M
Memaw
Guest
Sometimes even science needs a little common sense.
- Status
M
Memaw
Guest
MY theory is that monkeys came from man, but then I have no more proof than the other way around.
T
Thing
Guest
Doctors differ…patients die…
But phyla are kind of artificial sets, 30 years age, or so, Gould said there were 4 modern phyla. But now perhaps even some individual species have their own phyla. It really seems to depend on who you ask , is this a new phyla?
E
elt1956
Guest
Geee Memaw and here I was taught in the 40s and 50s that God is everwhere. Glad you have that uncluttered line to God and set me straight. 
M
Memaw
Guest
HE is everywhere, but He is in the Tabernacle, Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity in the person of Jesus Christ,in a very SPECIAL way, in every Catholic Church, everywhere throughout the whole world, Now let science try to figure that one out. Spend some time with HIM and you will see for yourself, unless you have a closed, cold heart. It may take a little time to change a stone heart into a heart of LOVE. But it has been done.Geee Memaw and here I was taught in the 40s and 50s that God is everwhere. Glad you have that uncluttered line to God and set me straight.
E
Ender
Guest
The 70-80 referred to the number that appeared; 35-ish is the number that exist today.
You don’t indicate whether the 24 animal phyla that you claim did not appear in the Cambrian period appeared before or after. If your claim is that the bulk of them appeared prior to the Cambrian then I won’t argue with you except to ask you to clarify whether “appear” means when they first existed or when they were first fossilized.
I mean by Darwinism what I assume you mean by it: the current modern theory of evolution which is largely based on Darwin’s original theories, that is, the explanation of the process by which evolution occurs. Mere evidence that evolution occurred is not necessarily evidence that a proposed mechanism correctly explains it. Darwinism is still wrestling with the problems of evolution that occurs very rapidly (e.g. the Cambrian “explosion”) or not at all (stasis).
Ender
D
drpmjhess
Guest
Barbarian, were there dung beetles before there was dung? Did the first animal defecation occur within the Garden of Eden, or only outside the garden after the Fall? If it took place within the garden – say, within twenty-four hours of the first large herbivore ingesting plant material – how were the feces preserved from smelling up the place? If it took place after the Fall, how did the dung beetles survive without dung to feed on, presuming they were created on the sixth day? These are important questions usually not handled by ID or YEC textbooks.
T
The_Barbarian
Guest
You’ve been misled on that. The former is called “disruptive selection”, and the latter “stabilizing selection.” And it’s very well characterized ( and even quantified in cases where we can actually get exhaustive data)
Learn about it, here:
**Analysis of disruptive selection in subdivided populations
Émile Ajar email
Laboratoire Génétique et Environnement, Institut des Sciences de l’Évolution, CC065, USTL, Place E. Bataillon, 34095 Montpellier Cedex 05, France
BMC Evolutionary Biology 2003, 3:22
Abstract
Background
Analytical methods have been proposed to determine whether there are evolutionarily stable strategies (ESS) for a trait of ecological significance, or whether there is disruptive selection in a population approaching a candidate ESS. These criteria do not take into account all consequences of small patch size in populations with limited dispersal.
Results
We derive local stability conditions which account for the consequences of small and constant patch size. All results are derived from considering Rm, the overall production of successful emigrants from a patch initially colonized by a single mutant immigrant. Further, the results are interpreted in term of concepts of inclusive fitness theory. The condition for convergence to an evolutionarily stable strategy is proportional to some previous expressions for inclusive fitness. The condition for evolutionary stability stricto sensu takes into account effects of selection on relatedness, which cannot be neglected. It is function of the relatedness between pairs of genes in a neutral model and also of a three-genes relationship. Based on these results, I analyze basic models of dispersal and of competition for resources. In the latter scenario there are cases of global instability despite local stability. The results are developed for haploid island models with constant patch size, but the techniques demonstrated here would apply to more general scenarios with an island mode of dispersal.
Conclusions
The results allow to identity and to analyze the relative importance of the different selective pressures involved. They bridge the gap between the modelling frameworks that have led to the Rm concept and to inclusive fitness.**
biomedcentral.com/1471-2148/3/22
and:
Small Population Genetic Variability at Loci Under Stabilizing Selection
Patrick Foley
Evolution, Vol. 46, No. 3 (Jun., 1992), pp. 763-774
tinyurl.com/2tbq3w
Never be afraid of the truth.
N
Namesake
Guest
You are correct. God maybe has different ideas. God doesn’t write science. Scientists write science.
R
rossum
Guest
I would need to see a source for that please. Wikipedia counts 38 animal phyla, 11 plant and 6 fungi.
Mostly after, my chart had oldest (Vendian) at the bottom and newest (Recent) at the top.
All we can know is when they were first fossilised. As I indicated, the phyla in “Recent” are almost certainly not recent, but we just do not have any fossils of them.
Thankyou for the explanation.
Agreed, evolution on its own is just a fact: population genomes change over time. The Theory of Evolution is the set of explanations science has developed to explain the fact of evolution. Each proposed mechanism is used to make predictions either of what we will or will not find in an experiment, or of what we will or will not find as a fossil. Science is ruthless about dropping any proposals that do not come up to the mark. By now the theory of evolution has assembled some very good mechanisms, all well tested.
Firstly, the Cambrian explosion is only “very rapid” in geological terms - it took 5 to 15 million years. Secondly, as The Barbarian has pointed out, evolution at varying rates is not a problem. There is an example of fast evolution from a creationist source at: Brisk Biters. Biologists are well aware of differing rates of evolution and have incororated mechanisms for them into the theory.
[Note to The Barbarian - your posts do not always link in at the correct point when viewing in threaded mode. Could you please try using the “Quote” button at the bottom right of the post you are replying to, that might improve things. Thanks.]
rossum
E
edwest2
Guest
The Catholic Church does not endorse all theories of evolution. It specifically does not endorse those theories that do not include God.
God bless,
Ed
God bless,
Ed
N
Namesake
Guest
Evolution does not include God at all. Science doesn’t address God at all. Science is silent about God. Science isn’t interested in God. That doesn’t mean that science is against God.
E
edwest2
Guest
That is misleading. In Human Persons Created in the Image of God, Catholics are told:
Part 64: “It follows that the message of Pope John Paul II cannot be read as a blanket approbation of all theories of evolution, including those of a neo-Darwinian provenance which explicitly deny to divine providence any truly causal role in the development of life in the universe.”
Since the textbooks are silent about God, they are, according to the Church, missing critical information.
God bless,
Ed
Part 64: “It follows that the message of Pope John Paul II cannot be read as a blanket approbation of all theories of evolution, including those of a neo-Darwinian provenance which explicitly deny to divine providence any truly causal role in the development of life in the universe.”
Since the textbooks are silent about God, they are, according to the Church, missing critical information.
God bless,
Ed
N
Namesake
Guest
And the Church is correct, according to the Church.
E
elt1956
Guest
Hello there. Yes, I understand what you are saying. I was raised Catholic and had at least sixteen years of formal Catholic education. What I am saying is that God can be found in other places than a Catholic Church. If that isn’t so, how explain the multiple acts of love and kindness given to others by so many, many different kinds of people. “I am a light unto the world.” And I think that light can be spread outside a building.
A
anthony022071
Guest
M
Memaw
Guest
You bet it is, I trust the Holy Church guided by the Holy Spirit, but I don’t trust your theory with holes in it. You all WILL NEVER know what God knows. HE has ALL the answers. Science has its place, but when they think they can tell GOD how HE created things, (when they are making LOT of educated guesses) , and when they think they don’t need God in their work, then their going down the wrong path.
M
Memaw
Guest
It is interesting how some people can take something someone says and throw it off in an entirely different direction, I suggested you spend time in Church with Jesus, in the Tabernacle, and you came up with this “God is everywhere” and I explained the that is true but Jesus is present in a Special way in the Tabernacle, and now you come up with this quote.Hello there. Yes, I understand what you are saying. I was raised Catholic and had at least sixteen years of formal Catholic education. What I am saying is that God can be found in other places than a Catholic Church. If that isn’t so, how explain the multiple acts of love and kindness given to others by so many, many different kinds of people. “I am a light unto the world.” And I think that light can be spread outside a building.
I wasn’t questioning that “God is everywhere” But you seem to be saying there is NO difference between His presence in the Tabernacle than anywhere else. AND there is . You claim your a Catholic with a Catholic education, well what does that prove, you don’t sound like one or you would KNOW the difference. Our Pastor always says that the longest journey we’ll ever make is the 12 inches between the head and the heart.
M
Memaw
Guest
Right on Ed,
And neither does a truly practicing Catholic.
T
The_Barbarian
Guest
Barbarian observes:
Not to a Catholic.
Barbarian on evolutionary theory:
As the last three popes have pointed out, there is no conflict between these. It’s a Protestant delusion that God’s creation is at odds with science. And even most Protestants know better.
Barbarian observes:
I can’t believe you’re serious. Pope John Paul II said:
“All the observations concerning the development of life lead to a similar conclusions. The evolution of living beings, of which science seeks to determine the stages and to discern the mechanism, presents an internal finality which arouses admiration. This finality which directs beings in a direction for which they are not responsible or in charge, obliges one to suppose a Mind which is its inventor, its Creator.”
Barbarian observes:
Keep in mind, that scientists don’t accept evolution because they dearly want it to be that way. They do it, because that’s where the evidence leads.
Barbarian observes:
Direct observation. For example, one sees it happening in Africa right now. Elephants are being shot for their ivory, and an increasing number of male elephants are born tuskless. Natural selection is now favoring those without tusks.
Not to a Catholic.
I didn’t mean cafeteria Catholics.
Barbarian on evolutionary theory:
As the last three popes have pointed out, there is no conflict between these. It’s a Protestant delusion that God’s creation is at odds with science. And even most Protestants know better.
Be honest with yourself. Pope Benedict XVI has acknowledged the fact that evolutionary theory is supported by a vast body of evidence. Natural selection is part of that theory. Don’t try to pettifog your way out of this.
Barbarian observes:
I can’t believe you’re serious. Pope John Paul II said:
“All the observations concerning the development of life lead to a similar conclusions. The evolution of living beings, of which science seeks to determine the stages and to discern the mechanism, presents an internal finality which arouses admiration. This finality which directs beings in a direction for which they are not responsible or in charge, obliges one to suppose a Mind which is its inventor, its Creator.”
No mention of whales evolving from other ungulates either. Don’t play games.
Barbarian observes:
Keep in mind, that scientists don’t accept evolution because they dearly want it to be that way. They do it, because that’s where the evidence leads.
Two ways of saying the same thing. Methodological naturalism is a method that relies on evidence.
What evidence do you think supports sola scriptura? If there isn’t any, your argument collapses.
Perhaps you never learned the difference between evidence and faith.
Barbarian observes:
Direct observation. For example, one sees it happening in Africa right now. Elephants are being shot for their ivory, and an increasing number of male elephants are born tuskless. Natural selection is now favoring those without tusks.
You really think that’s what evolutionary theory says? Amazing. Of course not. What happens is that elephants with tusks tend to get shot, so the alleles for tusks tend to become more and more scarce, and so tusks get smaller or absent altogether. This is 8th grade science. Why don’t you know it?
And you didn’t know that this was what evolutionary theory predicts?
- Status