T
Techno2000
Guest
How many generations of my offspring would it take for them to evolve the ability to survive in High altitudes ?
- Status
G
Glark
Guest
You make a vaild point.
G
Glark
Guest
The claim that all life on earth evolved from microbes cannot be verified to be a “physical reality” nor is it an “observation”. So I wondering which part of the Bible is in conflict with science.
Last edited:
A
anon65111186
Guest
I
The scientific community is not a monolith, scientists as a whole don’t really conspire together to suggest things of all scientific data.
Unless you are a professional scientist with a PhD, you can’t believably discount the data and it’s implications for how old the unverse is. Science is not a simple field.
Theology is a lot more straightforward, even armchair theologians like many on this thread can know and understand the factors at play.
The scientific community is not a monolith, scientists as a whole don’t really conspire together to suggest things of all scientific data.
Unless you are a professional scientist with a PhD, you can’t believably discount the data and it’s implications for how old the unverse is. Science is not a simple field.
Theology is a lot more straightforward, even armchair theologians like many on this thread can know and understand the factors at play.
Last edited:
G
Glark
Guest
It’s ironic that evolutionists - even rhe atheist kind - often invoke the name of Augustine, but he offers nothing that helps their cause.
R
rossum
Guest
Try reading the link. The information is there. The shortest time was the Tibetan adaptation.
rossum
G
Glark
Guest
Good point. Miracles cannot be explained to humans.
R
rossum
Guest
You miss my point. God is alive and He did not create Himself. He cannot have created the first life. He can only have created the second, third etc. life.
rossum
rossum
G
Glark
Guest
My understanding is, before the middle of the nineteenth century, Catholics who didn’t adopt a literal six days interpretation were very rare.
Last edited:
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
Perhaps so. They are not very rare now.LeafByNiggle:
My understanding is, before the middle of the nineteenth century, Catholics who didn’t adopt a literal six days interpretation were very rare.
T
Techno2000
Guest
Tibetans has become the fastest case of human evolution in the scientific record, as it is estimated to have occurred in less than 3,000 years.Techno2000:
Try reading the link. The information is there. The shortest time was the Tibetan adaptation.
rossum
This proves my point that evolution is way too slow to help any animal…out in the wild…in real life.
Last edited:
G
Glark
Guest
This is just one observation of Darwinist Methodology 101 - wild extrapolation and wishful thinking.
Last edited:
G
Glark
Guest
Please explain how I’ve misread it.
B
buffalo
Guest
Excerpt From The Royal Society Meeting about Evolution
University of St. Andrews scientist David Shuker challenged Denis Noble, who had described an experiment where scientists deleted flagella genes from bacteria.
These cells had re-generated their flagella genes in just four days and grown new tails. A mind-bending example of real-time, high-speed evolution.
“Clearly natural selection can rapidly steer regulatory networks. This is a beautiful example of high speed Neo-Darwinian evolution,” Shuker argued.
Shuker, like Jerry Coyne, was towing the standard Neo-Darwinian line, which insists that in the end, all comes down to “selection, selection, selection.”
Shuker somehow imagined that “selection” is re-wiring those genes. I don’t know how selection re-wires genes in four days. Selection after all is just survival of the fittest; “selection” doesn’t provide us a single detail about how those genes got rewired.
But in the Neo-Darwinian view, for any cell to evolve purposefully is unthinkable. So of course “natural selection” always ends up being the answer.
Noble shot back. Shuker tried to interrupt but Noble held his ground:
“No, YOU need to listen. I used to think exactly like you. I embraced the reductionist mindset for years. When I got out of school I was a card-carrying reductionist. Reductionism is powerful and it’s useful. I am not dissing it. Many times we need it. But it is not the whole story.”
Noble described how bacterial regulatory networks rebuilt those genes in four days by hyper-mutating, actively searching for a solution that would give them tails and enable them to find food. “Natural selection did not achieve that. Natural genetic engineering did.”
Noble continued: “I did not arrive at this conclusion from any one piece of data. It took many years, papers and experiments for me to come around to this perspective. But slowly I came to a different view.
“It’s not a question of the data. Everybody agrees on the data. It’s about your point of view. I have a view that you do not. This enables me to see things that you cannot see.”
Noble did not waver. “Biology is not just bottom-up. It is also top-down. There is no privileged point of causation in biology. The gene doesn’t hold some special causal role. There are feedback loops from every system to every other system. It’s hierarchical. It’s systems all the way down.”
Five years ago, such “heresy” would not be tolerated in a mainstream science conference. Much of this research has been reported in journals outside of standard evolutionary biology, like physics and medicine, because the evolution journals wouldn’t hear of it.
Few doctors or physiologists hold to traditional Neo-Darwinian theory anymore. And while no one can deny Shuker his right to frame the data from within his particular worldview, no longer can the active role of organisms in their own evolution be denied.
University of St. Andrews scientist David Shuker challenged Denis Noble, who had described an experiment where scientists deleted flagella genes from bacteria.
These cells had re-generated their flagella genes in just four days and grown new tails. A mind-bending example of real-time, high-speed evolution.
“Clearly natural selection can rapidly steer regulatory networks. This is a beautiful example of high speed Neo-Darwinian evolution,” Shuker argued.
Shuker, like Jerry Coyne, was towing the standard Neo-Darwinian line, which insists that in the end, all comes down to “selection, selection, selection.”
Shuker somehow imagined that “selection” is re-wiring those genes. I don’t know how selection re-wires genes in four days. Selection after all is just survival of the fittest; “selection” doesn’t provide us a single detail about how those genes got rewired.
But in the Neo-Darwinian view, for any cell to evolve purposefully is unthinkable. So of course “natural selection” always ends up being the answer.
Noble shot back. Shuker tried to interrupt but Noble held his ground:
“No, YOU need to listen. I used to think exactly like you. I embraced the reductionist mindset for years. When I got out of school I was a card-carrying reductionist. Reductionism is powerful and it’s useful. I am not dissing it. Many times we need it. But it is not the whole story.”
Noble described how bacterial regulatory networks rebuilt those genes in four days by hyper-mutating, actively searching for a solution that would give them tails and enable them to find food. “Natural selection did not achieve that. Natural genetic engineering did.”
Noble continued: “I did not arrive at this conclusion from any one piece of data. It took many years, papers and experiments for me to come around to this perspective. But slowly I came to a different view.
“It’s not a question of the data. Everybody agrees on the data. It’s about your point of view. I have a view that you do not. This enables me to see things that you cannot see.”
Noble did not waver. “Biology is not just bottom-up. It is also top-down. There is no privileged point of causation in biology. The gene doesn’t hold some special causal role. There are feedback loops from every system to every other system. It’s hierarchical. It’s systems all the way down.”
Five years ago, such “heresy” would not be tolerated in a mainstream science conference. Much of this research has been reported in journals outside of standard evolutionary biology, like physics and medicine, because the evolution journals wouldn’t hear of it.
Few doctors or physiologists hold to traditional Neo-Darwinian theory anymore. And while no one can deny Shuker his right to frame the data from within his particular worldview, no longer can the active role of organisms in their own evolution be denied.
Last edited:
B
buffalo
Guest
Rocking the foundations of biology
Here it is again - top down - DNA is not the sole transmitter of inheritance - paper after paper is now showing the inheritance epigenetic information - information is the driver. >
Neo Darwinism crumbling…
A major revolution is occurring in evolutionary biology. In this video the President of the International Union of Physiological Sciences, Professor Denis Noble, explains what is happening and why it is set to change the nature of biology and of the importance of physiology to that change. The lecture was given to a general audience at a major international Congress held in Suzhou China. The implications of the change extend far beyond biology itself. IDvolution.org: Rocking the foundations of biology
Here it is again - top down - DNA is not the sole transmitter of inheritance - paper after paper is now showing the inheritance epigenetic information - information is the driver. >
Neo Darwinism crumbling…
A major revolution is occurring in evolutionary biology. In this video the President of the International Union of Physiological Sciences, Professor Denis Noble, explains what is happening and why it is set to change the nature of biology and of the importance of physiology to that change. The lecture was given to a general audience at a major international Congress held in Suzhou China. The implications of the change extend far beyond biology itself. IDvolution.org: Rocking the foundations of biology
K
Kei
Guest
God is self sufficient. He is the author of Life.
I am not sure if it is appropriate to call Him the “first Life”.
But, the explanation of Him is that He is completely self sufficient and Eternal in a way beyond human measures.
I am not sure if it is appropriate to call Him the “first Life”.
But, the explanation of Him is that He is completely self sufficient and Eternal in a way beyond human measures.
E
edwest211
Guest
Hey, if it’s 6 PM, it’s time to eat. If you’re waiting millions of years you starve. Simple.
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
Another irrelevant point. So DNA is not the only transmitter of inheritance. Is there something clearly supernatural about whatever else it takes to transmit inheritance? If it is natural and it is inheritable is serves the purpose of evolution. Whether you call it DNA or midichlorians it still works as Darwin said.
C
Catholicwife32
Guest
The order of creation in the second account is different than the first. We have to mentally rush through the second creation account to force the creation of man and woman to occur in one day. That’s just one issue among many, but I know it’s very important to your faith to believe it’s literal.
- Status