Is Darwin's Theory Of Evolution True? Part Two

[Glark]

JP II was simply parroting the consensus opinion of the atheist-ridden Pontifical Academy of Science - which holds exactly the same consensus opinion as the atheist-ridden scientific community at large.

Guess what? Even Popes and saints can be deceived or mistaken or mislead on certain matters … such as the science of the day.

 

[Glark]

Random mutation and natural selection just doesn’t cut it.

Which is why theistic evolutionists should forget about a scientific explanation and just say “God did it.”

 

[Glark]

It’s a good thing those who found aspirin, gasoline, electricity, etc… didn’t practice hopeless fideism.

These useful things were developed on the basis of facts. Conversely, the theory that all life evolved from microbes hasn’t produced anything useful … because it is based on assumptions and imagiantion, not facts. Therein lies the difference between real science and fake science.

 

[rossum]

Lucy, whose feet bones were missing but ended up with human ones … because human foot-prints were found preserved in nearby rock. You’ve got to admire evolutionists respect for scientific rigour.

Lucy was one member of the species Australopithecus afarensis. We have more than one example of that particular species preserved, for example AL333, and we have foot bones from other members of that species. See These bones were made for walking for one example.

Did your YEC source perhaps lie by omission when it omitted to tell you that we have more than one fossil example of Lucy’s species? Why do you believe sources that lie to you?

rossum

 

[Aloysium]

Why call it random at all? The EEG that would be done to measure brain activity is not called random. It is assumed to represent the physical neurological activity of a person in deep sleep, dreaming, at rest, or thinking. Seizure activity might be called random but in the sense that it is not reflective of mental activity. I imagine it would show what was happening in the brain to cause the chaotic observed movements. When we speak of the creation of the world or of mankind we are engaged in meta-science. It sounds like you would keep it although it is wrong because it sounds scientific to think things happened by themselves, even though they don’t. God created everything out of nothing. We cannot talk about where we come from without involving him. What you believe is your business. The world seems to be in a very sad place. I believe science could move closer to Genesis if freed from certain current biases, but the theory of evolution suits the negative purposes that drive much of the suffering and injustice we see today, by presenting a distorted picture of humanity.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

What a sad indictment on the current corrupt state of the Catholic Church.

And it’s interesting that you should mention a Jesuit - the Jesuits are the most corrupt order in the Church.

You know you have gone off the rails when you have to hypothesize massive corruption within the Church to support your view.

 

[Techno2000]

Techno2000:

So, the difference between man coming out furless, and man coming out looking like Werewolves was just a 1000 miles of geographical distinct.

You concluded correctly regarding the polar bear. You seemed to understand how natural selection would operate. What more is unclear?

Is unclear why evolution didn’t provide the necessary adaptations for man to survive in cold climates, as it had supposedly done so for Polar bear.

 

[buffalo]

Explain to me again, why the evolutionary formed brain does not lie?

 

[Ender]

What you fail to consider is that the fossil record may show a somewhat irregular rate of evolutionary change just because of the incompleteness of the fossil record. So a change that might have taken a million years to come about can look catastrophic because we many of the intermediate generations did not leave enough fossils to show that each generational change was very small. There are a number of possible scenarios that can explain that aspect of the fossil record. Until you can rule them all out, the evidence you cite does not contradict evolution.

One of the well known challenges to the Darwinian theory of evolution is the Cambrian explosion: the “sudden” appearance of huge numbers of new species. Since random mutations require relatively large amounts of time to accumulate, explaining the rapid creation of new species has always been a difficulty. A second difficulty is explaining how complex structures could ever form given that until they are functional they provide no benefit to the organism. The flagella on bacteria being a classic example: either the flagellum provides propulsion or it doesn’t, but if it doesn’t - and thus doesn’t provide any benefit to the host - why would this particular “mistake” be passed along?

Challenging this theory are experiments where the genetic sequences that create the flagella were removed from bacteria…and in four days the bacteria had regenerated flagella and restored the genetic code. Darwinism really has no means of explaining this.

 

[buffalo]

Another is the ATP synthase motor.

 

[rossum]

Is unclear why evolution didn’t provide the necessary adaptations for man to survive in cold climates, as it had supposedly done so for Polar bear.

If you cannot work that out then… The key word is “environment”. What environment were the Polar Bear’s ancestors living in? What environment were man’s ancestors living in. Evolution adapts living organisms to live in their environment.

rossum

 

[rossum]

One of the well known challenges to the Darwinian theory of evolution is the Cambrian explosion: the “sudden” appearance of huge numbers of new species.

The Cambrian explosion took between 5 million and 15 million years, depending on where its boundaries are defined. You are right to put the quotes on “sudden”, some of those species ancestors already existed, but had not yet developed hard parts: teeth and shells, which fossilise very easily. For example Naraoia is a soft-bodied precursor to hard-shelled Trilobites.

A second difficulty is explaining how complex structures could ever form given that until they are functional they provide no benefit to the organism.

Professor Behe has shown that such structures can evolve within 20,000 years. See Behe and Snoke (2004). Yes, that is the same professor Behe.

Challenging this theory are experiments where the genetic sequences that create the flagella were removed from bacteria…and in four days the bacteria had regenerated flagella and restored the genetic code.

I would need to see the reference to the research paper that published this experiment. Of course, one possible explanation is that it only takes four days to evolve a flagellum from scratch.

rossum

 

[buffalo]

Better explanation: Built in programming and instruction sets allow organisms to adapt to changes in their environment within predefined limits.

 

[rossum]

Better explanation: Built in programming and instruction sets allow organisms to adapt to changes in their environment within predefined limits.

Evolution allows/forces organisms to adapt to their environments. Those predefined limits exist and are set by previous evolutionary steps: we had four-legged ancestors so we have four limbs, not six like insects.

Adaptations and limits are predicted by evolution. What do you offer that evolution does not already have?

rossum

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

What you fail to consider is that the fossil record may show a somewhat irregular rate of evolutionary change just because of the incompleteness of the fossil record. So a change that might have taken a million years to come about can look catastrophic because we many of the intermediate generations did not leave enough fossils to show that each generational change was very small. There are a number of possible scenarios that can explain that aspect of the fossil record. Until you can rule them all out, the evidence you cite does not contradict evolution.

One of the well known challenges to the Darwinian theory of evolution is the Cambrian explosion:…

It is well known, but is not a serious challenge to Darwinian evolution. It is a question of degree. How fast do species have to appear before Darwinian evolution becomes an impossible mechanism?

…given that until they are functional they provide no benefit to the organism. The flagella on bacteria being a classic example: either the flagellum provides propulsion or it doesn’t, but if it doesn’t - and thus doesn’t provide any benefit to the host - why would this particular “mistake” be passed along?

Also called the “irreducible complexity” argument. The problem with this argument is that it assumes if you can’t see the benefit of a mutation or if you do not know the intermediate forms, the no such benefit or intermediate forms could exist. Have you considered that some intermediate forms on the way to the flagellum provided some benefit besides locomotion?

Challenging this theory are experiments where the genetic sequences that create the flagella were removed from bacteria…and in four days the bacteria had regenerated flagella and restored the genetic code. Darwinism really has no means of explaining this.

Have you considered the possibility that the genetic information describing flagella were encoded in some other portion of the sequence besides the one they removed?

 

[buffalo]

Adaptation = micro-evolution.

Evolution cannot explain complex programming and purpose. It is blind and unguided.

 

[rossum]

Evolution cannot explain complex programming and purpose. It is blind and unguided.

Evolution can explain complexity. Natural selection will eliminate all dysfunctional programming. Purpose is not inherent but is external, as with my previous example of the hammer. Is its purpose to make a profit for the manufacturer or to drive in nails?

You have no real argument beyond “it sure looks designed to me”.

rossum

 

[buffalo]

Programming implies a programmer.

It sure looks designed to everyone who looks. Except it ain’t. it is NS and RM.

You are being left behind. The top evos know it and so should you.

 

[edwest211]

A very good answer. The digital code in DNA did not wait to get there, it was designed.

 

[Metis1]

I guess, but this doesn’t answer my question: can acquired characteristics be inherited, and if they can what does this mean for the Neo-Darwinian theory of evolution?

“Acquired characteristics” can be either the result of inheritance or of a mutation(s). However, even acquired characteristics can still mutate after fertilization.