Darwinism in schools? - Page 7

**buffalo** · #91 Apr 1, '12, 8:26 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by rossum

All science needs to be "tweaked". Newton's theory of gravity turned out to be not quite correct, so it was "tweaked" to give us Einstein's General Relativity. In future Einstein's theory will be "tweaked" to give us a theory of Quantum Gravity.

All you are doing here is showing us that you have inadequate knowledge of the way science works. As science discovers new evidence about how the world works, its theories are "tweaked" as necessary to accommodate the new evidence.

rossum

What? GR was not a minor tweaking........

**buffalo** · #92 Apr 1, '12, 8:29 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by rossum

And religions don't get "tweaked"?

Consider the Christian attitude to slavery. That has been "tweaked" since Roman times. Even God has "tweaked" the punishment for adultery. The world is full of change, and sometimes things need to be "tweaked" in order that they continue to match reality.

rossum

You have a misunderstanding here as I have shown about slavery in the past. In any case our understanding of Revelation gets fuller. No branches get cut off the bush. Why? Because truth stands always. Man's understanding of the truth gets better.

**buffalo** · #93 Apr 1, '12, 8:30 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZoeyBdo

We were never "apes". If your relating to the fact that homo sapiens evolved from the line that split between apes and chimpanzees, fine, but know what you are describing.

That species later became australopithecus, to other species such as homo habilis to homo erectus, to homo sapien.

Science is an every-changing field simply because we are always learning more and more about our world. The progress of technology allows us to discover things where once it was not capable.

One also has to remember that these transitions occurred over millions of years.

Like I said before, it's my own belief that evolution happens because God wants it to.

Did God know what Adam would look like?

**buffalo** · #94 Apr 1, '12, 8:33 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by johnnyjones

Some might differ that our ancestory was not that of apes. God made a man not a sub -species of man.

It is becoming clearer now. The categorization of species was done with information at hand (coupled with the evo paradigm). I am confident as genetic research continues this will be shattered. Why? Because designers use common components to build many things.

LeafByNiggle · #95 Apr 1, '12, 8:38 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by buffalo

What? GR was not a minor tweaking........

rossum did not say "minor". You added that yourself. But General Relativity can be considered a refinement of Newtonian physics because the two theories predict almost the same things for speeds that are within the realm of common human experience.

**buffalo** · #96 Apr 1, '12, 8:41 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by LeafByNiggle

rossum did not say "minor". You added that yourself. But General Relativity can be considered a refinement of Newtonian physics because the two theories predict almost the same things for speeds that are within the realm of common human experience.

I added "minor" for emphasis. I submit GR and SR were not tweaks but major avoidances to the conclusions reached by experiments.

tweak

verb \ˈtwēk\

Definition of TWEAK

transitive verb
1
: to pinch and pull with a sudden jerk and twist : twitch <tweaked a bud from the stem>

2
: to pinch (a person or a body part) lightly or playfully <tweaked the baby's ear affectionately>

3
: to make usually small adjustments in or to <tweak the controls>; especially : fine-tune

4
a : annoy, bother <tweaking the establishment> b : to criticize especially in a sly or sharp manner c : to poke fun at

5
: to injure slightly <tweak an ankle>

rossum · #97 Apr 1, '12, 10:01 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by johnnyjones

Of course some things change. My version of tweaked doesn't match yours. How many origin stories are we up to now?

One. There used to be two, but the Steady State theory did not conform to reality and so was rejected by science.

rossum

rossum · #98 Apr 1, '12, 10:04 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by buffalo

You have a misunderstanding here as I have shown about slavery in the past. In any case our understanding of Revelation gets fuller. No branches get cut off the bush. Why? Because truth stands always. Man's understanding of the truth gets better.

Precisely. Just as our understanding of Revelation gets fuller, so does our understanding of the real world. In both cases we have to adjust, or 'tweak', things to match.

rossum

**edwest2** · #99 Apr 1, '12, 10:13 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by LeafByNiggle

First of all, the pope is not a scientific authority. When he makes statements about what is or is not scientifically valid he is as fallible as any other person. Now if he were to make a statement about what scientific theory is compatible with Catholic doctrine, then he might be teaching with authority. But you will notice that nowhere in that article did he say anything about evolution being incompatible with Catholic doctrine.

Secondly, USA Today is not a scientific journal. It is a popular publication that picks it's stories according to how much popular interest there might be in them.

Thirdly, the inability to conduct controlled experiments that duplicate evolution is not unique to evolution. Anyone who says evolution is not substantially settled would also have to say that the fall of the Roman Empire is also just a theory, since we cannot go back and observe it ourselves. We accept it as fact on the basis of testimony that has been handed down through many generations. We form a level of confidence in those facts based on how consistent they seem with other facts that we accept.

And lastly, no scientific theory is ever definitively proven. It is always open to falsification based on new evidence. Any scientist worth his salt must always be open to admitting that he was wrong when new evidence shows something that contradicts what he once held to be true. In the last century science had to accept some corrections to Newtonian physics when experiments showed that Einstein's theories were more accurate than Newtonian theory. And some day Einstein's theories may be replaced by something else. Real science is quite fluid. So when you say evolution is not a settled matter, you are right. But neither is any other scientific theory.

The Pope is the head of Christ's Church on earth. For Catholics, he provides the necessary information that science excludes or denies outright. The Pope stated it is impossible to verify or disprove the theory. Therefore, the Church is agnostic about it.

Perhaps you should look at threads condemning the Church about Galileo or Copernicus.

USA Today did not quote the Pope in error. I have read the same story elsewhere.

If science is silent about God, and the Church is not a scientific authority, then why are there so many posts made constantly here that disparage the Church for making any negative pronouncements about science? Or, on occasion, praising the Church for making positive/agreeable pronouncements about science?

Peace,
Ed

rossum · #**100** Apr 1, '12, 10:15 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by johnnyjones

Do you see any potential for human beings to physically evolve further?

Yes. For example, we are currently evolving resistance to HIV and to Malaria, among other diseases. In the Western world we are evolving resistance to the negative effects of an over-rich diet, see Apolipoprotein A-I Milano. We are evolving an improved ability to avoid fast approaching vehicles. We are still evolving lots of things to adjust to our changing environment.

Quote:

I mean, since we were once apes,

We still meet the scientific definition of Hominidae, which includes the other great apes, many extinct species and ourselves.

Quote:

any chance of further transitional issues that may match reality.

There is a chance, yes. However, given the degree of global intermixing it is unlikely. If we do set up permanent colonies on other planets, then gene flow may be low enough to allow speciation.

rossum

johnnyjones · #**101** Apr 1, '12, 10:16 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by rossum

One. There used to be two, but the Steady State theory did not conform to reality and so was rejected by science.

rossum

With stories changing within the stories.

rossum · #**102** Apr 1, '12, 10:23 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by johnnyjones

With stories changing within the stories.

Is slavery allowed? What was the Christian answer in the New Testament during the Roman Empire? What is the Christian answer now? All sorts of things change, including our interpretation of Revelation. Consider the different Catholic attitudes to Extra Ecclesia Nulla Salus over the years.

As our knowledge of the universe changes, so science changes its theories that describe the universe. Science changes as our knowledge grows. That is the strength of science, and why it has been so successful. It rejects what does not match reality.

rossum

johnnyjones · #**103** Apr 1, '12, 10:36 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by rossum

Yes. For example, we are currently evolving resistance to HIV and to Malaria, among other diseases. In the Western world we are evolving resistance to the negative effects of an over-rich diet, see Apolipoprotein A-I Milano. We are evolving an improved ability to avoid fast approaching vehicles. We are still evolving lots of things to adjust to our changing environment.

We still meet the scientific definition of Hominidae, which includes the other great apes, many extinct species and ourselves.

There is a chance, yes. However, given the degree of global intermixing it is unlikely. If we do set up permanent colonies on other planets, then gene flow may be low enough to allow speciation.

rossum

This is adaptation what you describe. If I drink a bunch of beers every day, I will eventually require more beers to get the same "effect". No Star Trek style egg head brains in another billion years?

The ape DNA grasping has been shoved down the throats of the gullible. Similar DNA is not equal DNA.

rossum · #**104** Apr 1, '12, 11:04 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by johnnyjones

This is adaptation what you describe.

Some adaptation is not inheritable. If I exercise and build up a lot of muscles that is adaptation, but my children will not inherit big muscles.

Evolution is to do with inheritable changes. The Apolipoprotein A-I Milano mutation is inheritable and so counts as evolution. The anti-malaria mutations, such as HbC and HbS, are inheritable and so count as evolution. Inheritable variation is evolution.

Quote:

The ape DNA grasping has been shoved down the throats of the gullible. Similar DNA is not equal DNA.

Of course. Chimpanzee DNA is not equal to Gorilla DNA, yet both are apes. DNA paternity testing shows that no two humans have exactly equal DNA, not even identical twins -- there are always a few copying errors as the twins develop separately after the zygote splits.

The pattern of differences in DNA indicates a nested hierarchy.

rossum

Baelor · #**105** Apr 1, '12, 11:04 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by johnnyjones

This is adaptation what you describe. If I drink a bunch of beers every day, I will eventually require more beers to get the same "effect". No Star Trek style egg head brains in another billion years?

That is not the same thing. Adaptation is not genetic and not passed down through heredity to offspring. The evolutionary process is.