4
4elise
Guest
:clapping:
- Status
B
buffalo
Guest
I would substitute adaptation for the word evolution. What we see are changes within species and subspecies. We do see the inability to reproduce within theses species due to isolation, but they are still of the same species.
I also add the caveat that life is a challenge and fails. Sin brought death and corruption into the world and life is swimming upstream against it. God’s breathed word (the language of DNA) had to be uncorrupted DNA and 100% replication. So devolution seems to be what is really happening.
R
RACJ
Guest
While it may be true that the not all of the “building blocks” of life have been created in the lab, it has been shown that many can have been. QUOTE
Code:
It MAY be true? Anyway, a "building block", or even a series of them, does not a cell make. Imagine if one day the history of Mt. Rushmore was lost to posterity, and no human had rediscovered it for centuries. Then, some latter day exploring collegians come upon it, and relate their find to a geology professor. The professor admits that it is a curious find, but insists that turbulent weather events is most certainly the cause, and that the formation can be easily understood if they can accept that billions of years can accomplish such things. The students are aghast, but quickly learn that if they are to succeed in academia, they had better play along with the game. To us, the TOE indoctrination is every bit as bizarre and illogical as this example.
If any of you Christian naturalists doubt the mendacity and hostility of current evolutionary teaching, go to youtube, key in "evolution", and read a few pages of comments. We are DESPISED by the ill-informed generation of "enlightenment". We are allowing *ourselves* to be destroyed. It's beyond tragic. :eek: Bob
A
Arandur
Guest
Look at those comments and you see that their scorn comes from a belief that we hold up blind faith AGAINST reason, that WE believe that science conflicts with faith, and that we are asking them to reject what they can objectively observe with their senses and reject principles that WORK in applied science in favor of something contradictory.
It is exactly the type of blanket attacks on science that you make here that are the cause of such scorn–and such scorn is rightly placed in these cases!
When you attack and reject what reason discovers out of hand because it doesn’t fit with your preconceived worldview, you commit the error the Church is accused of making with Galileo. You give evidence to the world that science and faith and reason and faith are in conflict with each other. You drive people into atheism.
The popes’ words and the Catechism cut both ways. Science must be conducted properly within its boundaries, and faith must recognize the complementarity and validity of proper science.
A
Arandur
Guest
You can’t tell me whether a lion and a tiger should be considered different species, by any use of the term?
Nothing in the physical world “needs” to happen for its own sake. Meaning is derived from God, not from matter and energy.
You ignored my poker analogy for the development of more complex functions by propagation of a successful variation.
Is your problem just with the sufficiency of evolutionary processes?
Please tell me how you think it prevents the comparison to other complex self-organizing systems. Economics is basically an ecosystem, and it involves humans and accounts for them. The development and history of ideas and language is similar and accounts for humans.
Why would I give you articles of something we agree on?
The links I gave describe major morphological changes, even the development of complex new organs in a very short amount of time.
He apparently doesn’t, when he speaks early in his speech of many biological systems impacted by evolution as if they are fact.
It seems to me that your problem with evolutionary processes is that you don’t think the what science has described is sufficient. Not that you disagree that they occur, but you disagree that it is a complete description of what occurs. That would be good; at least you wouldn’t be opposing what we can observe with our senses.
However, how do YOU account for the gap, for the insufficiency?
How do YOU account for the apparent extinction of many species long in the past, and the lack of current species and life forms in what we can observe of the past?
How do YOU account for apparent similarities among organisms?
Particularly the common DNA–wherein we see one branch of creatures (species A) with a certain set of DNA, another related branch bearing the same DNA with some particular changed sequences (B), and then another related branch (C) bearing those similar sets of A and B’s DNA with a few more changes?
Dr. Meyer shows that intelligent design is the best explanation available for the origin of biological information. He asserts that he knows of no biologist looking into origins of life (not evolution) that believes it can be attributed solely to chance. I’d say that means Dr. Meyer, much better acquainted with the scientific community than we are, is clearly saying that this is a mainstream view of the origin of life.
Now if the best explanation for biological information is intelligent design, or at least if the community agrees that chance can’t account for it, then the evolutionary processes that exist after that information is present are necessarily derived from it and act on and from it.
Again, I’ll make the distinction however that when you speak of “evolutionary theory,” you ought to limit yourself to the materialist philosophies that you are really opposed to. The description of evolutionary processes does not attempt to rule on the cause of those processes, only to explain how they appear to work.
A
Arandur
Guest
Many hearing the false but commonly-believed account of Galileo, and believing from that case that the Church is opposed to science and persecutes science, choose against religion. They can SEE with their senses that so much of science is true, has proved itself in our day and age. If religion denies that, then why should they give it any credibility?
Just as heliocentrism leads some to atheism because of apparent conflicts between faith and reason, so too does it lead people to atheism when people like YOU attack science and reason without qualifications.
That’s one of the main reasons you see evolution and atheism. It is the heliocentrism/Galileo affair of our times. The popes recognized this and have been cautious to not let that happen again. But people like YOU work against the popes in this matter, committing the crime against evolution that people think the Church committed against Galileo.
Oh, get off it. Your generalizations and unwillingness to listen just prove your bigoted close-mindedness.
I asked questions about what you accept because they are important to understanding whether you really believe that science and reason do not conflict with the faith.
Let me backtrack a bit on the questions if they are a problem for you.
Do you believe that gravity exists and works as physicists describe?
Atomic Theory?
Chemical interactions?
Mathematics?
Then what’s your problem with:
The existence and role of DNA in organisms
The recombination of DNA through reproduction, sexual or otherwise
The reality that whatever recombination is passed on through reproduction increases in frequency?
You just love red herrings, don’t you?
No one here has ever asked you to accept atheism in accepting evolution. Kreeft, Catholic Answers, and the popes acknowledge that evolution can be accepted in its proper context. Why, again, do you reject all that?
If you ever bothered to read my posts and possibly even follow my sources, you’d see many dozens of examples of how those 11 points I have provided are observable.
I would like to know from all of you, Reggie included, just what you think actually happened to create all this diversity of life, and where your evidence is in nature of it?
I’ve gotten conflicting answers from you about those 11 points, with primarily people taking issue with the idea of speciation, coevolution, cooperation, and natural selection. I have not heard any responses to my arguments against the issues you’ve taken with these points.
And I certainly haven’t heard what you think really happened, and where the evidence in nature is of it.
R
reggieM
Guest
I’m not a taxonomist in the first place. Secondly, I think we can see that there are several meanings of the word “species” and they can differ radically. The meaning given to the term is based on a philosophical pre-supposition. In a prior era, what we call “variations” today were considered “species”. Then that changed and we lost hundreds of species merely through a redefinition of the term.
True, but we were talking about why bacteria supposedly evolved and became human beings. The only motive given by evolutionary theory is “survival advantage”. So, that’s the “needs” to happen. Bacteria supposedly needed to survive and then supposedly evolved into human beings. But bacteria survives perfectly well today without needing to evolve at all. More importantly, as I showed – the human brain has capabilities vastly (I’d say almost infinitely) beyond what “survival advantage” would require.
I think you used that to discredit a peer-reviewed paper showing the mathematical probabilities of molecular evolution. Scientists disagree on these matters – as you do. But this underscores the problem.You ignored my poker analogy for the development of more complex functions by propagation of a successful variation.
Keep in mind, none of the evolutionary-supporters I’ve argued with on CAF have been as open-minded and non-dogmatic about the topic as you have been (again, I admire you for that). So, I’m anticipating common errors, which thankfully, you have avoided.
Well, not *just *with that issue – but that’s a major part of it. Evolutionary processes would have to generate a massive (nearly infinite) amount of new information in order to create the diversity we see in nature.
Some estimate that there could be as many as 30 million different species of insects on earth. We’ve *only *discovered about 1 million. This says nothing about the variations within insect species.
So, there’s a massive increase of information needed. This information has to be produced in a limited amount of time.
We could take the 350,000 species of beetles, for example. Evidence shows (supposedly, who knows if it is true or will change next week) that many of those organisms are virtually the same today as they are in the earliest known fossil records we have. How much time does that give them to evolve?
So, my problems are with the insufficiency of the process, what is claimed for the process (supposely it alone has the creative power to explain all the diversity of nature including the human brain), the time available for the process to work, the lack of mathematical precision – and the lack of predictability of it – and the uselessness of the entire project.
On that point, we’ve seen fairly recently the evolutionary Tree of Life, at one time held up as the pattern for the emergence of life – completely demolished and re-written (or in the process of trying to re-write). The tree is now more like a tangled jungle of relationships.
But this affected nothing at all, really. Science went forward, nobody got fired for teaching something false (I’m not saying that they should have been). Textbooks will have to be re-written – a huge overthrow of the prior model really changed nothing. It didn’t affect science. It’s just a model, a pattern. It can change radically because it’s not a big deal – it really means almost nothing except to academics who like to create models.
aa
If it involves humans, then it involves free-will, as we discussed already. Free-will is not determined by physical laws. So, one cannot talk about “evolution” of human processes as a comparison with what happens in unintelligent, physical laws. The free-will of human beings means that choices are made which emerge from the soul – not from survival advantage.
Language itself shows no sign of evolution. The earliest known language serves the same function as today’s language – and was capable of expressing the same concepts. The vocabulary today is larger but the language itself is not necessarily better. The English language of today serves the same function as that of Shakespeare’s era, or that of the Greek poets 4,000 years ago.
Because I haven’t seen you show any evidence that supports your view. You claim that your view is mainstream and that science supports it. But none of the information you have provided for me supports that view. Certainly, I haven’t seen it on Wikipedia at all.
This contradicts the notion that it took a very long time through gradual, slow, small changes. This says more about the limits of what evolution can produce.
… continued …
R
reggieM
Guest
I believe that God created, directed, organized and produced organisms – outside of evolutionary processes. As I said also, I believe that some modifications occur because God placed the potential for change in the early forms of life (I believe in St. Thomas’ teaching that God created the early, supernatural forms). For example, you pointed to the microevolution of lizards. This did not require slow changes in the population due to selection pressues. The new organs emerged quickly. The creatures had the potential for those changes – the potential came from a plan, design, purpose – Intelligence.
We see species going extinct today. Nothing fills the “niche”. Species went extinct in the past. Some survived, some didn’t. Global catastrophies killed creatures – other of virtually same kind survived. There are creatures today which are the same as they were in the earliest known fossils.
Why would God do it this way? What was His plan? Those are good questions.
Common design.
The lack of non-DNA life is an argument against atheistic-evolution. There would have been no competition for DNA forms of life – no reason to evolve at all. There would have been no diversity – only one biological constant to work with. That is evidence of common design – a unified plan using a constant life-source. The alternative is that it happened by accident.
This is a different argument than I have ever encountered before, so I don’t know how to answer it. I give you credit for a good point here – and a challenging one.
Again, quite excellent. I don’t know the counter-argument at present. I’d say that Charles Darwin argued against this view though.
Thus, far I’ve been using the term “mainstream evolutionary theory”. If, however, Dr. Meyer’s views can be considered mainstream (and I do follow your logic on this), then I’d need a different term.
I am concerned about what is stated explicitly in science textbooks used by students – those are based on materialism.
M
M0nkey
Guest
All laws most definitely have foresight for they have been purposed by the one true God. You either hold to the fact that the universe does have a purpose or not, again, you can’t have it both ways.
As I’ve shown you, natural selection is first and foremost the ONLY non-random mechanism used for change, therefore, it excludes any need for a Creator. When are you going to see that? You are putting the blind folds if you think this is perfectly compatible with your faith.
Finally, it introduces an impersonal world that is all about self-fulfillment and selfish behavior. To say that an animal can act selfishly is to attempt to equate their behavior to our sin. Animals have no souls, no free will, no accountability, therefore, it is impossible for them to act so. It’s merely another attempt to show how we are equal to the animals. This isn’t science, but religion.
B
buffalo
Guest
Only of science proves it is trustworthy.
B
buffalo
Guest
Then it is time to start looking at evolution in the light of intelligent design, eh? This may take a few years for the paradigm shift to happen.You can’t tell me whether a lion and a tiger should be considered different species, by any use of the term?
Nothing in the physical world “needs” to happen for its own sake. Meaning is derived from God, not from matter and energy.
You ignored my poker analogy for the development of more complex functions by propagation of a successful variation.
Is your problem just with the sufficiency of evolutionary processes?
Please tell me how you think it prevents the comparison to other complex self-organizing systems. Economics is basically an ecosystem, and it involves humans and accounts for them. The development and history of ideas and language is similar and accounts for humans.
Why would I give you articles of something we agree on?
The links I gave describe major morphological changes, even the development of complex new organs in a very short amount of time.
He apparently doesn’t, when he speaks early in his speech of many biological systems impacted by evolution as if they are fact.
It seems to me that your problem with evolutionary processes is that you don’t think the what science has described is sufficient. Not that you disagree that they occur, but you disagree that it is a complete description of what occurs. That would be good; at least you wouldn’t be opposing what we can observe with our senses.
However, how do YOU account for the gap, for the insufficiency?
How do YOU account for the apparent extinction of many species long in the past, and the lack of current species and life forms in what we can observe of the past?
How do YOU account for apparent similarities among organisms?
Particularly the common DNA–wherein we see one branch of creatures (species A) with a certain set of DNA, another related branch bearing the same DNA with some particular changed sequences (B), and then another related branch (C) bearing those similar sets of A and B’s DNA with a few more changes?
Dr. Meyer shows that intelligent design is the best explanation available for the origin of biological information. He asserts that he knows of no biologist looking into origins of life (not evolution) that believes it can be attributed solely to chance. I’d say that means Dr. Meyer, much better acquainted with the scientific community than we are, is clearly saying that this is a mainstream view of the origin of life.
Now if the best explanation for biological information is intelligent design, or at least if the community agrees that chance can’t account for it, then the evolutionary processes that exist after that information is present are necessarily derived from it and act on and from it.
Again, I’ll make the distinction however that when you speak of “evolutionary theory,” you ought to limit yourself to the materialist philosophies that you are really opposed to. The description of evolutionary processes does not attempt to rule on the cause of those processes, only to explain how they appear to work.
Maybe we should rename it idvolution.
And I agree- definitions are important.
E
edwest2
Guest
Ah yes, the old ‘drive people into atheism’ argument.
“You give evidence to the world that science and faith and reason and faith are in conflict with each other.”
And what is evolution? The new circumcision? The theory of evolution is open to change and revision at any time. Heck, it could be overturned. So, to enter the House of God, I must first be circumcised by evolution? You mention the Pope and Catechism cutting both ways – science does not. The holy Biology textbook can never be questioned in school. It is the law. Abiogenisis has N o t hing to do with Evolution. Yeah, right. The sacred science lab can never be entered by a person speaking a religious idea, or what? It gets defiled? Ask Sam Harris, he’ll give you the evidence to show that he considers his religious fellow scientists “pod people” for listening to the Pope!
Go to the PZ Myers youtube interview. In the comments, one person writes that science should concede nothing to religion. The world that rejects God wants Him light years away from “their” science. Besides, Christians are irrational for believing in something with no evidence.
And why are people converted? What does the Bible say?
“principles that WORK in applied science”? Like what? That’s not the problem I have or most people. This “applied science” you’re talking about concerns things that are alive today, not dead things from the supposedly distant past. But you obviously missed that. The problem has to do with the unproven long ages and descent from lower life forms.
So again, why do people come to the faith? What does the Bible say?
Peace,
Ed
R
reggieM
Guest
The bold text runs the risk of confusing terms again. The term “evolution” as we know, is used to mean many things. Then we have “evolutionary processes”.
If God used existing organic matter (that He created ex nihilo) and shaped an organism out of that – some would claim that for “evolution”.
In the case in the bold text above – the genesis of life would directly affect “evolution” since the potential would be built into created organisms (or the language itself).
But the need for information doesn’t stop with the genesis of life. Evolution requires a huge increase of information (by necessity, functional language). The only means for getting this is duplication and mutation.
Evolutionists are now moving to the “self-organizing” explanation. But that doesn’t explain – in fact, it leaves the situation inexplicable. If molecules organize themselves into functioning, adapting organisms then this is not evolution.
It’s something that requires intelligence, design and plan – oriented to a purpose.
People complain about “God of the gaps” but the “gaps” are only getting bigger, not smaller. We should complain about “materalism of the gaps” - the belief that matter and physical laws alone will explain the increasing number and size of gaps.
A
Arandur
Guest
I’m going to be occupied for a couple of days and unable to answer. That should give you guys some time to catch up and read up on sources. I’ll provide you with a few more things to chew on:
Self-organizing systems: “Self-organization is a process of attraction and repulsion in which the internal organization of a system, normally an open system, increases in complexity without being guided or managed by an outside source. Self-organizing systems typically (but not always) display emergent properties.”
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-organization
Autocatalytic sets, a component of some self-organizing systems:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autocatalytic_set
Bootstrapping, an example of how a system can start itself, analogous to how once biological information existed, life could evolve from there:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bootstrapping_(compilers
Examples of how evolutionary processes are used and observed to work in computer systems, through evolutionary computation, swarm robotics, and multi-agent systems:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_computation
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swarm_robotics
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-agent_systems
Language evolution witnessed in lab experiments
scienceblogs.com/notrocketscience/2008/07/language_evolution_witnessed_in_lab_experiments.php
Observation of evolution of language in Nicaraguan Sign Language
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicaraguan_Sign_Language
These are just some of the other systems that demonstrate that evolutionary processes can act to produce complex outcomes, creating new forms and adapting to environmental factors, with no direct (name removed by moderator)ut except the initial existence of base material.
Reggie, your posts require more extensive responses that I’ll get to when I return. I’ll try to address the others quickly.
Applied science uses evolutionary processes to understand and even create and control current things (not just past things) in medicine, agriculture, genetics, robotics, computer programming, engineering, economics, sociology, etc.
Or are you so blinded by your own ideas, threatened by others, or terrified by your conspiracy theory that I’m out to get you that you’re unwilling to enter into a real discussion?
As for blindfolds, you apparently are blind to the fact that the popes explicitly have stated that some theories of evolution are compatible with the faith, and that God could even have produced the human body via evolution.
Also, please have the courage to come out and state that you think Peter Kreeft and Catholic Answers (in an article with Imprimatur) operate with similar blindfolds about compatibility with the faith–indeed, that at least three popes did as well. Be honest about who all you’re accusing of what.
Self-organizing systems: “Self-organization is a process of attraction and repulsion in which the internal organization of a system, normally an open system, increases in complexity without being guided or managed by an outside source. Self-organizing systems typically (but not always) display emergent properties.”
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-organization
Autocatalytic sets, a component of some self-organizing systems:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autocatalytic_set
Bootstrapping, an example of how a system can start itself, analogous to how once biological information existed, life could evolve from there:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bootstrapping_(compilers
Examples of how evolutionary processes are used and observed to work in computer systems, through evolutionary computation, swarm robotics, and multi-agent systems:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_computation
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swarm_robotics
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-agent_systems
Language evolution witnessed in lab experiments
scienceblogs.com/notrocketscience/2008/07/language_evolution_witnessed_in_lab_experiments.php
Observation of evolution of language in Nicaraguan Sign Language
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicaraguan_Sign_Language
These are just some of the other systems that demonstrate that evolutionary processes can act to produce complex outcomes, creating new forms and adapting to environmental factors, with no direct (name removed by moderator)ut except the initial existence of base material.
Reggie, your posts require more extensive responses that I’ll get to when I return. I’ll try to address the others quickly.
You’ve said nothing in this post to suggest that you don’t think science and faith are in conflict, proving my point.
Red herring.
You’ve still not accepted that the popes have told us that evolution properly understood is compatible with the faith.
Tell me how it’s relevant, then.
More herrings. Do you run a fish farm? How is this relevant to what we’ve been discussing?
Applied science uses principles of optics, radioactivity, relativity, and atomic theory, proving their reliability. These principles also demonstrate the age of the universe. So do deposition and erosion rates, plate tectonics, and chemical reactions like petrification.
Applied science uses evolutionary processes to understand and even create and control current things (not just past things) in medicine, agriculture, genetics, robotics, computer programming, engineering, economics, sociology, etc.
There are many answers to this. If you really want me to give some, why don’t you show you’re worth it by having the courage and honesty to finally answer some of my questions, like about the 11 major processes and occurrences of evolution, what you think about the age of the universe, what you think really happened and what evidence you have for it.
Or are you so blinded by your own ideas, threatened by others, or terrified by your conspiracy theory that I’m out to get you that you’re unwilling to enter into a real discussion?
Buffalo, what do you mean by this? That science must be careful it sets out to prove Catholic concepts as they are currently understood?
You’re confused. Something that does not have a mind cannot have foresight. Gravity cannot have foresight. It was CREATED by a designer with foresight–God. That’s what I said.
I had to show you that natural selection was non-random–you seemed to think it was just chance. I also gave you numerous sources to demonstrate that it is not the ONLY change mechanism in evolution. You can obviously read, so I wonder why you can’t understand that from my sources and why you persist in remaining almost totally ignorant about evolution while trying to argue against it.
As for blindfolds, you apparently are blind to the fact that the popes explicitly have stated that some theories of evolution are compatible with the faith, and that God could even have produced the human body via evolution.
Also, please have the courage to come out and state that you think Peter Kreeft and Catholic Answers (in an article with Imprimatur) operate with similar blindfolds about compatibility with the faith–indeed, that at least three popes did as well. Be honest about who all you’re accusing of what.
A
Arandur
Guest
“Selfish,” like almost every word, has many senses. The scientific sense is an anthropomorphism describing self-interest even though science acknowledges that animals are not self-aware as we are. It’s a different sense of the word; the word is still used because it’s the closest approximation in the English language.
By the way, economics works by the same principle. Action through self-interest generates efficient complex organization.
A
Arandur
Guest
Reggie, if you could, please explain some things in your last posts to me further before I respond in a couple of days. I’ve gone through your posts in order and looked for areas I hope you can expand on a bit:
And a quick response to your last post:
Do you think DNA replicates itself, using other intermediaries?
Do you think DNA’s method of replication involves variation and addition?
Do you think DNA is the source code used to build all biological material?
If all organisms are dependent wholly on DNA for the immediate production of their physical structure, and if DNA can change itself, then doesn’t DNA tell us pretty directly that it can produce and vary information and that all the physical forms of organisms are the result of this, since DNA directed those physical forms?
- Is there any purpose to classifying “species” at all, or are all life forms essentially the same?
- Look at my poker analogy and consider it again, with the understanding that the high value combinations are analogous to favorable DNA combinations producing increasingly complex structures.
- Review what an ecological niche is: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecological_niche. Then tell me
a. whether you still think mere survival is the sole “need” or force driving evolution (an idea discarded long ago in favor of reproduction),
b. whether you think diversity based on successfully deriving energy from filling an ecological niche is a factor at all in adaptation
c. whether you really think the niches of extinct species have not been filled (consider also modern examples of extinction by invasive species coming in and outcompeting an indigenous species, driving it to extinction, filling its niche–the lizard example was one) - Do you think words can be combined to create new meanings and concepts, new information? Why can’t DNA similarly recombine and create new information, through the known forms of its variation?
- How old do you think the universe or earth is and why?
- Do you recognize any similarities at all between ecology (very intertwined with the ideas of population genetics and natural selection) and economics, or any other human system? How does free will eliminate those similarities?
- What’s the evidence you see of what God did outside of evolutionary processes? Was it the initial forms of the species? Were they created ex nihilo, fully formed? Or did He create DNA in such a way that it had the full “potential” that you talk about?
- With “common design” as your explanation for apparent similarities, how do you account for such things as vestigial organs and preserved inactive DNA code sequences in successor or related species, as well as viral DNA inserts into that DNA?
- Please expand on this:
I really don’t understand your point. Are you trying to say that evolution implies that only one life form, one species, should exist? How do you get there? That sounds like a confusion about the driver of inheritance (reproduction, not death) and the nature of ecological niches.
And a quick response to your last post:
I used the term “evolutionary processes” to try to be more specific, to refer to the variational forces on DNA (mutation, sex and recombination, gene flow, population genetics) and the change agents influencing those (natural selection, genetic drift) to produce various outcomes (adaptation, speciation, co-evolution, co-operation, extinction).
Yes, THAT is where the “potential” you speak of is stored–in the “language” of DNA, as Buffalo puts it. Because of the nature of DNA, all those other evolutionary forces and outcomes naturally act on it to bring about various outcomes. These other processes only work because of how DNA was designed, and they arise directly out of the design of DNA.
And recombination, gene flow, insertion of genetic streams from other sources, etc.
Do you think DNA replicates itself, using other intermediaries?
Do you think DNA’s method of replication involves variation and addition?
Do you think DNA is the source code used to build all biological material?
If all organisms are dependent wholly on DNA for the immediate production of their physical structure, and if DNA can change itself, then doesn’t DNA tell us pretty directly that it can produce and vary information and that all the physical forms of organisms are the result of this, since DNA directed those physical forms?
I think you misunderstand self-organizing systems. This is inherently a self-organizing system: natural selection and genetic drift acting on genetic variation to change and even produce more orderly, complex forms to suit the environment. There are positive and negative feedback loops producing ordered results.
R
reggieM
Guest
Unguided, unplanned, self-organizing evolution. It doesn’t require management by an outside source. This eliminates design, plan and purpose – eliminating God.
The proof doesn’t get much simpler than that. The pro-materialist Wikipedia will make sure to eliminate the role of intelligence, even in self-organizing processes which they can’t explain.
B
buffalo
Guest
Science must prove it is trustworthy. Empirical science must confine itself to the raw observed data. The conclusions and a priori reasoning of many scientists is suspect.
As time goes on the public has developed a mistrust. It must purify itself.
R
reggieM
Guest
I did a little research and I think we can prove quite easily that mainstream evolution does not support the evidence of intelligent design in nature at all. Evolution is defined as a blind, undirected process built mainly on randomness. There is no plan or purpose for evolution – this contradicts the claim that “everything is designed” and that there is design to be found in nature.
We can see this in current biology textbooks:
“[E]volution works without either plan or purpose — Evolution is random and undirected.”
(Biology, by Kenneth R. Miller & Joseph S. Levine (1st ed., Prentice Hall, 1991), pg. 658; (3rd ed., Prentice Hall, 1995), pg. 658; (4th ed., Prentice Hall, 1998), pg. 658; emphasis in original.)
“Humans represent just one tiny, largely fortuitous, and late-arising twig on the enormously arborescent bush of life.”
(Stephen J Gould quoted in Biology, by Peter H Raven & George B Johnson (5th ed., McGraw Hill, 1999), pg 15; (6th ed., McGraw Hill, 2000), pg. 16.)
“By coupling **undirected, purposeless **variation to the **blind, uncaring **process of natural selection, Darwin made theological or spiritual explanations of the life processes superfluous.”
(Evolutionary Biology, by Douglas J. Futuyma (3rd ed., Sinauer Associates Inc., 1998), p. 5.)
“Darwin knew that accepting his theory required believing in philosophical materialism, the conviction that **matter is the stuff of all existence **and that all mental and spiritual phenomena are its by-products. Darwinian evolution was not only purposeless but also heartless–a process in which the rigors of nature ruthlessly eliminate the unfit. Suddenly, humanity was reduced to just one more species in a world that cared nothing for us. The great human mind was no more than a mass of evolving neurons. Worst of all, there was no divine plan to guide us.”
(Biology: Discovering Life by Joseph S. Levine & Kenneth R. Miller (1st ed., D.C. Heath and Co., 1992), pg. 152; (2nd ed… D.C. Heath and Co., 1994), p. 161; emphases in original.)
“Adopting this view of the world means accepting not only the processes of evolution, but also the view that the living world is constantly evolving, and that evolutionary change occurs without any goals.’ The idea that **evolution is not directed **towards a final goal state has been more difficult for many people to accept than the process of evolution itself.”
(Life: The Science of Biology by William K. Purves, David Sadava, Gordon H. Orians, & H. Craig Keller, (6th ed., Sinauer; W.H. Freeman and Co., 2001), pg. 3.)
“The ‘blind’ watchmaker is natural selection. **Natural selection is totally blind **to the future. “**Humans are fundamentally not exceptional **because we came from the same evolutionary source as every other species. It is natural selection of selfish genes that has given us our bodies and brains “Natural selection is a bewilderingly simple idea. And yet what it explains is the whole of life, the diversity of life, the apparent design of life.”
(Richard Dawkins quoted in *Biology *by Neil A. Campbell, Jane B. Reese. & Lawrence G. Mitchell (5th ed., Addison Wesley Longman, 1999), pgs. 412-413.)
“Of course, no species has 'chosen’ a strategy. Rather, its ancestors ‘little by little, generation after generation’ merely wandered into a successful way of life through the action of random evolutionary forces. Once pointed in a certain direction, a line of evolution survives only if the cosmic dice continues to roll in its favor. “[J]ust by chance, a wonderful diversity of life has developed during the billions of years in which organisms have been evolving on earth.
(Biology by Burton S. Guttman (1st ed., McGraw Hill, 1999), pgs. 36-37.)
“It is difficult to avoid the speculation that Darwin, as has been the case with others, found the implications of his theory difficult to confront. “The real difficulty in accepting Darwins theory has always been that it seems to diminish our significance. Earlier, astronomy had made it clear that the earth is not the center of the solar universe, or even of our own solar system. Now the new biology asked us to accept the proposition that, like all other organisms, we too are the products of a random process that, as far as science can show, we are not created for any special purpose or as part of any universal design.”
(Invitation to Biology, by Helena Curtis & N. Sue Barnes(3rd ed., Worth, 1981), pgs. 474-475.)
We can see this in current biology textbooks:
“[E]volution works without either plan or purpose — Evolution is random and undirected.”
(Biology, by Kenneth R. Miller & Joseph S. Levine (1st ed., Prentice Hall, 1991), pg. 658; (3rd ed., Prentice Hall, 1995), pg. 658; (4th ed., Prentice Hall, 1998), pg. 658; emphasis in original.)
“Humans represent just one tiny, largely fortuitous, and late-arising twig on the enormously arborescent bush of life.”
(Stephen J Gould quoted in Biology, by Peter H Raven & George B Johnson (5th ed., McGraw Hill, 1999), pg 15; (6th ed., McGraw Hill, 2000), pg. 16.)
“By coupling **undirected, purposeless **variation to the **blind, uncaring **process of natural selection, Darwin made theological or spiritual explanations of the life processes superfluous.”
(Evolutionary Biology, by Douglas J. Futuyma (3rd ed., Sinauer Associates Inc., 1998), p. 5.)
“Darwin knew that accepting his theory required believing in philosophical materialism, the conviction that **matter is the stuff of all existence **and that all mental and spiritual phenomena are its by-products. Darwinian evolution was not only purposeless but also heartless–a process in which the rigors of nature ruthlessly eliminate the unfit. Suddenly, humanity was reduced to just one more species in a world that cared nothing for us. The great human mind was no more than a mass of evolving neurons. Worst of all, there was no divine plan to guide us.”
(Biology: Discovering Life by Joseph S. Levine & Kenneth R. Miller (1st ed., D.C. Heath and Co., 1992), pg. 152; (2nd ed… D.C. Heath and Co., 1994), p. 161; emphases in original.)
“Adopting this view of the world means accepting not only the processes of evolution, but also the view that the living world is constantly evolving, and that evolutionary change occurs without any goals.’ The idea that **evolution is not directed **towards a final goal state has been more difficult for many people to accept than the process of evolution itself.”
(Life: The Science of Biology by William K. Purves, David Sadava, Gordon H. Orians, & H. Craig Keller, (6th ed., Sinauer; W.H. Freeman and Co., 2001), pg. 3.)
“The ‘blind’ watchmaker is natural selection. **Natural selection is totally blind **to the future. “**Humans are fundamentally not exceptional **because we came from the same evolutionary source as every other species. It is natural selection of selfish genes that has given us our bodies and brains “Natural selection is a bewilderingly simple idea. And yet what it explains is the whole of life, the diversity of life, the apparent design of life.”
(Richard Dawkins quoted in *Biology *by Neil A. Campbell, Jane B. Reese. & Lawrence G. Mitchell (5th ed., Addison Wesley Longman, 1999), pgs. 412-413.)
“Of course, no species has 'chosen’ a strategy. Rather, its ancestors ‘little by little, generation after generation’ merely wandered into a successful way of life through the action of random evolutionary forces. Once pointed in a certain direction, a line of evolution survives only if the cosmic dice continues to roll in its favor. “[J]ust by chance, a wonderful diversity of life has developed during the billions of years in which organisms have been evolving on earth.
(Biology by Burton S. Guttman (1st ed., McGraw Hill, 1999), pgs. 36-37.)
“It is difficult to avoid the speculation that Darwin, as has been the case with others, found the implications of his theory difficult to confront. “The real difficulty in accepting Darwins theory has always been that it seems to diminish our significance. Earlier, astronomy had made it clear that the earth is not the center of the solar universe, or even of our own solar system. Now the new biology asked us to accept the proposition that, like all other organisms, we too are the products of a random process that, as far as science can show, we are not created for any special purpose or as part of any universal design.”
(Invitation to Biology, by Helena Curtis & N. Sue Barnes(3rd ed., Worth, 1981), pgs. 474-475.)
R
reggieM
Guest
More from textbooks – it is clear that this is the mainstream view of evolution, as I see it.
“The advent of Darwinism posted even greater threats to religion by suggesting that biological relationship, including the origin of humans and of all species, could be explained by natural selection without the intervention of a god. Many felt that **evolutionary randomness and uncertainty **had replaced a deity having conscious, purposeful, human characteristics. The Darwinian view that evolution is a historical process and present-type organisms were not created spontaneously but formed in a succession of selective events that occurred in the past, contradicted the common religious view that there could be no design, biological or otherwise, without an intelligent designer. “The variability by which selection depends may be random, but adaptions are not; they arise because selection chooses and perfects only what is adaptive. In this scheme a god of design and purpose is not necessary …“Nevertheless, faith in religious dogma has been eroded by natural explanations of its mysteries, by a deep understanding of the sources of human emotional needs, and by the recognition that ethics and morality can change among different societies and that acceptance of such values need not depend on religion.”
(Evolution by Monroe, W. Strickberger (3rd ed., Jones & Bartlett, 2000), pg. 70-71)
“Nothing consciously chooses what is selected. Nature is not a conscious agent who chooses what will be selected. “There is no long term goal, for nothing is involved that could conceive of a goal.”
(Evolution: An Introduction by Stephen C. Stearns & Rolf F. Hoeckstra, pg. 30 (2nd ed., Oxford University Press, 2005).)
“[A]s E.O. Wilson puts it, a chicken is really the chicken genes’ way of making more copies of themselves. “[A]s an evolutionary biologist I believe that in some sense we exist solely to propagate the genes within us.”
(Animal Behavior: An Evolutionary Approach, by John Alcock, pgs 16, 609 (Sinauer Associates, Inc, 1998).)
“The advent of Darwinism posted even greater threats to religion by suggesting that biological relationship, including the origin of humans and of all species, could be explained by natural selection without the intervention of a god. Many felt that **evolutionary randomness and uncertainty **had replaced a deity having conscious, purposeful, human characteristics. The Darwinian view that evolution is a historical process and present-type organisms were not created spontaneously but formed in a succession of selective events that occurred in the past, contradicted the common religious view that there could be no design, biological or otherwise, without an intelligent designer. “The variability by which selection depends may be random, but adaptions are not; they arise because selection chooses and perfects only what is adaptive. In this scheme a god of design and purpose is not necessary …“Nevertheless, faith in religious dogma has been eroded by natural explanations of its mysteries, by a deep understanding of the sources of human emotional needs, and by the recognition that ethics and morality can change among different societies and that acceptance of such values need not depend on religion.”
(Evolution by Monroe, W. Strickberger (3rd ed., Jones & Bartlett, 2000), pg. 70-71)
“Nothing consciously chooses what is selected. Nature is not a conscious agent who chooses what will be selected. “There is no long term goal, for nothing is involved that could conceive of a goal.”
(Evolution: An Introduction by Stephen C. Stearns & Rolf F. Hoeckstra, pg. 30 (2nd ed., Oxford University Press, 2005).)
“[A]s E.O. Wilson puts it, a chicken is really the chicken genes’ way of making more copies of themselves. “[A]s an evolutionary biologist I believe that in some sense we exist solely to propagate the genes within us.”
(Animal Behavior: An Evolutionary Approach, by John Alcock, pgs 16, 609 (Sinauer Associates, Inc, 1998).)
- Status