Sorry Evolution Again

[The_Barbarian]

To say “God made it that way” is your statement.

All Christians I know about, think God made the universe and nature. Genesis certainly makes that claim.

No, science is mostly concerned about atheism today.

I read a lot of scientific papers. Can’t remember one that asserted that God didn’t exist. You couldn’t be more wrong about that.

Pope Benedict has written that both scientific and popular texts say evolution or nature has done this or that. But what is this nature or evolution as [an active] force? It doesn’t exist at all!

A hammer or a computer doesn’t exist as an active force, either. But still wonderful things can result.

That is what I believe. Textbook evolution is grossly incomplete.

So is plumbing. They aren’t supposed to be about God.

To further complicate that issue, the atheists are busy using the “mountains of evidence” to promote their cause. It’s really too bad that science can’t be just about science anymore.

It seems to constantly anger you that it isn’t about more than science.

 

[hecd2]

There were three processes I presented. Which of those created the features you mentioned? How is your conclusion supported by the mathematics?

hecd2:

                          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.

There are at least three hypotheses that can answer any of these observations. As I posted already:
Identical features, supposedly, can appear by either:

reggieM:

Convergent evolution (same features, different ancestries).
Self-organization (same features are created by self-organization and not Darwinian process)
… or Standard Evolution (same features from common ancestor).

Your “alternative” hypotheses are not viable explanations for the observations that I noted, not because they are less probable than the accepted explanation, but because they are the wrong category of process - you are making a category error.

The observations in question are not features of the phenotype, but phenomena that are observed in the genotype of organisms such as the remnants of broken genes, and viral and repeat sequence insertions into the genome.

Your list of explanations is not MECE. For example convergent evolution is simply one consequence of the conventional evolutionary process, not an alternative or a competitor to it. Convergent evolution occurs when Natural Selection acts to preserve a similar solution in two distinct lineages to the same problem. Broken genes and the insertion of viral or transposable sequences are not solutions to problems, they are not selected for or against (we know this because their rate of change is the same as other synonymous changes - the neutral rate) so they cannot be a consequence of convergent evolution.

Similarly, it is a category error to propose self-organisation as an explanation for these phenomena. Self-organisation is not magic, but is based on the underlying physics and chemistry of the system, so that if you understand the physics and chemistry and you are aware of the local conditions, you would be able to predict, at least in principle, the emergent properties of the system. Broken genes and random insertions of transposable elements and viruses are not like that, because unlike, say, protein folding or the condensation of some nuclear bodies, they are not an emergent property of the underlying processes, but are random in time and genomic location.

So, neither convergent evolution nor self-organisation can explain the phenomena I described.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[edwest2]

All Christians I know about, think God made the universe and nature. Genesis certainly makes that claim.

I read a lot of scientific papers. Can’t remember one that asserted that God didn’t exist. You couldn’t be more wrong about that.

A hammer or a computer doesn’t exist as an active force, either. But still wonderful things can result.

So is plumbing. They aren’t supposed to be about God.

It seems to constantly anger you that it isn’t about more than science.

Evolution is not a hammer and it is not plumbing. You should know that it touches on questions regarding man and his true identity. An identity he cannot know from a hammer or studying plumbing.

You mention anger, then you should read some of the profanity filled comments to the Pope’s remarks calling evolutionary theory into question. These remarks usually show a strong non-intellectual emotional expression.

I wish to warn all Catholics about the fact that science has become infected by scientism. “Scientism - by which I mean the philosophy (usually implicit and unrecognized) that modern science is the only way of gaining objective knowledge of reality - must be overcome.” - Cardinal Schoenborn

firstthings.com/article.php3?id_article=5464

I join with the Cardinal in pointing out to Catholics that any sort of evolution as described by the textbook is literally impossible without God as a direct causal agent.

Take the group Rally for Reason that protested outside of the Creation Museum. Why didn’t they call themselves Rally for Science or Rally for Atheism? The latter since the majority of the supporters shown on their web site are atheists or atheist organizations.

I want Catholics to know that Atheists want to lay claim to Science as being the whole of Reason, when, in fact, the Church tells us it is not. As Pope Benedict has stated, there are questions that cannot be answered by science, so we must look to other areas of reason we still need.

For Catholics, knowing God’s critical role in the creation and development of life in the universe is critical. Science should not succumb to its already heavily materialist-atheist tendencies. Science is not the whole of reality. And as the Catholic Church teaches, all of us, as individuals, including scientists, can detect God and design and purpose in nature.

Peace,
Ed

 

[hecd2]

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.

I don’t know of a single professional anatomist who would agree with you. Not one. You are out on your own here. It might tell you nothing (actually science doesn’t seem to tell you very much at all), but it tells professionals a great deal.

Perhaps you could explain how breathing the same atmosphere leads to the same limb structure in the entire tetrapod clade (amphibians, reptiles, birds, mammals):

Humerus; radius and ulna; metacarpals; pentadactylous phalanges

Femur; tibia and fibula; metatarsals; pentadactylous phalanges

In particular explain pentadactyly. Good luck.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[edwest2]

Hello Alec -

As Cardinal Schoenborn has stated, living things show design and purpose. If I placed a simple graphic of an ape skeleton next to a human skeleton, how many length and width parameters would I need to change to turn an ape skeleton into a human skeleton? Not that many.

Form follows function.

Peace,
Ed

 

[The_Barbarian]

Evolution is not a hammer and it is not plumbing. You should know that it touches on questions regarding man and his true identity.

Can’t do that. As you learned, science can say how we evolved as a species, but it can’t explain man’s true identity. For that, you need the Church.

You mention anger, then you should read some of the profanity filled comments to the Pope’s remarks calling evolutionary theory into question.

Didn’t know there were any. After all, the Pope expressly endorsed the most sweeping claims of Darwinian evolution.

I wish to warn all Catholics about the fact that science has become infected by scientism. “Scientism - by which I mean the philosophy (usually implicit and unrecognized) that modern science is the only way of gaining objective knowledge of reality - must be overcome.”

Ironically, as you’ve seen here, it is scientists who keep telling you that science is limited to the physical universe. It can’t do what you want it to do, Ed.

Schoenborn was simply wrong, a fact that he made clear in his later “clarification.”

 

[edwest2]

A clarification is normally issued when the writer believes he was misunderstood, not wrong.

Peace,
Ed

 

[The_Barbarian]

A clarification is normally issued when the writer believes he was misunderstood, not wrong.

Indeed, it is possible that he simply didn’t express himself clearly the first time. But his subsequent revisions did put him back with Pope Benedict and other Catholic theologians on this issue.

 

[hecd2]

Hello Alec -

Hello Ed,

As Cardinal Schoenborn has stated, living things show design and purpose.

What makes you think that Schoenborn’s statements on evolutionary biology have any merit whatsoever? Schoenborn’s only achievement in his NYT and First Things articles was to show how little he knew about biology, randomness in nature and the philosophy of science.

Now answer the question, Ed:

Perhaps you could explain how breathing the same atmosphere leads to the same limb structure in the entire tetrapod clade (amphibians, reptiles, birds, mammals):

Humerus; radius and ulna; metacarpals; pentadactylous phalanges

Femur; tibia and fibula; metatarsals; pentadactylous phalanges

In particular explain pentadactyly. Five digits.

If I placed a simple graphic of an ape skeleton next to a human skeleton, how many length and width parameters would I need to change to turn an ape skeleton into a human skeleton? Not that many.

Diversionary tactic noted - attempt to answer a different question from the one posed.

Form follows function.

In pentadactyly? What function requires tetrapods, from frogs to seals, bats, moles, Tyrannosaurus Rex and humans to be embryonically pentadactylous? What is the function that demands five fingers and five toes in the embryo (and in many adult tetrapods)? We’d really like to know, Ed. Good luck.

Alec
evolutionpages.com/pederpes%20finneyae.htm

 

[edwest2]

We? Who is this we?

You appear to have missed my earlier statements about body plans. One earth gravity requires body plans that will function at full capacity in it. No use having a body plan sufficient to let one barely crawl, especially if an organism wants to eat.

Man was not just anticipated by God but was planned. Insects trapped in amber that are supposedly millions of years old, show fine detail and in some cases, the ability to walk and fly. These body plans had to be fully functional and in full comprehension of their surrounding environment in order to eat and avoid predators, today. Not wait around for some new trait to form. Or wait around for some ‘higher’ brain function to develop.

Peace,
Ed

 

[hecd2]

You appear to have missed my earlier statements about body plans. One earth gravity requires body plans that will function at full capacity in it. No use having a body plan sufficient to let one barely crawl, especially if an organism wants to eat.

You appear to dismiss snails, sloths, sponges, corals and barnacles. Some of these can barely crawl, some can’t crawl at all.

But you still haven’t answered the question. Here it is again:

Explain how breathing the same atmosphere and living on the same earth leads to the same limb structure in the entire tetrapod clade (amphibians, reptiles, birds, mammals):

Humerus; radius and ulna; metacarpals; pentadactylous phalanges

Femur; tibia and fibula; metatarsals; pentadactylous phalanges

In particular explain pentadactyly. Five digits. Good luck.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[Namesake]

We? Who is this we?

You appear to have missed my earlier statements about body plans. One earth gravity requires body plans that will function at full capacity in it. No use having a body plan sufficient to let one barely crawl, especially if an organism wants to eat.

Man was not just anticipated by God but was planned. Insects trapped in amber that are supposedly millions of years old, show fine detail and in some cases, the ability to walk and fly. These body plans had to be fully functional and in full comprehension of their surrounding environment in order to eat and avoid predators, today. Not wait around for some new trait to form. Or wait around for some ‘higher’ brain function to develop.

So why did so many organisms go extinct if they were so well planned?

 

[edwest2]

To Namesake -

I ask that you consider for a moment that science can only do so much, stops at its limits, and other areas of reason must be investigated. The first man, Adam, could have gone on indefinitely, but he and the first woman, chose to break their relationship with God. Creation began to become deformed from what it could have been. Man became deformed outwardly and inwardly. Physical death entered the world. Then God sent His Son who took on flesh, overcame it and death itself, so that we might, through His sacrifice, have access to what God meant for all of us.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Orogeny]

We? Who is this we?

You can add me to Alec’s list. That makes at least two of us and makes us a “we”.

Peace

Tim

 

[The_Barbarian]

Physical death entered the world.

But that’s not what scripture says, is it? Isn’t it a clue that you need to adjust what the Bible says in order to support your argument?

 

[Namesake]

To Namesake -

I ask that you consider for a moment that science can only do so much, stops at its limits, and other areas of reason must be investigated.

I not only consider but I quite well understand that science is limited. We just don’t know where the limits are because research extends the horizon.

You don’t mean to say that science should stop looking for answers to questions about the natural universe, do you?

I hope you don’t mean that if science doesn’t fully explain something we should look for a supernatural explanation, do you?

 

[buffalo]

I not only consider but I quite well understand that science is limited. We just don’t know where the limits are because research extends the horizon.

You don’t mean to say that science should stop looking for answers to questions about the natural universe, do you?

I hope you don’t mean that if science doesn’t fully explain something we should look for a supernatural explanation, do you?

We should continue to use science to discover. Science should be illuminated by Revelation.

 

[hecd2]

We should continue to use science to discover. Science should be illuminated by Revelation.

Tee hee. Do you expect all the Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu, Shinto, agnostic and atheist scientists to pay Catholic Revelation the slightest notice? They all seem to have produced great science without its help. In fact, Revelation is entirely irrelevant to science.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[buffalo]

Tee hee. Do you expect all the Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu, Shinto, agnostic and atheist scientists to pay Catholic Revelation the slightest notice? They all seem to have produced great science without its help. In fact, Revelation is entirely irrelevant to science.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

Catholic Revelation is true Revelation.

By your definition of science you have painted yourself into a corner. You have only empiricism and pseudo-scientific philosophy to base your worldview on.

 

[Namesake]

Catholic Revelation is true Revelation.

That constitutes the logical fallacy of appeal to authority. Basically it means it ain’t necessarily so.