I
IWantGod
Guest
What has applied science got to do with anything?
And what about bacteria. Surely understanding how bacteria evolves is helpful to advancement in medicine?
Why you should think that the Natural-Evolution of species is true
- Status
And what about bacteria. Surely understanding how bacteria evolves is helpful to advancement in medicine?
E
edwest
Guest
Bacteria have a built-in mechanism called Horizontal Gene Transfer. Should bacteria come in contact with a harmful substance, they can exchange bits of genetic material with other species of bacteria. The end result cannot be predicted.
I
IWantGod
Guest
So we are talking about genetic changes, yes?
E
edwest
Guest
Bacteria remain bacteria.
I
IWantGod
Guest
Until enough changes occur that they become something else. Do you have any reason to think that this is in principle impossible? Because unless it’s impossible it really is an inevitability.
R
rossum
Guest
And eukaryotes remain eukaryotes. This shows that you have no problem with humans (who are eukaryotes) evolving from a single-celled protist (amoeba are also eukaryotes).
All you are doing here is exposing your sources’ ignorance of the workings of the nested hierarchy.
rossum
E
edwest
Guest
“they become something else”? Like what?
B
buffalo
Guest
How they adapt is important.
I
IWantGod
Guest
Adapt, evolve, or change due to a situation. What difference does it make? The point is i seen no reason to impose any arbitrary limitations.
M
Metis1
Guest
Nor is there any evidence nor even any logical reason to even suspect that somehow evolution magically stopped just before getting into macro-evolution.
B
buffalo
Guest
Huge difference. Designed in adaptive abilities are way different than evolution.
B
buffalo
Guest
One big one. It does not happen. There is NO evidence it does.
R
rossum
Guest
Oh dear. You just ignore the evidence, again. Do I have to post the link to the paper about the macroevolution of the Marbled crayfish (Procambarus fallax) again?
You can have your own opinions; you can’t have your own evidence.
Do you really thin that anyone is going to be convinced by ignoring the obvious evidence that macroevolution happens?
rossum
A
Aloysium
Guest
A walking tour of the cloud forest in Costa Rica is a revelation of the beauty and wonders of nature, ultimately of the glory of God.
See if you can pick out the walking stick insect in the foliage:
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
These creatures are interesting not only in terms of the subtleties of their appearance and behaviour, but also in the fact that they can procreate parthenogenetically, not to take away from Rossum’s favourite crayfish. This occurs in the absence of males and results in only female offspring. In sexual reproduction, which allows for greater resistance against the damage caused by random mutation of the genome, there is a fifty-fifty chance of having male or female offspring. Some species have no male counterpart and that lineage will ultimately die out due to what is a “devolutionary” process.
This is but one example of the myriad that make abundantly clear the reality of a garden, each constituent participant having a role, giving and receiving, in its formation.
Let’s take an orchid:
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
The theory of creation would hold that rather than this organism having a common parentage with the stick insect above, they each carry similar material information-in-action that codes for life. The differences in the DNA and cellular structure beyond that, make possible the expression of what they are, the kind of living being that they are in themselves, showing great diversity in some circumstances.
To my way of thinking we know what something is when we love it, give ourselves, our minds and hearts to what it is. In quiet contemplation we can be truly aware of the particular expression of the kind of thing it is - an insect, a flower or a person. Going strictly by the physical morphology of the genome, a lot of confusion arises as to the boundaries between different kinds of being. That’s where the mix up arises as to human genealogy, believing it to be the same as apes, but having bifurcated at a point in time. It would seem a better way to divide living things up into categories to consider their psychology. It may not be as black and white as comparing molecules, but it reveals more what something is by inferring something about how it sees the world around it - nutrients, dangers, mates, competitors and the like, the intricacies of its social behaviours and emotions. It definitely gets us closer to its world as part of the world.
See if you can pick out the walking stick insect in the foliage:
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
These creatures are interesting not only in terms of the subtleties of their appearance and behaviour, but also in the fact that they can procreate parthenogenetically, not to take away from Rossum’s favourite crayfish. This occurs in the absence of males and results in only female offspring. In sexual reproduction, which allows for greater resistance against the damage caused by random mutation of the genome, there is a fifty-fifty chance of having male or female offspring. Some species have no male counterpart and that lineage will ultimately die out due to what is a “devolutionary” process.
This is but one example of the myriad that make abundantly clear the reality of a garden, each constituent participant having a role, giving and receiving, in its formation.
Let’s take an orchid:
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
The theory of creation would hold that rather than this organism having a common parentage with the stick insect above, they each carry similar material information-in-action that codes for life. The differences in the DNA and cellular structure beyond that, make possible the expression of what they are, the kind of living being that they are in themselves, showing great diversity in some circumstances.
To my way of thinking we know what something is when we love it, give ourselves, our minds and hearts to what it is. In quiet contemplation we can be truly aware of the particular expression of the kind of thing it is - an insect, a flower or a person. Going strictly by the physical morphology of the genome, a lot of confusion arises as to the boundaries between different kinds of being. That’s where the mix up arises as to human genealogy, believing it to be the same as apes, but having bifurcated at a point in time. It would seem a better way to divide living things up into categories to consider their psychology. It may not be as black and white as comparing molecules, but it reveals more what something is by inferring something about how it sees the world around it - nutrients, dangers, mates, competitors and the like, the intricacies of its social behaviours and emotions. It definitely gets us closer to its world as part of the world.
Last edited:
B
buffalo
Guest
It is not macro-evolution. It is loss of function once had and will lead to their extinction.
R
rossum
Guest
So, if I define the Trinity as a unicorn, I have proved that the Trinity does not exist?
Of course not. You cannot just redefine words to make your argument appear better.
Macroevolution has a standard scientific definition, and there is evidence that it happens. Your Humpty Dumpty argument is worthless as a scientific argument. Changing the definition of words does not make the evidence disappear.
rossum
T
Techno2000
Guest
Yeah… it must have been rough going for a while , before evolution came up with the idea to camouflage him as a stick.
Last edited:
E
Edgar
Guest
Er, everything … my claim concerns itself with the utility of the Darwinian interpretation of the history of life.
Understanding how bacteria evolves (microevolution) is certainly useful in medicine. My claim is that the Darwinian interpretstion of the history of life or the “information” that humans evolved from an ape-man (macroevolution) is useless in mediicne, just as it is useless in every field of applied science.
Or to put it another way, evolution at species level (microevolution - a demonstrable fact) is very useful in biology, whereas evolution at the level of genus and above (macroevolution - not a demonstrable fact) is completely useless to biology (because it has never been witnessed to occur in real time).
Last edited:
E
Edgar
Guest
What this has to do with my claim that there are no practical uses for the Darwinian interpretation of the history of life, I have no idea.
How did you work that out? My claim is a scientific one and has nothing whatsoever to do with Church teaching. My claim also has nothing to do with rejecting the theory of evolution.
Last edited:
E
Edgar
Guest
Can you think of one reason why a young earth creationist would not make a competent microbiologist? I can’t.
Can you think of one reason why a young earth creationist would not make a competent doctor? I can’t.
Can you think of one reason why a young earth creationist would not make a competent doctor? I can’t.
- Status