Why you should think that the Natural-Evolution of species is true

[rossum]

… the low effective population sizes of hominids. This has resulted in the accumulation of a large number of deleterious mutations in sequences containing gene control elements and hence a widespread degradation of the genome during the evolution of humans and chimpanzees.

Two points here. First, you source supports " the evolution of humans and chimpanzees." from earlier hominids. Thank you for conceding that point.

Second, this and other studies on genome decay are often in cases with “low effective population sizes”. Because the pool is small, even a single error is a larger proportion of the pool than in a large pool. With a population of 10,000, each single error affects a higher percentage of the population than if the population were 7,000,000,000. With the larger population there is a larger buffer of unmutated copies to spread through the population.

This is a known problem with small inbred populations, such as the Amish, or various near-extinct species. If a deleterious mutation appears it can quickly spread to a relatively large proportion of the population. That is much less of a problem with large populations.

rossum

 

[Aloysium]

Thank you for conceding that point.

The “concession” was the point that the pseudoscience of evolution is being passed off as science fact, when the superior interpretation of creation is relegated to that bin. This again is a consequence of secular society’s materialistic and utlitarian underpinings. Everything is interpreted from that frame of reference. When God lies at the centre of one’s world view, creation is obvious.

 

[rossum]

The “concession” was the point that the pseudoscience of evolution is being passed off as science fact, when the superior interpretation of creation is relegated to that bin.

So, you ignore the parts of science that you don’t like. That is not science I’m afraid. Such a statement loses you the discussion in scientific terms.

I am also puzzled as to why you post what you see as pseudoscience as evidence to support your case. Is you case so weak that you have to rely on self-admitted pseudoscience to support it?

It I tried to support a theological argument with self-admitted pseudotheology, how much credence would you give to my argument?

You need to find a better line of argument here. This one is an obvious failure, I’m afraid.

rossum

 

[buffalo]

Two points here. First, you source supports " the evolution of humans and chimpanzees." from earlier hominids. Thank you for conceding that point.

Is that how it works? They always throw in the pro-evo belief somewhere in the paper. One can cite a paper to make a point without conceding evolution.

 

[edwest]

The point here is to place science above Divine Revelation. It can’t work but the goal is to keep trying. By trying to turn the Bible into a science text, those opposed to the supernatural will continue to try to convince people that science, as interpreted by them, renders what the Church has to say, and by extension, God, irrelevant.

 

[IWantGod]

By trying to turn the Bible into a science text,

But isn’t that ironically what you have been doing by demanding that science should conform to the literal text in genesis?

 

[edwest]

If you check my previous posts, I have been trying to demonstrate two things: (1) How the Church views the theory, and (2) How the theory is, by default, incomplete because it cannot include the supernatural. The danger for people accepting the Biology textbook answer as the whole and complete answer, is that a grossly deformed version of human identity is accepted as true. We’re just animals, nothing exceptional and certainly not limited in our behavior. “No Limits” being the end goal for human behavior. “I wish life could be anything!” Iggy Pop from the song Five Foot One.

 

[rossum]

Is that how it works? They always throw in the pro-evo belief somewhere in the paper. One can cite a paper to make a point without conceding evolution.

So, you admit that the paper you cite in your support contains errors? Would you be convinced if I cited a paper on theology that also said there were four persons in the Trinity?

Your own sources are incorrect, by your own admission.

rossum

 

[rossum]

If you check my previous posts, I have been trying to demonstrate two things: (1) How the Church views the theory, and (2) How the theory is, by default, incomplete because it cannot include the supernatural.

Then Christianity is also incomplete, since it too ignores much of the supernatural: Vishnu, Amaterasu etc.

Would you accept a version of biology that included the Hindu gods and reincarnation as examples of the supernatural, for instance? Would that version be superior to the current version which excludes all forms of the supernatural?

Rather than deciding how to choose, scientifically, between the many different versions of the supernatural on offer, science has decided to ignore all of them. At least that does reduce the number of things to be examined. Or do you think that taxpayers’ money should be spent on researching the influence of Durga on fluid dynamics?

rossum

 

[buffalo]

So, you admit that the paper you cite in your support contains errors?

Science by its own admission is provisional. Revelation is always true.

 

[rossum]

Science by its own admission is provisional.

Science is provisional, but it does correct known errors. Papers with errors are withdrawn, as with Cold Fusion back in 1989. Science does not cite papers with known errors; you just did. That is the difference.

Revelation is always true.

Yes, the words of the Buddha in the Tripitaka are always true.

rossum

 

[buffalo]

Science does not cite papers with known errors; you just did

What??? Sure they do. And many are retracted every day.

What is important is the convergence of data in the last few decades that supports intelligent design and has caused the modern synthesis to collapse.

 

[IWantGod]

How the theory is, by default, incomplete because it cannot include the supernatural.

By that standard every scientific theory is incomplete.

 

[Hope1960]

I can see several generations of first humans living longer. After awhile I imagine that our genetics has been corrupted and will need tweaking to unlock its full potential.

I can see the possibility of previous generations of that time period living longer than us (note: I said possibility), but not nearly 1000 years.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

rossum:

Two points here. First, you source supports " the evolution of humans and chimpanzees." from earlier hominids. Thank you for conceding that point.

tIs that how it works? They always throw in the pro-evo belief somewhere in the paper. One can cite a paper to make a point without conceding evolution.

But if one cites a paper to support their point, it is usually founded on the idea that the author is to be trusted (otherwise the author’s support of your point is worthless). But if you say the author is to be trusted, then on what basis do you discount something else the author wrote in the very same paper? Either you are trusting the author of the paper you cite or you are not. You cannot try to do both without sacrificing the support you hoped to get from that author.

 

[buffalo]

But if one cites a paper to support their point, it is usually founded on the idea that the author is to be trusted (otherwise the author’s support of your point is worthless). But if you say the author is to be trusted, then on what basis do you discount something else the author wrote in the very same paper? Either you are trusting the author of the paper you cite or you are not. You cannot try to do both without sacrificing the support you hoped to get from that author.

You have just destroyed any basis for evolution.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Please don’t anyone ask buffalo to explain this remark!

 

[edwest]

I am trying to provide the complete Catholic answer on a Catholic forum. Is that strange?

Black holes and quantum mechanics are not the issue, the origin and identity of man is.

 

[IWantGod]

I’m trying…really hard

 

[Techno2000]

rossum:

Two points here. First, you source supports " the evolution of humans and chimpanzees." from earlier hominids. Thank you for conceding that point.

Is that how it works? They always throw in the pro-evo belief somewhere in the paper. One can cite a paper to make a point without conceding evolution.

Quote mining