Transitional Fossils and the Theory of Evolution in relation to Genesis Accounts

[Freddy]

Rocks to living creatures is the issue. What experience, not speculation, can you offer to support that rocks evolved into living creatures? Can you demonstrate any life from that is inorganic?

Let me see…

There was invariably inorganic matter a few billion years ago (limiting ourselves to this planet). And we now have life. So…at some point in the past something happened, some process took place, that organised inorganic matter into matter that had the characteristics of life.

Now a few of us posting don’t believe in God so we’d say that the process must have been entirely natural. That is, with no divine intervention. You believe in God so you would say that He was involved in that process.

Now as to what that specific process was, we don’t yet know (well, unless you think it was all as per Genesis). We know how He organised the process right from the beginning of this universe up to the point where life appeared. We’ve worked that out. But non-life to life is a lot more difficult.

But if you want to say that God did it then everyone would be happy with that. Not that we’d all agree, but this is a Catholic forum. What else should one expect?

Now the $64,000 question is: Do you object to the search for the answer as to how the process worked? Because I can’t imagine why you would. In fact, the reaction I’d expect from any given Christian (who didn’t read Genesis literally) would be: ‘How you guys getting on with the investigation? I’m really keen to find out how God actually did it’.

But you seem not the slightest bit interested. And won’t admit to being someone who reads Genesis literally. Yet never offer any alternatives, despite countless requests. It’s all negative.

Beats me…

 

[o_mlly]

Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere dissolves in the oceans and some of that dissolved carbon is deposited onto the ocean floor and forms rocks.

And what experience, not speculation, informs us as to the source of the carbon dioxide? It seems your logic keeps leap frogging the issue rather than directly addressing it.

Hydrogen, oxygen and nitrogen are also essential for life, and are found in rocks. Your argument relies on ignoring counter-examples.

Those are not counter examples. Once again, your logic is faulty. That which is essential to rocks is insufficient for life. We’re still looking for carbon.

 

[o_mlly]

Beats me…

Of course it does. You readily admit that science has not yet made the case.

So…at some point in the past something happened, some process took place … specific process was, we don’t yet know …

Thanks for confirming that the proper scientific position is, “We just don’t know yet.”

 

[PickyPicky]

That which is essential to rocks is insufficient for life.

How do you determine what is essential to rocks? Is not every atom in every rock externally sourced? What is essential to limestone, for instance?

 

[o_mlly]

How do you determine what is essential to rocks? Is not every atom in every rock externally sourced? What is essential to limestone, for instance?

It is not necessary to support the argument to list the essentials to rocks. It is sufficient to claim that carbon, essential to life, is not one. No rock drops out of existence as rock if stripped of its accidentals.

 

[PickyPicky]

Carbon is essential to life as we know it. It cannot be essential to rock if rock exists in some form without it, although it is clearly essential to carboniferous limestone. Where do you take us from there?

 

[o_mlly]

Is not carboniferous limestone limestone that is embedded with the fossilized remains of living creatures? The source of its carbon is life so the limestone cannot be the source of that life.

 

[PickyPicky]

“Embedded with” hardly captures it. “Made of” is nearer the mark. So clearly carbon is essential to carboniferous limestone.

 

[o_mlly]

Where did the carbon in limestone come from? Living creatures. Limestone contains some minerals in its skeletal structure but absent extant life it contains no carbon. Living creatures are the source of all carbon in limestone so the minerals in limestone cannot be the source of life.

 

[PickyPicky]

We have, however, I hope, moved away from the metaphysical argument. Sure the carbon in carboniferous limestone comes from creatures. Is it your position that all the carbon in rocks, or indeed all the carbon in the universe, comes from the structures of living creatures?

 

[rossum]

And what experience, not speculation, informs us as to the source of the carbon dioxide? It seems your logic keeps leap frogging the issue rather than directly addressing it.

The experience of astronomers studying stars that show both carbon and oxygen are being made today inside stars. Yes, that includes the sun. Read up on Stellar Nucleosynthesis.

We’re still looking for carbon.

Oh dear. Research carbon dioxide please. Your personal lack of knowledge does not apply to everyone, just as my personal lack of knowledge of the Navaho language does not apply to everyone.

 

[rossum]

Where did the carbon in limestone come from?

From atmospheric carbon dioxide. It dissolves in water where some organisms incorporate in into their bodies. The carbon does not originate in those living organisms, they eat or absorb it first. Carbon originates in stars, as I pointed out above.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

Beats me…

Of course it does. You readily admit that science has not yet made the case.

So…at some point in the past something happened, some process took place … specific process was, we don’t yet know …

Thanks for confirming that the proper scientific position is, “We just don’t know yet.”

Yes. Nobody is claiming otherwise for abiogenesis. Although there are suggestions as to the process, we have not discovered how, to put it in your terms, God did it. And you seem not the slightest bit interested in knowing that. All we get is that ‘it wasn’t that way’ and ‘that’s not right’ and ‘that’s not the way it happened’. And when we ask for your ideas as to what the process was?

Crickets. Tumblin’ tumbleweed. Nothing at all. You seem determined to be as negative as possible and offer nothing - absolutely nothing, in return.

How about you actually join the conversation as opposed to standing on the sidelines catcalling and jeering. How about something positive for a change?

 

[whatistrue]

Absolutely positive.

I wouldn’t be so positive. Prooftexting is rampant and popular among certain groups. It is entirely possible for one who is so enamored of a position that is not supported by the literature to ignore inconvenient facts and even to deny that they are relevant when they are pointed out.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

Absolutely positive.

I wouldn’t be so positive. Prooftexting is rampant and popular among certain groups. It is entirely possible for one who is so enamored of a position that is not supported by the literature to ignore inconvenient facts and even to deny that they are relevant when they are pointed out.

But that means that he is posting links to papers which he thinks are based on fallacies. Why would anyone do that?

 

[PickyPicky]

But that means that he is posting links to papers which he thinks are based on fallacies. Why would anyone do that?

The view of @Buffalo — if I may be so bold as to interpret — is that evolutionary biology is in an existential frenzy, with holes forming in the theory and confidence leaking out. So for Buff, every suggestion of new findings in the field, or attempts to investigate unexplained biological phenomena, or work to further the theory or improve it, is evidence of this disarray — a disarray that will increase until “evos” finally admit they are wrong.

So the fact that the authors are “evos” doesn’t bother Buff one bit.

Put on Buff’s blinkers and you’d see it the same way.

 

[whatistrue]

But that means that he is posting links to papers which he thinks are based on fallacies. Why would anyone do that?

I am not saying that he is doing any particular thing; what I am saying is that I have known people who will never look past what they perceive as support for their predetermined position (based on a narrow reading of an isolated part) to what is actually being said or the fundamental basis of a paper or article. In severe cases, they will either deny or refuse to recognize their error and may simply repeat the process with a different author or different paper from the same author. My dad used to call it “my mind is made up, don’t confuse me with facts”.

 

[buffalo]

So for Buff, every suggestion of new findings in the field, or attempts to investigate unexplained biological phenomena, or work to further the theory or improve it, is evidence of this disarray — a disarray that will increase until “evos” finally admit they are wrong.

They are admitting they have been wrong…

Truth and proper human reasoning of the science is what is informing them. The hardline evo’s will squirm, get funding for more research in their attempts to make sure design is kept out of science. I am OK with this as new discoveries keep affirming what they do not want it to. The new playing field is called “natural genetic engineering”. The will go all out to avoid teleology.

From the Third Way

The vast majority of people believe that there are only two alternative ways to explain the origins of biological diversity. One way is Creationism that depends upon intervention by a divine Creator. That is clearly unscientific because it brings an arbitrary supernatural force into the evolution process. The commonly accepted alternative is Neo-Darwinism, which is clearly naturalistic science but ignores much contemporary molecular evidence and invokes a set of unsupported assumptions about the accidental nature of hereditary variation. Neo-Darwinism ignores important rapid evolutionary processes such as symbiogenesis, horizontal DNA transfer, action of mobile DNA and epigenetic modifications. Moreover, some Neo-Darwinists have elevated Natural Selection into a unique creative force that solves all the difficult evolutionary problems without a real empirical basis. Many scientists today see the need for a deeper and more complete exploration of all aspects of the evolutionary process.

 

[buffalo]

I am not saying that he is doing any particular thing; what I am saying is that I have known people who will never look past what they perceive as support for their predetermined position (based on a narrow reading of an isolated part) to what is actually being said or the fundamental basis of a paper or article. In severe cases, they will either deny or refuse to recognize their error and may simply repeat the process with a different author or different paper from the same author. My dad used to call it “my mind is made up, don’t confuse me with facts”.

The science of the last few decades is what made my mind up. I would be more cautious, but the trend is apparent as more and more research comes in.

The immense complexity and information driven systems must be explained. Neo-darwinism cannot.

 

[buffalo]

Buffalo is showing you what he considers to be evidence against evolition but says ‘check out this sentence in this paragraph here - but please ignore the very basis on which the paper was written’.

And all these important pieces build the case that Neo-Darwinism cannot explain what we observe.

Do you really think professor can get published without the usual nod to Darwin? The issue is these researchers, most staunch evo’s, have to reckon with the latest evidence. They twist, turn and squirm to fit it into the paradigm. They depend on “good evo standing” to get funding which they use to support themselves. The more papers the better. They are true dogmatic believers.

There are some brave one’s out there and they are being honest about the research and not trying to force fit it into the usual evo paradigm. Being the good scientists they are, will not let the Divine Foot in the door and will gladly take in more money to make sure it won’t get in the door.