The Missing Link has Been Found how will this change morality?

[cheese_sdc]

If you are actually interested in expanding your mind - take two hours and watch the NOVA show below. Our check it out from your local library.

pbs.org/wgbh/nova/id/program.html

P.S. You’re still a spammer.

 

[CGDouglas]

If you watched this video you’d see plenty of evidence as to why Evolution is a Joke. You people dont realize it do you, evolution is about communism not about science.

Last time I remembered, Evolution was about Biology and not Political Philosophy.

God Bless.

Chris.

 

[Arandur]

One must remember history to avoid making a new mistake. Catholics who persecute evolution theory risk committing the sin for which the Church has been accused of (but was not actually guilty of) with Galileo.

In the time of Galileo and Copernicus, much physics theory and astronomical theory was conjectural, based on limited observations and mathematical calculations. Heliocentrism and similar theories were perfectly allowable, but since the people of those times did not have direct evidence, the Church, in its desire to require rigorous honesty in the pursuit of truth, as well as its desire to accept Biblical symbolism as literally as possible as a default position until Creation or Inspiration Revealed otherwise, required that these theories be advocated merely as theories, the best current explanation of the observed facts with the best capability to predict natural phenomena. (sorry for the long sentence)

Galileo got in trouble initially because he asserted his theories as fact with no evidence, then began showing contempt for various Church officials, including the Pope.

Evolution is such a strong working theory in the sciences because it best explains and predicts observed natural phenomena. It has quite a bit of evidence behind it, unlike Galileo’s positions, and so is not open to the same sort of criticism. Nothing has come along that is better, though the theory has been refined by further evidence. Until something does, evolution is the best explanation we have for many ways in which the biological world works. It appears to be the method (process, or pattern) that God used to Create.

It seems to me that most of the anti-evolutionists today are committing the sin the Church was accused of with Galileo–only worse.

For a good example of how strong evolutionary theory is in its ability to explain nature and predict natural phenomena, see this: youtube.com/watch?v=dK3O6KYPmEw&NR=1

It is an explanation by a Catholic scientist of some DNA evidence for common ancestry of our physical forms with the great apes. Most of those evolutionarily-posited “relatives” of humans, including chimpanzees, have 24 chromosome pairs (48 chromosomes). We have 23 pairs (46). To have common ancestry, we’d either have to have lost a pair (which would have been fatal and could not have occurred), the others would have had to gain a pair (unlikely given the time frames involved), or we would have had to have a pair of chromosomes fuse (an occurrence we have observed in genetic study; a known phenomena, and therefore a distinct possibility). Well, the genetic evidence is extremely strong that 2 pairs that are quite analogous to the other apes’ fused to create 1 pair (human chromosome pair 2). We see the centromeres fused with additional telomeres down the middle.

Now, the scientist in this video ends with perhaps his strongest point and the one that matters most to me, that I have been trying to show people for many years: why would God create such a structure as that DNA link, create a world that appears to be so very old, create dinosaur bones, etc. in order to deceive us into thinking something that was not true? Does not God speak beautifully about Himself in Creation? Has He not authored Creation to tell us more about Him? Rejecting science in favor of deceptive fiat ID creation calls God a trickster at best.

 

[TruthisBeauty7]

It is an explanation by a Catholic scientist of some DNA evidence for common ancestry of our physical forms with the great apes. Most of those evolutionarily-posited “relatives” of humans, including chimpanzees, have 24 chromosome pairs (48 chromosomes). We have 23 pairs (46). To have common ancestry, we’d either have to have lost a pair (which would have been fatal and could not have occurred), the others would have had to gain a pair (unlikely given the time frames involved), or we would have had to have a pair of chromosomes fuse (an occurrence we have observed in genetic study; a known phenomena, and therefore a distinct possibility). Well, the genetic evidence is extremely strong that 2 pairs that are quite analogous to the other apes’ fused to create 1 pair (human chromosome pair 2). We see the centromeres fused with additional telomeres down the middle.

This doesnt prove common ancestor this proves common designer. Sorry but you failed to prove anything. Let me explain a few things about science, Science is about Observations, have we observed One species transforming into another? NO! This is why Evolution is not science its religion.

 

[TheQuestioner]

This is why Evolution is not science its religion.

Remember TruthisBeauty7, as a Catholic you must not condemn evolution as morally wrong, only scientifically wrong. Most of what you said before this statement was pretty good.

 

[TruthisBeauty7]

Hey Cheese,

If the earth is 20 BiLLLLLLLLLION years old like the Korky scientists like to say

If stars blow up every thirty years why do we only see 300 dead stars? Thats only a few thousand years worth not even close to 20 billion.

Run along now youve been exposed.

 

[TruthisBeauty7]

question Im trying to show evolution is more about faith then about observational science. This is why I call evolution a dogma of Post Modern Atheism,or Communism

 

[Orogeny]

Hey Cheese,

If the earth is 20 BiLLLLLLLLLION years old like the Korky scientists like to say

Hey Truth,

You are clearly a pretty smart guy. How about a link to any non-creationist scientist that claims the earth is 20 BiLLLLLLLLLION years old.

Peace

Tim

 

[CGDouglas]

question Im trying to show evolution is more about faith then about observational science. This is why I call evolution a dogma of Post Modern Atheism,or Communism

Evolution is a product of observational science, it’s like detective work and piecing all the parts of the puzzle together, we can also observe through change.

God Bless.

Chris.

 

[rossum]

If the earth is 20 BiLLLLLLLLLION years old like the Korky scientists like to say

It isn’t, the earth is about 4.5 billion years old; the universe is older but not that old. Your creationist sources are lying to you again.

If stars blow up every thirty years why do we only see 300 dead stars? Thats only a few thousand years worth not even close to 20 billion.

Yet another creationist PRATT. See CE401 Supernova Remnants for the refutation of this creationist falsehood.

You should have noticed by now that your creationist sources do not give you reliable scientific information. Would you go to an atheist website for accurate information about Christianity? Why do you expect creationist websites to give you accurate information about evolution?

rossum

 

[TruthisBeauty7]

There’s No Proof , because you weren’t there to observe it, and there is not one living creature that has ever giving birth to an entirely different species.

Fail.

 

[TruthisBeauty7]

Im sorry I mistyped. I meant the universe is 20 billion years old.

 

[CGDouglas]

There’s No Proof , because you weren’t there to observe it, and there is not one living creature that has ever giving birth to an entirely different species.

Fail.

Funny, what’s the proof of six day creation, I mean after all, you weren’t there either?

You need to learn what Evolution is, it’s not just about birth, it’s about biological change, and which the dominant genes triumph.

So I think you fail.

God Bless.

Chris.

 

[cheese_sdc]

Hey Cheese,

If the earth is 20 BiLLLLLLLLLION years old like the Korky scientists like to say

If stars blow up every thirty years why do we only see 300 dead stars? Thats only a few thousand years worth not even close to 20 billion.

Run along now youve been exposed.

Did you watch the show?

Run along now. Don’t be scared. It doesn’t bite.

 

[rossum]

Im sorry I mistyped. I meant the universe is 20 billion years old.

The universe is about 13.6 billion years old. 20 billion is well outside the measured range of error.

rossum

 

[cheese_sdc]

Evolution is A Complete Joke

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joke

:thankyou:

 

[Arandur]

This doesnt prove common ancestor this proves common designer. Sorry but you failed to prove anything. Let me explain a few things about science, Science is about Observations, have we observed One species transforming into another? NO! This is why Evolution is not science its religion.

Neither I nor the presenter made the assertion that the DNA evidence discussed is, all by itself, proof of a common ancestor. It was a demonstration that it is consistent with what we would expect of a common ancestor, and a genetic evolutionary process is currently the best explanation for such an observed correlation in the DNA. It is therefore very much about observation.

If you don’t pay more precise attention to arguments and consequences, you’ll have difficulty arguing anything on a scientific level. What is your scientific background, by the way? I find this summary of yours about what science is quite limited and insufficient. How much education do you have in science, and what else have or do you read about science (education isn’t everything). I am no professional scientist, but I have a fairly recent B.S. in biology and minors in chemistry and environmental studies; I read quite a bit about scientific topics, through Discover regularly and other periodicals occasionally, and I have followed several other courses and books in the history of science. I tell you this to be up front about the extent but also limitation of my expertise, and to demonstrate that I’m pretty well-versed in the basics of science. I don’t see much evidence that you are, and suggest that you learn more about the subject before trying to condemn its theories or make assertions about it with some sort of authority.

In your assertion that there is a common designer you provide no argument or proof while also ignoring the point I and the presenter made that if there is a common designer (and note that we both believe there is), why would He attempt to deceive us into thinking there is some relation between the two, that genetic evolution would explain this relationship? Why wouldn’t God have simply given the apes 48 chromosomes and humans 46 chromosomes? Why would he have left the telomeres in human Chromosome 2 that clearly indicate that two previously separate chromosomes fused to become a single chromosome? Why not make them distinct and separate?

In your pride and denial you want to say that God writes lies into His creation. I utterly reject that.

 

[kalt]

There’s No Proof , because you weren’t there to observe it, and there is not one living creature that has ever giving birth to an entirely different species.

Fail.

And you are trying to say that your statement is what one or another evolution theory says? Wrong again.

 

[Arandur]

There’s No Proof , because you weren’t there to observe it, and there is not one living creature that has ever giving birth to an entirely different species.

Fail.

Do you also have a problem with most of physics, astronomy, and chemistry? Much of the laws and theories described therein have not been explicitly and directly observed, only inferred and extrapolated.

Your assertion that “one living creature has never given birth to an entirely different species” shows that you have gigantic fundamental misunderstandings about what evolution is. Until you understand what the theory actually states, you cannot properly criticize it. It makes no such claim. Change is gradual. There will always be species continuity. Divergences may occur over time and isolation to the point that the descendants of one species in two geographic locations whose populations have been isolated over time and whose environments have favored morphological change MAY not, at some future hypothetical meeting of those descendants, interbreed. The barrier to breeding may not even be complete genetic incompatibility, but species definition can also be defined by significant barriers to mating through such things as differing mating habits.

Further, another common misconception about evolution that you have mentioned earlier is the idea that sudden dramatic mutations take place. Not so. Micro-evolutionary changes (which most creationists accept) can eventually grow into special differentiation. Mating habits, along with those morphological changes, may change significantly enough to characterize a new species. Morphological changes may become very significant. Genetic changes may prevent successful interbreeding–such as humans having fused chromosome pairs such that the chromosomal differences will make a human/chimpanzee crossbreeding not viable.

 

[kalt]

It is an explanation by a Catholic scientist of some DNA evidence for common ancestry of our physical forms with the great apes. Most of those evolutionarily-posited “relatives” of humans, including chimpanzees, have 24 chromosome pairs (48 chromosomes). We have 23 pairs (46). To have common ancestry, we’d either have to have lost a pair (which would have been fatal and could not have occurred), the others would have had to gain a pair (unlikely given the time frames involved), or we would have had to have a pair of chromosomes fuse (an occurrence we have observed in genetic study; a known phenomena, and therefore a distinct possibility). Well, the genetic evidence is extremely strong that 2 pairs that are quite analogous to the other apes’ fused to create 1 pair (human chromosome pair 2). We see the centromeres fused with additional telomeres down the middle.

This doesnt prove common ancestor this proves common designer. Sorry but you failed to prove anything. Let me explain a few things about science, Science is about Observations, have we observed One species transforming into another? NO! This is why Evolution is not science its religion.

I don’t get this argument. Creationsist claim that similarity in design is prove of a common designer.

If I look at a Ford and a Honda, I see very similar designs. Creationsists use the argument that an evolutionist could argue that one car evolved from the other. They use that argument to disprove the evolutionists evidence (fossils, DNA)

However, can’t we apply the Creationist’s argument of a common designer? Couldn’t we look at the two cars, see the many similarities, and conclude that they were made by the same designer (engineer)?

Although each car most definitely had a designer, the similarity isn’t proof of a common designer. Since we know that all cars are not designed by the same person (Wasn’t the car invented indepedently by 2?), the evolution argument actually fits better. The idea of the car didn’t spring from nothing. If you look at the first cars, they look a lot like what came before them - horse-drawn passenger buggies. Why? Because the use was the same. The design of the earlier fit the needs of the later. As time went on, the newest cars look a lot like the ones just before, and less like the earliest. Good innovations are kept, and bad are thrown out. Elements that aren’t needed because the function has been taken over by another mechanism are dropped - cranks, clutches on automatics, manual chokes, etc. Things that become obsolete, because a new element is introduced are eliminated - vent windows replaced by air conditioning.

The lemons die out, quickly and expensively.

I still miss vent windows.

All cars are similar, but they don’t have one designer. Car designs have evolved through the years. Each designer learns and improves (usually ) on what previous designers made.

If similarity in design means that each example is made indepentently of the other by one designer, how do you explain the many car models, especially knowing that they had many designers?

It seems that you want to say that the similarity of design proves that one didn’t evolve from the other, but that one designer made all. So what proof is there that God made a rock and a man? Where is the similarity in design? How about the moon and a mushroom?

If similarity in design is your proof against evolution (proof of a single designer), what do you have to say about the things that are very different?