R
rossum
Guest
In 1859? I doubt it. He certainly had no knowledge of the Ediacaran biota, such as Spriggina.
Why you should think that the Natural-Evolution of species is true
- Status
B
Bradskii
Guest
Ah, I see. Before you can accept expert opinion, you have to ask them if they are the same religion as you. Got it.
But hang on… if we were to ask 100 Christian experts and 97 said there was no problem with the theory, then that puts you in a bit of a quandry.
So what you mean is that the experts need to be Christian AND reject evolution. Which is kind of wierd - only asking 3% of experts who already reject the theory to see which is the best theory.
There is no chance tis thread will fizzle out. I’ll keep it ticking over if it looks like it’s dying. It’s just too much fun!
A
Atreju
Guest
A) Cherrypicking quotes is dishonest, and not convincing.
B) Your information is out of date.
You’re embarrassing yourself. Get a real education.
B) Your information is out of date.
You’re embarrassing yourself. Get a real education.
A
Aloysium
Guest
The difference is the starting point. With everything built into a first copy, with all the genetic and epigenetic processes that allow for diversity for its own sake and for adaptation, speciation of a kind of living thing would occur primarily through that method. Of course the chemical building blocks have a “will” of their own. They glitch because nothing is 100% efficient. Toxins and radiation can alter the DNA, the RNA, the proteins involved in reproduction. Virus can also impact on the process. Think development and cancer. From one cell all the various tissues and organs, including the neurological processes and connection that allow for psychological experience, all this develops as a result of the information in action contained in the original version of the person. And, many of us will develop and die of cancer. There most certainly is a difference between evolution and devolution.
Last edited:
M
Metis1
Guest
As I recommend you do.
Evolution is just plain old common sense, as what we see constantly is a universe in change, whether that be from our study of the cosmos or down to changes with microorganisms. Everything we see seems to be changing over time as material objects are not static entities. And since genes are material objects, and since we see mutations happening on a relatively frequent basis, common sense should tell us that organisms evolve over time.
Nor is there any evidence whatsoever for some sort of magical “wall” between micro-evolution and macro-evolution, as the latter is a logical byproduct of the former. When a few people here are asked to provide evidence for such a “wall”, all we get is song & dance-- no evidence whatsoever.
Also, the Church certainly does not prohibit the acceptance of the ToE as long as it is understood that God was and is behind it all. This issue largely does not have the Catholic faith being in play because both sides believe in divine creation. It’s not a question as to whether God created all but exactly how did God create all. Even the Creation accounts indicate change, but it’s important for us to always remember that the Bible is not a science book any more than “The Origin of Species” is a theology book.
Your questioning is pleasant to see as this indicates that you have an open mind, so please keep that up.
B
buffalo
Guest
Some real education:
The central dogma has failed. We now know that epigenetics is huge. We see epigentics codes, histone codes, molecular machine codes, membrane codes, splicing codes, etc. We are finding many other sources of information that flows in all directions. We see a sophisticated language that can be read forward, backwards with layering and context.
We have a new view of the cell. It is a complex system of regulators and codes which pull from the DNA library. (bye bye Junk DNA) We also now know much of this is heritable.
Research reveals gene regulation can be digital and stochastic
Every cell in our body has the same set of genes, or genome, and can potentially become any type of cell. During development, the epigenome mediates the process that leads a cell to become a skin cell or a neuron, for instance. If the genome is like computer hardware, then the epigenome is the software that turns certain genes on and others off to give rise to a skin cell, and turns other genes on or off to set the cell on a path toward becoming a neuron.@edwest
Now this has a real benefit to the medical community: The implications of these findings extend to a number of biomedical fields.
“For instance, our findings may add another layer of complexity that so far has not been taken into account in certain intricate human diseases. If we add this layer of complexity, we might be able to better understand how dosage-sensitive genes may contribute to human diseases that have so far been hard to tackle, such as neuropsychiatric disorders,” Milosavljevic said. “This work is meant to provide insights into a new important layer of biological complexity and hopefully create the basis for subsequent research into specific diseases.”
Loading…
www.sciencedaily.com
B
buffalo
Guest
It is not a magical wall - it is a designed wall. The limits prevent wild fluctuations that create instability. The programming code is designed to be limiting.
The magic you need is natural selection (from outside the organism) which can do anything. That is blind faith.
Last edited:
R
rossum
Guest
Why do you even need a wall? If the organism cannot reproduce then that variant disappears from the gene pool. If it can reproduce then it has to reproduce well enough to compete with the other organisms of its species.
Natural selection has all the properties of your claimed wall.
E
edwest
Guest
Biologists, either intuitively or on a practical level, now know that evolution, as defined here, is useless to help them. They have turned to bioinformatics and are taking the genome apart, bit by bit, like a complex machine, to find out how it all works. They are doing it the hard way. By using genetic knock-out experiments on animals, they are literally waiting to see what happens. Does the animal go blind? Lose the ability to walk? Die? After a certain gene sequence is knocked out? All of that is recorded and put into a database. Then they knock out the next genetic bit and so on. That is how Biology will advance in real life.
After the human genome was sequenced, scientists ended up with a book they couldn’t read.
After the human genome was sequenced, scientists ended up with a book they couldn’t read.
B
buffalo
Guest
One has to have the code. Who has the code?
B
buffalo
Guest
These guys put together an interesting page about macroevolution. (warning - Christian site 
)
"The central question of the Chicago conference was whether the mechanisms underlying microevolution can be extrapolated to explain the phenomena of macroevolution. At the risk of doing violence to the positions of some of the people at the meeting, the answer can be given as a clear, No.
http://www.veritas-ucsb.org/library/origins/quotes/macroevolution.html
)"The central question of the Chicago conference was whether the mechanisms underlying microevolution can be extrapolated to explain the phenomena of macroevolution. At the risk of doing violence to the positions of some of the people at the meeting, the answer can be given as a clear, No.
http://www.veritas-ucsb.org/library/origins/quotes/macroevolution.html
Last edited:
E
edwest
Guest
Well, as improbable as it seems, digital codes have been discovered in DNA. Using bioinformatics, scientists may learn to decipher bits of this code, which should lead to a better understanding of disease processes and genetic switches.
B
Bradskii
Guest
And what was that question…? Ah yeah…edwest:
One has to have the code. Who has the code?
How do we determine which is the better of two theories? Was it the number of peer reviewed papers? The percentage of experts in the relevant field who support it? Personal opinion? Whether it aligns with a specific fundamental religious viepoint?
We’d be keen to have your opinion.
E
edwest
Guest
A Christian site? Don’t you know people are programmed to only consider secular science sites? Not very open-minded of them 
And thanks.
And thanks.
A
Atreju
Guest
None of this contradicts evolution at all. In fact it supports evolution quite a bit. You’re just seeing the word “digital” and thinking that means it’s just like computer code that was written by a person. Digital just means the information is discrete.
Last edited:
B
Bradskii
Guest
'Feathers are features unique to birds, and there are no known intermediate structures between reptilian scales and feathers. ’These guys put together an interesting page about macroevolution. (warning - Christian site
"The central question of the Chicago conference was whether the mechanisms underlying microevolution can be extrapolated to explain the phenomena of macroevolution. At the risk of doing violence to the positions of some of the people at the meeting, the answer can be given as a clear, No.
MACROEVOLUTION
I mean, c’mon. Next you’ll be asking for a creature that has scales AND feathers. Oh, hang on. There’s one in the fridge. We’re having chicken tonight.
Dear me…where do you get these web sites from…?
E
edwest
Guest
Funny, the chicken in my fridge doesn’t have scales like a lizard or alligator. Where do you get your chickens from?
A
Atreju
Guest
B
buffalo
Guest
A code by definition has a sender, receiver and an incryption key that both sides need. Codes always come from a mind.
E
edwest
Guest
Hilarious.
- Status