N
Namesake
Guest
Try looking at path integral formulations to sort some of that out.
- Status
E
edwest2
Guest
Valid? As Pope Benedict has pointed out, you can’t drag many past generations of humans into the lab.
Valuable? In what way? I see its greatest value in its being used to promote atheism - that’s it. Whenever I disagree with “scientists,” even here, the first thing that gets attacked is my “magical thinking” and book of myths, the Bible. And the reason for that does not come from science but from a desire to spread atheism.
Sure, biology gets done on already living things with clearly provable properties. Evolution does not even qualify as good fiction, especially with a central premise that given enough time, literally anything can happen. And if that’s not good enough, let’s just throw in some multiverses.
Peace,
Ed
H
hecd2
Guest
A question that shows that you are engaged in rhetoric with no intention of dealing with actual evidence. How can there be a single probability for each of these processes? To the extent that we can discuss probabilities, we have to talk about individual cases that are well understood. In spite of yoour rhetoric, which shows that you are more interested in making your a priori case than uncovering the truth, it is clear that the evidence overwhelmingly points to a common human-chimp ancestry.
The fact that neither you nor anyone else has presented an alternative hypothesis to explain these observations is noted:
- a human and chimpanzee Vitamin C synthesis gene broken in exactly the same way in human and chimp,
- a large number of other olfactory genes broken in identical fashion in chimp and human,
- identical endogenous retroviruses in the same genomic location in human and chimp
- a large number of common transposons in the two species.
Alec
evolutionpages.com
H
hecd2
Guest
Ed, I don’t think you will ever understand the fact that magical explanations are not and never have been acceptable in science textbooks of any discipline including biology. Nor will they ever appear there, no matter how many times you post this nonsense.
Alec
H
hecd2
Guest
I assume you are referring to the 10,000 generation comment. It was remarkably unwise thing for him to say and showed a profound misunderstanding of the nature of science.
Evolutionary biology is the basic framework of all of modern biology - as Dobzhansky pointed out, nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution. And if that’s not enough, the evolutionary framework illuminates medicine, both in terms of understanding why humans are as they are, their anatomy, physiology, development, disease states and ageing processes, as well as understanding the evolution of things like disease organisms, disease vectors and cancers. You obviously don’t read the scientific literature to understand how essential all this is. Without the framework of evolution biology would be reduced to an arbitrary taxonomy and listing of unrelated features.
Alec
evolutionpages.com
B
buffalo
Guest
Did God know what Adam would look like?
W
wildleafblower
Guest
Valid? As Pope Benedict has pointed out, you can’t drag many past generations of humans into the lab.
Hummm. Pope Benedict never implied anything of the sort as you have suggested Edwest2, “As Pope Benedict has pointed out, you can’t drag many past generations of humans into the lab.” Ed, I’m sorry but you seem to be unable to understand science which unfortunately leads you to expressing untruths about what Popes’ have actually written.
Read this:
"Trying to foster the interdisciplinary dialogue so important for the integral education, John Paul II wrote on the occasion of the tricentennial of the publication of Newton’s Principia: “Science can purify religion from error and superstition; religion can purify science from idolatry and false absolutes. Each can draw the other into a wider world, a world in which both can flourish” (Letter to George Coyne, M13). We realise that in the billions of years of cosmic evolution, **the existence of the human species **is measured only in thousands of years. In this context, it is the moral duty of our generation to assume our responsibility for the academic and cultural growth of Homo sapiens. In undertaking this duty, the Holy See will consistently support the Declaration of Bologna to construct a new academic model of unity in diversity. (FOURTH MINISTERIAL CONFERENCE OF THE BOLOGNA PROCESS STATEMENT OF H.E. MONS. JÓZEF MIROSLAW ZYCINSKI, ARCHBISHOP OF LUBLIN, HEAD OF THE HOLY SEE DELEGATION, Bergen (Norway), 19-20 May 2005)
vatican.va/roman_curia/secretariat_state/2005/documents/rc_seg-st_20050519_bologna-process_en.html
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/s...ts/rc_seg-st_20050519_bologna-process_en.html
Ah well, may God bless you with clarity of mind as I wonder off to a Fondu party with a bottle of wine.
E
edwest2
Guest
Evolution does not illuminate anything. I worked in health care for nearly ten years and had access to a fine medical library.
There are two types of biology:
- The biology that involves currently living organisms and includes disease vectors and cancers. My point is that bacteria, for example, have built-in mechanisms for surviving contact with toxic chemicals, either natural or man-made. There is no such thing as almost lateral gene transfer. There is such a thing as lateral gene transfer between different species of bacteria. This ability is built in, evolution had nothing to do with it.
- Evolutionary biology that deals with things that are dead. And the more I read here, the more clear it becomes that when an explanation, any explanation, is needed to fill a gap in evolutionary theory, an “evolution explanation that fills the gaps” magically appears that is often totally outrageous but also, more importantly, totally unprovable. Multiverse? In a science fiction story, maybe, but as science? No.
Have you read the journal Evolutionary Psychology? The conclusion is clear: human beings are ambulatory bags of chemicals controlled by their genes who are born, perform adaptive functions, reproduce, or not, and die. All the while the random mutation and natural selection machine is spitting out new traits all over the place. Next for humans: feathers. Please. Give me a break.
Peace,
Ed
N
Namesake
Guest
Oh come on. Modern biological science is valuable to us all everyday and if we didn’t have the foundation of evolution theory our understanding of biology would not be nearly what it is. One very understandable area of value is in modern medicine. Evolution theory guides modern medical research and your life is much better because of that.
E
edwest2
Guest
Your politeness is appreciated but may I politely suggest that before you post an assumption of my presenting an “untruth” you simply ask for my source?
timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article1645453.ece
Referring to past generations of human beings, Pope Benedict said,
“We cannot haul 10,000 generations into the laboratory.”
Referring to Pope John Paul II’s statement about evolution being more than a hypothesis, Pope Benedict said,
“The pope [John Paul] had his reasons for saying this. But it is also true that the theory of evolution is not a complete, scientifically proven theory.”
Peace,
Ed
N
Namesake
Guest
All of your protestations notwithstanding, contemporary medical science is founded on the theory that you claim is bogus.
E
edwest2
Guest
“Evolution theory guides modern medical research…” How? Do you know how new anti-whatever compounds are found? A great row of identical containers with a particular biological sample are injected with a promising chemical treatment. In most cases, nothing happens. In the few cases where something does happen, the researchers then look at the chemical to see if it safe to inject into human beings. In most cases, it is not. In most cases, it would cause more problems.
And even for drugs that are approved, just open up that tiny little insert with that tiny little print: “May cause stroke, heart attack, elevated blood pressure, kidney failure, liver failure, and [my favorite] death in some patients using this medication.”
So where does evolution fit into this?
Peace,
Ed
T
The_Barbarian
Guest
Antibiotic protocols, for example, are designed using evolutionary theory, to slow the evolution of antibiotic resistance. Even more interesting, evolutionary theory is now being used to predict the forms that new resistances might take.
homepage.mac.com/barryghall/BarryHall.html
T
The_Barbarian
Guest
True. We can’t haul a house that burned down, into the lab, either. But we can accurately infer what caused it to burn down, from the evidence it left behind.
Likewise, the evidence left behind by all those generations can be studied.
Well said. Scientific theories are never proven, and when they are complete, they are dead. All viable theories have many things left to discover about them.
W
wildleafblower
Guest
N
Namesake
Guest
How do you think medical students learn anatomy? It starts with an understanding of evolution theory. Comparative anatomy lays the foundation for understanding how human anatomy develops. It isn’t just rote memorization. Anatomical structures can be followed from simple organisms through intermediate forms all the way to human anatomy.
By learning the origin of anatomical structures we can understand how those structures can be manipulated in a variety of ways. Embryological studies lead to new methods of treating diseases. Genetic manipulation addresses lots of medical issues.
It all comes from basic evolution science.
R
reggieM
Guest
A question that shows that you rush to a conclusions not supported by the text.
Where did I ask for a single probability? Any number of them would be fine. There were three processes I presented. Which of those created the features you mentioned? How is your conclusion supported by the mathematics?
There are at least three hypotheses that can answer any of these observations. As I posted already:
I’m really just interested in the mathematical analysis, not in your conjectures or rhetoric.
E
edwest2
Guest
What? Evolution has zero application to this. Studying anatomical structures from simple to complex tells me nothing about evolution. Zero. It simply defines individual structures that live under the same gravity and breathe the same atmosphere.
Embryological studies have led to no treatments for anything. And have nothing to do with evolution. The premise is simple: kill the human embryo, extract the stuff we want, try to make it do what we want. No evolution involved.
Genetic manipulation is genetic manipulation - no evolution involved. The process is, again, pretty trial and error. Let’s turn off this, turn off that, remove this, replace it with that and see if it does what we want it to do.
The theory behind all this predates Darwin - it’s called trial and error.
Peace,
Ed
E
edwest2
Guest
To wildleafblower -
This is not the first source I’ve cited that you said you did not trust. My point is that I do trust it and see no reason not to. The vitriolic comments to the article that appear on the same page attest to the anti-intellectual response of those who can’t believe the Pope would ever say anything negative about evolution.
I never mentioned Father Coyne. As far as I am concerned, he does not represent the Church’s views regarding evolution. You can tell me he wasn’t fired for that reason but the point is, anyone who says God did not know man would show up as a result of evolution is professing pure nonsense.
Vatican evolution congress to exclude creationism, intelligent design
N
Namesake
Guest
I am surprised to find out that when I was teaching comparative anatomy to pre-med students I wasn’t teaching evolution science.
And all the time I wasted teaching embryology and histology…
- Status