Is Darwin's Theory Of Evolution True?

[Aloysium]

Cool story bro.

I didn’t think I had to write a book covering all aspects of genetics and the interplay of organisms in their environment.

But maybe here I can niggle Aloysium’s theory of creation, producing one small leaf of the tree of life, to be known to all who seek the truth in Heaven.

information on how to form various skin colors

There’s something called melanin that’s present in all of us except those suffering from albinism. Those who have two copies of a recessive allele on chromosome 16 have high levels of reddish pheomelanin and low levels of the dark pigment eumelanin. Not necessarily, but ginger hair is likely the result of a genetic mutation, a change in the information transmitted from the original man, that occurred long ago, perhaps a random mutagenic effect of inhaling smoke in northern climates where fires were necessary for survival. Of course, people with darker skins will do better in the sun, as those whose skin is lighter will more likely flourish in northern climes.

Living organisms placed in those environments invariably develop the characteristics that are best suited to that environment.

Yikes! Please explain the mechanism, if it isn’t what I wrote and with which you are in disagreement. We have all sorts of information within our genes. Some is expressed and some isn’t. I believe that what guides the expression of particular genes may be but is not always random. That all this diversity could be a result of purely random material processes is nonsense to me.

Since there are infinitely many possible artificial environments that can be imagined, it is impossible that all the information to make those adaptations were already existing in some primordial first representative of that species.

I think you are really overstating what I wrote. I don’t really see a problem, observing the variety of organisms on earth and the environments to which they are suited.

If you are suggesting the environment causes genetic differences, you may wish to review evolutionary theory. There is no evolutionary force in nature. On a physical level, all there is with respect to the building blocks of our bodies, are basically electrochemical forces and mass. You should explain what you think happens. If all that influences the emergence and flowering of life were these simple material processes, then it would all be random. That you can understand (or not) these words would be by pure happenstance.

It is unreasonable to assume that the pattern for asymmetric leg length was programmed into the first fruit fly, just waited for some sadistic grad student to come along and perform that study.

What is programmed is leg length. Mutations resulting from physical factors may result in an asymmetry, one leg shorter than the other in your example, the flounder, in real life. These sorts of organisms predominantly do not survive. Variations can occur, but they occur in a pre-existing species.

 

[Aloysium]

I guess you didn’t understand what this says: Gene loss is a pervasive source of genetic variation causing phenotypic diversity.

The recent increase in genomic data is revealing an unexpected perspective of gene loss as a pervasive source of genetic variation that can cause adaptive phenotypic diversity.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

information on how to form various skin colors

There’s something called melanin that’s present in all of us except those suffering from albinism. Those who have two copies of a recessive allele on chromosome 16 have high levels of reddish pheomelanin and low levels of the dark pigment eumelanin…

It is easy to hypothesize that the capability was there all along, built into the DNA, now that we only have modern DNA to look at. But you are just guessing that such a capability was present in Adam - particularly the capability for very light skin, since Adam was probably very dark skinned. But your explanation does not cover anything for which we do have the benefit of a complete genetic record, such as the fruit fly experiment I described.

Living organisms placed in those environments invariably develop the characteristics that are best suited to that environment.

Yikes! Please explain the mechanism…

…random variation followed by natural selection. It is right in the high school textbooks. It should not be such a “Yikes” surprise to you.

I believe that what guides the expression of particular genes is not random, but there’s really no way of knowing one way or the other.

That is true. We cannot know for sure if the physical world follows mostly well understood rules (established by God, but accessible by humans) or if the physical world is being micro-manipulated in real time by God following only His unsearchable will. Even if it is the later, He appears to be doing it in such a way so as to make most of our experience of the world happen in accordance with what we might call laws of nature - of which Darwinian evolution is one of them. Even if this is all false, it makes sense to call these phenomena “laws of nature,” for the purpose of understanding how to get along in this physical world. For instance, gravity could be a fiction. Whenever we drop an apple, there is no force pulling it down toward the earth. God is there to pull it down at just the right time and in just the right manner so as to mimic a “law of nature.” That does not mean I am going to abandon the theory of gravity. Similarly, I am not going to abandon the theory of evolution simply because I can’t prove with philosophical certainty that the mechanism is exactly as I have described. What I can say is that it certainly appears to our limited senses that that is how things work.

…to be continued…

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Contining…

If you are suggesting the environment causes genetic differences, you may wish to review evolutionary theory.

“Causation” is a philosophical concept - not a scientific concept. I would never say that anything “causes” anything else in science. What I can say is that one thing is always followed by another thing. In the case at hand, I can say that variations that appear random to us result in a population with diverse characteristics. The environment favors the survival of some of those characteristics and not others.

One mistake people make in understanding evolution is thinking that the presence of leaves high in the trees and certain animals stretching their necks to reach those leaves caused giraffes to have long necks. They did not. Some animals had slightly longer necks regardless of the presence of leaves high in trees. Those variations would have occurred even in an environment that had only low bushes. But because this environment favored long necks, those animals survived and formed a new base around which future variations could occur.

You should explain what you think happens.

Cosmic rays are one possible source of variations. Imperfect DNA copying is another.

If all that influences the emergence and flowering of life were these simple material processes, then it would all be random.

It was - then natural selection “unrandomized” it.

Mutations resulting from physical factors may result in an asymmetry, one leg shorter than the other in your example, the flounder, in real life. These sorts of organisms predominantly do not survive.

Yes, because asymmetry is not generally an advantage, like it is in the artificial environment I described earlier.

Variations can occur, but they occur in a pre-existing species.

You say that only because you were not present to observe it happening as new species resulted.

 

[buffalo]

I believe Adam had the info.

 

[Glark]

And geologists have to go into the lab and create the Rockies. No, Glark, science doesn’t have to recreate anything: it has to make testable predictions.

Recreating the Rockies would be a physical impossibility, but if scientists truly understood how life arose from inanimate matter then surely that feat could be accomplished in a laboratory. If blind, dumb chance can pull it off, then for scientists armed with full knowledge of the process and the requisite ingredients, it should be easy.

I wonder what a “testable prediction” would look like. Not that it matters - the lettered dreamers who think they can work out how life arose from inanimate matter already believe it happened; it’s not as if they need convincing.

I think it’s regrettable that tax-payers probably have to foot the bill for these deluded space-cadets and their pointless abiogenesis research, which won’t advance science one iota. There is no way to recoup such expenditure, as nothing practically useful (and therefore commercially useful) will ever result from it.

 

[Glark]

If scientists discovered how life can arise from inanimate matter, why would a vast amount of time then be needed to perform that feat in a laboratory? If they need lots of time, that makes it sound like they are relying on chance for something to happen.

 

[Glark]

I have my own ideas on how it all happened, but there are too many lacunae in my understanding to get into it with any degree of confidence

For an atheist there are no lacunae - life exists and there is no God, therefore it is an undeniable “fact” that life arose from inanimate matter. Whether or not this “fact” can be explained scientifically is irrelevant. It is also irrelevant if it appears scientifically improbable - or even impossible. The “fact” remains, regardless.

 

[Glark]

He saw a flower and predicted there would be a pollinator?

That’s pretty weak as “proof” of evolution.

You can’t expect much from junk science.

 

[Glark]

I think science has got this one right. We see that micro evolution naturally occurs, and so its not controversial to think that macro evolution would be an incremental result; the genetic mechanism exists for this to occur. It explains why animal forms have changed over millions of years.

This is a bit like claiming you have won the lottery when all you have done is picked one number.

I fail to see why random would mean that a thing has no final cause.

God didn’t guide evolution to produce a human being made in His image?

 

[tweedlealice]

Hi,
We are coming around to INTELLIGENT DESIGN.
Google it.
Just read article on Galapagos Island finches on this site. It didn’t prove evolution /Darwin. A large species of FINCH bird made it from Espaniola. LONG TRIP. Probably, couldn’t fly back. He mated w a female FINCH (smaller). The baby was a new species. It’s like a donkey and horse make a mule.
God will come out victorious but not as Adam and Eve. Moses told a Holy Spirit enlightened story of creation in a way the ppl of that time could understand. The BIBLE tells THAT GOD CREATED.
Science will tell us HOW GOD CREATED. The church says no conflict.

 

[Glark]

Bradskil … the All-Wise and All-Knowing One.

 

[Glark]

Give me your address and I’ll send you a box of tissues and some chocolates. You’re going to need them.

 

[Glark]

This is why athesits aren’t that keen on discussing mud-microbe abiogenesis. Instead, they focus on the sequel to this fantasy - microbe-man evolution, which they think is a scientific winner.

 

[Glark]

And information comes from chemicals that might be able to perform limited, one-time functions when, say, they are exposed to light? What makes them “upgrade”?

Answer: magic and superstition.

 

[Glark]

How about “God created life?” It works for me

It is the only rational conclusion. And as far as I’m concerned, it is a scientific conclusion.

 

[Glark]

Ok, get to the part about how a fruit fly can be completely changed into a new species of animal.

For that you need to go down the hall to the room marked, “Science Fiction”.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

You can’t expect much from junk science.

Name-calling is not an argument.

This is a bit like claiming you have won the lottery when all you have done is picked one number.

In your analogy it would be more like gradually getting all the lottery numbers by getting occasional hints like “The third number needs to be a bit higher. The forth is just right. Leave it alone.”

The BIBLE tells THAT GOD CREATED.
Science will tell us HOW GOD CREATED. The church says no conflict.

And the method God used is evolution. The Church says no conflict.

 

[Aloysium]

And the method God used is evolution. The Church says no conflict.

That’s what you believe and it’s not in conflict with the Church as long as what evolution means to you involves the creation of one first man, from whom all humanity came to be. So, no polygenism allowed. We are a new creation different from animals. Still good? Our souls are created immediately and directly by God and not through a transformation of matter. If all that fits your version of evolution, great. The pseudoscience of Darwinism does not.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

And the method God used is evolution. The Church says no conflict.

That’s what you believe and it’s not in conflict with the Church as long as what evolution means to you involves the creation of one first man, from whom all humanity came to be. So, no polygenism allowed. We are a new creation different from animals. Still good? Our souls are created immediately and directly by God and not through a transformation of matter. If all that fits your version of evolution, great.

I think I can go along with this, but I am not sure what you mean by “we are a new creation, different from animals.” I agree with the spiritual aspects of that statement. But if what you say is that God certainly did not use non-human life forms to produce Adam and Eve, I will have to disagree.

The pseudoscience of Darwinism does not.

I don’t think you are correctly representing Darwinism, because the form of Darwinism that I am familiar with is compatible with Church teaching. Darwinism allows the possibility of a single human pair, Adam and Eve, and says nothing about souls being made from matter.