M
MichaelTDoyle
Guest
- Status
3
3Nails
Guest
The sun does introduce more energy into the system (earth), but the 2nd law’s TENDENCY is still there. Is the energy of the sun enough to produce evolution? I want experimental proof. The proof ain’t there. It IS possible, but not certain.
W
wanerious
Guest
Nonsense. You have clearly never been to a scientific meeting or conference. Arguments over how best to interpret data can be heated and last for years. I remember being at one of the first conferences (astrophysics) where distant supernovae data were being shown to support the (then) controversial hypothesis that the expansion of the universe was accelerating. After the poor guy was done with his presentation, he was grilled by a good number of the hundreds of people in the audience, and few people believed him. As the data improved in quality and number, there was no escaping his hypothesis, and it is now trusted as the standard model of expansion. THAT is how science works.
O
Orogeny
Guest
I didn’t say that it has been proven. It is the best explaination for the evidence we have.
If you don’t understand the second law of thermodynamics, you should refrain from using it as an argument for your position. If you don’t understand the math, you don’t understand the law.
If you don’t understand what evolution is, don’t argue against it.
Why don’t you give me citation of a scientific paper where an evolutionary biologist states that humans are the highest life form.
What? Making inferences based on observation is what science is. What is your definition of science?
Well, I guess you told me!Your equating the ToE with the Holy Spirit just highlights my point, the ToE is a belief. You are in agreement with, it appears.I have personal witness and “proof” of the Holy Spirit working in my life. Regarding evolution, I’m an agnostic.
Please re-read my post. I did not equate the theory of evolution with the Holy Spirit. Believe what you want about my beliefs. I have stated them clearly in these posts and I state them very clearly every Sunday. Your ignorance of basic science does not make you holier than me.
Peace
Tim
W
wanerious
Guest
I agree absolutely.
3
3Nails
Guest
Bingo! Bingo! Bingo! We have a winner! Precisely my point. The ToE is not FACT.
W
wanerious
Guest
I don’t know why you’re so jubilant. Of course it isn’t. No scientific theory is “fact”. You might as well be crowing about “The Newtonian theory of gravity is not FACT”
3
3Nails
Guest
Gravity can be consistently be demonstrated through experimentation. Evolution cannot.
If I am wrong as you maintain, please show me experiments that can demonstrate evolution.
C
Chris_W
Guest
Not sure if this is what was meant, but it created a question in my mind:
How does evolution account for the domination of man over all the earth and all other creatures? The king of the jungle, so to speak, is man. This ultimately is the result of the intellect of man I would think.
To the point made in an earlier post. Wouldn’t the creature with the most chromosomes and/or the largest brain be the most likely to evolve into a creature having the intellect that enables it to become the dominant species?
My question is, does evolution address the cause of man’s intellect? And wouldn’t man’s intellect affect how man needs to adapt to his surroundings, and therefore affect the supposed evolution of man? If so, wouldn’t man’s intellect potentially be the cause of that supposed split way back when between man and apes?
If this is possible, then it seems that we could say man is not the result of mere biological evolution because the intellect, which cannot be attributed to mere biology, would be the cause of man’s development.
I haven’t entirely developed my thoughts on this
, so I’m looking for an evolutionist response.
3
3Nails
Guest
Your kids are a new species?
W
wanerious
Guest
Chris W:
Right. I would think so also.
Maybe. It may be likely, but simply having more raw material there is no guarantee that you can fend off the latest tiger or keep yourself warm in a (geologically) sudden ice age. The trick is to have some sort of competitive advantage in a changing environment, since you’re in competition with lots of organisms for limited resources, and you may well be another animal’s resource.
I am not a professional biologist, but my feeling is that evolutionary theory primarily addresses the physical change of organisms over time, and their nested and heirarchical relationships. I am dimly aware of people actively working on the evolution of our cognitive ability from early hominids forward, but I don’t know much about their data or results. I don’t think we know enough about the brain to resolutely state that intellect is completely outside of the biological realm. It is possible for physical processes to affect the mind, so there is at least a minimal level of connection.I haven’t entirely developed my thoughts on this
3
3Nails
Guest
I did not say or imply that I was holier than you. I do note a bit of condescension on your part here. Am I wrong?
Where isn’t there equation there? Just a question.
Apparently, I have the hair up on the evolutionists’ necks here. We are probably in agreement about as much as disagreement regarding evolutionary theory (With me being an evolutionary agnostic and you being fairly devout), but perhaps my delivery has put you in “protect the hive” mode.
W
wanerious
Guest
Can it? Experiments have indicated that Newton’s theory, while approximately correct, is the wrong model. Einstein’s model is even more precisely correct, but it also is probably wrong at an even more subtle level.
Sure. Just pick up and read a book on paleontology or biology.
Experiment 1: Find a location with stratified rock formations, and look for fossils embedded in the formations. Note the number and form of the fossils there, and compare to those found in formations from an older/younger period. The comparison between these groups leads scientists to posit relationships between similar organisms as time passes.
Experiment 2: Determine the rate of genetic mutations in mitochondrial RNA. Identify similar sequences in contemporary organisms, and note how these sequences differ. Amazingly, plotting these differences very closely mirrors the relationships derived from fossil evidence.
Really, this is pretty basic life science. If you’re really interested in these experiments, take it upon yourself to educate yourself. There are thousands of journal articles to choose from rich with experiments designed to test and further evolutionary theory.
W
wanerious
Guest
Well, they act like it. I’ll check back in another few thousand generations to see what the cumulative effect is.Your kids are a new species?
3
3Nails
Guest
This “experiment” is not a “real” experiment. You cannot establish causality with your “experiment”. That is where we differ. Again, as I posted earlier, there is a trend toward the evolutionary theory being very plausible, but not further.
“Educate myself”? Post grad school health science studies. Grad school neuroscience research. Post grad school neuromotor science research. Yup, I need more education.
W
wanerious
Guest
Then this is where we part ways, since what constitutes a “real” experiment to you is a hopelessly narrow construction. Following from before, causation is practically impossible to establish for any science, but can certainly be inferred from these experiments, especially with no data contradicting the inference.
I’m sure you are impressively educated in your field, but I’m talking about a different field.“Educate myself”? Post grad school health science studies. Grad school neuroscience research. Post grad school neuromotor science research. Yup, I need more education.
O
Orogeny
Guest
You need to re-read your post more carefully.
You made a conclusion that, unlike you, I don’t know the Holy Spirit and that, in fact, my religion is the theory of evolution. Sounds like a holier than thou statement.Your equating the ToE with the Holy Spirit just highlights my point, the ToE is a belief. You are in agreement with, it appears.
Please clarify what you are asking with this question. I am having a hard time following it.
The proper term is Catholic, not evolutionist.
I doubt that because you seem (based on your posts) to deny that the theory of evolution is even a valid scientific theory. Your continued insistance that it is a religion or religious belief makes that clear.
Peace
Tim
C
Chris_W
Guest
Thanks for entertaining my question.
wanerious:
wanerious:
It seems to me the main premise of the theory is that living organisms will change (evolve) as a result of the environment to which it is exposed. What thing could affect the environment, challenges, etc more than our intellect? It would affect our reaction to every challenge with which we are faced.
We know man has an intellect. Therefore, it seems to me the “evolution” of man would be directed more by our intellect than any other single factor. Evolutionists therefore* need* to answer the problem of when and how our intellect formed, (presumably after we left the family of apes), because if the theory is that we evolved out of necessity of survival, then evolutionists need to be able to demonstrate scientifically what evolutionary changes occurred as a result of intellect.
Yet what makes man different from all other living organisms (intellect) is apparently beyond the scope of evolution? Just as the actual origin of life is beyond the scope of evolution? The observations made by evolutionists, as they examine the evidence could be completely off base. The theory could be describing the development of life in a way that is totally false. It could be that life developed for reasons evolutionists have never considered (or possibly just rejected). That gives me yet one more reason to doubt the validity and usefulnes of the theory.
The point is, that man is different from all other animals because of the intellect and is king of the jungle precisely because of that difference. We woudn’t need to rely on raw materials or fend off a tiger by brut force or weather a storm without clothes or shelter. We can develop tools that other creatures can not.
Perhaps we will learn more in time, but as it is, evolutionists would have us believe that the Theory of Evolution can account for the existence of mankind (as well as all other life forms).
It seems to me the main premise of the theory is that living organisms will change (evolve) as a result of the environment to which it is exposed. What thing could affect the environment, challenges, etc more than our intellect? It would affect our reaction to every challenge with which we are faced.
We know man has an intellect. Therefore, it seems to me the “evolution” of man would be directed more by our intellect than any other single factor. Evolutionists therefore* need* to answer the problem of when and how our intellect formed, (presumably after we left the family of apes), because if the theory is that we evolved out of necessity of survival, then evolutionists need to be able to demonstrate scientifically what evolutionary changes occurred as a result of intellect.
Yet what makes man different from all other living organisms (intellect) is apparently beyond the scope of evolution? Just as the actual origin of life is beyond the scope of evolution? The observations made by evolutionists, as they examine the evidence could be completely off base. The theory could be describing the development of life in a way that is totally false. It could be that life developed for reasons evolutionists have never considered (or possibly just rejected). That gives me yet one more reason to doubt the validity and usefulnes of the theory.
W
wanerious
Guest
Chris W:
Could scientists be totally off base? Maybe. After a hundred-plus years of evidence and lots of really smart people, it’s not too likely that they’re totally off base, but probably inaccurate. The history of the theory shows that Darwin’s initial suppositions were, to 0th order, right. The level of our precision just gets better and better as the years pass and technology grows. Just like any other science, there will be future discoveries that will warrant revision, but probably not a total overturn, of the theory.
Yes, I agree.
Well, to be precise, the theory attempts to explain how our physical form is related to our ancestors, and to what extent we are related to other animals. It really doesn’t address the question of “existence”.
I agree that we can overcome many challenges to our survival due to intellect. What proportion of people wearing glasses would be able to compete in a hunt with people endowed with perfect eyesight? I probably would have been selected against long ago.
Yes, this is an important question. However, even with this question largely unanswered (though there is good evidence of even simple tool-using among ancient hominids), there have nevertheless been physical changes amongst primates over the last 6 or so million years that show a fairly gradual path from a common ancestor with chimps to the present. I might predict that, due to the fact that we use tools, the relative rate of speciation (or genetic drift) is somewhat slower in our primate line than in other, simpler animals. I suspect this is right, but I don’t really know. I’ll have to round up some biologists/anthropologists here at the college to see.
But the theory doesn’t really address origins, but is presently confined to physical changes over generations. Sure, intellect may play a role in selecting (or not) certain traits over time, but it doesn’t change the physical relationships between species. We don’t really know much about cognitive function, so it’s hard to pin down the real distinction between chimp and human brains. Clearly we have a higher-functioning brain, but to what extent? Were there beneficial genetic variations long ago to favor neural synapse density, or whatever it is that grants us our intellectual potential? I don’t know, but I’d say it is probable that there is some genetic factor. Relatedly, Down’s Syndrome clearly affects intellectual function and is also clearly tied to genetic factors.
Could scientists be totally off base? Maybe. After a hundred-plus years of evidence and lots of really smart people, it’s not too likely that they’re totally off base, but probably inaccurate. The history of the theory shows that Darwin’s initial suppositions were, to 0th order, right. The level of our precision just gets better and better as the years pass and technology grows. Just like any other science, there will be future discoveries that will warrant revision, but probably not a total overturn, of the theory.
M
Matt16_18
Guest
The members of my prayer group would all consider themselves to be faithful Catholics, but they come from very different backgrounds, including being born and educated in different countries. That is why I asked my question, I wanted to know if Catholics raised in other countries had been taught that animals were killing animals before the Fall. No one ever heard of such a teaching.
I can’t see any reason for reading Genesis in the manner. Genesis describes the creation of the universe that contains the Garden of Eden. I can’t see where the text says God created a fallen universe where death and decay had dominion over every part of the universe except a special place on earth.
I have a problems with that interpretation. Why were most animals subject to death because of Satan’s sin, but not all animals? I can’t see any real scriptural support for such speculation. Another problem that I have with this scenario is that Genesis says that the Garden of Eden was NOT destroyed by original sin. Wouldn’t we have to find the Garden of Eden still on earth in your scenario? Some of the Rabbinical authorities appear to identify the paradise of the future with the primeval Garden of Eden which is supposed to be still in existence and located somewhere in the far-distant East. According to some it was an earthly abode, sometimes said to have been created before the rest of the world (IV Esdras iii, 7, cf. viii, 52); others make it an adjunct of the subterranean Sheol, while still others place it in or near heaven.
newadvent.org/cathen/14519a.htm]Terrestrial Paradise, The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume XIV
The idea that the Garden of Eden is “located somewhere in the far-distant East”, seems naïve in our day and age, but thousands of years ago, people had a far different idea about the nature of the earth, and the celestial bodies in the skies above the earth. There was great mystery about what lay beyond the known world. As recently as 1936, James Hilton could appeal to the popular imagination with his book, Lost Horizon, a story about a Shangri-La in the distant Kuen-Lun Mountains. I don’t think the premise of a Shangri-La existing in a distant land would appeal as much to the popular imagination of today, but the idea of parallel universes is taken for granted in movies such as the Matrix and the Twelve Monkeys.
- Status