Is Darwin's Theory Of Evolution True? Part Two

  • Thread starter Thread starter Techno2000
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
rossum said:
Sauropods
Other species evolved other ways to access the food high in trees, primates and others evolved to climb trees.
Click to expand...
We don’t have to go back in time. Let’s go to the marsh and see the variety of birds that inhabit the same environment. They come in different shapes and sizes, each with its own niche and playing a particular role in the ecosystem.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

It is a marvel at how it all comes together harmoniously. The whole grows, each individual organism playing its particular part in the totality of the marsh. What is important to the system is behaviour, the anatomical structure being the means by which each bird relates to its surroundings. The “instincts”, the soul for those not offended by philosophy, in my view of things, are primary; they are represented physically by the genome and the structure and physiology that is related to it. Each is individual and an expression of “birdness”, materially and behaviourally.

As to how they became that way, the initial event would have been the creation of a potential for bird. That’s the amazing bit of it, and how it assumed its physical form could have happened any number of ways. For those fixated on evolution, one route maintaining a continuity of matter passed on from an existing creature of another species, would have involved the incorporation of what would be dinosaur material, an infertile egg perhaps, by a new type of being, which actualized its potential, eventually becoming the diversity of birds that have come into the world.

In the case of mammals, what we might have is a final cause beginning with an organism which excretes milk through its skin and those glands coming together in successive generations, becoming mammary glands with a nipple to facilitate feeding the young. What drives the process is most definitely not chance chemical reactions, but the instinctive reality (soul) on every level, of mammalian being, which reproduced itself into a myriad of forms.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

God brings everything into existence. But, this is considered pseudoscience, whereas the metaphysical concept of materialism is somehow not; by materialists obviously. As long as we talk of matter it’s not supposed to be philosophy or theology; that is supposed to be science.
 
Last edited:
Aloysium said:
God brings everything into existence.
Click to expand...
No He does not. This is a common error, unless you are of the opinion that God created Himself. God did not bring Himself into existence, so your “everything” is incorrect.

rossum
 
Aloysium said:
Eye development is initiated by the master control gene Pax-6,
Click to expand...
Pax-6 is exactly one of the switches I was talking about. All the other stuff in that Wikipedia article is the development triggered by that switch. That same switch is also evidence for common descent as Pax-6 can work between species. Putting a mouse Pax-6 into a fruit fly will trigger eve development in that location in the fruit fly. IIRC it developed an extra eye on a leg where the mouse gene had been added.

Ender’s flagellum example appears to have been similar. In the absence of the correct switch, another switch was co-opted to do the job of the missing switch.

rossum
 
rossum said:
Putting a mouse Pax-6 into a fruit fly will trigger eve development in that location in the fruit fly. IIRC it developed an extra eye on a leg where the mouse gene had been added.
Click to expand...
Genetic experimentation reveals what happens in the case of random mutation.
 
Last edited:
Glark said:
So, for example, bacteria respond to an antibiotic by producing a genetic modification that make them resistant?
Click to expand...
Apparently that is just how bacteria respond. I want to be a bit cautious here because I know nothing at all about this other than what I recently read - and on an anti-Darwin web site - but I suspect his description of the mechanism is probably accurate. I think the basic science of the process is pretty well understood.

I always thought that antibiotic resistant strains of bacteria developed because resistance to a particular antibiotic already naturally occurred in some very small percentage of the bacteria. After all the other bacteria were killed off the naturally resistant ones massively reproduced and viola - a “new” strain.

Apparently this is not how it happens. What was alleged is that bacteria are not naturally resistant but actively transfer genetic material from the host that provides them the ability to fight off the attack from the antibiotics.
Wouldn’t that require intelligence?
Click to expand...
Yes and no. A cell appears to work like a computer network. The way it behaves is determined by the (name removed by moderator)ut it receives. So, no, a bacterium is not intelligently seeking out a solution to its problem; it is simply responding to its internal program.
 
Ender said:
I always thought that antibiotic resistant strains of bacteria developed because resistance to a particular antibiotic already naturally occurred in some very small percentage of the bacteria. After all the other bacteria were killed off the naturally resistant ones massively reproduced and viola - a “new” strain.

Apparently this is not how it happens. What was alleged is that bacteria are not naturally resistant but actively transfer genetic material from the host that provides them the ability to fight off the attack from the antibiotics.

A cell appears to work like a computer network. The way it behaves is determined by the (name removed by moderator)ut it receives. So, no, a bacterium is not intelligently seeking out a solution to its problem; it is simply responding to its internal program.
Click to expand...
It works both ways; resistant bacteria can pass on that trait through plasmids.

A few points about your last comment:

I use the computer analogy the other way around - the spirit is the computer and matter is the program. It works for me in understanding how consciousness works.

This negates the reality of the bacterium, the fact that it is something in itself. As primitive as its experience of existence might be, it happens. It’s not planning strategies, correct; that process requires hundreds of millions of neurons for us to carry out.

The big question is who built the computer and programmed it?
 
Last edited:
Apparently the “code” that produces this or that function is redundant, so “removing” it might really not be possible. And, yes, what it seems they did was to disable the switch that creates the flagellum, but it seems quite remarkable that the organism was able to activate a different switch that resulted in an alternate path to reach the same end. Attributing this to chance and random mutation is a real stretch.

As for evolution occurring at different speeds, that has never been contested; that simply isn’t an objection. Throwing dice is random and the appearance of any particular combination will take a variable amount of time depending solely on chance.

As for repeatability, that one surprises me. If you have a link to something that describes the experiments you referred to I’d like to read about them. I wonder though: I accept that evolutionary change is repeatable. I’m just having trouble accepting that random mutations are repeatable.
 
It wasn’t intended to be a science source.

However, if another source references a science source we should disregard it?
 
“Glark said:
Darwinist word games. Is the theory that all life on earth evolved from microbes “proven every day of the week”?
Click to expand...
That is a hypothesis, not an axiom, and I was not at all referring to that.

What we see happening all around us today are changes, including changes in life forms such as bacterium and viruses. Evolution is a slow process, but with organisms that reproduce rapidly we get a better glimpse of what also happens with larger life forms.

“Glark said:
In other words, you only want to converse with people who share your pro-evolution position. Fair enough; you are allowed to do that, I imagine.
Click to expand...
False, but your sarcasm is noted, so I’ll just stop dealing with you right after this post.

However, it does make me wonder why so many of the nastiest people I’ve ever met are so arrogant and condescending and sarcastic while professing to be “Christians”? Maybe you can answer that question, Glark, although I’m frankly not interested in reading your answer, which likely would just contain more sarcasm, condescension and arrogance…

BTW, you might consider reading the book “Imitation of Christ” by Kempis as it might be quite an eye-opener for you. Just a recommendation.
 
Aloysium said:
God is the eternal Act of being, Love itself in the Triune Godhead.
Click to expand...
Which is irrelevant to my point that God did not create “everything”, but at best He could have created “everything except Himself”.

rossum
 
buffalo said:
However, if another source references a science source we should disregard it?
Click to expand...
Provided they do not misrepresent or distort the science. That is why it is often best to check back with the original source.

rossum
 
The nasty Christians?

The Irrational Atheist: Dissecting the Unholy Trinity of Dawkins, Harris, And Hitchens

More than 93 percent of all the wars in human history had no relation to religion
The Spanish Inquisition had no jurisdiction over professing Jews, Muslims, or atheists, and executed fewer people on an annual basis than the state of Texas
Atheists are 3.84 times more likely to be imprisoned than Christians
“Red” state crime is primarily in “blue” counties
Sexually abused girls are 55 times more likely to commit suicide than girls raised Catholic

In the twentieth century, atheistic regimes killed three times more people in peacetime than those killed in all the wars and individual crimes combined. The Irrational Atheist provides the rational thinker with empirical proof that atheism’s claims against religion are unfounded in logic, fact, and science.
 
@Aloysium, do two wrongs make a right?

BTW, I have criticized Dawkins on a fair number of occasions for just that reason. I am not an atheist, and I have long resented his rabid pit-bull approach towards theists.
 
The Dawkins Delusion?: Atheist Fundamentalism and the Denial of the Divine…

2008 Christian Bookseller’s Covention Book of the Year Award winner! World-renowned scientist Richard Dawkins writes in The God Delusion: “If this book works as I intend, religious readers who open it will be atheists when they put it down.” The volume has received wide coverage, fueled much passionate debate and caused not a little confusion. Alister McGrath, along with his wife, Joanna, are ideal to evaluate Dawkins’s ideas. Once an atheist himself, he gained a doctorate in molecular biophysics before going on to become a leading Christian theologian. He wonders how two people, who have reflected at length on substantially the same world, could possibly have come to such different conclusions about God. McGrath subjects Dawkins’s critique of faith to rigorous scrutiny. His exhilarating, meticulously argued response deals with questions such as
Code: 
Is faith intellectual nonsense?
Are science and religion locked in a battle to the death?
Can the roots of Christianity be explained away scientifically?
Is Christianity simply a force for evil?
This book will be warmly received by those looking for a reliable assessment of The God Delusion and the many questions it raises–including, above all, the relevance of faith and the quest for meaning.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top