M
Maximilian75
Guest
yes hahaha I wholeheartedly agree
- Status
R
rossum
Guest
No, I am not kidding. Brains that do not work well enough to survive are eliminated by natural selection. Only brains that work well enough to survive will have their genes passed on to the following generations.
I was also not kidding when I asked you to show us your calculation of odds, which I see you have so far failed to show. Did you perhaps find out that they were faulty calculations, because they omitted natural selection, as I suspected they did?
rossum
B
Bradskii
Guest
Excellent question, Tim. But a quick heads up…don’t expect a reasonable answer. The knowledge of the subject from some quarters is virtually non-existant. But I await it eagerly.
We have an excellent education system in Australia, so I guess Glark was home schooled.
R
rossum
Guest
Yes we can. Lenski has done so, his E. coli Long-term Experiment is up to 50,000 generations of bacteria.
rossum
R
Rau
Guest
You don’t think God could arrange such an evolution? Do you need him to create in some other explicit, dramatic manner? Whose creation is it?
A
Aloysium
Guest
The work of proteins results from their configuration, their shape.
This fact deals the fatal blow to Darwinistic ideas of randomness. Any change in the DNA will result in changes in the mRNA and then to the protein for which it codes.
If the protein carries an abnormality as a result of stuff not aways happening with 99 % reliablity, a virus or chemical toxin, it will not assume the form necessary to act as an enzyme, a neurotransmitter or hormone, a receptor, an antibody, a structural element - actin, to cause movement - myosin, to store and transport molecules - ferritin.
A long list of genetic disorders result from spontaneous mutations of the genome.
To say that randomness is behind what we observe in nature flies in the face of reality. Failing to budge until one has “hard numbers” where none should be expected is to close one’s mind to what is there.
A
Aloysium
Guest
No offence intended to anyone here because it reflects not so much individuals, but a contradiction of our times. The question that comes to mind has to do with how can we discuss evolution without, at least as as far as I have read, ever once mentioning sex.
That’s why all of us are here, why all around us, this diversity exists. That’s what we mean when we speak of ancestors.
Sex is amazing. And, that is why all the prohibitions; separated from love, it leads to ruin.
We are clearly here because our forebears survived long enough to meet and have children. And, all this exists on a physical plane, with the genome of crucial importance in that regard. But, in addition to what else is being discovered and reframed about how the genome works as part of a living system, there also exist a psychology, or more to the point a unity of being that holds the physical form, making it what it is in reality and allowing it to relate to other forms of being.
In terms of what brings animals together to mate, beauty is clearly an element, perhaps the most important. Even if the attraction is purely about the fittest physical structure, it is the beauty of it it that draws the mating pair together. As proof, I offer the angler fish mentioned above, to consider how like bats, it lives in the darkness, where visual beauty is the faintest of veils.
Rather than natural selection being the primary shaper of diversity, it is pleasure and fear where animals are concerned. Freud trying to formulate a science of the mind, postulated the existence of Eros and Thanatos as the two basic instincts underlying nature. This didn’t go far, I imagine, because its existence cannot be explained using the common modern metaphor, and it is inconsistent with a material view of life. The gorilla male accumulates a harem and fights off contenders; the females, even though considerably smaller, do pick and choose which group they will be part of. to feel protected, themselves and their kids. For human beings there also exists a beauty of the mind or of the heart that we seek in a mate, in addition to other worldly possibilities that may actually lead us astray. For birds, it may be a seductive dance, a sweeter melody than the others, the deep blueness and intricacy of the patterns on a fantail. Instincts are crucial not only to the survival of a species but, I would argue, also to its formation. The instincts of the animal govern its ability to recognize the difference between something to be avoided, eaten or to fight or mate with. A Dream Weaver offers us creation as a manifestation of His Glory.
That’s why all of us are here, why all around us, this diversity exists. That’s what we mean when we speak of ancestors.
Sex is amazing. And, that is why all the prohibitions; separated from love, it leads to ruin.
We are clearly here because our forebears survived long enough to meet and have children. And, all this exists on a physical plane, with the genome of crucial importance in that regard. But, in addition to what else is being discovered and reframed about how the genome works as part of a living system, there also exist a psychology, or more to the point a unity of being that holds the physical form, making it what it is in reality and allowing it to relate to other forms of being.
In terms of what brings animals together to mate, beauty is clearly an element, perhaps the most important. Even if the attraction is purely about the fittest physical structure, it is the beauty of it it that draws the mating pair together. As proof, I offer the angler fish mentioned above, to consider how like bats, it lives in the darkness, where visual beauty is the faintest of veils.
Rather than natural selection being the primary shaper of diversity, it is pleasure and fear where animals are concerned. Freud trying to formulate a science of the mind, postulated the existence of Eros and Thanatos as the two basic instincts underlying nature. This didn’t go far, I imagine, because its existence cannot be explained using the common modern metaphor, and it is inconsistent with a material view of life. The gorilla male accumulates a harem and fights off contenders; the females, even though considerably smaller, do pick and choose which group they will be part of. to feel protected, themselves and their kids. For human beings there also exists a beauty of the mind or of the heart that we seek in a mate, in addition to other worldly possibilities that may actually lead us astray. For birds, it may be a seductive dance, a sweeter melody than the others, the deep blueness and intricacy of the patterns on a fantail. Instincts are crucial not only to the survival of a species but, I would argue, also to its formation. The instincts of the animal govern its ability to recognize the difference between something to be avoided, eaten or to fight or mate with. A Dream Weaver offers us creation as a manifestation of His Glory.
Last edited:
B
buffalo
Guest
The odds which I did reference are well past the UPB which is greater than all the events in history by magnitudes.
B
buffalo
Guest
and they are - wait for it - bacteria. It proves stasis.
Last edited:
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
It still sounds like a “touch-feely” argument to me, especially when hard numbers have been proposed (without support) by the anti-evolutionists. The fact that they even bother to propose a number for the probability of this or that happening is proof that they recognize the need for hard numbers to support their criticism.
Last edited:
A
Aloysium
Guest
Of course it does. I would not have expected otherwise.
R
rossum
Guest
Show us the calculations please. Odds calculated using incorrect (name removed by moderator)uts are useless.
rossum
B
buffalo
Guest
go back over my posts and find them.
Incorrect (name removed by moderator)uts? - Care to revisit your dating assumptions?
Incorrect (name removed by moderator)uts? - Care to revisit your dating assumptions?
G
goout
Guest
Good catechesis imparts a healthy respect for science, and a true Catholic sense of the interdependence of faith and reason.
That is sorely lacking.
B
buffalo
Guest
Science must earn this by careful empirical research without politics or money bias.
R
rossum
Guest
Your lack knowledge is showing here. In effect you are saying that you can see no evolutionary difference between an amoeba (a Eukaryote) and a human (a different Eukaryote). Amoebas and humans prove stasis according to you. Go away and learn about the three domains of life: Archaea, Bacteria and Eukaryotes. Then you might realise what a ludicrously bad error you made here.
You are criticising evolution while not knowing enough about it to criticise it correctly.
rossum
B
buffalo
Guest
Lenski’s bacteria turned into something else? Please do share.
G
goout
Guest
Please just post the whole quote please if you take issue with it.
Here is another link to a talk by Pope JP2 that references evolution.
https://www.ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/JP961022.HTM
We should not assume we are more faithful than the Popes on these issues. That’s fideism. That’s superstition masquerading as faith.
R
rossum
Guest
No, that is your job.
Do your calculations include the effects of natural selection? If not, then the (name removed by moderator)uts are incorrect.
- Status