EVOLUTION: Arguments For and Against

#21

[quote=Vincent Lewis]Although I am aware that changes occur in species over generations I don’t believe that any theory of evolution is compatible with the Catholic Faith. If evolution is true can the doctrine of original sin be true? Can we be saved? Then what are we being saved from? Jesus died on the cross for the forgiveness of sins and to save us from our sins. Evolution would mean that he saved us so that a higher more perfect creature can evolve. Can you believe it we are all working with the help of God and the Church to achieve personal perfection. Sounds like a waste of time doesn’t it? If evolution is true we must ask of what value is our faith beyond this world. I believe it is that simple. I am not perfect so if anyone can explain how the theory is compatible with all the doctrines of the Church please do so.
[/quote]

Physical evolution has nothing to do with sin. The doctrine of original sin is true, we can be saved, and Jesus did die on the cross for us. Your belief that all theories of evolution are incompatible with catholicism is at odds with Church teaching. Please read the document in the following link. It is an incredible document. Pay close attention starting at paragraph 62 and note the very bottom of the document who approved it.

Peace

Tim

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20040723_communion-stewardship_en.html

0 Likes

#22

Despite some peoples idea that Ratzingers approval somehow makes the idea of evolution valid, evolution is totally incompatible with the Catholic faith.

God is not a liar.

Read Genesis.

It spells out VERY CLEARLY how man was formed.

You may choose to believe what you wish.

I put my trust in Christ.

In Christ.

Andre.

0 Likes

#23

[quote=Magicsilence]Despite some peoples idea that Ratzingers approval somehow makes the idea of evolution valid, evolution is totally incompatible with the Catholic faith.

God is not a liar.

Read Genesis.

It spells out VERY CLEARLY how man was formed.

You may choose to believe what you wish.

I put my trust in Christ.

In Christ.

Andre.

[/quote]

And you think it’s incompatible why…?

0 Likes

#24

Obviously, as Benedict XIV and John Paul II said, it’s completely compatible with Christian faith.

How could nature not be in accord with His will?

0 Likes

#25

Nature is in accord with God’s will but to say that evolution occurs has not a been proven. There is evidence from which people may conclude that evolution occurs, but, I am not aware of any experiment where evolution was observed.

Scientist have used computer simulations to produce what is supposed to show evolution. Those experiments are misleading to the because computers do not produce results that are not intended beforehand, unless the computer produces some unexpected error. Properly working computers do not generate random numbers or events. The random number function simulates random numbers. Depending upon the random number generator a computer can produce a close approximation to random numbers. Some random number generators depend upon the computer clock so if they started the simulation at the same time or use the same seed value as they did before the computer will generate the exact same solution in the same amount of time. Furthermore, the scientist is in complete control of the simulated environment right down to the building blocks of life and the task that is to be completed by the virtual creature.

Until we have direct evidence of new species evolving from an existing species, it cannot be assumed that evolution is natural. Based upon what little I do know about reliable scientific studies most if not all mutations have proved harmful and all other changes within a species resulted from genes in the gene pool under the control of man, so if, you allowed nature to take its natural course those differences would be greatly diminished.

0 Likes

#26

[quote=Vincent Lewis]Nature is in accord with God’s will but to say that evolution occurs has not a been proven. There is evidence from which people may conclude that evolution occurs, but, I am not aware of any experiment where evolution was observed.
[/quote]

But your lack of awareness of what experiments and observations about evolutionary theory have been made does not, in itself, constitute evidence against evolution. It is simply evidence that your opinions on the matter of evolution carry little weight. Since it is quite obvious that you know next to nothing about the claims and evidence for neo-Darwinism, why do you feel obliged to offer your opinions on the matter?

Based upon what little I do know about reliable scientific studies most if not all mutations have proved harmful and all other changes within a species resulted from genes in the gene pool under the control of man

The fact is that you know very very little indeed about reliable scientific studies, and your representation of the evidence is false. All mutations are not harmful. Indeed most mutations are not harmful. So, whatever conclusions you reach are worthless since they are based on factual error.

If you are interested in the subject of evolution, wouldn’t it be better to read some reliable texts on the subject before you venture to offer your opinions on it? I can recommend:

Steve Jones, Darwin’s Ghost or Almost like a Whale, Ballantine, 2000, ISBN 0-345-42277-5

Ernst Mayr, What Evolution Is, Basic Books; 2002, ISBN: 0465044255

Douglas Futuyama, Evolutionary Biology, Sinauer Associates Incorporated, 1998, ISBN: 0878931899

Alec
evolutionpages.com

0 Likes

#27

[Miller]“God is the creator of all things.”
[Darrel Falk]"God created"
What is some supporting evidence for this?

[Phil]“Several founders of the evolutionary theory were believers in a God, or explicit Christians (Sir Ronald Fischer, Theodosius Dobzhansky, many others).”

What is the nature of “God” according to:
Fischer?
Dobzhansky?

Do you disagree with any of this de Duve?:

de Duve, Christian. 1995. Vital Dust: Life As a Cosmic
Imperative
(New York: BasicBooks), 362pp. de Duve
shared the 1974 Nobel Prize for biology or medicine
with Albert Claude and George Palade for their
discoveries concerning the structural and functional
organization of the cell, is Professor Emeritus at the
Medical Faculty of the University of Louvain, Belgium,
founder and past president of the International Institute
of Cellular and Molecular Pathology in Belgium, and
Andrew W. Mellon Professor Emeritus at the
Rockefeller University in New York. He is the author of
A Guided Tour of the Living Cell and Blueprint for
a Cell
.

On 9-10, the section “Foresight Excluded”:
In the making of a Boeing 747, all steps are intentional,
designed and organized according to a detailed blueprint
of the final objective. Things cannot have been the
same in the making of the first living cell. Every step
had to stand on its own and cannot be viewed as
preparation for things to come. This kind of objectivity
is difficult to sustain because we know the outcome and
also because our whole thinking about life is permeated
by intentionality. Cells are so obviously programmed to
develop according to certain lines, organs adapted to
perform certain functions, organisms suited to certain
environments, that the word design almost

  unavoidably comes to mind.  A whole school of thought
  has been inspired by these appearances of design,
  maintaining that living organisms are actuated by final
  causes, in the Aristotelian sense of the term.  Called
  finalism, this doctrine is close to vitalism, the belief that
  living organisms are animated by a vital principle.  Both
  views are now largely discredited.  Design has given
  place to natural selection.  The vital principle has joined
  ether and phlogiston in the cemetery of discarded
  concepts.  Life is increasingly explained strictly _in
  terms of the laws of physics and chemistry_.  Its origin
  must be accounted for in similar terms.

A paragraph on xiv-xv:
A warning: All through this book, I have tried to
conform to the overriding rule that life be treated as a
natural process, its origin, evolution, and manifestations,
up to and including the human species, as governed by
the same laws as nonliving processes. I exclude three
"isms": vitalism, which views living beings as made of
matter animated by some vital spirit; finalism, or

  teleology, which assumes goal-directed causes in
  biological processes; and creationism, which invokes a
  literal acceptance of the biblical account.  My approach
  demands that every step in the origin and development
  of life on Earth be explained in terms of its antecedent
  and immediate physical-chemical causes, not of any
  outcome known to us today but hidden in the future
  * at the time the events took
  place.*
0 Likes

#28

[davidford]“mutation-inducing radiation has been administered to populations of these organisms, turning on and off various genes, to get the indicated sorts of changes:
grass ==> citrus fruit
oaks ==> maple trees
pear trees ==> walnut trees
dogs ==> cats
fruit flies ==> termites”

[Ianjo99]“If this isn’t a joke, then this is the stupidest thing I have ever heard.”

I take it you don’t appreciate the work of the NIEH. Here’s one of their press releases:

BETHESDA, MD, June 4, 01:03:57 EDT: A team of scientists at the prestigious National Institutes of Evolutionary Health has proposed a bold new plan for improving the human race. Keeping in mind the fact that the dinosaurs suffered extinction 65 million years ago, the scheme suggests that mutations be induced in volunteer human subjects so steps can be taken to prevent human extinction. This project would be the beginning of a major push for improvement, the inauguration of a spirited effort to augment human capabilities using known principles of evolutionary biology. Clonal evolution will usher in a new era of advancement.

The required mutations will be induced in the volunteer subjects with exposure to high levels of heat, injection of the Human T- Lymphotrophic Virus, injection of herpes viruses, injection of the Epstein Barr Virus, chemical treatments, exposure to various carcinogens including nitrates, inducement of Burkitt’s lymphoma, inducement of kaposi sarcoma as a byproduct of the injection of HIV, and exposure to X-ray and UV radiation.

Many of the genetic changes will result in some cells’ growing uncontrollably, but this is said to be good, since it is known that larger organisms are not as easily affected by external temperature fluctuations. A few members of the group objected, saying that this is actually not a good thing, and calling it by the derisive term “cancer.” But no one else agreed, and since truth is determined by popular opinion, uncontrollable cell division resulting from the various treatments can indeed be good when seen through evolutionary specs. Wrote the person heading up the team, “Anyone that disagrees with us is nieve.” No further elaboration was provided. A colleague added, “You might as well not believe in rain.”

Additional changes in the DNA will be made with random deletions in some subjects’ germ line DNA, deletions of entire chromosomes, random insertions of nucleotides in the germ line DNA, random substitution of nucleotide base pairs in the germ line DNA, breakage of DNA, adding additional copies of and extra pieces of chromosomes, and inducement of errors in those genes that are supposed to correct “mistakes” made in gene replication. Randomness will be assured by the scientists’ not looking at what they’re doing when meddling with the volunteers’ DNA.

Commented one member in a particularly indiscreet moment, “Trisomy 21 was only the beginning. We will be experimenting with trisomy 1, trisomy 2, trisomy 3, trisomy 4, and so on. The fact that those with trisomy 21 develop Down’s syndrome will not stop us from doing our valuable work.” Changes in any homeobox genes that can be gotten hold of will result in arms appearing where eyes would have been, and perhaps extra-long legs and arms. Beneficial mutations, though hard to come by, are expected to provide the raw material for natural selection to work on, with the eventual result being a vastly improved organism, unlike anything we’ve ever seen. Said one member of the scientific group who wished to remain anonymous, probably out of fear of lawsuits, “These are the mutations that accumulate.”

One day, this new and improved organism will replace humans as we know them, which will be perfectly all right, because our time will have come. This Brave New World will have been made possible through our good understanding of how blindwatchmaking occurs: through non-intelligence-directed selection of non- intelligence-directed changes in organisms’ genetic codes.

The cost for being able to participate in this exciting and fully voluntary program will be free. Well, you might lose your life, but who’s counting?

0 Likes

#29

[Alec]“experiments and observations about evolutionary theory”

1992 Orr & Coyne on Fisher
groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.95.970329001049.19794A-100000%40umbc10.umbc.edu
1992 American Naturalist paper by Orr & Coyne
groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.96.980614220859.6338A-100000%40umbc8.umbc.edu

1950 Anthony Standen on the T0E
groups.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0403061926.298a316f%40posting.google.com

fruit fly URLs
groups.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0403082115.67a4b153%40posting.google.com

historical background to rise and fall of the Synthetic Euphoria; 1936 A. Franklin Shull
groups.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0403271329.1e569adf%40posting.google.com

“evidence for neo-Darwinism”

Essay on Problems with Darwin’s Theory of Natural Selection
groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.LNX.4.10A.B3.10005310900310.17702-100000%40jabba.gl.umbc.edu

1980 Eldredge: “time to reexamine” theory of NS
groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.LNX.4.44L.01.0311302356490.22520-100000%40linux3.gl.umbc.edu

Gould’s 1980 "Is a new and general theory of evolution emerging?"
groups.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0406040941.7de39c48%40posting.google.com

"mutations"
One literature search for “mutation”; mutation URLs
groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-37elv4F5260vbU1%40individual.net

"Almost like a Whale"
Darwin and bears
groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.95.960901020131.26306A-100000%40umbc10.umbc.edu

"Ernst Mayr"
Mayr URLs
groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-36l297F52q8rcU1%40individual.net

"Douglas Futuyama, Evolutionary Biology"
1979 Futuyma: “ultra-modern synthesis” needed
groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.96A.990307202439.1296706B-100000%40umbc9.umbc.edu

1979 Futuyma on "the positive implications of Darwinism"
groups.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0407231747.5c38b6ef%40posting.google.com

1979 Futuyma on gradualism, Archaeopteryx
groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.96A.990125233303.654987B-100000%40umbc8.umbc.edu

0 Likes

#30

[Vincent]“Scientist have used computer simulations to produce what is supposed to show evolution. Those experiments are misleading to the because computers do not produce results that are not intended beforehand”

computer simulations illustrate intelligent design, at the bottom of
replies to Larry Moran posts
groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-39lhabF61ut8sU1%40individual.net

How do you account for the origin of the recorded-in-DNA/
genetic instructions within:
a human? a bacterium? the first biological lifeform?

Do you disagree with any of the Dawkins or Dobzhansky below?

Dawkins, Richard. 1995. River Out of Eden: A Darwinian
View of Life
(USA: BasicBooks), 172pp. On 17:
After Watson and Crick, we know that genes
themselves, within their minute internal structure, are
long strings of pure digital information. What is more,
they are truly digital, in the full and strong sense of
computers and compact disks, not in the weak sense of
the nervous system. The genetic code is not a binary
code as in computers, nor an eight-level code as in some
telephone systems, but a quaternary code, with four
symbols. The machine code of the genes is uncannily
computerlike. Apart from differences in jargon, the
pages of a molecular-biology journal might be
interchanged with those of a computer-engineering
journal.

On 19:
Genes are pure information-- information that can be
encoded, recoded and decoded, without any degradation
or change of meaning. Pure information can be copied
and, since it is digital information, the fidelity of the
copying can be immense. DNA characters are copied
with an accuracy that rivals anything modern engineers
can do.

On 150-151:
Indeed, the whole DNA/protein-based information
technology is so sophisticated-- high tech, it has been
called by the chemist Graham Cairns-Smith-- that you
can scarcely imagine it arising by luck, without some
other self-replicating system as a forerunner.

1985 Cairns-Smith: "Present-day organisms are manifestly pieces of
’high technology’, and what is more seem to be necessarily so."
groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1123558517.582123.223890%40o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com

I highly recommend the excellent chapter "The Power and the Archives"
in
Dawkins, Richard. 1987. The Blind Watchmaker (NY: W.W. Norton &
Company), 332+pp. On 111:
…DNA whose coded characters spell out specific
instructions for building willow trees that will shed a
new generation of downy seeds. Those fluffy specks
are, literally, spreading instructions for making
themselves… It is raining instructions out there; it’s
raining programs; it’s raining tree-growing, fluff-
spreading, algorithms. That is not a metaphor, it is
the plain truth. It couldn’t be any plainer if it were
raining floppy discs.

Forrest, Stephanie. 1993. “Genetic Algorithms: Principles of Natural
Selection Applied to Computation” Science 261: 872-878. On 872:
An algorithm is a step-by-step procedure for
accomplishing some specific task-- sorting numbers,
formatting text on a page, or diagnosing car problems.
Many algorithms can be readily implemented as
computer programs. Thus, an algorithm is the general
description of a procedure, and a program is its
realization as a sequence of instructions to a computer.

Dobzhansky, Theodosius. March 1973. “Nothing in Biology Makes Sense
Except in the Light of Evolution” The American Biology Teacher,
125-9. On 127:
The entire evolutionary development of the living
world has taken place not by invention of new
"letters" in the genetic “alphabet” but by elaboration of
ever-new combinations of these letters… The
meaning of a word or a sentence is defined not so
much by what letters it contains as by the sequence
of these letters. It is the same with heredity: it is
coded by the sequences of the genetic “letters”-- the
nucleotides-- in the DNA.

For mentions of “information” in DNA, see Dawkins (1987), 112, 115,
116, 122.
Related to quality control in biology: Dawkins (1987), 125, 126, 129;
Science 286: 1881-1905 (1999).

0 Likes

#31

[quote=davidford][davidford]“mutation-inducing radiation has been administered to populations of these organisms, turning on and off various genes, to get the indicated sorts of changes:
grass ==> citrus fruit
oaks ==> maple trees
pear trees ==> walnut trees
dogs ==> cats
fruit flies ==> termites”

[Ianjo99]“If this isn’t a joke, then this is the stupidest thing I have ever heard.”

I take it you don’t appreciate the work of the NIEH. Here’s one of their press releases:

BETHESDA, MD, June 4, 01:03:57 EDT: A team of scientists at the prestigious National Institutes of Evolutionary Health has proposed a bold new plan for improving the human race. Keeping in mind the fact that the dinosaurs suffered extinction 65 million years ago, the scheme suggests that mutations be induced in volunteer human subjects so steps can be taken to prevent human extinction. This project would be the beginning of a major push for improvement, the inauguration of a spirited effort to augment human capabilities using known principles of evolutionary biology. Clonal evolution will usher in a new era of advancement.

The required mutations will be induced in the volunteer subjects with exposure to high levels of heat, injection of the Human T- Lymphotrophic Virus, injection of herpes viruses, injection of the Epstein Barr Virus, chemical treatments, exposure to various carcinogens including nitrates, inducement of Burkitt’s lymphoma, inducement of kaposi sarcoma as a byproduct of the injection of HIV, and exposure to X-ray and UV radiation.

Many of the genetic changes will result in some cells’ growing uncontrollably, but this is said to be good, since it is known that larger organisms are not as easily affected by external temperature fluctuations. A few members of the group objected, saying that this is actually not a good thing, and calling it by the derisive term “cancer.” But no one else agreed, and since truth is determined by popular opinion, uncontrollable cell division resulting from the various treatments can indeed be good when seen through evolutionary specs. Wrote the person heading up the team, “Anyone that disagrees with us is nieve.” No further elaboration was provided. A colleague added, “You might as well not believe in rain.”

Additional changes in the DNA will be made with random deletions in some subjects’ germ line DNA, deletions of entire chromosomes, random insertions of nucleotides in the germ line DNA, random substitution of nucleotide base pairs in the germ line DNA, breakage of DNA, adding additional copies of and extra pieces of chromosomes, and inducement of errors in those genes that are supposed to correct “mistakes” made in gene replication. Randomness will be assured by the scientists’ not looking at what they’re doing when meddling with the volunteers’ DNA.

Commented one member in a particularly indiscreet moment, “Trisomy 21 was only the beginning. We will be experimenting with trisomy 1, trisomy 2, trisomy 3, trisomy 4, and so on. The fact that those with trisomy 21 develop Down’s syndrome will not stop us from doing our valuable work.” Changes in any homeobox genes that can be gotten hold of will result in arms appearing where eyes would have been, and perhaps extra-long legs and arms. Beneficial mutations, though hard to come by, are expected to provide the raw material for natural selection to work on, with the eventual result being a vastly improved organism, unlike anything we’ve ever seen. Said one member of the scientific group who wished to remain anonymous, probably out of fear of lawsuits, “These are the mutations that accumulate.”

One day, this new and improved organism will replace humans as we know them, which will be perfectly all right, because our time will have come. This Brave New World will have been made possible through our good understanding of how blindwatchmaking occurs: through non-intelligence-directed selection of non- intelligence-directed changes in organisms’ genetic codes.

The cost for being able to participate in this exciting and fully voluntary program will be free. Well, you might lose your life, but who’s counting?
[/quote]

I guess I don’t, considering that did nothing to further your point that scientists have altered populations that resemble different species. All it said was that some scientists are experimenting with aneuploidy. And I assume you know that individuals do not evolve, only populations do? I sincerely doubt the legitmacy of this foundation when they completely disregard the scientific method.

Also, have you ever heard of the “shotgun” method of arguing? It’s when someone throws a large amount of “evidence” (usually off the internet) at someone in the hopes that one argument sticks. It’s precisely what you are doing. It’s a favorite of internet conspiracists.

But of course that’s not what you’re doing…

0 Likes

#32

“your [df’s] point that scientists have altered populations that resemble different species”

1970 Mayr on organisms’ observed resistance to change
groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.4.44L.01.0309181335410.2863259-100000%40irix2.gl.umbc.edu

"some scientists are experimenting with aneuploidy"
What is “aneuploidy”?

“And I assume you know that individuals do not evolve, only populations do?”
“Populations” are composed of “individuals.”

"individuals do not evolve"
Meaning of “evolve”?
groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-386md9F5lsv5cU1%40individual.net

"have you ever heard of the “shotgun” method of arguing? It’s when someone throws a large amount of “evidence” (usually off the internet) at someone in the hopes that one argument sticks."
I have now.

"But of course that’s not what you’re doing…"
I have a few quivers in my ever-growing tool-kit.
groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/72be19882e999848?hl=en&

Some recent additions thereto:

[Darwin]“the Europeans and Hindoos… belong to the same Aryan
stock…
Jews… belong to the Semitic stock”
[Darwin]"Dr. Saviotti in… 1871… remarks that it more frequently
occurs in prognathous skulls, not of the Aryan race, than in others"
groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1132804036.812796.75290%40g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com

Is infanticide “evil”?; Reagan; Nordau
groups.google.com/groups?selm=1131387293.922571.147570%40f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com

Haeckel on antisemitism
google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1132770569.112996.213900%40g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com

French persons that rejected the theory of NS
google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1129861996.983559.40030%40g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com

A Refutation of Socialism Using Socialism
google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1132594096.798616.234250%40z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com

Haeckel
google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1132328969.527097.241300%40o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com

Rabbi Lapin’s "In Defense of Christian Conservatives"
google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1131748480.428356.7430%40z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com

Marr, Lagarde and Langbehn, Haeckel,
Plate, Darwin, Goebbels, Marx, O’Hair
google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1132194665.884388.158410%40f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com

Darwin in the 6th edition of Origin on [Darwin]“survival of the fittest” and the [Darwin]"struggle for life"
google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1132161340.121874.63970%40g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com

Multi-Pronged Role of Darwinian Thought in Shoah’s Arrival
google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1132080322.482544.299440%40g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com

atheocratic North Korea’s slave trade
google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1131559540.282445.90700%40z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com

a claim: Hitler was a Christian
google.com/groups?selm=1131389424.486586.51840%40g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com

0 Likes

#33

ID as a metaphysical research program
groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=dford3-1129317540.779352.231140%40f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com

Reality vs. worldview philosophy of materialism/ atheism
groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-3813ksF5ggkc3U1%40individual.net

On the Origin of Life
groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-39oh33F63riraU1%40individual.net

Essay on Problems with Darwin’s Theory of Natural Selection
groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.LNX.4.10A.B3.10005310900310.17702-100000%40jabba.gl.umbc.edu

Multi-Pronged Role of Darwinian Thought in Holocaust’s Arrival
google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1132080322.482544.299440%40g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com

Hitler encounters the T0E as a child: A Victory for Atheism
groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1118403178.860854.170600%40g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com

Stalin encounters the T0E in seminary: A Victory for Atheism
groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1118511187.489582.241590%40g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com

0 Likes

#34

[quote=davidford][davidford]“mutation-inducing radiation has been administered to populations of these organisms, turning on and off various genes, to get the indicated sorts of changes:
grass ==> citrus fruit
oaks ==> maple trees
pear trees ==> walnut trees
dogs ==> cats
fruit flies ==> termites”

[Ianjo99]“If this isn’t a joke, then this is the stupidest thing I have ever heard.”

I take it you don’t appreciate the work of the NIEH. Here’s one of their press releases:

BETHESDA, MD, June 4, 01:03:57 EDT: A team of scientists at the prestigious National Institutes of Evolutionary Health has proposed a bold new plan for improving the human race.

(snip)

[/quote]

OK, so it was a joke. Why did you post it? If you are claiming that it wasn’t a joke, maybe you can help me out and point me to “the prestigious National Institues of Evolutionary Health” since Google can’t seem to find it.

Peace

Tim

0 Likes

#35

"OK, so it was a joke. Why did you post it?"
To promote critical thinking. An explanation of it is at the bottom half of

NIEH
groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.96.980604010337.18472C-100000%40umbc9.umbc.edu

See also:

Koestler, Waddington, Dobzhansky, and a remark for Gould
groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.96.980606011626.8316A-100000%40umbc8.umbc.edu

One literature search for “mutation”; mutation URLs
groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-37elv4F5260vbU1%40individual.net

Hitler’s human breeding plan using selection + mutations
groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1124684179.251743.95950%40o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com
groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1124731489.829229.220700%40g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com

0 Likes

#36

[quote=davidford quoting some other guy again] … Cells are so obviously programmed to develop according to certain lines, organs adapted to perform certain functions, organisms suited to certain environments, that the word design almost unavoidably comes to mind. …
[/quote]

a designed organism would not include no longer needed structures such as an appendix, a coccyx, etc. All living things are obviously built up from previously existing creatures rather than designed from scratch.

All you would have to do to prove “design”is provide one example of an organism that had a natural feature it didn’t share with related species and that didn’t have ancestral structures in previous species.

0 Likes

#37

“a designed organism would not include no longer needed structures such as an appendix, a coccyx, etc.”

A designed thing would not include features that break. My car broke, and it wasn’t designed.
My computer motherboard structure broke, and it wasn’t designed.

Fatally Flawed: Vestigial Organs, Biogeography, Homology,
and Embryology as Evidence for the Theory of Evolution
groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.4.44L.01.0305250118100.2340516-100000%40irix2.gl.umbc.edu

Basilosaurus’s purported vestigial leg
groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.95.970709233733.17288H-100000%40umbc8.umbc.edu

the panda’s “thumb” argument
groups.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0405181220.3a30b3b5%40posting.google.com
Gould and false dichotomy
groups.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0403101915.25dc7a6a%40posting.google.com
groups.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0401291823.78264831%40posting.google.com

“All living things are obviously built up from previously existing creatures rather than designed from scratch.”
“Built” how-- “built” by what? Mind/ intelligence?

Crick, Francis. 1988. What Mad Pursuit: A Personal View of
Scientific Discovery
(New York: Basic Books, Inc.,
Publishers), 182pp. Two paragraphs on 138-9:
What is found in biology is mechanisms, mechanisms
built with chemical components and that are often modified
by other, later, mechanisms added to the earlier ones.
While Occam’s razor is a useful tool in the physical
sciences, it can be a very dangerous implement in biology.
It is thus very rash to use simplicity and elegance as a
guide in biological research. While DNA could be claimed
to be both simple and elegant, it must be remembered that
DNA almost certainly originated fairly close to the origin
of life when things were necessarily simple or they could
not have got going.

 Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see
 was not designed, but rather evolved.  It might be thought,
 therefore, that evolutionary arguments would play a large
 part in guiding biological research, but this is far from the
 case.  It is difficult enough to study what is happening now. 
 To try to figure out exactly what happened in evolution is
 even more difficult.  Thus evolutionary arguments can
 usefully be used as _hints_ to suggest possible lines of
 research, but it is highly dangerous to trust them too much. 
 It is all too easy to make mistaken inferences unless the
 process involved is already very well understood.
0 Likes

#38

[quote=davidford]…
A designed thing would not include features that break. My car broke, and it wasn’t designed.
My computer motherboard structure broke, and it wasn’t designed.
[/quote]

what :confused:
not only is that a non sequiter but it makes no sense

the very nature of design is compromise between competing goals
a car that “never” broke would be too expensive or heavy or excede some other design limit.

I’m not sure what your point is

[quote=davidford]… Fatally Flawed: Vestigial Organs, Biogeography, Homology,
and Embryology as Evidence for the Theory of Evolution
[/quote]

once agian links to yourself
but then you start quoting an article from 1895!!!
Nothing like cutting edge research

[quote=davidford]Basilosaurus’s purported vestigial leg
[/quote]

more links to yourself and a strawman
plus you’re confusing the fact of evolution with the theory of evolution

[quote=davidford] the panda’s “thumb” argument
[/quote]

I have no doubt that the panda’s thumb is well evolved to do what it does
that doesn’t change the fact that it is not a good design

[quote=davidford] Gould and false dichotomy
[/quote]

Gould wasn’t making arguments from incredulity he was refuting them.

evolution of species through natural selection

[quote=davidford]“built” by what? Mind/ intelligence?
[/quote]

not really Biology’s call
all they can do is report on the evidence
but evolution of species thorugh natural selection appears to be the best candidate :wink:

[quote=davidford quoting some guy]…
What is found in biology is mechanisms, mechanisms
built with chemical components and that are often modified
by other, later, mechanisms added to the earlier ones…
[/quote]

of course that is what biology finds

[quote=davidford quoting some guy]… While Occam’s razor is a useful tool in the physical
sciences, it can be a very dangerous implement in biology.
[/quote]

why?

[quote=davidford quoting some guy]… It is difficult enough to study what is happening now. To try to figure out exactly what happened in evolution is
even more difficult.
[/quote]

that is why the work is done by scientists and specialist who devote years to reasearch and build on the work of those who went before

[quote=davidford quoting some guy]… Thus evolutionary arguments can
usefully be used as hints to suggest possible lines of
research, but it is highly dangerous to trust them too much.
It is all too easy to make mistaken inferences unless the
process involved is already very well understood.
[/quote]

and what part of the process don’t you think is well understood?

0 Likes

#39

[quote=davidford]"OK, so it was a joke. Why did you post it?"
To promote critical thinking. An explanation of it is at the bottom half of

[/quote]

So you are using made up sources for your argument?:confused: So much for credibilty.

Peace

Tim

0 Likes

#40

"So you [df] are using made up sources for your argument?"
When creating jokes, I have frequently “made up sources for” my jokes.
E.g., I’ve never met “Bob,” a man in a bar described in one of my jokes.

"So much for credibilty."
Let me try to enhance my “credibilty”:
Stebbins is brilliant. Lifeless molecules have transformed into humanity. It took a long while to occur, but it happened, all without the input of mind/ intelligence at any level.

Stebbins, G. Ledyard. 1982. Darwin to DNA, Molecules to
Humanity
(San Francisco: W. H. Freeman and Company),
491pp., 4:
The evolutionist’s * answer is
that all these millions of different kinds of organisms
evolved * from common ancestors
during the thousands of millions of years since the first
appearance of life. Their evolution * was opportunistic and devoid of
purpose.

Timeline of Materialism, Spontaneous Generation, and Blindwatchmaking Views
groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-348jecF47mfcjU1%40individual.net***

0 Likes

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.