Is Darwin's Theory Of Evolution True? Part Two

  • Thread starter Thread starter Techno2000
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
edwest211 delivers a perfect quote and you disparage him? Really?
It would be a perfect quote if we were talking about neo-Darwinism or fantastic multiverse cosmologies.
Yet, over and over I give you science papers and references that clearly show cause to doubt the old paradigm.
I am reading your favorite book on ID and it has not shown such cause to me (assuming you mean what I think you mean by “the old paradigm.”
 
“For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountain of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.” Robert Jastrow commenting on creation from nothing.
 
Show me the science that says Adam and Eve knew each other.
The Adam of the Bible is not Y-Chromosome Adam. The Eve of the Bible is not Mitochondrial Eve. Just because two different people have the same name does not make them the same, any more than Mickey Mouse and Mickey Rooney are the same.

rossum
 
40.png
buffalo:
What is your position? Adam and Eve knew each other or not?
My first parents surely must have known each other!
Yours would but polygenism is assumed, so that your first parents would not necessarily be our first parents. Statistically the most recent common male progenitor, did not know the maternal equivalent. I believe there’s something like a 50,000 to 300,000 year difference between them, the female being the more accurately determined. The calculations would have 95% certainty within that large range, but are dependent on the assumptions made in genealogical studies.
 
Your ignorance of evolution is showing again, buffalo. Look up the words “Natural Selection”, which is not blind unguided chance.
It seems that discussions of evolution proceed similarly to discussions of global warming, that is, there are really two topics being discussed as if there was only one. With global warming it is the fact of warming conflated with man as the cause. That the Earth is warming is no proof at all that man has caused it. The same is true for evolution: that entities evolve is no proof at all that the process was Darwinian, which itself involves two processes, natural selection and random mutation.

I pointed out before that natural selection seems fairly uncontroversial: the strong have a better likelihood of surviving than the weak. The real controversy is the origin of the changes on which selection works. So - the fact that natural selection is not blind unguided chance leaves unquestioned the other part of the theory, and if random mutation is not a form of blind unguided chance then it isn’t clear just what that phrase means.
 
And now we find on Dec 27, 2017 that Bacteria acquire resistance from competitors (what I have been saying for many years here)
This doesn’t prove that evolution through random mutation doesn’t exist, but it sure seems to prove that entities can evolve through non-Darwinian mechanisms.
 
Sure, they just couldn’t bring themselves to not give Darwinism the usual nod.
 
This doesn’t prove that evolution through random mutation doesn’t exist, but it sure seems to prove that entities can evolve through non-Darwinian mechanisms.
And you also have to ask where the “competitors” got the genes they passed over in the first place.

The modern theory of evolution has developed since Darwin to incorporate things like Horizontal Gene Transfer (HGT) – what buffalo is talking about – and Neutral Drift, which were both discovered well after Darwin. Scientific theories are not static, but change and develop with time.

I think that some religious objectors to evolution do not fully understand this. Their sacred texts are fixed and unchanging, so they do not realise that a scientific theory is not fixed and will change as new data is discovered. Neutral Drift is a classic example, it was added to the theory of evolution after the publication of Kimura’s paper in 1968, well after Darwin died.

rossum
 
Now science says they were contemporaries, they just didn’t know each other.

Adam and Eve DID live in Africa at the same time - but they probably didn’t know each other

They repeated the analysis with the individuals’ mitochondrial DNA to generate the two estimates for Adam and Eve, showing for the first time they overlap.
Professor Bustamante said: ‘We can now date certain events very precisely. We found a single variant that shows how three ancient lineages came together about 48,000 years ago, plus or minus only a couple of hundred years. The accuracy is exquisite.’
 
Last edited:
And Christ rose from the dead. And he worked other miracles. What science does that necessitate we reject?
I think it necessitates the rejection of the standard theory of evolution.
We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
the only Son of God,
eternally begotten of the Father,
God from God, Light from Light,
Through him all things were made.
The diversity we see in living forms is directly caused by the Word of God. The beauty and grandeur of the world’s fathomless wonders are a manifestation of His glory.

No random activity based on the properties of matter led to the creation of the cell with its almost infinitely complex, interrelated chemical processes. And, once life was created, it did not spontaneously become more complex in the totality of its form, let alone in the material properties we can know directly through the senses. This goes against revelation and reason.

As to natural selection, the projection of utilitarianism and our own self-centredness onto nature, the simple fact is that what has been created is a garden, an environment, a totality of interrelated and interdependent organisms, emerging from the earth, water and air, fuelled by the sun. The world grew and changes as one, its individual constituent expressions of life coming into and going out of being.

There are several facets to evolutionary theory which can affect one’s faith:

The obvious one is its attempt to explain life and mankind as arising independently of a creator. While it may entertain the existence of a deist god, it sees no final cause at the beginning which would express itself in everything that transpires in nature, and no active and direct involvement by God in each moment of His creation.
For us men and for our salvation
he came down from heaven
Science is not religion, and in making that trespass, evolution becomes bad science, presenting the distorted vision of reality that is materialism. Doing so, it also becomes bad philosophy and bad religion.

Materialism reduces living organisms to physiological processes, condoning their treatment as such, and not in accordance with the care to which they are entitled and that we are expected to give. However honourable our initial motives, the developing relationship with life changes who we are. Becoming someone less connected and less respectful of life, we see reflected back in the other, an image of ourselves as something less, deadened and empty, in a spiral of deepening alienation. We come to treat even one another as if we were things. Thus abortion rates have skyrocketed into the many tens of millions; and fewer and fewer people care. This isn’t to blame the theory of evolution for the disintegration of society and mankind, but rather to highlight the role it plays in this tragedy. It’s a warning in effect.

The concern is not so much about it being the bad science that it is. String theory seems also to be bad science, but no one cares. The issue with evolution, with all its failings, is how deeply it is woven into the cultural fabric, influencing how we see ourselves, our neighbour and our obligations.
 
Last edited:
So - the fact that natural selection is not blind unguided chance leaves unquestioned the other part of the theory, and if random mutation is not a form of blind unguided chance then it isn’t clear just what that phrase means.
Random mutations are random with respect to their effects. Experiments have been performed to confirm that mutations are indeed random and not directed, such as the Luria-Delbrück experiment and the Lederberg experiment.

In some circumstances bacteria can increase the overall number of mutations by turning off error correcting mechanisms, but they cannot direct those mutations. They get more mutations overall, which means more deleterious mutations, more neutral mutations and more beneficial mutations.

rossum
 
Any marketing plan, in order to sell a product, like evolution, requires constant repetition and more repetition. It doesn’t matter if the least intelligent person on earth lacks even fundamental comprehension skills. As long as he accepts evolution, he is checked off the list. Those that don’t or who question it with supporting information, will remain on the list indefinitely. That is, unless they choose to convert. Brow-beating and ignoring the other person sometimes works. But here, a line has been crossed between faith and reason.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top