Many Adams and Eves?

[ThomasToo]

Ok. In my left hand is abiogenesis. I hold onto it for a few billion years, and the moment it turns into life, I put it in my right, evolution hand? Give me a break.

I’m happy to give you a break but the theories are what they are. Frankly I feel like you ignored my distinction. It is completely plausible within the bounds of evolution to think that God formed the first non-living matter into living matter (e.g. RNA) and the evolutionary process ran from there. Evolution is not about the creation of life from non-living matter.

So too are theories about the creation of stars from clouds of gas different from a god-less notion of the Big Bang but one certainly follows (chronologically) the other and there is nothing keeping someone from holding both. So too, is there nothing keeping someone from holding the first and not the second.

 

[edwest2]

I’m happy to give you a break but the theories are what they are. Frankly I feel like you ignored my distinction. It is completely plausible within the bounds of evolution to think that God formed the first non-living matter into living matter (e.g. RNA) and the evolutionary process ran from there. Evolution is not about the creation of life from non-living matter.

So too are theories about the creation of stars from clouds of gas different from a god-less notion of the Big Bang but one certainly follows (chronologically) the other and there is nothing keeping someone from holding both. So too, is there nothing keeping someone from holding the first and not the second.

I understand what you are saying, but the secular world is exhibiting too great a concern about what the Church thinks, from an invisible man in the sky to a book of myths or stories from the Bronze age, to a God on a wafer. Annoying for them, until we get to the big concern: evolution. Then it becomes an intolerable annoyance. Cardinal Schoenborn wrote an article for the New York Times and people freaked out. It appeared the Church was moving in the wrong, to them, direction and it could not be allowed to. Cardinal Schoenborn was - gasp - accused of being a Biblical literalist and creationist.

The moment anyone adds the word God to evolution – they are immediately called on it. Science does not deal with God or the supernatural. The secular world wants a 100% God-free creation story where chemicals turn into a bag, develop a brain, have a few delusional God experiences, and finally wake up modern – free of God and superstition: Praise Darwin. Evolve beyond belief.

God? Pfft. Show me God.

That Is The Only Reason The nontheist World Is Interested In Us: We Might Say Something Bad About Science, creating doubt and a power vacuum. They will continue to post for years, decades or longer about how a bunch of chemicals turned into people, but the end is not knowledge, just control.

God bless,
Ed

 

[ricmat]

You could also disprove gravity if you were a scientist. Why doesn’t all matter (i.e. atoms, cells, etc.) collapse in upon themselves due to gravity?

Of course there are doubts about evolution, as with any other scientific theory. So what?

There are “Catholic Theologians” here who state that evolution (“random mutations + natural selection results in all life that we see today”) is a FACT. That’s the problem

No it doesn’t.

What is the material composition of the ball?

What other forces are relevant?

For example, if the ball is magnetic and there is a magnetic force operative in a direction other than “down” then the ball will fall “up” (i.e. not “down”).

True, but those magnetic forces are also predicable, etc. Take away all the other influences, and gravity is predictable.

Neither does Darwin’s theory of evolution.

This is really important too.

The TOE says much about who the designer is. It says that there isn’t one.

I cannot look back through history and say what did happen but we can look around and say what may have (and I would argue probably and almost certainly did) happened.

The short answer is that half an eye or 20% of a bacterial flagellum is quite helpful and not useless–as the notion of irreducible complexity would necessarily imply. For an example an eye without a properly formed lens is better than not having any sight at all (and in the land of the blind…) and a bacterial flagellum without the whip bit (with the omission of 40 of the 50 parts that form it) is in fact the type-3 excretory apparatus.

Videos speaking on these topics are widely available but I recommend Ken Miller on the bacterial flagellum and Dan-Eric Nilsson on the eye. You can also refer to this chart regarding the eye and these two charts (part 1, part 2) for the evolution of the flagellum which are taken from “Evolution in (Brownian) space: a model for the origin of the bacterial flagellum” if you want the heavy hitting scholarly answer to one of your two examples.

I do not simply have ‘chance of the gaps.’ The claim of irreducible complexity is that a system such as the bacterial flagellum or the eye is useless and completely worthless when missing any one of its component parts; otherwise it would not be irreducibly complex. Neither of the cases you present meet this burden.

I say this without spite or irony, thank you. I learned new things today answering your question and that makes me happy.

Forget the IR complexity issue. The real issue here is that the mechanism of the TOE is “random mutations later filtered by natural selection.” You have no idea if any of those actually occurred in the past. But…you know that evolution did it somehow. That, my friend is a faith statement.

 

[ThomasToo]

How many steps does it take to go from a photosensitive cell to a complete eye?

Six I believe. I’m on my phone so I don’t have the link I provided above that charts out thesesteps, sorry.

 

[ricmat]

What she and others are really worried about is science indoctrinization is at stake.

More generally, what she is worried about is that indoctrination is at stake (not just scientific). How dare you disagree with her! She’s a professor who eats lunch with George Coyne! And how many PhD’s from Oxford do you have, eh? How many papers have you written? How successful have YOU been in overturning Catholic Theology?

 

[buffalo]

Six I believe. I’m on my phone so I don’t have the link I provided above that charts out thesesteps, sorry.

When you get a chance post it - I would like to see and discuss it.

 

[ThomasToo]

When you get a chance post it - I would like to see and discuss it.

Sorry for the delay

 

[ThomasToo]

Forget the IR complexity issue. The real issue here is that the mechanism of the TOE is “random mutations later filtered by natural selection.” You have no idea if any of those actually occurred in the past. But…you know that evolution did it somehow. That, my friend is a faith statement.

You just said the issue was complexity and I provided you proof. There is remarkable amounts of evidence that say the path was probably the one Buffalo and I are discussing and there exists in the world at present eyes at almost every step in that chain.

The supposition ‘you exist’ is a faith statement too but that doesn’t mean there’s not a proof for it and it doesn’t mean it’s not true.

What do you mean by TOE? Theory of evolution? Honest question, why do people find it so difficult to write out ‘evolution’? As things go it’s not a terribly long word nor all that difficult to spell.

 

[manygift1spirit]

[original quote]:Scientific evidence supports the conclusion that all humans did not descend from just one pair of humans, but a small group of humans with the population at lowest being 1000. Official Church teaching contradicts this, and says that the faithful must accept that we are descended from a literal Adam and Eve. Is this a contradiction between faith and reason?[end original]

This does not make logical sense to me either from a religious or scientific basis.

Agreed. For that to be true, there would have to be a population of 1000 or more organisms of the same species together but none of whom were related to any other in the population. That is frankly absurd.

If the source for the original statement actually says that, it is quite a leap of logic. Showing common ancestry to a group a ~1000 in no way precludes common ancestry to a single couple. I smell somewhere the subtle faith-debunking false dichotomizing which gives legitimate scientific inquiry on the topic a bad name.

 

[ThomasToo]

I understand what you are saying, but the secular world is exhibiting too great a concern about what the Church thinks, from an invisible man in the sky to a book of myths or stories from the Bronze age, to a God on a wafer. Annoying for them, until we get to the big concern: evolution. Then it becomes an intolerable annoyance. Cardinal Schoenborn wrote an article for the New York Times and people freaked out. It appeared the Church was moving in the wrong, to them, direction and it could not be allowed to. Cardinal Schoenborn was - gasp - accused of being a Biblical literalist and creationist.

I think the problem is that many of us fear that the Church’ beliefs are trying to be forced onto other people (e.g. Maine’s Proposition 1 and Intelligent Design in science classrooms). If you want to believe the world is flat and floats through space on the backs of four elephants that in turn rest on a giant turtle you are welcome to do so just don’t try to tell my kids that it’s science.

The moment anyone adds the word God to evolution – they are immediately called on it. Science does not deal with God or the supernatural. The secular world wants a 100% God-free creation story where chemicals turn into a bag, develop a brain, have a few delusional God experiences, and finally wake up modern – free of God and superstition: Praise Darwin. Evolve beyond belief.

I think that a most scientists think evolution can stand on its own feet without gods of any sort. That said God as genesis point of life as such at least pushes the question back a bit and my point was that biogenesis is not about evolution and we can answer those two questions differently.

God? Pfft. Show me God.

I can’t, I’m an atheist but my point was that evolution is not about where life came from but how–existing–it came to its variety forms.

That Is The Only Reason The nontheist World Is Interested In Us: We Might Say Something Bad About Science, creating doubt and a power vacuum. They will continue to post for years, decades or longer about how a bunch of chemicals turned into people, but the end is not knowledge, just control.

I think most of us–atheists and believers alike–are here for knowledge but I like to give people the benefit of the doubt. As I said above I’m learning things here that I may not have elsewhere and it’s not that you’re saying something bad about science but that you’re saying something is science that isn’t and trying to put that, if I may be so forward, delusion into our classrooms.

 

[ricmat]

You just said the issue was complexity and I provided you proof.

If I said that the issue was complexity, I can’t find it in my previous posts.

There is remarkable amounts of evidence that say the path was probably the one Buffalo and I are discussing and there exists in the world at present eyes at almost every step in that chain.

So if evolution did it, what was the sequence of random mutations that did it?

Answer: You don’t know, but you know that evolution-did-it-somehow.

Evolution IS the mechanism, random mutations + natural selection. If you can’t provide evidence that this mechanism did it, you have no evidence that evolution-did-it.

 

[ThomasToo]

If I said that the issue was complexity, I can’t find it in my previous posts.

So if evolution did it, what was the sequence of random mutations that did it?

Answer: You don’t know, but you know that evolution-did-it-somehow.

No. I have the scheme that it almost certainly followed. I’ve linked to it above with a video and a chart for the eye and a video, chart and academic paper for the flagellum. I would, as humbly as possible, suggest you watch, view and read them.

 

[StAnastasia]

Agreed. For that to be true, there would have to be a population of 1000 or more organisms of the same species together but none of whom were related to any other in the population. That is frankly absurd.

Wrong. Of course the organisms in the population of the species are related.

 

[StAnastasia]

Hello - where do you think much of the info is being published? Are you reading it?

Look at the articles - remove the evo spin and look at the actual science. The conclusions are inescapable.

Where are the ID and YEC articles in science publication? Do they include Noah’s Flood articles?

 

[manygift1spirit]

Wrong. Of course the organisms in the population of the species are related.

Actually, that was my point. I called it absurd instead.

 

[buffalo]

Sorry for the delay

There are many more small steps needed for each of these 6. Do you agree?

 

[buffalo]

I think the problem is that many of us fear that the Church’ beliefs are trying to be forced onto other people (e.g. Maine’s Proposition 1 and Intelligent Design in science classrooms). If you want to believe the world is flat and floats through space on the backs of four elephants that in turn rest on a giant turtle you are welcome to do so just don’t try to tell my kids that it’s science.

I.

I will rewrite what you posted.

If you want to believe that everything came from nothing and that natural selection and mutations explain the diversity of life you are welcome to do so just don’t try to tell my kids that it’s science.

Added: Discuss it in philosophy class.

 

[StAnastasia]

"You just wrote that they aren’t doing anything but whining, so what are they going to teach anyone, nothing?God bless, Ed

Yes. If Ken Ham and Micheal Behe had their way, biology education would be severely curtailed. Thank goodness for groups like the National Center for Science Education (www.ncse.com) and the Texas Freedom Network http://www.tfn.org/site/PageServer, and Ohio Citizens for Science http://www.ohioscience.org/.

 

[StAnastasia]

I If you want to believe that everything came from nothing and that natural selection and mutations explain the diversity of life you are welcome to do so just don’t try to tell my kids that it’s science.

Buffalo, do you reject creation ex nihilo?

 

[edwest2]

I think the problem is that many of us fear that the Church’ beliefs are trying to be forced onto other people (e.g. Maine’s Proposition 1 and Intelligent Design in science classrooms). If you want to believe the world is flat and floats through space on the backs of four elephants that in turn rest on a giant turtle you are welcome to do so just don’t try to tell my kids that it’s science.

I think that a most scientists think evolution can stand on its own feet without gods of any sort. That said God as genesis point of life as such at least pushes the question back a bit and my point was that biogenesis is not about evolution and we can answer those two questions differently.

I can’t, I’m an atheist but my point was that evolution is not about where life came from but how–existing–it came to its variety forms.

I think most of us–atheists and believers alike–are here for knowledge but I like to give people the benefit of the doubt. As I said above I’m learning things here that I may not have elsewhere and it’s not that you’re saying something bad about science but that you’re saying something is science that isn’t and trying to put that, if I may be so forward, delusion into our classrooms.

“our classrooms” There it is. This is only about a power struggle and will continue to be only a power struggle. When prayer was kicked out of public schools in the 1960s (it is obviously a mystery as to how it got there in the first place), the secularists moved in.

"I am convinced that the battle for mankind’s future must be waged and won in the public school classrooms by teachers who correctly perceive their role as the proselytizers of a new faith…
“The classroom must and will become an arena of conflict between the old and the new – the rotting corpse of christianity, together with all its adjacent evils and misery, and the new faith… resplendent in its promise.” John Dunphy, The Humanist.

Excerpt from Dark Secrets of the New Age by Texe Marrs.

“American philosopher and historian of science Stanley J. Laki has said that freeing Darwin’s theory of evolution, and its further development in neo-darwinism, “from what is not science there”, so that it does not become ideology, but remains science, is a most important task.”

Excerpt from Chance or Purpose by Cardinal Schoenborn

I am not for forcing the Church’s beliefs on anyone. Forcing someone to believe is forbidden.

What is Proposition 1? And what will happen if your kids are taught Intelligent Design? They won’t be able to tie their shoes? Operate a computer? Drive? What?

God bless,
Ed