Many Adams and Eves?

[StAnastasia]

So you would agree with all those thousands of scientists that say Darwinism is dead.

“Darwinism” is no more dead than “Newtonism” is dead or than “Huttonism” is dead. Evolution, gravity, and the deep geological history of the earth have all been assimilated into the contemporary scientific understanding of the world.

StAnastasia

 

[diggerdomer]

I just received my Ignatius Study Bible (NT) today in the mail. By sheer coincidence, I opened it up to a page on which “type” is defined in a “word study” box. Here is part of what it says:

“In Biblical theology, a type is a person, place thing, event, or institution in Scripture that points to a future mystery. Romans 5:14 is a classic example: Paul shows that Adam, who shaped the first destiny of man for the worst, was a type of Christ, who reverses the tragic effects of sin by hi righteousness. Adam thus showed us in advance how the saving work of Jesus, the new Adam, would affect the entire world.”

Adam can be a “type” yes. Christ is not. How does what you wrote reflect on the citation from the current Catholic Encyclopedia (not the one from a century ago)? Just curious.

 

[tjm190]

So you would agree with all those thousands of scientists that say Darwinism is dead.

You mean the list that includes every single person with a Ph.D that they could get to sign their petition? A Ph.D does not make you a scientist. We pump out over 10,000 Ph.D’s per year- huzzah, a small fraction of those people who have ever received one are at least slightly skeptical of evolution.

I would like very much for term ‘darwinism’ to die, because the theory of evolution, while highly developed my darwin, is not tied to him.

 

[grannymh]

You mean the list that includes every single person with a Ph.D that they could get to sign their petition? A Ph.D does not make you a scientist. We pump out over 10,000 Ph.D’s per year- huzzah, a small fraction of those people who have ever received one are at least slightly skeptical of evolution.

I would like very much for term ‘darwinism’ to die, because the theory of evolution, while highly developed my darwin, is not tied to him.

Perhaps it is the basic philosophical position regarding the origin of the human species (aka Adam & Eve) which is tied to Darwin and by extension his particular followers; hence Darwinism.

 

[StAnastasia]

You mean the list that includes every single person with a Ph.D that they could get to sign their petition? A Ph.D does not make you a scientist.

Lists of dissenters are not particularly meaningful. There are people like the Sungenites who dissent from Galileo, but that doesn’t mean the sun revolves around the earth.

We pump out over 10,000 Ph.D’s per year- huzzah, a small fraction of those people who have ever received one are at least slightly skeptical of evolution.

 

[redneck22]

There are pieces of genetic material that you and I both probably share that have been conserved since the very beginnings of eukaryotic life.

You’re free to believe what you like, I believe God created bacteria separate from apes separate from humans. Common genetic material reflects a common design for life and a common Creator.

Inside your cells, the ribosomes that read your DNA and coordinate its translation into functional proteins (e.g., enzymes, membrane channel proteins) are nearly identical to the ribosomes in my cell, as well as the ribosomes in monkeys, fungi, and plants, and unicellular organisms. Ribosomes are composed of stretches of RNA, another structure comprised of nucleic acids (other than DNA). The gene sequences of ribosomes are nearly identical across all life on earth.

Common design, common Creator, common earth for all to live in, it does not mean one “evolved” into, and became the other. It’s the height of fanciful imagination to believe monkeys, fungi and plants all came from the same ancestor. Their is no evidence of it happening today and yet you’re sure it happened in the past.

Ribosomes are thought to have been one of the earliest evolutionary steps behind cellular life. They’re also critical to every living thing on earth. They’re very successful at doing they’re jobs, so they’ve been conserved over time.

Like ribosomes, cyanobacteria and many extremophiles are very good surviving in particular environments. There’s no surprise whatsoever that they would be around in similar form to 3.5 billion years ago.

Survival of the fittest doesn’t explain the arrival of the fittest. The only “fact” is they reproduce after their kind.

It’s not correct to say that the theory of evolution requires everything to change over time. It simply states that, over time, the species that are best adapted to their environments and reproduce (bountifully) are the most likely to survive for long periods of time.

It also says that microbes changed into humans, so it’s a theory that explains everything and yet explains nothing.

Species that are not the best adapted to their environments are less likely to reproduce (or produce fewer offspring), and therefore over the long term can survive only by finding a new niche where they’re more successful or by being fortunate enough to have a subpopulation of the species have genes or other traits that offer them a survival benefit over the rest of the species.

So which are the fittest? Answer- those that survive. Which are the survivors? Answers- the fittest. You could sum up it up as a theory known as “Survivors survive”. It never explains the arrival of the fittest in the first place because natural selection can only select from pre-existing creatures that have survived. It strips information out of the gene rich pool leaving it poorer, you get rich losing money.

 

[ricmat]

Adam can be a “type” yes. Christ is not. How does what you wrote reflect on the citation from the current Catholic Encyclopedia (not the one from a century ago)? Just curious.

Types point forward to something better. Christ is not a type, since he is the thing to which types of Christ point.

I’m not sure what your problem is.

 

[buffalo]

Adam can be a “type” yes. Christ is not. How does what you wrote reflect on the citation from the current Catholic Encyclopedia (not the one from a century ago)? Just curious.

Dawrin is dead. Darwinism is not and is a self perpetuating doctrine. (money) Current science is showing rapid response, front loaded, complex and capable life right from the beginning. (just what the Church has understood from the beginning)

The top evo’s know this and are moving to the EES. (self assembly) The odds are even worse against it happening.

 

[buffalo]

Lists of dissenters are not particularly meaningful. There are people like the Sungenites who dissent from Galileo, but that doesn’t mean the sun revolves around the earth.

 

[tjm190]

Another argument from popularity. :tsktsk: History shows many achievements and breakthroughs have come from dissenters to popular positions.

Like Charles Darwin!

 

[tjm190]

You’re free to believe what you like, I believe God created bacteria separate from apes separate from humans. Common genetic material reflects a common design for life and a common Creator.

And what do vestigial organs represent? Why do you get goosebumps to fluff up your nonexistent fur?

Common design, common Creator, common earth for all to live in, it does not mean one “evolved” into, and became the other. It’s the height of fanciful imagination to believe monkeys, fungi and plants all came from the same ancestor. Their is no evidence of it happening today and yet you’re sure it happened in the past.

What would evidence ‘of it happening today’ look like?

Survival of the fittest doesn’t explain the arrival of the fittest. The only “fact” is they reproduce after their kind.

What? A mother fox has more children then the environment can support. Although this children are similar both to their mother and each other, they are not identical. So which live? Those able to compete for resources and avoid predators better than the rest. Overtime, the species will transform until it looks quite different from its original self as a result of many generations having their strongest traits favored.

It also says that microbes changed into humans, so it’s a theory that explains everything and yet explains nothing.

What once were microbes slowly developed into multicellular organisms, which (inset long chain of events here) which slowly developed into what we co

So which are the fittest? Answer- those that survive. Which are the survivors? Answers- the fittest. You could sum up it up as a theory known as “Survivors survive”. It never explains the arrival of the fittest in the first place because natural selection can only select from pre-existing creatures that have survived. It strips information out of the gene rich pool leaving it poorer, you get rich losing money.

Those best fit to survive in their given environment survive- that is the essence of natural selection, yes. Natural selection does not deal with the origin of life.

And ‘new’ creatures can come about. If I took a group of flies and put them somewhere else for 1 million years and allowed them to breed, the resulting creature would probably not look at all like the original creature in terms of its genetic structure.

 

[buffalo]

And what do vestigial organs represent? Why do you get goosebumps to fluff up your nonexistent fur?

What would evidence ‘of it happening today’ look like?

What? A mother fox has more children then the environment can support. Although this children are similar both to their mother and each other, they are not identical. So which live? Those able to compete for resources and avoid predators better than the rest. Overtime, the species will transform until it looks quite different from its original self as a result of many generations having their strongest traits favored.

What once were microbes slowly developed into multicellular organisms, which (inset long chain of events here) which slowly developed into what we co

Those best fit to survive in their given environment survive- that is the essence of natural selection, yes. Natural selection does not deal with the origin of life.

And ‘new’ creatures can come about. If I took a group of flies and put them somewhere else for 1 million years and allowed them to breed, the resulting creature would probably not look at all like the original creature in terms of its genetic structure.

Vestigal organs is not a sustainable argument.

So goosebumps do not have or ever had another function?

IDvolution posits that organisms have tremendous rapid response adaptive capability. This is a better explanation.

 

[StAnastasia]

StAnastasia;6717466:

History shows many achievements and breakthroughs have come from dissenters to popular positions.

You are quite correct: Charles Darwin’s evolutionary breakthrough made him a dissenter from the old assumptions of natural theology. Gradually his theory won acceptance as more and more evidence accumulated to support it.

To date no evidence has come to light to support YEC, “intelligent design,” “IDvolution,” or any other other such pseudo-scientific proposition.

StAnastasia

 

[buffalo]

buffalo;6717640:

You are quite correct: Charles Darwin’s evolutionary breakthrough made him a dissenter from the old assumptions of natural theology. Gradually his theory won acceptance as more and more evidence accumulated to support it.

To date no evidence has come to light to support YEC, “intelligent design,” “IDvolution,” or any other other such pseudo-scientific proposition.

StAnastasia

You ignore all the hundreds of science links I post. You ignore peer-reviewed research.

 

[tjm190]

Vestigal organs is not a sustainable argument.

So the fact that I have an organ that doesn’t do anything aside from burst (appendix) and may potentially harbor some bacteria (good bacteria though), is a sign that we were intelligently designed? The appendix is basically an old factory that shut down, and now some squatters have moved in.

So goosebumps do not have or ever had another function?

In animals with fur, goosebumps fluff up that fur. In us, it makes our skin tingly.

IDvolution posits that organisms have tremendous rapid response adaptive capability. This is a better explanation.

Okay. So God’s up in heaven thinking about the dental structure of humans. He builds the mouth to easily accommodate 28 teeth. Why put in 32 teeth?

 

[buffalo]

So the fact that I have an organ that doesn’t do anything aside from burst (appendix) and may potentially harbor some bacteria (good bacteria though), is a sign that we were intelligently designed? The appendix is basically an old factory that shut down, and now some squatters have moved in.
In animals with fur, goosebumps fluff up that fur. In us, it makes our skin tingly.

Okay. So God’s up in heaven thinking about the dental structure of humans. He builds the mouth to easily accommodate 28 teeth. Why put in 32 teeth?

Perhaps Adam had a bigger head and mouth.

Yes the appendix functions to keep good bacteria and replenish the gut. In the past it could have had more functionality depending on our need.

Fluffing up fur is not the only use for goosebumps. We see multiple use functionality all over our bodies.

 

[tjm190]

Perhaps Adam had a bigger head and mouth.

Hmmm… how long ago do you think that was?

Yes the appendix functions to keep good bacteria and replenish the gut. In the past it could have had more functionality depending on our need.

bacteria live there because there’s nothing going on- you don’t need immune boosters after having your appendix removed because you don’t need those specific bacteria. Vestigial doesn’t mean ‘no function.’ If we suddenly gained the ability to fly (like Superman, not like birds), our legs would still help us when we wanted to kick something. But the legs would still be vestigial.

Fluffing up fur is not the only use for goosebumps. We see multiple use functionality all over our bodies.

They keep animals with fur and feathers warm, they help porcupines hurt people. For us? You feel tingly. Great function we got there.

 

[buffalo]

Hmmm… how long ago do you think that was?

bacteria live there because there’s nothing going on- you don’t need immune boosters after having your appendix removed because you don’t need those specific bacteria. Vestigial doesn’t mean ‘no function.’ If we suddenly gained the ability to fly (like Superman, not like birds), our legs would still help us when we wanted to kick something. But the legs would still be vestigial.

They keep animals with fur and feathers warm, they help porcupines hurt people. For us? You feel tingly. Great function we got there.

Bacteria in the appendix replenish the gut when the gut has diarrhea or other traumatic events.

You use the term vestigal as an evolutionary leftover, vs adaptable function, and not a good argument for evolution.

 

[buffalo]

Hmmm… how long ago do you think that was?

.

How long does adaptation take? (finches anyone?)

 

[grannymh]

So the fact that I have an organ that doesn’t do anything aside from burst (appendix) and may potentially harbor some bacteria (good bacteria though), is a sign that we were intelligently designed? The appendix is basically an old factory that shut down, and now some squatters have moved in.
In animals with fur, goosebumps fluff up that fur. In us, it makes our skin tingly.

Okay. So God’s up in heaven thinking about the dental structure of humans. He builds the mouth to easily accommodate 28 teeth. Why put in 32 teeth?

Not sure what you mean by intelligently designed anatomy–sounds like you are talking about optimally designed or maybe immutably….

No matter. I am not interested in furry goose bumps. I am interested in Adam and Eve. As long as they lived in the divine intimacy of God, they would not have to suffer and die. There was an inner harmony in their person. When Adam scorned his Creator by choosing himself over and against God, against the requirements of his creaturely status and therefore against his own good, all that changed. Who can guess the original status of his genomic structure or what happened due to mutations, adaptations, and getting smarter over the years?

Blessings,
granny

“The human person is worthy of profound respect.” – is an universal truth.