millions of fossils have been discovered - what percentage of them have you personally examined?

 

[Glark]

I’d agree. The evidence appears to be that He used evolutionary processes in the creation of living things. I believe he’s capable of that too

I agree that God could have used an evolutionary process to create life. But as for the “evidence” that such a process was indeed used, I’m not convinced.

 

[Glark]

Evolution has no practical scientific value.

… which begs the question: Why is a useless theory preached on a global scale with fanatical, quasi-religious fervour? The answer - whatever it is - obviously has nothing to do with science.

 

[Glark]

Astronauts that work in space for prolonged periods in zero or near zero gravity experience measurable biological changes that are not good.

Evenutally, astronauts will evolve the ability to breath in space without any artificial aids. This might come in the form of “space gills”.

 

[Glark]

It seems a whole bunch of posters have not fully considered the links I have provided and how the modern synthesis is falling. They are putting their heads in the sand.

I think the evolutionist “head in the sand” approach has been in use for about 150 years.

 

[Glark]

The reasoning makes sense because the basis for mistrusting an atheist about science is ill-founded, regardless if that science is heart surgery or genetics.

But the science of evolution involves more than science. Since the science of genetics is linked to the science of evoluion, the science of genetics is subject to Darwinist “spin” - as is any sphere of science linked to evolution.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

The reasoning makes sense because the basis for mistrusting an atheist about science is ill-founded, regardless if that science is heart surgery or genetics.

But the science of evolution involves more than science.

The basic theory minus any philosophical implications does not involve anything that would disqualify an atheist.

 

[Metis1]

No, actually it is now found to be around 70%.

Which is the last figure I had.

 

[Metis1]

Well, with their minds firmly made up that evolution is a fact, scientists look for “evidence” to support that a priori position.

That’s not how we work, so I’m just going to stop here.

 

[Metis1]

Does it bother scientists when these “almost human” skulls are accompanied by arm bones that are longer than the leg bones?

No, because we appear to have come from tree-dwellers originally, so the early human finds, such as “Lucy”, do have proportionally longer arms than what we see with our later forms.

 

[Metis1]

Even the village idiot can see that the differences between humans and chimps are much greater than 2%.

Why the sarcasm? If this is a reflection of your personality, then I have no desire to continue any discussion with you whatsoever.

To your point, just because a difference in the genotype is only 2%, what comes out in the phenotype can appear to be greater. However, with that being said, we are in essence a largely hairless large-brained ape.

 

[Metis1]

How He did this is revealed Genesis and understood by the the grace of the Holy Spirit, individually and as a community of the faithful. Pope Francis is trying to evangelize and speak to people who have very different views than those held by the Catholic Church; in doing so I find he is frequently misquoted and definitely misunderstood.

Even though he’s not a scientist per se, PF actually is quite intelligent along those lines, which one can read even in his book on climate change. Not only has he said that there’s evidence for evolution, this also is mentioned in the “Catechism of the Catholic Church”. The basic ToE in no way negates theistic causation.

Growing up in a fundamentalist Protestant church, the first time I ran across a Christian who accepted evolution was from a Catholic priest, plus when doing my undergrad work I took two classes on Catholic theology, and that Jesuit professor covered that as well with the position being that there was no conflict as long as it’s understood that God was behind it all…

 

[Metis1]

Evolution has no practical scientific value.

Not true as the study of the evolution of bacteria and viruses and cancer cells is just one area whereas it has helped us medically.

 

[Metis1]

You claim to know a lot about fossils. Do you have a PhD in palaeontology and how many decades have you spent studying actual fossils - as opposed to simply reading other people’s opinions on them? Literally millions of fossils have been discovered - what percentage of them have you personally examined?

I has have a graduate degree in anthropology and taught the subject for 30 years. The only fossil that I personally held in my hand was a roughly 6 foot dinosaur rib.

Again, if sarcasm is your m.o., then I have no interest in reading your posts.

 

[Ender]

Chimpanzee? - no more

The chimp human paradigm is gone. Less than 70% similar…

Chimpanzee? IDvolution.org: Chimpanzee? - no more

I have more if you need it.

Yes, I would like to see other sources. However valid their conclusions may be, the fact that the assertion is made by a creationist web site makes it unusable as proof for someone who rejects creationism out of hand.

You also said this was a report of a Royal Society meeting, but I couldn’t find anything in the document verifying that. It looks like a report of an “environmental evolution” group, which again, while it might be valid, carries much less weight than the Royal Society.

 

[buffalo]

Lucy has been debunked.

 

[Ender]

To your point, just because a difference in the genotype is only 2%, what comes out in the phenotype can appear to be greater. However, with that being said, we are in essence a largely hairless large-brained ape.

I wonder just how accurate this claim is. The genetic similarity may be high, but that may not capture where the real differences lie.

Most of the big differences between human and chimpanzee DNA lie in regions that do not code for genes, according to a new study. Instead, they may contain DNA sequences that control how gene-coding regions are activated and read. (Science Daily)

If this is so then it seems a bit misleading to suggest humans differ little from chimpanzees when the real differences lie in other areas of our DNA that were not considered.

“The differences between chimps and humans are not in our proteins, but in how we use them,” said Katherine Pollard, assistant professor at the UC Davis Genome Center and the Department of Statistics.