Myth of evolution and new drug discovery

  • Thread starter Thread starter edwest2
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
StAnastasia said:
Liquidpele, I suspect that a lot of it stems from basic scientific ignorance. People have never studied at a post-secondary level, or never visited a laboratory, or never spoken to a working biologist. I have biologist friends who are Catholics – priests even – who share your being sick of the ID harangues. Hang in there; they are largely powerless outside of Internet fora where they gripe to the converted!

SAnastasia
Click to expand...
I usually chalk it up to the Dunning-Kruger effect. Microsoft had a talk about this in software development years ago… essentially they explained that developers don’t progress if they don’t believe they are incompetent while competent developers believe they actually are somewhat incompetent. This is because you have to attempt to improve to become competent, and believing you are already competent prevents that. They then asked the audience if they thought they themselves were incompetent or not 😛
 
reggieM said:
No one has refuted these findings and there is nothing that shows any transitions from PreCambrian to Cambrian organisms.
Click to expand...
As so often, this is incorrect information from the Creationist side. We do have a few Precambrian fossils that are probably related to later phyla. Spriggina is a probable Arthopod, likely related to Trilobites. Paracorvinia is another probable Arthopod. Kimberella is a likely mollusc.

To quote Answers in Genesis:"D6 No apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record.
  • AiG Statement of Faith
    Whatever evidence seems to be inconvenient to their preconceptions, AiG just ignore. It appears that other creationists may be doing the same thing.
The scientific consensus is that the Cambrian body types appear abruptly, with no trace of ancestors.
Click to expand...
As I have pointed out, this is incorrect, there are some traces of ancestors. It is also worth saying that “abruptly” is a period of between 5 and 15 million years. It may be abrupt in geological terms, but is is certainly not abrupt in human terms.

rossum
 
rossum said:
We do have a few Precambrian fossils that are probably related to later phyla. Spriggina is a probable Arthopod, likely related to Trilobites.
Click to expand...
In mathematical terms, what is the probability?
 
StAnastasia said:
I’m trying to track down the origin of this trope,
Click to expand...
You might consider reading a book about evolution.

The Cambrian explosion refers to **the geologically sudden appearance **of complex multi-cellular macroscopic organisms between roughly 542 and 530 million years ago. This period marks **a sharp transition in the fossil record **with the appearance of the earliest members of many phyla of metazoans (multicellular animals). Since the Cambrian, no new major body plans (phyla) have come into existence, and some phyla, such as the arthropods, exhibit a preservation of body plans sustained to the present for not only phyla, but also classes(Mayr 2001). Gould (2002) maintains that all major bilaterian phyla with fossilizable hard parts make their first appearance in the fossil record at this time within the remarkably short interval of 5-10 million years, but probably nearer the lower value. The sole exception is the Bryozoa, which appear later, in the Ordovician period.

The “explosive” appearance of so many phyla, and the fact that no fundamental new body plans have since come into existence, represents an historical enigma.

newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Cambrian
 
StAnastasia said:
Hang in there; they are largely powerless outside of Internet fora where they gripe to the converted!
Click to expand...
Hang in there – keep the Darwinian faith and don’t get discouraged! Your atheism will see you through - with pseudo-Catholics to help you avoid being converted.
 
StAnastasia said:
pzona, this is a wise post. I said in a public lecture yesterday that a large part of our difficulty in this respect stems from failure to have a common lexicon. Scientists often don’t understand what religious believers mean by “creation,” “incarnation,” “soteriology,” “eschatology,” “theodicy,” etc. Religious believers often don’t understand the difference between “fact,” “hypothesis,” “law,” or “theory” as those terms are used by scientists. Neither side seems to pay attention to what the other means by “truth.”

StAnastasia
Click to expand...
Hey StA, would you consider posting the transcript of you public lecture? Or will it remain private?
 
pzona said:
I’m really not too sure why, but you seem to think science has some sort of vendetta against religion. Science is about figuring out how things work, or why things happen. If there were irrefutable evidence against evolution, any self respecting scientist would have to admit his mistake in believing in evolution, and then start working on a new theory. No one hopes that everyone will forget about previous scientific claims. It’s not about pushing one specific idea on people, it’s about figuring out the truth.

Evolutionists claim that evolution is true because it’s the best explanation we have for how man came to be. It’s certainly an incomplete theory, just like any other area of science. Maybe if more creationists realized that science is about truth, whatever consequences the truth may bring, there wouldn’t be so much hostility between religion and science.
Click to expand...
“science is about truth”? Birds evolved from dinosaurs? That was true until a few weeks ago. Junk DNA? It’s turning out that the non-coding, assumed ancestral, trial and error, left over stuff from millions of years of evolution is not junk, but it was ‘true’ for a while based on a preconceived idea.

Peace,
Ed
 
pzona said:
I’m really not too sure why, but you seem to think science has some sort of vendetta against religion.
Click to expand...
At least 70% of evolutionary scientists are atheist. Have you ever met any atheists who have a vendetta against religion? If not, I could introduce you to some – but I would prefer not to.

Perhaps this quote, from one of the most highly regarded evolutionary biologists ever – T.H. Huxley – known as *Darwin’s Bulldog *for his advocacy of Darwinian theory will help:

Thus far the contradiction between Catholic verity and Scientific verity is complete and absolute, quite independently of the truth or falsehood of the doctrine of evolution. But, for those who hold the doctrine of evolution, all the Catholic verities about the creation of living beings must be no less false… In addition to the truth of the doctrine of evolution, indeed, one of its greatest merits in my eyes, is the fact that it occupies a position of complete and irreconcilable antagonism to that vigorous and consistent enemy of the highest intellectual, moral, and social life of mankind – the Catholic Church.
T.H. Huxley, Darwin’s Critics

That should give us an insight. Again, “one of the greatest merits” of the “doctrine of evolution” is it’s “antagonism” to the Catholic Church.
It’s pretty clear, isn’t it?
If there were irrefutable evidence against evolution, any self respecting scientist would have to admit his mistake in believing in evolution,
Click to expand...
Do you think that there is solid evidence in support of the existence of God? If so, how do you explain the fact that 70% of the scientific community cannot see that evidence? If they’re so blind to the obvious indications of the existence of God – why should we think that they’re not also blind about the evidence against evolution? They’re clearly biased by an absurd religious position - radically disproportionate to the general population. How do you explain that? Does science turn people into atheists?
Evolutionists claim that evolution is true because it’s the best explanation we have for how man came to be.
Click to expand...
It’s the only explanation that they’re willing to accept. What role do they give for God in the development of nature?
It’s certainly an incomplete theory, just like any other area of science.
Click to expand...
I would call it an incoherent, illogical, absurd and obviously false theory – and therefore not like other areas of science. Evolution carries a massive ideological weight that other scientific views do not carry.
Maybe if more creationists realized that science is about truth, whatever consequences the truth may bring, there wouldn’t be so much hostility between religion and science.
Click to expand...
Maybe if atheists didn’t have so much hostility against religion then there wouldn’t be as much hostility betweeen religion and science. True?
 
Aren’t debates like this a bit of a waste of time, at least for us Catholics?

Theistic evolution, Creationism, we’re allowed to make up our own minds on them. It’s not an important part of the faith - as long as you realize that God did it, why does it matter whether he did it in 6 days or over billions of years?
 
John92 said:
Aren’t debates like this a bit of a waste of time, at least for us Catholics?

Theistic evolution, Creationism, we’re allowed to make up our own minds on them. It’s not an important part of the faith - as long as you realize that God did it, why does it matter whether he did it in 6 days or over billions of years?
Click to expand...
You would think. I’ve never thought evolution posed a threat to faith or religion, so I’m not sure why so many people insist that it’s some kind of conspiracy by atheists and keep bringing up the topic. I’ll argue it since I’m familiar enough with the evidence concerning such things, but I’m sure not the one making the threads.
 
John92 said:
Aren’t debates like this a bit of a waste of time, at least for us Catholics?

Theistic evolution, Creationism, we’re allowed to make up our own minds on them. It’s not an important part of the faith - as long as you realize that God did it, why does it matter whether he did it in 6 days or over billions of years?
Click to expand...
Yes, it should work something like that. But there are some other factors at work.
First of all, there are many who do not accept that “God did it”.
Secondly, we would not be wise to consider evolutionary theory to be a neutral entity. It was designed as a weapon to use against God and religion, and it has been used very effectively for over a century in exactly that purpose.

Can we wonder why the topic of evolution attracts so many passionate responses from atheists on CAF? See post 254 in this thread for an example.

Why should atheists care so much about this scientific theory? Why should they care so much about fossils and the meaningless explanations of their importance?

Obviously, evolutionary theory carries an ideological message and it’s very important to fight against that.

So, normally, arguing about an irrelevant scientific theory would indeed be a waste of time for us Catholics. But unfortunately, in this case, many Catholics have been taken in by evolutionary rhetoric and this causes them to remove God from creation and in some cases, dissent against Catholic teaching (Humani Generis) in order to defend evolutionary speculations.
 
John92 said:
Aren’t debates like this a bit of a waste of time, at least for us Catholics?

Theistic evolution, Creationism, we’re allowed to make up our own minds on them. It’s not an important part of the faith - as long as you realize that God did it, why does it matter whether he did it in 6 days or over billions of years?
Click to expand...
If a person walked up to you and asked, Why did Jesus have to die? What would you say? Or, Who are Adam and Eve? What would you say? Original Sin?

I have been told many times that science cannot study the soul or the supernatural or God, yet people post here all the time to tell me about how science has shown this or that in the Bible cannot be true.

Peace,
Ed
 
reggieM said:
Yes, it should work something like that. But there are some other factors at work.
First of all, there are many who do not accept that “God did it”.
Secondly, we would not be wise to consider evolutionary theory to be a neutral entity. ** It was designed as a weapon to use against God and religion**, and it has been used very effectively for over a century in exactly that purpose.

Can we wonder why the topic of evolution attracts so many passionate responses from atheists on CAF? See post 254 in this thread for an example.

Why should atheists care so much about this scientific theory? Why should they care so much about fossils and the meaningless explanations of their importance?

Obviously, evolutionary theory carries an ideological message and it’s very important to fight against that.

So, normally, arguing about an irrelevant scientific theory would indeed be a waste of time for us Catholics. But unfortunately, in this case, many Catholics have been taken in by evolutionary rhetoric and this causes them to remove God from creation and in some cases, dissent against Catholic teaching (Humani Generis) in order to defend evolutionary speculations.
Click to expand...
LOL… are you always this paranoid and arrogant?
 
liquidpele said:
LOL… are you always this paranoid and arrogant?
Click to expand...
He may or may not be wrong, but I didn’t find his language all that arrogant or paranoid. That Peter Ward guy in the video debate about Intelligent Design, on the other hand, was very arrogant.
 
Nec5 said:
He may or may not be wrong, but I didn’t find his language all that arrogant or paranoid. That Peter Ward guy in the video debate about Intelligent Design, on the other hand, was very arrogant.
Click to expand...
I threw in arrogant because he’s presuming that his view on the matter is the official church stance and essentially calling out anyone who does not agree, yet I’m pretty sure that John Paul II made it clear that evolution (while not officially supported) did not contradict the church.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_John_Paul_II#Evolution
atheism.about.com/od/popejohnpaulii/a/evolution.htm (more quotes here)

If you really want arrogant, watch a video of Hitchens 😉 Thing is though arrogance doesn’t mean the person is wrong, even in the case of ReggieM. Evidence can sure make the case one way or the other though, and is the reason evolution is widely accepted whether some people wish to accept that evidence or not.
 
reggieM said:
You might consider reading a book about evolution.

Since the Cambrian, no new major body plans (phyla) have come into existence

…

Gould (2002) maintains that all major bilaterian phyla with fossilizable hard parts make their first appearance in the fossil record at this time within the remarkably short interval of 5-10 million years, but probably nearer the lower value. The sole exception is the Bryozoa, which appear later, in the Ordovician period.

newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Cambrian
Click to expand...
The first part of that is demonstrably false; Gould points out that the Bryozoan phylum originated after the Cambrian. Here is a table of the known time of first appearance of phyla:
Code: 
Period              # animal phyla    # plant phyla  total phyla
======              ==============    =============  ===========
Recent               12                 1             13
Oligocene             1                 1              2
Eocene                1                 1              2
Jurassic              1                 0              1
Triassic              0                 3              3
Carboniferous         3                 2              5
Devonian              1                 3              4
Silurian              0                 1              1
Ordovician            1                 0              1
Cambrian              9                 0              9
Vendian               4                 0              4

From Glenn Morton: [home.entouch.net/dmd/cambevol.htm](http://home.entouch.net/dmd/cambevol.htm)
The figure for ‘Recent’ is too large because we do not have any fossils for most of those phyla - the animals are all small squishy marine worms and similar with no hard parts. The source you are quoting is incorrect. Many phyla did indeed originate in the Cambrian but others originated at other times. All of the land plant phyla originated after the Cambrian as did all land animals.

Gould’s quote does not say what I suspect you think that it does. He uses the words “major bilaterian phyla with fossilizable hard parts”. That is important. Hard parts generally will fossilise well; soft parts not. It is not possible to be certain about when many soft bodied animal phyla originated. Gould’s reference to “bilaterian” indicates that he is talking about a subset of animal phyla - sponges are not bilaterians for example. He also does not include “minor” bilaterian phyla such as the ones listed under ‘Recent’ above. The Cambrian Explosion may be just a period when hard parts, such as teeth and armour plating, evolved in many, but not all, bilaterians.

Your source’s quote from Gould contradicts its previous statement that no new phyla have come into existence - he mentions the Bryozoans as an exception. This is not a good source because it contradicts itself.

ETA: I have just noticed that your source, the New World Encyclopedia, says “The originator of this project is Sun Myung Moon.” on its About page. This is not a reliable source of information about evolution; the Moonies have a known hostile position on Darwin and evolution.

rossum
 
liquidpele said:
I threw in arrogant because he’s presuming that his view on the matter is the official church stance and essentially calling out anyone who does not agree, yet I’m pretty sure that John Paul II made it clear that evolution (while not officially supported) did not contradict the church.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_John_Paul_II#Evolution
atheism.about.com/od/popejohnpaulii/a/evolution.htm (more quotes here)

If you really want arrogant, watch a video of Hitchens 😉 Thing is though arrogance doesn’t mean the person is wrong, even in the case of ReggieM. Evidence can sure make the case one way or the other though, and is the reason evolution is widely accepted whether some people wish to accept that evidence or not.
Click to expand...
There is a lesson to be learned here. Humility. If science is not to be dogmatic, as it sets out not to be, it must be humble and have a sense of awe for what it does not know, accepting that what it does know can and will change, and according respect to those who try to live out the truth they claim to possess (those who are testing their religious ideology, participating in the ongoing experiment of what it means to be human). And Christendom, if it is to be dogmatic about faith and morals, as it sets out to be, it must be humble toward men seeking truth even though the world’s truth changes right before their eyes, and must have a sense of awe for what science can teach us, according respect to those who try to live with a sense of wonderment at the knowledge they do not pretend to possess. What we cannot be are dogmatic scientists or unimaginative Christians. We can learn from each other, you know. And if we are humble, we can be both scientific and religious. That is a piece of knowledge surely we all possess. I don’t believe that when they looked up at the sky, Carl Sagan and Pope John Paul II were thinking of vastly different things or experiencing vastly different emotions. And I don’t think the truths they’ve discovered, or received a piece of, can possibly contradict each other unless the absence of humility is allowed to fester and rear its ugly head. I’d imagine if the hypothetical conversation had taken place between those two men, they’d probably walk away deciding that they were both stargazers, working on a different piece of the puzzle, each possessing some piece that the other didn’t. Isn’t it interesting how lack of personal humility not only destroys personal credibility, as is the case with a Richard Dawkins or a Joel Olsteen, but the same lack of humility destroys the very essence of what it means to “do science” or to “live as Jesus taught?”
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top