Religion and Science!

[Charlemagne_II]

SGW
**
Maybe we’re not as unique as we flatter ourselves that we are. **

Yes, always the materialists want to make us just another animal.

I flatter myself (and you) that we are most likely the only animals who debate the existence of God.

 

[buffalo]

How and Why Did Wings Evolve?

"Before we can answer how and why flight evolved, we must understand how and why wings evolved; without wings there can be no flight. How did wings evolve? Scientists generally agree that wings must have been exaptations; they were used by the ancestor for one function, and became useful for flight among the descendants (if they weren’t exaptations, then they were adaptations, which would mean that they were wings already used for powered flight; a circular argument).

"A comparative study of the functional morphology of the wings of the earliest known flying members of the lineage with the “pre-wing” structures of likely ancestors and close relatives provides the best evidence for how wings evolved. Why wings (and hence flight) evolved from this point is a matter of contention among scientists; various hypotheses proposed include:

1. Wings evolved from arms used to capture small prey. (This seems rational, so we can ask whether the ancestral forms were actually doing this.)
2. Wings evolved because bipedal animals were leaping into the air; large wings assisted leaping. (This is possible; any amount of wing could assist leaping. Remember that we first need phylogenetic evidence for a bipedal running or leaping origin.)
3. Wings were used as sexual display structures; bigger wings were preferred by potential mates. (This is a non-falsifiable evolutionary hypothesis — we cannot test it.)
4. Wings evolved from gliding ancestors who began to flap their gliding structures in order to produce thrust. (This is reasonable and possible, but only with phylogenetic evidence for an arboreal gliding origin.)

“It seems that #1, #2, and #4 are the best hypotheses to use for the origin of wings because they can be tested by bringing in other lines of evidence. Move on to consider these origins, but remember: the issues of the evolution of flight and the origins of flight are inextricably linked.”

ucmp.berkeley.edu/vertebrates/flight/evolve.html

This work is difficult and time consuming, but the question at its core—the genetic origin of new and complex traits—is probably still one of the most pertinent and fundamental unanswered questions in evolution today. At stake is the possibility of testing whether novel complex traits arise from a gradual building of novel developmental networks, gene by gene, or whether pre-existent modules of interacting genes are recruited together to play novel roles in novel parts of the organism.

• Monteiro A, Podlaha O (2009) Wings, Horns, and Butterfly Eyespots: How Do Complex Traits Evolve? PLoS Biol 7(2): e1000037. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.1000037 February 24, 2009

Now, IDvolution better fits our observations. The core components for these features were there at the beginning.

 

[tonyrey]

Quite apart from the historical record of the Church there is also the teaching of Christ that cannot be dismissed as totally insignificant (from the point of view of any civilised person…)

1. Why is the teaching of Christ is vastly significant?
2. Why is the teaching of Christ historically inaccurate?

 

[buffalo]

Well, how about this (sorry, no fancy graphics):

The Catholic Church is the Church founded by Christ.
How do we know?
The Bible and tradition tell us so.
How do we know we can trust them?
The Catholic Church says so.

Some try to break this circle by appealing to the Bible first as a purely historical record, and prove its inspiration by that. I don’t think that’s convincing, for many reasons, but that’s another thread. Too many oceans of ink have been spilled on that issue already, wasting mental energy that I feel could be more usefully employed elsewhere.

The world is material only
How do we know?
Science tells us so
How do we know we can trust them?
The consensus of scientists say so.

 

[grannymh]

Nevertheless, it is a logical fallacy, therefore invalid.

 

[grannymh]

Why not? Intelligence is a quality more gradual in nature than your dogma allows you to see. There are gorillas who have mastered a vocabulary of 500 words. Individual monkeys and dolphins can distinguish themselves from other monkeys or dolphins in a mirror. Magpies can use tools. Maybe we’re not as unique as we flatter ourselves that we are.

And what do gorillas do with 500 words? Build better living facilities? Fight Aids?

My cousin Chilly Chimp, who likes a beer or two after work, refused a trip to swim with the dolphins because he didn’t want to leave his favorite bar scene.

 

[grannymh]

You misunderstand. Evolution has nothing to do with abiogenesis. Evolutionary theory explains the development of biodiversity.

The fact is that it is limited when it comes to human nature.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

granny

And what do gorillas do with 500 words? Build better living facilities? Fight Aids?

No. They plot ways to make it the Planet of the Apes!

 

[SGWessells]

\

If one is walking down the beach and sees left footprints as far as he can see what should he conclude?

That some one-legged person had amazing dexterity; or that someone had a serious hopping fetish; or that someone had carefully swept flat only the right footprints for some reason; or that the tide had come in and washed away the right footprints (provided the ocean was to the right); or … what’s your point?

 

[SGWessells]

Perhaps is it time to look at Darwin’s failed predictions:

http://www.judgingpbs.com/2-scimethod.jpg

I am going to pick on this one:

“PBS urges viewers to believe that “nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.” Such a statement reverses the scientific process by putting conclusions ahead of empirical observations of nature. PBS also quotes evolutionary paleontologist Niles Eldredge, stating, “Nothing that we have learned in the intervening 175 years has contravened Darwin’s basic description of how natural selection works,” and asserting that the data “unequivocally” support Darwin’s view. Such dogmatic statements fly in the face of the scientific spirit, which opposes dogmatic attachments to theories and promises to follow the evidence wherever it may lead.”

But, now we know NS is a conservative process not a creative one.

Why can’t NS be both? It conserves forms that are well-adapted, and selects from innovations. We can tell from fossils, vestigial forms, decayed DNA, embryology, and other evidence that natural selection plus mutation result in new species. That is not in serious dispute among biologists not hobbled by outmoded religious dogmas.
Eldredge’s statement is not dogma but observation. If it were dogma, it would read “God “breathed” the super language of DNA into the “kinds” in the creative act.” It would not say “nothing so far has contravened,” it would say “nothing can contravene, because natural selection is revealed by [insert favorite supernatural source]”. A statement can be definite yet not dogmatic; it only has to leave room for future modification. Clearly Eldredge did so when he said “Nothing that we have learned in the intervening 175 years has contravened Darwin’s basic description…” Since he leaves open the possibility that we may learn such a contravening fact in the future, his statement is not dogmatic.
The PBS statement does not put the conclusion before the premise; it states the present condition of our knowledge, which, BTW, biologists also say, and they should know. The progression of knowledge and correlation of evidence in various fields, together with the explosion of knowledge in embryology and genetics have created the situation described in the statement.

What failed predictions specifically? All I see is a merry-go-round making an unsubstantiated claim.:yawn: Why should evolution stop at “micro”? Because the Bible tells us so. That’s the only reason anyone draws a line (and they draw it in different places as it suits them; today “kinds” are defined one way, tomorrow another). ID is disguised religion; everybody knows it, and three separate court decisions have said so, with good reason. In the Dover/Kitzmiller trial and the Alabama trial, those on the ID side lied, distorted testimony, hid their religious motives behind innocuous testimony, and pretended to be for equal treatment when their real and self-confessed intention was to “kill evolution.” Their fanaticism leads them into manifest dishonesty. I fell for that line once; never again.

 

[SGWessells]

Which part did they remove? The cheese? Obviously that part would work without cheese, if you can find a mouse dumb enough to be interested.

The base, and one of the springs, I believe.

A watch is not an organic living being, and did not evolve, so it is not analogous. In fact, you have to build your conclusion into it. You can’t choose an obviously designed artifact as comparison with an organism without assuming your conclusion as a premise.

But the first living organism was an obviously designed artifact.

That’s your assertion. It is not fact.Nor will all the watches in the world prove that it is a fact, because they are manufactured, not organic. If you want to prove that the first living organism was an “obviously designed artifact,” show me the scientific evidence.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

SGW

The base, and one of the springs, I believe.

Could you provide a source?

Can the mousetrap also reproduce itself with missing parts or whole?

We are not talking here about living organisms versus non-living organisms. We are talking about degrees of complexity.

The notion that a living organism could have suddenly appeared from a non-living organism with the powers of gestation and reproduction by pure accident is absurd on the face of it. Just as absurd as the notion that a nonliving organism like a mousetrap could reproduce itself without being designed to do so.

**
That’s your assertion. It is not fact.Nor will all the watches in the world prove that it is a fact, because they are manufactured, not organic. If you want to prove that the first living organism was an “obviously designed artifact,” show me the scientific evidence. **

Show me the scientific evidence that it obviously was not designed. There isn’t any.

 

[buffalo]

That some one-legged person had amazing dexterity; or that someone had a serious hopping fetish; or that someone had carefully swept flat only the right footprints for some reason; or that the tide had come in and washed away the right footprints (provided the ocean was to the right); or … what’s your point?

We can argue and argue and not resolve it…until further down the beach we meet the guy who did it and he tells us.

 

[buffalo]

Why can’t NS be both? It conserves forms that are well-adapted, and selects from innovations. We can tell from fossils, vestigial forms, decayed DNA, embryology, and other evidence that natural selection plus mutation result in new species. That is not in serious dispute among biologists not hobbled by outmoded religious dogmas.
Eldredge’s statement is not dogma but observation. If it were dogma, it would read “God “breathed” the super language of DNA into the “kinds” in the creative act.” It would not say “nothing so far has contravened,” it would say “nothing can contravene, because natural selection is revealed by [insert favorite supernatural source]”. A statement can be definite yet not dogmatic; it only has to leave room for future modification. Clearly Eldredge did so when he said “Nothing that we have learned in the intervening 175 years has contravened Darwin’s basic description…” Since he leaves open the possibility that we may learn such a contravening fact in the future, his statement is not dogmatic.
The PBS statement does not put the conclusion before the premise; it states the present condition of our knowledge, which, BTW, biologists also say, and they should know. The progression of knowledge and correlation of evidence in various fields, together with the explosion of knowledge in embryology and genetics have created the situation described in the statement.

What failed predictions specifically? All I see is a merry-go-round making an unsubstantiated claim.:yawn: Why should evolution stop at “micro”? Because the Bible tells us so. That’s the only reason anyone draws a line (and they draw it in different places as it suits them; today “kinds” are defined one way, tomorrow another). ID is disguised religion; everybody knows it, and three separate court decisions have said so, with good reason. In the Dover/Kitzmiller trial and the Alabama trial, those on the ID side lied, distorted testimony, hid their religious motives behind innocuous testimony, and pretended to be for equal treatment when their real and self-confessed intention was to “kill evolution.” Their fanaticism leads them into manifest dishonesty. I fell for that line once; never again.

A human judge decides truth? If he decided the other way you guys would be all over him, questioning his credentials, his bias, etc… . He would be trashed.

Why does evo stop at micro? Because it cannot go further. The fossil record shows abrupt appearance, stasis with limited variation. As more science comes in it shows the limitations of mutations. Mutations cause degradation. The tree of life has fallen replaced by a bush. The modern synthesis is being replaced by the EES and self organization. Junk DNA has bit the dust. The finches have bit the dust. We now know about the 500 or so highly conserved genes that is capable of all the diversity we see. We see that cells were complex right at the get go. You should be at least open to the implications. But no your own dogmatism rules the day.

And yes, His story (history) is very important.

 

[buffalo]

The base, and one of the springs, I believe.

That’s your assertion. It is not fact.Nor will all the watches in the world prove that it is a fact, because they are manufactured, not organic. If you want to prove that the first living organism was an “obviously designed artifact,” show me the scientific evidence.

Did you find the data on the traps effectiveness I asked for?

 

[rossum]

But, now we know NS is a conservative process not a creative one.

However, random mutation is a creative process since it introduces innovation into the genome. Those innovations are filtered by natural selection, which is normally a conservative process, and the more successful innovations are propagated through the population.

In a static environment, natural selection will be a very conservative process. In a changing environment, then NS will be mostly conservative, but where an innovation is better adapted to the changing environment than the earlier version then the innovation will be selected.

For example, if an environment is getting slowly dryer, then innovations for conserving water will tend to be favoured as water becomes more difficult to find.

Remember that evolution includes both random mutation and natural selection. What is true of one part of the process cannot be assumed to be true of the whole process.

rossum

 

[grannymh]

Remember that evolution includes both random mutation and natural selection. What is true of one part of the process cannot be assumed to be true of the whole process.

rossum

I agree because of the 20,000 - 25,000 human genes.

And I disagree with the general concept that mutations cause degradation – probably because I do not see all change as degradation. For example, changes in the immune system.

Having seen a diagram of Huntington’s disease which traced it from Queen Victoria through her descendants, I would guess that random mutation can be a big factor since, as I recall, not every descendent contracted the disease. Though it seemed that it appeared regularly in descendant families.

Do correct me, please.

My reaction to the diagram was that the path genes take cannot always be assumed to be identical.

It is insights like this which leads me to believe that the possibility of two, sole parents of the human species cannot be absolutely ruled out.

 

[inocente]

Not so. Time began with the Big Bang. Please cite a relevant passage from Roger Penrose.

How about Penrose giving a Christmas lecture entitled Aeons Before the Big Bang?

youtube.com/watch?v=OutKE3tyG94

*What source can you offer that Lemaître thought there could be time before the Big Bang?

You have to use his own words, not somebody else’s. *

And you had to ask like a teenager? For future reference I don’t make stuff up . Lemaître quoted on a Catholic website:

We may speak of this event as of a beginning. I do not say a creation. Physically it is a beginning in the sense that if something happened before, it has no observable influence on the behavior of our universe, as any feature of matter before this beginning has been completely lost by the extreme contraction at the theoretical zero. Any preexistence of the universe has a metaphysical character. Physically, everything happens as if the theoretical zero was really a beginning. The question if it was really a beginning or rather a creation, something started from nothing, is a philosophical question which cannot be settled by physical or astronomical considerations - catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=8847

The article is quite interesting, here’s another quote from Lemaître:

The writers of the Bible were illuminated more or less — some more than others — on the question of salvation. On other questions they were as wise or ignorant as their generation. Hence it is utterly unimportant that errors in historic and scientific fact should be found in the Bible, especially if the errors related to events that were not directly observed by those who wrote about them . . . The idea that because they were right in their doctrine of immortality and salvation they must also be right on all other subjects, is simply the fallacy of people who have an incomplete understanding of why the Bible was given to us at all.

 

[inocente]

It is insights like this which leads me to believe that the possibility of two, sole parents of the human species cannot be absolutely ruled out.

By the way, expressions like “could be” or “possible” are relatively useless in science without any supporting evidence. On a far-away planet there could be purple people-eaters. You know, aliens who abduct humans and bring them home for a wiener roast.

But that hardly constitutes science.

(sorry, too good to miss )

 

[rossum]

On a far-away planet there could be purple people-eaters. You know, aliens who abduct humans and bring them home for a wiener roast.

No, no, no. Everyone knows that purple people eaters only eat purple people.

rossum