R
rossum
Guest
How is that relevant to the immediate question? Ken Ham will publish scientific articles which criticise evolution.
Why you should think that the Natural-Evolution of species is true
- Status
A
Aloysium
Guest
Questions are important; the good ones provide the answer in the asking. This one is based on an assuption that I personally consider wrong. Any veracity that evolution may hold, does not belong to that story it presents, but rather to the basic scientific facts it brings together to make them intelligible. I understand that the Church accepts that we can believe that the earth evolved over time under the guidance of God.
The point is the Catholic Dogma. One can suffer from a Schizphrenic Disorder, Alzheimer’s Disease, hold what some would consider very bizarre notions of reality, but have as much an inkling of the Truth as other of the faithful. We believed the earth was flat, that it was like the back of a turtle, that the heavens were a dome that spun around us; we believed that vermin were created from garbage, that malaria was the caused of bad air, and currents of air in European homes have killed millions. The notions we have today about the nature of our universe will sound just as weird to those a thousand years from now.
In these many pages, there has been little issue with the facts that empiricism reveals. The problem is in how they are interpreted, wrapped in a story that omits the most basic facts - creation, what was created and how it was done; and that is where the ToE goes off the rails. The video of an interview with Stephen Meyer above is a good summary (if a one hour talk can be considered a summary) of why it is not a good idea to believe that life, in all its diversity, evolved.
B
Bradskii
Guest
That would be a ‘yes’ then…
A
Aloysium
Guest
The issue of abiogenesis arises from the concept of evolutionary development. While many seem to accept the unreasonable proposition that glitches in the process and random chemical events are what has driven the obvious diversity and rising complexity found in nature, those more rational cannot get around how it all began, if those are the fundamental processes that govern our world.
The fact is that it is all about creation, about this whole thing and every moment from its beginning in time. As we exist here and now, the kind of being that we are had a beginning.The creation of mankind, was preceded by that of various kinds of animals, plants, and before that, the simplest forms of life to lay its foundations. The beginnings are no different from the steps within the hierarchy of living things, that came into being, one at a time.
A
Aloysium
Guest
Aaahh, . . . no.
Close, but no cigar, try again.
Clue: The question is faulty.
Close, but no cigar, try again.
Clue: The question is faulty.
T
Theo520
Guest
I think the two sides often use ToE as their football, to battle about God. My meager reading convinced me that the mechanisms of E are not disputable and people should focus on them as a commonly held understanding of E: mutation, migration, genetic drift, natural selection. Not even an ardent fundamentalist disputes these mechanisms which are evident in the here and now.
I applaud you for your teaching success.
A
Aloysium
Guest
Depending on their meaning, I might dispute them, and I’m not an ardent fundamentalist, as if that were a bad thing. At issue would be the cause of mutation, meaning the observed change in the direction of diversity and complexity. Clearly, it is not due to the mechanisms of nature inherent in atoms, but rather of an ordering principle, beyond and above them. The origins of such additions to the living structures within the hierarchy of life, such as sexual reproduction, multicellular organisms, emotions, behaviour, and mathematics, among many others, cannot be explained by methodological naturalism, which demands that any explanation must be materialistically based. They involve a creative process whereby new kinds of being are brought into existence utilizing what had previously been created. I would also point out that natural selection is not creative, but is the shadow of, merely reflecting the reality that living beings exist within a greater system that sustains them and in which they participate in its formation. Nature is an expression of beauty, harmony, creativity, and goodness, through Jesus Christ, the Way to ultimate fulfillment in God.
B
buffalo
Guest
These are real. The latest science shows their limits. In a nutshell most mutations are deleterious. Beneficial ones are very rare. If and when they do happen a temporary gain of fitness comes at a huge expense to the organism. It renders it less fir than before to adapt and is on the path to extinction. No new and novel features are created. Natural selection is a conservative process, not a creative one. This is better called - devolution.
Last edited:
T
Theo520
Guest
But at least then the discussion has shifted to a science discussion and it’s not used as a ‘anti-science’ label to tar and feather people who do believe in God as creator.
R
rossum
Guest
No, they are not. The majority of mutations are neutral, neither beneficial nor deleterious. I, and others, have told you this before buffalo. You do yourself no favours by repeating the same error over again.
This is correct. Most non-neutral mutations are deleterious. Beneficial mutations are indeed rare.
You score 50% so far.
Define “expense”. Our evolution from single-celled organisms to multi-celled organisms came at a “huge expense” to our maximum population size. There are only 7 billion humans alive today. Each human has trillions of bacteria in their gut. There are 1016 bacteria in a ton of soil. That is 10,000,000,000,000,000 bacteria in just one ton.
Do you think the “expense” of our reduced population size is worth it? In order to define “expense” you need some standard measure. You do not have such a measure. Bacteria are better at population size; we are better at fast movement. How do we compare the “expense” of those two?
A
Aloysium
Guest
I agree, and about the limits of science, at least as it is understood today. Empiricism can reveal only so much, and when the truths it does discover, are taken beyond their boundaries, to fill in what it cannot demonstrate, that’s when these issues arise. It cannot tell us about our origins, only that we resemble animals that pre-existed our appearance on earth.
I
IWantGod
Guest
You was right! 
B
buffalo
Guest
Hello, the ones that get fixed in a population are mostly deleterious.
Neutral mutations - we are not sure of the long term effects of even so called “neutral” mutations.
B
Bradskii
Guest
This is interesting. So if an animal grows less fur in a cold climatee or grows more in a hot one, or it can’t see as well or swim as efficiently or run as fast or it produces less offspring, then by what process does this spread through a population to become ‘fixed’?rossum:
Hello, the ones that get fixed in a population are mostly deleterious.
R
rossum
Guest
I will need to see evidence for this. By definition a deleterious mutation does not reproduce itself as well as an average (i.e. neutral) mutation and much less well than a beneficial mutation.
How does a deleterious mutation causing, say, sterility, spread through the population to fixation?
Unless you can provide more supporting evidence here, I suspect that you have made an error. Yes, every population carries a number of deleterious mutations, but those mutations do not in general go to fixation, i.e. every member of the population carries that mutation.
The only examples I can think of are of populations that have been through a recent narrow bottleneck, where founder effect might spread a deleterious mutation through the whole population.
E
Edgar
Guest
Someone started such a thread recently - “Memories in Heaven” (Philosophy).
Last edited:
B
Bradskii
Guest
Getting too close to the 14 day limit. This thread is too much fun to let die. So…bump.
P
PickyPicky
Guest
Lawks, you lot are still at it!
Any progress?
Any progress?
I
IWantGod
Guest
There is a possible world where evolution didn’t happen. Maybe that’s the cause of all the confusion.
Maybe this thread is a meeting point between two parallel worlds.
The Thread, coming to all good cinemas near you.
Last edited:
P
pulchraesamicamea
Guest
Yes, I am! I have a genetic disease and as I was being diagnosed, my doctor suspected me of mitochondrial disease, a defect in some or all mitochondria in my body. I ended up being diagnosed with something else, but I researched a lot about it!
To help @buffalo understand this concept, our cells have ‘powerhouses’ called mitochondria that carry out important tasks in a cell. A mitochondrion has its own DNA called mtDNA (mitochondrial DNA) and this is inherited only through the mother. So, if the concept of Mitochondrial Eve is true (which is thought to be the most recent common ancestor through matrilineality), it means that the mtDNA of ‘Mitochondrial Eve’ may have been inherited by all females through female-to-offspring inheritance.
I think that was what @GodSpawned was trying to say. Since human genetics are crucial parts of our bodily systems, this system of mtDNA and Mitochondrial Eve can show that there might have been a common ancestor that we share through the female line (matrilineality).
Hope this helps!
Last edited:
- Status