if not evolution....

[ThinkingSapien]

[quote=edwest2;8998189]

Originally Posted by SaintPatrick333

Most Catholics do believe in evolution.

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science...volution_N.htm
[Headline:Pope says evolution can't be proven]

I added the headline title myself so some one can quickly asses what the article is about.

But my understanding is that nothing in science is ever "proven." At most it can be supported by evidence (by being successful at making predictions, providing explanations for observations, so on). Also it's possible for some one to believe something is true without being able to prove it. So I don't think the article contradicts SaintPatrick333's statement

[lemondiesel]

I would just like to point out that if I was Christian (or any other form of belief for that matter) I would completely support evolution. If you believe in God, I see no harm in saying that evolution was preplanned.

Originally Posted by Gordon Sims

In fact, if you assume, just for the sake of argument, that the multiple species initially relegated to the "unknown" phylum truly represented completely unique phyla, then as time goes on, life appears to be becoming less diverse at a higher level, regardless of the number of species. This seems counterintuitive to evolution on a whole, which should allow for greater diversification over time, not less.

Greater diversification is represented in the number of species. Survival of the fittest does not imply that new phyla will appear from nowhere. We are not becoming less diversified, we are becoming more “fit” for our environment. For example, if mammals went extinct tomorrow by an asteroid, a snake who buries himself underground will find a new world in which predators no longer remain.

Originally Posted by Gordon Sims

Also completely contrary to the spirit of the theory of evolution is that all life seems to trace back to a single, common ancestor, sprung from the theoretical primordial ooze. Whether the ooze was located in a tide pool struck by lightning or swirling around a hydrothermal vent, these aren't unique circumstances that existed for a brief period 4 billion years ago and then disappeared.

Earth was an extremely hostile environment 4 billion years ago! Here is an experiment which attempted to recreate conditions of early Earth. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller%...rey_experiment) My issue with your statement is that it seems you are assuming Earth has always been like this. Let’s say, for the sake of discussion, that early Earth had an extremely large amount of methane. The early forms of life (which would be nothing more than simple chemical reactions) would be like a plant's photosynthesis... or perhaps imagine Earth as a piece of bread which eventually mold grows on. It would “feed” off of the methane but releasing a byproduct. Let’s say this byproduct was oxygen, which would thus be released but remain close to the planet due to gravity. Rock minerals are dense and heavy, so the byproduct oxygen would be above the rock, or “atmosphere.”

Originally Posted by Gordon Sims

Logically speaking, shouldn't entirely new branches of life be springing up all the time?

No because evolution doesn’t tell us how life begins. That is a completely different field of science! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis) Evolution only tells us how life changes and adapts, not how it is originated. This is something I believe Darwin was unaware of... only because this field was still vague or unknown... not saying it still isn't though

Originally Posted by Gordon Sims

What made that one single point 4 billion years ago so special that it's never been repeated? The "ripe conditions" from which life sprung forth have always been here; why isn't more life spontaneously springing forth all the time?

I suggest reading into Earth’s early atmosphere. Scientist have actually discovered small marine multicellular organisms, in the present, that doesn’t use oxygen. It isn't answers, but it helps understand how life works.

Originally Posted by Gordon Sims

Evolution doesn't just allow for that; it practically mandates it. The fact that it's not occurring all the time seems to indicate that there's something else at play.

As stated above, evolution does not explain how life “springs forth.” It simply explains the changes or adaptations about the life that has already sprung forth.

[1AugustSon7]

Originally Posted by karlaa

hi ther, please save your rbeath with all this philosophy and just start thinking..i only bekleive in God and no other idea..simply because it's a stupid think that believe that mankind was born from 'nothing'


special wedding ideas

That is a philosophical conclusion, karlaa.

[grannymh]

Catholics, when mountains of "evidence" are dumped on them, need to understand that the "evidence" is limited to what it can reasonably infer.

[1AugustSon7]

Originally Posted by lemondiesel

As stated above, evolution does not explain how life “springs forth.” It simply explains the changes or adaptations about the life that has already sprung forth.

In fact, it does no such thing.

Adaptation is not part of evolution. Adaptation happens by drawing upon pre-existing genetic combinations or potentialities. It is not part of evolution. Darwin thought so because genetics then did not exist.

Genetic "change" is called genetic disorder and it is always vicious. It is a medical issue. You do not want your children to have a single genetic "change" if at all possible.

[grannymh]

Originally Posted by 1AugustSon7

In fact, it does no such thing.

Adaptation is not part of evolution. Adaptation happens by drawing upon pre-existing genetic combinations or potentialities. It is not part of evolution. Darwin thought so because genetics then did not exist.

Genetic "change" is called genetic disorder and it is always vicious. It is a medical issue. You do not want your children to have a single genetic "change" if at all possible.

Considering the human nature which we inherited from the first human being, Adam, genetic changes or adaptations or whatever are not always vicious. Consider the human immune system as one which can benefit from positive genetic changes.

I mention humans, because human nature is peerless. It is the pinnacle of God's creation. One has to be very careful when applying biological theories to the human person as a whole. Granted that the human body is made of matter and thus science can rightly explore it. However the whole person is more than genetics. The whole person includes the spiritual soul.

[lemondiesel]

Originally Posted by 1AugustSon7

Adaptation is not part of evolution. Adaptation happens by drawing upon pre-existing genetic combinations or potentialities. It is not part of evolution. Darwin thought so because genetics then did not exist.

Adaptation not part of evolution? Genetic potentialities? Are you implying that before there was land animals, the marine life had the “genetic potentiality” to have legs and walk!?

Originally Posted by 1AugustSon7

Genetic "change" is called genetic disorder and it is always vicious. It is a medical issue. You do not want your children to have a single genetic "change" if at all possible.

Yes after billions and millions of years, the genetic code has become very complex and is subject to genetic disorders. However, the first DNA sequences were much simpler. This is why evolution explains the change to the genetic code.

[grannymh]

Originally Posted by Al Moritz

False. Organic chemistry that allowed for the origin of life required a reducing atmosphere on the Earth, or at minimum, a neutral one. In today's oxidizing atmosphere such chemistry would be impossible outside currently living beings themselves. The oxidizing atmosphere was created by life, so life itself effectively ensured that new life currently cannot arise from scratch.

Also, even if it could, today's ubiquitous bacteria would consume it right away. fragile and defenseless as it would be.

Granny's dumb question, number 327. The organic chemistry that allowed for the origin of life -- did it exist everywhere on the planet earth? If yes, what would that conclusion be based on?

I am trying to search out a possible answer to the OP question -- "how did man/woman come to be??" Human life is unique so it seems to me that the first two humans, one man and one woman, could have come to be just about any place. Even the dinosaurs could have lived just about any place. Of course, once the chemistry conditions allowed life to originate, the environment would have to support the living organisms. Probably, question number 327 needs to be answered first.

[lemondiesel]

Originally Posted by grannymh

I am trying to search out a possible answer to the OP question -- "how did man/woman come to be??" Human life is unique so it seems to me that the first two humans, one man and one woman, could have come to be just about any place.

Perhaps one cannot fully become human without having a significant other

[grannymh]

Originally Posted by lemondiesel

Perhaps one cannot fully become human without having a significant other

Perhaps the significant other has the gift of bringing to the surface the fullness of human nature.

[lemondiesel]

Originally Posted by grannymh

Perhaps the significant other has the gift of bringing to the surface the fullness of human nature.

I think you should stop making so much sense.

[buffalo]

Originally Posted by lemondiesel

Adaptation not part of evolution? Genetic potentialities? Are you implying that before there was land animals, the marine life had the “genetic potentiality” to have legs and walk!?

Yes after billions and millions of years, the genetic code has become very complex and is subject to genetic disorders. However, the first DNA sequences were much simpler. This is why evolution explains the change to the genetic code.

Yes indeed, the core components were present right from the get go. There are 500 or so conserved genes "immortal" that all life possesses. From these just about any thing can be built.

No, the first DNA sequences were not simpler.

[lemondiesel]

Originally Posted by buffalo

Yes indeed, the core components were present right from the get go. There are 500 or so conserved genes "immortal" that all life possesses. From these just about any thing can be built.

No, the first DNA sequences were not simpler.

And which "500 or so conserved genes" would those be?

[hazmat]

Originally Posted by Mumbles140

3) When asked about other species, why humans have rational thought and free will but other creatures don't, why humans haven't evolved into the next 'higher' species, etc, the answer appears to always be the same: It is so slow over time, you would never notice it. Well considering the billions upon billions of species, how did they all evolve from a single cell organism? And the one I always wonder about: Evolution means survival of the fittest, they evolve, etc. So why do we still have single-celled organisms? Why haven't they all either evolved or been killed off? They've had ample time, no doubt about that based on the Big Bang Theory, so why are they still the same.

evolution is a lot simpler and more uneventful than you might think. humans are exceptional when it comes to making computers, cars, etc., but those are things other living things (other species) have no use for. animals are exceptional at things that suit their needs and environments. imagine being a 90yr old with no interest in technology, and being told by some kid, that car (a) is better than car (b) because it has a built-in iphone dock--as that 90yr old, you wouldnt care about that, so it wouldnt be better to you.

the only thing necessary for evolution to occur is for living things to reproduce and not make exact copies of themselves every time. theres really no better or worse/higher or lower. the fact that those single celled organisms are alive today means they have already succeeded, that they are already the fittest. whether they can fly, breathe under water, or solve a rubiks cube is beside the point--they are the surviving descendants of their parents. surviving descendants--survival of the fittest. you, mumbles, by your existence alone--no matter how ordinary a life you lead, and no matter how few or many skills you think you have--are one of the fittest incarnations of our species.

[Farsight001]

Originally Posted by buffalo

Yes indeed, the core components were present right from the get go. There are 500 or so conserved genes "immortal" that all life possesses. From these just about any thing can be built.

No, the first DNA sequences were not simpler.

Any scientific experimentation done to confirm this? No? Didn't think so.