B
buffalo
Guest
Nonsense. The case for evolution (modern synthesis) is crumbling. Need I list the ways?
- Status
I
IWantGod
Guest
I don’t see evolution as a threat so i am unlikely to be swayed, unless of course you have real evidence of an alternative physical theory. I’m all ears.
B
buffalo
Guest
Pay attention to the latest findings. Check out the Royal Society proceedings.
The death of NeoDarwinism, No Selfish Gene
“The genome… is best described as a database used by organisms to generate the functions that you and I and others study as physiology.”
“We inherit much more than DNA”
“The number of possible interactions , the number of possible circuits you could form 25,000 genes is 10^70,000. There wouldn’t be enough time over the whole billions of years of the evolution of life on earth for nature to have explored but more than a tiny fraction of those.”
On Dawkins and the selfish gene - “He is totally confused.” “He has misused a metaphor” “He [Dawkins] is philosophically naive and I am afraid he has misled many people for a very considerable period of time.” 40 minutes in
“There are no good or bad genes”
“There are reasons those genes are there”
“The great majority of people we are talking to were educated in biology 30 or 40 years ago and they really have no idea of the sea change that has occurred.”
“the house of cards, the citadel if you like is empty, but many people still do not know that.” 54 min
Watch the video here - IDvolution.org: The death of NeoDarwinism, No Selfish Gene
The death of NeoDarwinism, No Selfish Gene
“The genome… is best described as a database used by organisms to generate the functions that you and I and others study as physiology.”
“We inherit much more than DNA”
“The number of possible interactions , the number of possible circuits you could form 25,000 genes is 10^70,000. There wouldn’t be enough time over the whole billions of years of the evolution of life on earth for nature to have explored but more than a tiny fraction of those.”
On Dawkins and the selfish gene - “He is totally confused.” “He has misused a metaphor” “He [Dawkins] is philosophically naive and I am afraid he has misled many people for a very considerable period of time.” 40 minutes in
“There are no good or bad genes”
“There are reasons those genes are there”
“The great majority of people we are talking to were educated in biology 30 or 40 years ago and they really have no idea of the sea change that has occurred.”
“the house of cards, the citadel if you like is empty, but many people still do not know that.” 54 min
Watch the video here - IDvolution.org: The death of NeoDarwinism, No Selfish Gene
B
buffalo
Guest
Designed changes vs random changes
This paper shows that some “mutations” are designed changes directed by cellular machinery.
Genomic “tuning knobs” with implicit range are strategies for organisms to change and adapt as needed. We know about fine tuning in the universe, now we see it in life.
Remember the Genetic Piano post (here)? Which keys are chosen to play? What decides?
This paper shows that some “mutations” are designed changes directed by cellular machinery.
Genomic “tuning knobs” with implicit range are strategies for organisms to change and adapt as needed. We know about fine tuning in the universe, now we see it in life.
Remember the Genetic Piano post (here)? Which keys are chosen to play? What decides?
B
buffalo
Guest
Pope Benedict’s Easter Homily - Creative Reason
“The creation account tells us, then,that the world is a product of creative Reason.” - perhaps the pope would like IDvolution. Pope Benedict: Easter brings us to the side of reason, freedom and love “It is not the case that in the expanding universe, at a late stage, in some tiny corner of the cosmos, there evolved randomly some species of living being capable of reasoning and of trying to find rationality within creation, or to bring rationality into it. If man were merely a random product of evolution in some place on the margins of the universe, then his life would make no sense or might even be a chance of nature. But no, Reason is there at the beginning: creative, divine Reason.”
“The creation account tells us, then,that the world is a product of creative Reason.” - perhaps the pope would like IDvolution. Pope Benedict: Easter brings us to the side of reason, freedom and love “It is not the case that in the expanding universe, at a late stage, in some tiny corner of the cosmos, there evolved randomly some species of living being capable of reasoning and of trying to find rationality within creation, or to bring rationality into it. If man were merely a random product of evolution in some place on the margins of the universe, then his life would make no sense or might even be a chance of nature. But no, Reason is there at the beginning: creative, divine Reason.”
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
Roger Penrose us writing nonsense, not mathematical theory if he applies his remarks to the chances of evolution.
E
edwest211
Guest
Our choices are we choose to believe something that cannot be reproduced in a lab or we choose an all-powerful God that can raise the dead, turn water to wine, give sight to the blind and to rise bodily from the grave Himself. That is where the sticking point lies.
Man is not God. And regarding this topic, it is clear that God is not able to do anything that science cannot discover or reproduce.
Man is not God. And regarding this topic, it is clear that God is not able to do anything that science cannot discover or reproduce.
T
Techno2000
Guest
Thanks
I found this one , I guess what he saying is random mutations are not the Miracle workers the evolution people want us to believe.
Last edited:
B
buffalo
Guest
Right, they are a loss of function or information that was there before.
T
Techno2000
Guest
So, it’s kinda like a tooth falling out and having something weird growing in its place ?
B
buffalo
Guest
yeah, say a mole…
A
anon65111186
Guest
There is a lot of scientific evidence that populations change over time. Like other theories, nothing is set in stone, because another Theory may come along that explains the data better.
Implications for human beings and Theology are that God chose to change each generation, and finally put a soul in one of those generations of already existing animals. He could have made us from literally nothing if he wanted to as well.
Implications for human beings and Theology are that God chose to change each generation, and finally put a soul in one of those generations of already existing animals. He could have made us from literally nothing if he wanted to as well.
B
buffalo
Guest
He made Adam from the clay (what Adam means) and Eve from Adams side. He breathed life into (animated) them, their immortal soul.
Last edited:
A
anon65111186
Guest
True, but that is not meant to be an explanation in scientific terms how the clay came to be oxygen, carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, calcium etc.
Not saying that he didn’t do that, but we know he would have to transform the clay into everything else a human body is made of.
Not saying that he didn’t do that, but we know he would have to transform the clay into everything else a human body is made of.
B
buffalo
Guest
Yes, we can take that he used those things to build Adam. Eve though, came from Adam’s rib.
A
Aloysium
Guest
buffalo:
So, it’s kinda like a tooth falling out and having something weird growing in its place ?
A mole is more what you’d get when something goes wrong, a mutation in cell function.
What genome deletion driving phenotypic change would be something on the lines of what we see in breeding dogs. It may be involved in the vast variety of birds, from one original bird. Taking it to the extreme, one might postulate that within every T. Rex, there genetically existed a chicken. Delete the genes responsible for 9 tons of meat, and there you go.
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
Thanks go to Techno for the funny jpg.
T
Techno2000
Guest
So I suppose it would take billions of just the right kind of mutations (if there is such a thing) one after the other, for billions of years to slowly form the world we see today.
T
Techno2000
Guest
And the most amazing thing is even after being extinct 65 million years ago, they were still able to give us the McChicken sandwich.
A
Aloysium
Guest
Some of us longer than that. It was always known that the Theory of Evolution had major flaws. In his book Life Itself: Its Origins and Nature, published in 1981, Francis Crick, co-discoverer of the double helix, hypothesized that life originated on earth when primitive spores were sent to earth by a higher civilization. There’s a problem as to how this all started. If one is a materialist, it has to have been visitors from other planets.
And then, there is mind.
Last edited:
A
Aloysium
Guest
There existed a bird called the Solitaire on an island called Rodrigues, that has been “sinking” into the Indian Ocean. It is a relative to the Dodo and to pigeons.
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
It’s extinct, obviously. Being a stickler about certain things, I wonder what the term actually means. Clearly every bird that existed, and that one would place into that category is gone, as they would have anyway. So what is extinct but a category, unless there is something that transcends the individual living bird, something like an “idea” or 'soul", of which each would have been an expression. There is a deeply felt sense of heritage as something that goes into defining who we are. Some cultures even worship their ancestors. Everything existing as itself is at the same time a part of something bigger. For us, ultimately this would be life as part of the totality that is all creation. But there is something particular to being human. And, there’s something particular to forms of life we call birds, animals, plants, and the simplest of creatures.
Getting back to the solitaire, what was observed was a particular defining morphology and behaviour. I think traditional evolutionists would love this bird because it fought for sex. You know, survival of the fittest, and all that. The male was twice the size of the female and had a club-like bone growth on the end of each wing, which it used in territorial fighting. We observe a similar physical trait in the crowned pigeon, which has small bone spurs on the ends of its wings that it uses to hit anything that approaches the nest. Also like some pigeons, the parent solitaires appear to have fed their chicks a protein rich “milk”, produced in the throat pouch. Behaviourally, they also exhibited traits seen in some pigeons today - monogamy and shared parental care. What we have here described are birds who more or less look and behave the same. And, they share some of these characteristics with other birds. When this happens, we understand them to be related, having a common heritage at some point.
It is pretty clear from observing animals, that each member of a species has its own particular version of the general physical and psychological traits that are common to all members. Some traits are expressed more, some less, some not at all. The information would be likely contained in the genome of each individual bird, but in the complexity of processes that determine the phenotype, these differences appear. That is, until the information is lost, at which point we would expect to see in surviving organisms, a possibly radical difference in the offspring - something we might call a new species. Let’s grant that this might arise in some cases as a purely physically mediated mutation of the genome in the parent. The question remains, where did the initial information come from, that was later deleted?
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
It’s extinct, obviously. Being a stickler about certain things, I wonder what the term actually means. Clearly every bird that existed, and that one would place into that category is gone, as they would have anyway. So what is extinct but a category, unless there is something that transcends the individual living bird, something like an “idea” or 'soul", of which each would have been an expression. There is a deeply felt sense of heritage as something that goes into defining who we are. Some cultures even worship their ancestors. Everything existing as itself is at the same time a part of something bigger. For us, ultimately this would be life as part of the totality that is all creation. But there is something particular to being human. And, there’s something particular to forms of life we call birds, animals, plants, and the simplest of creatures.
Getting back to the solitaire, what was observed was a particular defining morphology and behaviour. I think traditional evolutionists would love this bird because it fought for sex. You know, survival of the fittest, and all that. The male was twice the size of the female and had a club-like bone growth on the end of each wing, which it used in territorial fighting. We observe a similar physical trait in the crowned pigeon, which has small bone spurs on the ends of its wings that it uses to hit anything that approaches the nest. Also like some pigeons, the parent solitaires appear to have fed their chicks a protein rich “milk”, produced in the throat pouch. Behaviourally, they also exhibited traits seen in some pigeons today - monogamy and shared parental care. What we have here described are birds who more or less look and behave the same. And, they share some of these characteristics with other birds. When this happens, we understand them to be related, having a common heritage at some point.
It is pretty clear from observing animals, that each member of a species has its own particular version of the general physical and psychological traits that are common to all members. Some traits are expressed more, some less, some not at all. The information would be likely contained in the genome of each individual bird, but in the complexity of processes that determine the phenotype, these differences appear. That is, until the information is lost, at which point we would expect to see in surviving organisms, a possibly radical difference in the offspring - something we might call a new species. Let’s grant that this might arise in some cases as a purely physically mediated mutation of the genome in the parent. The question remains, where did the initial information come from, that was later deleted?
Last edited:
- Status