S
StAnastasia
Guest
Evolution is no more a “myth” than is gravity. Both are explanatory frameworks.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
S
StAnastasia
Guest
The significance of this declaration is what? How is it germane to genetics? Are Catholic geneticists to genuflect before the magisterial document, or to submit all papers to the pope before publication?Meanwhile, the Church declares that Adam and Eve are real people. Individuals. Peace,Ed
E
edwest2
Guest
But, but… I thought gravity couldn’t be explained.Evolution is no more a “myth” than is gravity. Both are explanatory frameworks.
Peace,
Ed
E
edwest2
Guest
You have apparently decided that pages 200 - 556 of the Bible are fine, but not the parts that deal with human origins. Why was Jesus born? To die for a pair of hominids? Don’t you know that the Bible declares that by one man sin entered the world?The significance of this declaration is what? How is it germane to genetics? Are Catholic geneticists to genuflect before the magisterial document, or to submit all papers to the pope before publication?
I respectfully hope you come to realize that the Word of God is the Word of God and that modernism has been a problem obscuring the truth for some time now.
Already, too many genuflect before the church of the mind of man, and are taken by the deep emotions created by the human ego. I once read: We will become greater than any god we can imagine. Then I hear the words of the devil in the Garden, “Ye shall be as gods.”
Man is limited. I have studied about how in less than 50 years, man went from his first sustained heavier than air flight to jet aircraft, supersonic rockets and the atomic bomb.
The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom.
Peace,
Ed
L
liquidpele
Guest
Of course it can, just not completely. We know it’s related to mass, we can calculate the gravitation force of different planets and even of other stars and galaxies, etc. Just because it’s not 100% understood doesn’t mean God is actually pulling us down or that God is directly causing evolutionary jumps.But, but… I thought gravity couldn’t be explained.
Peace,
Ed
L
liquidpele
Guest
Look, it’s obvious parts of the bible can’t be taken literally. Just look at Leviticus shutter. And don’t say you’re not supposed to listen to that old stuff…You have apparently decided that pages 200 - 556 of the Bible are fine, but not the parts that deal with human origins. Why was Jesus born? To die for a pair of hominids? Don’t you know that the Bible declares that by one man sin entered the world?
I respectfully hope you come to realize that the Word of God is the Word of God and that modernism has been a problem obscuring the truth for some time now.
Already, too many genuflect before the church of the mind of man, and are taken by the deep emotions created by the human ego. I once read: We will become greater than any god we can imagine. Then I hear the words of the devil in the Garden, “Ye shall be as gods.”
Man is limited. I have studied about how in less than 50 years, man went from his first sustained heavier than air flight to jet aircraft, supersonic rockets and the atomic bomb.
The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom.
Peace,
Ed
Code:
All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for refutation, for correction, and for training in righteousness..." (2 Timothy 3:16)
Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. Amen, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest part or the smallest part of a letter will pass from the law, until all things have taken place. (Matthew 5:17)
S
StAnastasia
Guest
Gravity is not the phenomenon we are trying to explain; gravity is the theory that has been advanced to explain why bodies in space attract each other. Similarly, evolution has been advanced to explain why species appear to be related to each other by common ancestry. In either case you could propose “God does it,” but it would be hard to make generalizations based on divine whim.But, but… I thought gravity couldn’t be explained.Peace,Ed
H
hecd2
Guest
Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes.I understand but I think you know what I’m driving at.
Did single celled organisms become multiple celled organisms? Did these go on to become fish? Did fish go on to become amphibians? Did amphibians go on to become exclusively land dwelling animals?
Really?? Who proved it false, when and where? Give us a citation from a scientific paper.I’ve used the now proven false conclusion that birds evolved from dinosaurs.
Alec
evolutionpages.com
L
liquidpele
Guest
It was a really recent one… it doesn’t disprove it, but it does suggest it. However, all it suggests is that they evolved from a common ancestor instead of directly from.Really?? Who proved it false, when and where? Give us a citation from a scientific paper.
scientificblogging.com/news_articles/theropod_dinosaurs_evolved_birds_not_likely_says_study
Edit: Actually, upon further review, it simply suggests that they didn’t evolve from Theropod dinosaurs which is more specific.
More info on the topic:
truthinscience.org.uk/site/content/view/231/65/
ucmp.berkeley.edu/diapsids/avians.html
R
redneck22
Guest
Amen to that.Code:All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for refutation, for correction, and for training in righteousness..." (2 Timothy 3:16) Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. Amen, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest part or the smallest part of a letter will pass from the law, until all things have taken place. (Matthew 5:17)
.
H
hecd2
Guest
It was a really recent one… it doesn’t disprove it, but it does suggest it. However, all it suggests is that they evolved from a common ancestor instead of directly from.hecd2 said:[To edwest’s incorrect and unsubstantiated claim that it has been proven that birds did not descend from dinosaurs]
Really?? Who proved it false, when and where? Give us a citation from a scientific paper.
scientificblogging.com/news_articles/theropod_dinosaurs_evolved_birds_not_likely_says_study
First of all that is not a citation to a scientific paper but a popular article about one. Secondly, it reports one study from the periphery of the field that looks at a particular anatomic structure of Aves and makes unwarranted claims based on it. (Aves have several other derived diagnostic features and how anyone can claim based on that anatomical evidence that birds are not descended from theropod dinosaurs beggars belief.) The conclusion that Aves are a clade within theropod dinosuars is based on a huge quantity of evidence.
And, on the weight of evidence, wrong.Edit: Actually, upon further review, it simply suggests that they didn’t evolve from Theropod dinosaurs which is more specific.
In addition to all the synapomorphies that Aves share with other members of the Maniraptorian theropods, that lead to the consensus that birds are theropod dinosaurs, further evidence is being published this week in Nature (Hu et al, A pre-Archaeopteryx troodontid theropod from China with long feathers on the metatarsus, *Nature *461, 640 - 643; go here for a preprint) that demonstrates that important features of birds were evolving within Manoraptorian theropods (specifically in Troodontidae) more than 160 million years ago.
Ed is doing what he commonly does, which is selective quoting and deliberate misrepresentation. I bet that he doesn’t acknowledge his mistake and that he continues to claim that it’s been proven that birds did not evolve from dinosaurs in spite of the fact that that’s plain false.
Alec
evolutionpages.com
L
liquidpele
Guest
Well you certainly know more about it than I. I was simply pointing to something about the study he was referencing (I just googled that link). Yes, I’m aware of what Ed does. My major point back to him when he brought it up earlier was that whether birds evolved from dinosaurs or a common ancestor is inconsequential to the fact that they evolved. Ed is apparently under the impression that because science is capable of changing it’s mind according to new evidence that it cannot be trusted.First of all that is not a citation to a scientific paper but a popular article about one. Secondly, it reports one study from the periphery of the field that looks at a particular anatomic structure of Aves and makes unwarranted claims based on it. (Aves have several other derived diagnostic features and how anyone can claim based on that anatomical evidence that birds are not descended from theropod dinosaurs beggars belief.) The conclusion that Aves are a clade within theropod dinosuars is based on a huge quantity of evidence.
And, on the weight of evidence, wrong.
In addition to all the synapomorphies that Aves share with other members of the Maniraptorian theropods, that lead to the consensus that birds are theropod dinosaurs, further evidence is being published this week in Nature (Hu et al, A pre-Archaeopteryx troodontid theropod from China with long feathers on the metatarsus, *Nature *461, 640 - 643; go here for a preprint) that demonstrates that important features of birds were evolving within Manoraptorian theropods (specifically in Troodontidae) more than 160 million years ago.
Ed is doing what he commonly does, which is selective quoting and deliberate misrepresentation. I bet that he doesn’t acknowledge his mistake and that he continues to claim that it’s been proven that birds did not evolve from dinosaurs in spite of the fact that that’s plain false.
Alec
evolutionpages.com
R
redneck22
Guest
One of the popular science comics had an article on this.First of all that is not a citation to a scientific paper but a popular article about one. Secondly, it reports one study from the periphery of the field that looks at a particular anatomic structure of Aves and makes unwarranted claims based on it. (Aves have several other derived diagnostic features and how anyone can claim based on that anatomical evidence that birds are not descended from theropod dinosaurs beggars belief.) The conclusion that Aves are a clade within theropod dinosuars is based on a huge quantity of evidence.
And, on the weight of evidence, wrong.
In addition to all the synapomorphies that Aves share with other members of the Maniraptorian theropods, that lead to the consensus that birds are theropod dinosaurs, further evidence is being published this week in Nature (Hu et al, A pre-Archaeopteryx troodontid theropod from China with long feathers on the metatarsus, *Nature *461, 640 - 643; go here for a preprint) that demonstrates that important features of birds were evolving within Manoraptorian theropods (specifically in Troodontidae) more than 160 million years ago.
Ed is doing what he commonly does, which is selective quoting and deliberate misrepresentation. I bet that he doesn’t acknowledge his mistake and that he continues to claim that it’s been proven that birds did not evolve from dinosaurs in spite of the fact that that’s plain false.
Alec
evolutionpages.com
View attachment 6703
L
liquidpele
Guest
My troll alarm just went off… are you playing?
I
itinerant1
Guest
Certainly not all geneticists agree with the genetics’ theory you allege as conclusive and the final word on the matter. For example, Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza, shows in The History and Geography of Human Genes the scientific evidence that supports the fact of a first pair of human parents. Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza has the stronger scientific argument.The significance of this declaration is what? How is it germane to genetics? Are Catholic geneticists to genuflect before the magisterial document, or to submit all papers to the pope before publication?
I
itinerant1
Guest
I know you consider macro-evolution anathema. But I think it is interesting to note that Michael Denton, one of the many individuals recruited by Phillip Johnson at U.C. Berkeley to promote ID creationism, would disagree with your position.Why do we invoke Darwin?
Ed
In Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, Denton argues for discontinuities in nature. He presents many fairly well reasoned arguments. Yet he accepts the overwhelming evidence for the fact of speciation in nature. For example, he discusses circular overlaps. You must be familiar with that. The classic example involves two species of European gull, Larus argentatus and Larus fuscus. One can trace, step by step, the formation of the two species by following the “intergrading subspecies right round the northern hemisphere. A more dramatic demonstration of the reality of speciation in nature can hardly be imagined!”
Denton cites other well known examples of speciation including the study of the Hawaiin Drosophila “where perfect sequential arrangements have provided compelling evidence that new species do arise from pre-existing species in nature.”
When you take a break from arguing about viruses and bacteria, you might want to give everyone your take on these and other most compelling examples for speciation.
H
hecd2
Guest
I am afraid that this is not correct for several reasons:Certainly not all geneticists agree with the genetics’ theory you allege as conclusive and the final word on the matter. For example, Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza, shows in The History and Geography of Human Genes the scientific evidence that supports the fact of a first pair of human parents. Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza has the stronger scientific argument.
- I don’t know of a single geneticist or molecular biologist working in palaeo-demography (including Cavalli-Sforza) who has claimed or is claiming that the molecular evidence is consistent with a bottleneck of two in the human lineage. On the contrary, the evidence precludes that hypothesis.
- I think you have badly misunderstood what you have read. I can’t find any statement in the History and Geography of Human Genes by Cavalli-Sforza et al which ‘supports the fact of a first pair of human parents’. In fact the authors go out of their way to debunk that idea. With regard to mitochondrial DNA coalescence and the mtDNA phylogenetic tree they say:
Note that 15 years have passed since that was written, and ‘distinguished colleagues’ no longer make the mistake that Cavalli-Sforza tasked them with, although laymen aplenty still do.
- And the fact that this book is 15 years old and pre-dates the sequencing of the human genome means that even if it supported what you say, which it doesn’t, it is hardly the last word on the subject. A huge quantity of work has been published since then, and *none *of it supports the notion of a bottleneck of two individuals while some it precludes such an idea.
evolutionpages.com/Mteve_not_biblical_eve.htm
S
StAnastasia
Guest
No, Luigi does not argue this.Certainly not all geneticists agree with the genetics’ theory you allege as conclusive and the final word on the matter. For example, Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza, shows in The History and Geography of Human Genes the scientific evidence that supports the fact of a first pair of human parents. Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza has the stronger scientific argument.
E
edwest2
Guest
Believe it or not, I am looking for the truth behind all this. The current idea behind species is two groups become isolated and can no longer interbreed. However, my only issue is the idea that some novel organ could gradually appear in a macro creature. A wing on its way to becoming a wing won’t allow the macro creature to fly. A light sensitive spot has quite a ways to go before it becomes an eyeball, and stereo vision requires some precise distance between the two eyeballs to allow for full function. The function of a gill is far enough removed from the function of a lung to make any connection between the two imaginative and highly doubtful.I know you consider macro-evolution anathema. But I think it is interesting to note that Michael Denton, one of the many individuals recruited by Phillip Johnson at U.C. Berkeley to promote ID creationism, would disagree with your position.
In Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, Denton argues for discontinuities in nature. He presents many fairly well reasoned arguments. Yet he accepts the overwhelming evidence for the fact of speciation in nature. For example, he discusses circular overlaps. You must be familiar with that. The classic example involves two species of European gull, Larus argentatus and Larus fuscus. One can trace, step by step, the formation of the two species by following the “intergrading subspecies right round the northern hemisphere. A more dramatic demonstration of the reality of speciation in nature can hardly be imagined!”
Denton cites other well known examples of speciation including the study of the Hawaiin Drosophila “where perfect sequential arrangements have provided compelling evidence that new species do arise from pre-existing species in nature.”
When you take a break from arguing about viruses and bacteria, you might want to give everyone your take on these and other most compelling examples for speciation.
Even the experts cannot produce a bona fide transitional fossil:
See the heading:
Are there any transitional fossils?
answersingenesis.org/creation/v14/i4/fossils.asp
I think the next thing I want to bring up is creationism. No, not the “God did it,” let’s close up the lab and go home idea, but the idea that the earth is not billions of years old. I’m not saying it’s 6,000 years old, I’m putting forth an idea.
Right now, and this may seem surprising to the few that think the Church is perfectly OK with evolution, the Church is saying that a self-starting evolution is impossible. The textbook idea that nature does something, entirely on its own, to bring about life, is not the correct answer. God is part of the equation, a direct, causal part.
What specifically would happen, in your view, if scientists declared: The code in DNA did not appear naturally. Like a computer, which cannot program itself, DNA cannot program itself either. The Law of Probability indicates that not only is the DNA code impossible to achieve but the self-correcting aspect finalizes the idea that it could not be achieved through purely natural means.
What would happen?
Peace,
Ed
S
StAnastasia
Guest
Liquidpele, any idea why evolution threads keep being pulled or closed before we’re halfway to the thousand-post limit? It looks like someone higher up has it in for the theory. In any case, it’s been fun thrashing through the issues with you.Of course it can, just not completely. We know it’s related to mass, we can calculate the gravitation force of different planets and even of other stars and galaxies, etc. Just because it’s not 100% understood doesn’t mean God is actually pulling us down or that God is directly causing evolutionary jumps.
StAnastasia
- Status
- Not open for further replies.