C
ColdComfort1
Guest
I agree with every thing you have written. My points were only directed to the origins of animal bodies including ours.
- Status
R
RandomAlias
Guest
Single-celled organisms were very successful. They ruled the earth for billions of years. In a way, they still do. Did you know that the human body contains more bacterial cells than human cells?
R
RandomAlias
Guest
Well, it didn’t come about all at once.
Some small proteins fold spontaneously in laboratory conditions. The scientist can, by changing the temperature, pH, or salt concentration, make the protein unfold and later refold. Not many large, complex proteins can do this. I guess the first proteins, or whatever chain-like molecule preceded proteins, were small enough to do that, under the right conditions.
Some small proteins fold spontaneously in laboratory conditions. The scientist can, by changing the temperature, pH, or salt concentration, make the protein unfold and later refold. Not many large, complex proteins can do this. I guess the first proteins, or whatever chain-like molecule preceded proteins, were small enough to do that, under the right conditions.
Last edited:
C
ColdComfort1
Guest
Truth cannot contradict truth. Scripture is speaking to all men and women in history. I find it reasonable that Genesis is written in a manner understandable to the people of the time it was written and to us and everyone in between. That is one argument as to why we need a divinely inspired Church. If the origins of animal bodies were necessary to our salvation she would have said so. She has not.
E
edwest211
Guest
The Church has made many comments about evolution. First, man is not an animal. And most important, our first parents had souls and special, preternatural gifts given to them by God, including immortality.
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
Another example of intuitive appeal to a claim that can only be supported by a hard numbers. “Astronomical” is not a hard number.
B
buffalo
Guest
OK… The odds of a correct 3D fold are astronomical. Not just any folding, a meaningful fold. There are trillions of ways a protein can fold. Only a few are useful.
B
buffalo
Guest
The Case Against a Darwinian Origin of Protein Folds
Abstract
Four decades ago, several scientists suggested that the impossibility of any evolutionary process sampling anything but a miniscule fraction of the possible protein sequences posed a problem for the evolution of new proteins. This potential problem-the sampling problem-was largely ignored, in part because those who raised it had to rely on guesswork to fill some key gaps in their understanding of proteins. The huge advances since that time call for a careful reassessment of the issue they raised. Focusing specifically on the origin of new protein folds, I argue here that the sampling problem remains. The difficulty stems from the fact that new protein functions, when analyzed at the level of new beneficial phenotypes, typically require multiple new protein folds, which in turn require long stretches of new protein sequence. Two conceivable ways for this not to pose an insurmountable barrier to Darwinian searches exist. One is that protein function might generally be largely indifferent to protein sequence. The other is that relatively simple manipulations of existing genes, such as shuffling of genetic modules, might be able to produce the necessary new folds. I argue that these ideas now stand at odds both with known principles of protein structure and with direct experimental evidence. If this is correct, the sampling problem is here to stay, and we should be looking well outside the Darwinian framework for an adequate explanation of fold origins.
http://bio-complexity.org/ojs/index.php/main/article/view/BIO-C.2010.1
Therefore, while it is effectively impossible to stumble upon a particular 1-in-10
^390 protein sequence by chance, the likelihood of stumbling upon
a particular protein function by chance will be m -fold higher, where
m represents the multiplicity of sequences capable of performing that function.
and
In order to accomplish this successfully, an evolutionary search would need to be capable of locating sequences that amount to anything from one in 10^
159 to one in 10^308 possibilities 15 , something the neo-Darwinian model
falls short of by a very wide margin.
Abstract
Four decades ago, several scientists suggested that the impossibility of any evolutionary process sampling anything but a miniscule fraction of the possible protein sequences posed a problem for the evolution of new proteins. This potential problem-the sampling problem-was largely ignored, in part because those who raised it had to rely on guesswork to fill some key gaps in their understanding of proteins. The huge advances since that time call for a careful reassessment of the issue they raised. Focusing specifically on the origin of new protein folds, I argue here that the sampling problem remains. The difficulty stems from the fact that new protein functions, when analyzed at the level of new beneficial phenotypes, typically require multiple new protein folds, which in turn require long stretches of new protein sequence. Two conceivable ways for this not to pose an insurmountable barrier to Darwinian searches exist. One is that protein function might generally be largely indifferent to protein sequence. The other is that relatively simple manipulations of existing genes, such as shuffling of genetic modules, might be able to produce the necessary new folds. I argue that these ideas now stand at odds both with known principles of protein structure and with direct experimental evidence. If this is correct, the sampling problem is here to stay, and we should be looking well outside the Darwinian framework for an adequate explanation of fold origins.
http://bio-complexity.org/ojs/index.php/main/article/view/BIO-C.2010.1
Therefore, while it is effectively impossible to stumble upon a particular 1-in-10
^390 protein sequence by chance, the likelihood of stumbling upon
a particular protein function by chance will be m -fold higher, where
m represents the multiplicity of sequences capable of performing that function.
and
In order to accomplish this successfully, an evolutionary search would need to be capable of locating sequences that amount to anything from one in 10^
159 to one in 10^308 possibilities 15 , something the neo-Darwinian model
falls short of by a very wide margin.
Last edited:
A
anon65111186
Guest
It survived the same way other fish in a similar environment did.
This thread is an interesting and informative one, and I believe it proves one thing clearly, that (charitable) adversarial debate can help us come closer to the truth.
Beliefs are challenged, assumptions are questioned, we think differently afterwards and are better prepared for the next thing.
On evolution, I will quote Pope Emeritus Benedict and his words on the topic, because he says he partially believes Darwin’s theories.
“I would not depend on faith alone to explain the whole picture”
“science has narrowed the way life’s origins are understood”
“Christians should take a broader approach to the question.”
“I do not adopt a strictly scientific view of the origins if life, believing instead that God created life through evolution.”
"I do not endorse the creationist, or ‘intelligent design’ view of life’s origins.
“Science has opened up large dimensions of reason…and thus brought us new insights.”
“But in the joy at the extent of its discoveries, it tends to take away from us dimensions of reason that we still need. Its results lead to questions that go beyond its methodical canon and cannot be answered within it.”
To Emeritus Benedict, the evolution debate is actually about “the great fundamental questions of philosophy - where man and the world came from and where they are going.”
Benedict wrote a book “Creation and Evolution” and defended ‘theistic evolution’, and said science need not clash with faith over this.
The Pope said the debate between creationism and evolution was an “absurdity,” saying that evolution can coexist with faith.
“This clash is an absurdity because on one hand there is much scientific proof in favor of evolution, which appears as a reality that we must see and which enriches our understanding of life and being as such.”
He said evolution did not answer all the questions: “Above all it does not answer the great philosophical question, ‘Where does everything come from?’”
Last edited:
B
buffalo
Guest
see post #8 and 15. …
Last edited:
R
Rau
Guest
Perhaps you could be encouraged to elaborate on the deep wisdom?
R
Rau
Guest
Is this something that ought to be incorporated into the science of biology? How would you do that?
A
anon65111186
Guest
I did, and watched the video. Thank you for that. I see that your quotes and my quotes of Pope Benedict are consistent.
It seems that Benedict is saying neither science nor faith excludes the other. He believes in part of Darwins theory, and that both faith and evolution can coexist.
I see that nearly everyone here espousing anti-evolution as rejecting the theory outright, due to some mysterious and unexplained connection to Satan and his fallen angels.
The scientific method is limited, and so it requires philosophy and our faith to enlighten us.
It seems that Benedict is saying neither science nor faith excludes the other. He believes in part of Darwins theory, and that both faith and evolution can coexist.
I see that nearly everyone here espousing anti-evolution as rejecting the theory outright, due to some mysterious and unexplained connection to Satan and his fallen angels.
The scientific method is limited, and so it requires philosophy and our faith to enlighten us.
Last edited:
B
buffalo
Guest
Yeah, I am really getting tired of methodological naturalism and its limited say about the universe.
B
buffalo
Guest
We are mostly on the same page. The problem with theistic evolution is it makes God a bit player after creation. He is active.
R
Rau
Guest
Which is why the debate gives me a chuckle - such passionate assertion of positions (eg. That all life on earth was created in a 6 day period, 5778 years ago) that are contrary to the great weight of evidence and which are of no relevance to our salvation.
I think many have a need to believe that God’s initial life-creating acts were tangible, dramatic and explicit - and they need science to confirm that - so that no man could possibly deny God.
Last edited:
T
Techno2000
Guest
Did evolution know Man was going to invent clothes to survive in his environment ?
R
Rau
Guest
now that’s just silly…
E
edwest211
Guest
Obviously. An unguided process, given millions of years, can cook up anything, including the human brain and human creativity.
- Status