Is Darwin's Theory Of Evolution True? Part Two

  • Thread starter Thread starter Techno2000
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
The belief was that enough RM with selection acting on them is the best explanation. No more. It is crashing as we see the programming and integration of the cell factories. The instruction set is immense.

Most everyone now sees a better explanation is needed. Bye Bye neo-Darwinism. It is wrong.

So the question becomes - Why are so many clutching to an old paradigm?
 
Last edited:
LeafByNiggle said:
What experiment, verified by other scientists, shows that a characteristic that was acquired though experiences of one organism was inherited by its offspring? I can see many ways such an experiment might be set up incorrectly and give the impression that such inheritance was happening. That is why I ask for one that has been verified by others.
Click to expand...
I read one of his papers and listened to another presentation; I haven’t researched his work. He’s a Fellow of the Royal Society and has been working in this field for decades. I’m sure if you can think of ways such experiments could lead to false impressions, so can he.

I’ll ask you the same question I posed to Metis1: Noble claims that acquired characteristics can be inherited; if that is true what would it imply about the Neo-Darwinian theory of evolution?
 
Last edited:
To repeat what was stated in my quote, I’m not debunking the evidence of what appears in the fossil record, but rather its interpretation, the modern mythos that is being passed as fact. Here’s my alternative view on the matter of our creation, published on CAF. Credibility is decided by the reader; hopefully it is intelligible.

Life covers the planet, individual organisms together forming an environment rooted in the elements of the earth and energized by the sun, a hierarchy of increasing complexity from the subatomic to we ourselves, capable of knowing Love.

The creation of the world brought into existence by the Word of God, happens from eternity and temporary began in steps. Today we imagine matter developing from a formless plasma, which was divided into quantum events, in turn melding to become atoms, grown in the blazing hearth of stars throughout ballooning space-time. Being of greater complexity utilizes simpler components that have their own individual characteristics. Made of atoms, one-celled creatures demonstrate a higher level of being, whole in themselves and each comprised of a complex matrix of chemical interactions. These we refer to as matter, and the being into which they are subsumed is its soul. Multicellular organisms which followed are similarly a new creation, and not merely the result of random chemical events. These new creatures possess tissues of different types of cell that provide them with the various functions, which work together and allow it to live as part of its environment. The physical form is the lowest, simplest level of being, elements which may individually exist independently, but come together in the building of something greater. There is an ontological structure to the world which came into being temporally, with the manifestations of being that inhabit each new, higher level of complexity comprised of those belonging to that which is previous and lower.

Worms did not appear as the result of the errors that happened starting with prokaryotes and accumulating over hundred of millions of years. Single-cell creatures possess the capacity to change on reproduction and thereby adapt to different environments. An organism like a worm is a distinct whole in itself, having its specific instinctive qualities and physical form that are far more elaborately constructed than microscopic life and plants. Mammals are moreover complex living forms, whose nature is not derived from simpler organisms. And, we are as different from mammals as a giraffe is to an acacia tree.

The person is a new creature, brought into existence as revealed in Genesis. Our bodies are the tip of that iceberg, which is directly observable by the senses and their technological extensions. How God formed us, I believe is knowable. Science, which allows us to see shadows of what is, may be able to confirm the truth as it has with the theory of the big bang, but it mustn’t succumb to bias.
 
Last edited:
Techno2000 said:
How did getting rid of the fur help man in cold climates ?
Click to expand...
At the time fur loss evolved our ancestors did not live in cold climates. Was that really so difficult to work out?

Cold-adapted humans have a thicker layer of fat and relatively shorter limbs to reduce heat loss. They have also developed the use of animal furs as insulation.

rossum
 
rossum said:
40.png
Techno2000:
How did getting rid of the fur help man in cold climates ?
Click to expand...
At the time fur loss evolved our ancestors did not live in cold climates. Was that really so difficult to work out?

Cold-adapted humans have a thicker layer of fat and relatively shorter limbs to reduce heat loss. They have also developed the use of animal furs as insulation.

rossum
Click to expand...
So my stubby-legged, fat, Northern European butt lying in a blanket is just the way I am supposed to be.

Honey, come read this!
 
buffalo said:
The belief was that enough RM with selection acting on them is the best explanation. No more. It is crashing as we see the programming and integration of the cell factories. The instruction set is immense.

Most everyone now sees a better explanation is needed. Bye Bye neo-Darwinism. It is wrong.

So the question becomes - Why are so many clutching to an old paradigm?
Click to expand...
Yes good question.
https://www.ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/JP961022.HTM
  1. Taking into account the scientific research of the era, and also the proper requirements of theology, the encyclical Humani Generis treated the doctrine of “evolutionism” as a serious hypothesis, worthy of investigation and serious study, alongside the opposite hypothesis. Pius XII added two methodological conditions for this study: one could not adopt this opinion as if it were a certain and demonstrable doctrine, and one could not totally set aside the teaching Revelation on the relevant questions. He also set out the conditions on which this opinion would be compatible with the Christian faith—a point to which I shall return.
Today, more than a half-century after the appearance of that encyclical, some new findings lead us toward the recognition of evolution as more than an hypothesis.* In fact it is remarkable that this theory has had progressively greater influence on the spirit of researchers, following a series of discoveries in different scholarly disciplines. The convergence in the results of these independent studies—which was neither planned nor sought—constitutes in itself a significant argument in favor of the theory.
Click to expand...
That’s St John Paul 2 talking about science, and specifically the branch investigating evolution.
 
Last edited:
buffalo said:
Many areas of a hard drive are used for storage and rarely used. But when they are needed the data is fetched. Most hard drives look the same. The programming is the difference. So no, it is no longer a good case for common descent.
Click to expand...
This “hard drive” analogy proves nothing. The similarities in the DNA sequences between chimps and humans are not all present in earthworm DNA or oyster DNA or many other DNA sequences. Since we know that DNA sequences are generally copied in procreation, similarities between some species but not between others suggests common ancestry. And of course if you read “Why Evolution is True” by Jerry Coyne you would understand how all the evidence stacks up. But since you have closed you mind to this evidence, I guess you will never see it.
buffalo said:
Adaptations…
Click to expand...
A rose by any other name is still evolution.
buffalo said:
Hmm - God, Garden of Eden, fig leaves…
Click to expand...
I don’t think a few fig leaves would keep a person warm in Northern Europe. But of course this does not address the argument you quoted.
 
Last edited:
buffalo said:
We do not do science by consensus or authority.

It only takes one scientist with a major finding to overturn an entire paradigm.

This is what is happening now.
Click to expand...
One untrained guy who thinks he understands biology might think he has overturned an entire paradigm, but it usually turns out to be a mistake. Expertise in the field does count.
 
goout said:
Today, more than a half-century after the appearance of that encyclical, some new findings lead us toward the recognition of evolution as more than an hypothesis.* In fact it is remarkable that this theory has had progressively greater influence on the spirit of researchers, following a series of discoveries in different scholarly disciplines. The convergence in the results of these independent studies—which was neither planned nor sought—constitutes in itself a significant argument in favor of the theory.
Click to expand...
This can only be seen as an ironic statement given the even newer new findings talked about here.

Loading…

evo2.org

This was the crux of the meeting: for most of a century evolutionary biology has ignored the profound sensitivity and responsiveness of organisms in real time. Lamarck was right 200 years ago… despite literally being laughed out of the academy for most of the 20th century…

Whether this claim turns out to be true or not, the fact that such a position was even considered presentable at the British Royal Society represents a real paradigm shift in the thinking about evolution.
 
That’s nonsense. It was once believed that flies were the result of dirty clothes. No eggs, just the clothes.
 
LeafByNiggle said:
The purpose of the observation of DNA is similarity is not to support a claim of similar phenotype, but to support a claim for common ancestry. Similar DNA, even if that DNA codes for nothing in the phenotype, is strong evidence of common descent, which was all that was being argued here.
Click to expand...
Evolution is of course not the only way to wrap that information into a story.

Clearly all life has certain characteristics that are common, such as being made up of matter and existing in time and space, incorporating what is “outside” to construct what is “inside” and reproduction. More complex forms of life are made up of tissues with specialized functions. Plants possess leaves, stems and branches, stamens and pistils. Animals have hearts, bones, muscles, brains and instincts through which they perceive and interpret the world, differentiating food, from a mate or what is a danger, and physically behave in their environment. We have an eternal soul, act as frames of reference within the universe, and are able to love through our having a free will.

Random mutation and natural selection just doesn’t cut it.
 
Very good point. And why bother with cold climates at all when you came from a Temperate climate? No sense.
 
Techno2000 said:
So, the difference between man coming out furless, and man coming out looking like Werewolves was just a 1000 miles of geographical distinct.
Click to expand...
You concluded correctly regarding the polar bear. You seemed to understand how natural selection would operate. What more is unclear?
 
Metis1 said:
Matter of fact, the basic ToE stands to even just plain old common sense, namely that all matter appears to change over time and genes are made up of matter. The “miracle” would truly be if genes did not evolve because they’d be likely the lone exception.
Click to expand...
Matter is what our sense perceive. What constitutes a person is so much more. Matter changes in accordance with the properties that define it. It does not become something else although the individual constitutents of any organism are unified into the one whole being that is even the smallest organism or the unity that is the person.

That the Theory of evolution is nonsense is proven every time the X-ray technician leaves the room to turn the switch rather than staying in order to have smarter and stronger kids.
 
Aloysium said:
40.png
LeafByNiggle:
The purpose of the observation of DNA is similarity is not to support a claim of similar phenotype, but to support a claim for common ancestry. Similar DNA, even if that DNA codes for nothing in the phenotype, is strong evidence of common descent, which was all that was being argued here.
Click to expand...
Evolution is of course not the only way to wrap that information into a story.

Clearly all life has certain characteristics that are common, such as being made up of matter and existing in time and space, incorporating what is “outside” to construct what is “inside” and reproduction. More complex forms of life are made up of tissues with specialized functions. Plants possess leaves, stems and branches, stamens and pistils. Animals have hearts, bones, muscles, brains and instincts through which they perceive and interpret the world, differentiating food, from a mate or what is a danger, and physically behave in their environment. We have an eternal soul, act as frames of reference within the universe, and are able to love through our having a free will.

Random mutation and natural selection just doesn’t cut it.
Click to expand...
It is funny how you can write so much true by irrelevant stuff, and then follow it up with a concluding sentence that absolutely does not follow from anything you previously wrote.
 
goout said:
So my stubby-legged, fat, Northern European butt lying in a blanket is just the way I am supposed to be.
Click to expand...
The way you are “supposed to be?” What does that mean? It may be the way you are. It may well serve you well.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top