[_ Old Earth _] Is Evolution "Mindless"?

[Asyncritus]

Hi Sparrow

I found the post, and here are the diagrams from it which make the point I'm re-stating:

On your left is the chimp foot, and on the right is the human foot. This is a diagrammatic representation of course, but it does make the point.
​

 

[Asyncritus]

Let me make the point that us 'fundies' recognise that there has been speciation : ie the production of new 'species' from a parental species or group of species. This is invariably due to reproductive isolation, such a happened to various insect species now present in Hawaii and elsewhere.

However, that is not the evolutionists' problem. That is 'microevolution' to use your term, and is totally incapable of producing the enormous jumps required to move from a fish to an amphibian, or from a reptile to a bird.

That is justifiably called 'macroevolution', and the fossil evidence shows that such jumps never took place. Every main group of animals, and more powerfully, plants, simply appears in the record with no antecedents.

The evolution of man from chimps or common ancestors simply never took place. The intellectual differences between man and any other primates completely preclude any evolutionary origin of humankind. Just look around you, if you doubt this.

Behold the apes' nests, and compare them with the Empire State, or even a small human dwelling.

​

Ever seen an ape inventing or using a mobile phone? Or a car? Or producing a recognisable painting? Or a musical composition?

Do you really think that the 'genetic similarities' between apes and mankind are enough to produce such enormous differences in capabilities? As I said, in the OP, if such huge genetic similarities show that humans are rally apes, then it also shows that apes are really human. Is that a thesis you would intelligently support?

And if not, why not?

 

[Asyncritus]

I am not sure why a pope's qualifications make the slightest difference to anyone's understanding of Genesis, or indeed any part of scripture.

So why does possessing a chemistry degree give any authoritativeness to pronouncements about the biological content of Gen 1-3?

 

[cupid dave]

Hi, Cupid Dave!

I am very curious.

Why, do you think, is it that your reconciliation of the Book of Genesis with science hasn't taken root in mainstream science?

If you were any type of scientist, and your studies indicated that an overwhelming amount of evidence points to the probability that whoever wrote the Book of Genesis had an abundant amount of knowledge of how things work in this universe, what would stop your fellow scientists from accepting and improving upon your wonderful, awe-inspiring, and fresh scientific proclamation?

The church is keeping those scientists out of our congregations, because they insist that Genesis contradicts the facts.
No scientists worth his salt wants to sit with people who are so far removed frm what he believes is the Truth, and hear these attacks n that Truth from a group that insists their Lrd is Truth, the wat, and the life.

Help me get those science peple into the churches, they are very stoic good citizens who will be an asset.

Drop the Medieval interpretations of Genesis that have come dwn through those originators of the denminations, like Russell, Wesley, Williams, Smith, etc.

Think what you like about Genesis, but agree that Theistic Evolution for others is valid and makes sense.

 

[cupid dave]

I am not sure they are fighting metaphoric genesis. They are fighting bible literalistgenesis.

That is why I am so happy the rcc has a chemistry background pope. I can only hope he tells us to tell Bible literalist."no, you have it wrong, we helped assembled the bible".

Yep...

He is a Jesuit, too.
They are a well educated science literate and active researching side of the RCC, which in 1998 saw the pope of that time say, "Evolution is too well supported for the church to contradict the theory."

The RCC lost 50% of its congregation when it opposed Galileo.
They must remember this, and can see the Protestants experiencing the same results.

To repeat the error again, these church leaders are fools and thoughtless pretenders to faith in the spirit of Truth, merely avocates of belief in their particular Faith.

 

[cupid dave]

1) No proponent of evolution claims that there is a distinction between what creationists call "macroevolution" and "microevolution".
Its just evolution.

2) As far as one "species" branching off into another, it isn't something we could observe for two reasons. One being that it would take far longer than what creationists call "microevolution", and the other being that a mother would never (regardless of the length of time given) give birth to a creature of a different species; this is a misconception on the part of creationists.

1) I agree.
My point was that YECs and Creationists insist that they do not see enough links between the two soecies that evolution theory claims lead from one to the other.
THEY make the distinction, and THEY argue from that point of view.

2) You maybe correct, by and large, but recent experiments in Russia with the Fox has been supporting the hypothesis that hormones can radically change a species, to include skeletal differences, in just a few generations.
This evidence is related to supporting the Wolves to Dogs theory, and is seen as an example under laboratory conditions.

 

[Arch Angle]

Hi Sparrow

I found the post, and here are the diagrams from it which make the point I'm re-stating:

On your left is the chimp foot, and on the right is the human foot. This is a diagrammatic representation of course, but it does make the point.
​

can you show the hands?

 

[cupid dave]

Let me make the point that us 'fundies' recognise that there has been speciation : ie the production of new 'species' from a parental species or group of species. This is invariably due to reproductive isolation, such a happened to various insect species now present in Hawaii and elsewhere.

However, that is not the evolutionists' problem. That is 'microevolution' to use your term, and is totally incapable of producing the enormous jumps required to move from a fish to an amphibian, or from a reptile to a bird.

That is justifiably called 'macroevolution', and the fossil evidence shows that such jumps never took place. Every main group of animals, and more powerfully, plants, simply appears in the record with no antecedents.
?

So you "fundies" believe in evolution, qualified by the initial conditions, that every original KIND or species experienced a separate and special Spontaneous Generation.

This is the real difference between what you say and what Science tells us.

Science says that under unique conditions, one duration of Spontaneous Generation of Life took place, from which thereafter all the diversity followed, as the initial "first sprouts on Earth" grew, developed, and matured into other life forms that had Adapted to the ever unfolding new environments so as to survive extinction.

 

[Arch Angle]

I am not sure why a pope's qualifications make the slightest difference to anyone's understanding of Genesis, or indeed any part of scripture.

So why does possessing a chemistry degree give any authoritativeness to pronouncements about the biological content of Gen 1-3?

The chemistry degree means he has a clear understanding that we base conclusions on observations.

He has and understanding that faith without reason is blindand confused.

No you don't need a chemistry degree to understand thebible. In fact, you don't need much of anything to take the bible literally. But the chemistry degree may give people the strengthto stand up more vigorously against bible literalist. Like a flag, while meaningless, can give asoldier "faith" to press on.

The pope should unite Catholics to stand firm on "We don't take the bible literally". he should clearly state that "Rome was involved in assembling the bible the bible". He should say, "Who better to say it should or should not be taken literally?

he should say it is ok to tell literalist "No ... you have it wrong, not us!"

Nicely of course. nobody should go to war in the name of god.

 

[Arch Angle]

Hi, Cupid Dave!

I am very curious.

Why, do you think, is it that your reconciliation of the Book of Genesis with science hasn't taken root in mainstream science?

If you were any type of scientist, and your studies indicated that an overwhelming amount of evidence points to the probability that whoever wrote the Book of Genesis had an abundant amount of knowledge of how things work in this universe, what would stop your fellow scientists from accepting and improving upon your wonderful, awe-inspiring, and fresh scientific proclamation?

The church is keeping those scientists out of our congregations, because they insist that Genesis contradicts the facts.
No scientists worth his salt wants to sit with people who are so far removed frm what he believes is the Truth, and hear these attacks n that Truth from a group that insists their Lrd is Truth, the wat, and the life.

Help me get those science peple into the churches, they are very stoic good citizens who will be an asset.

Drop the Medieval interpretations of Genesis that have come dwn through those originators of the denminations, like Russell, Wesley, Williams, Smith, etc.

Think what you like about Genesis, but agree that Theistic Evolution for others is valid and makes sense.

I agree 100% with ya.

Also remember, they rejected Galileo more than his work right? I mean he was an arrogant SOB. LMAO, he probably couldn't believe they questioned him.

Another thing, fortunately god reminds the RCC that it is run by man. Too bad it has to hurt so hard for god to teach us. I think anyway.

A fact that a fundamentalist atheist can't a handle on "How dare yout each me to be good!"

 

[Sparkey]

Hi Sparrow

On your left is the chimp foot, and on the right is the human foot. This is a diagrammatic representation of course, but it does make the point.

Do you have the link please? I'd like to review Barb's reply. I don't want to play "devil's advocate" and try to predict what he said or to answer for somebody else (like I was some expert), but I do remember that in his mind this was unconvincing.

Thanks!

 

[stovebolts]

1) No proponent of evolution claims that there is a distinction between what creationists call "macroevolution" and "microevolution".
Its just evolution.

2) As far as one "species" branching off into another, it isn't something we could observe for two reasons. One being that it would take far longer than what creationists call "microevolution", and the other being that a mother would never (regardless of the length of time given) give birth to a creature of a different species; this is a misconception on the part of creationists.

1) I agree.
My point was that YECs and Creationists insist that they do not see enough links between the two soecies that evolution theory claims lead from one to the other.
THEY make the distinction, and THEY argue from that point of view.

2) You maybe correct, by and large, but recent experiments in Russia with the Fox has been supporting the hypothesis that hormones can radically change a species, to include skeletal differences, in just a few generations.
This evidence is related to supporting the Wolves to Dogs theory, and is seen as an example under laboratory conditions.

Nobody is denying natural selection or mutations. However, what you won't find is a fox turning into a cat or any other family. Fact is, the fox is in the dog family and the only thing it will ever "evolve" into is a different species of dog.

Furthermore, I agree with the wolf theory. That being said, you can modify a wolf into a fox, but you'll never modify a fox back into a wolf. Why? Because both mutations and natural selection are a reduction in dna information. True, the dna information is arranged differently, but if you map out the dna, it looses dna information through natural selection and mutation. This is oppsed to Evolution which states new information is created.

 

[Sparkey]

My point has always been that the Lord does not overdo things. How to say this differently? Wisdom allows correction, but not over-correction? The Lord has had a hand in the creation of all the plants and animals that we see, and also He has participated in the creation of all the extinct ones that we no longer see. Further, He plays a part in all the varieties that we may see.

Okay, if this is my "official position," what are the limits or boundaries that have been placed by God? This is where wisdom comes in. One of the more confusing things that has happened (while we were trying to understand what God has done) is a large amount of confusion about the word "species" and how it relates to Genesis. Now, "species" has its roots in Latin. Guess who translated Hebrew into Latin? They were scholars and they did an admirable job but... part of the problem that we still run into comes from the fact that both Latin and Greek are used by various scientific fields because of the precision the languages themselves lend themselves to. There are reasons that the Lord spoke to us in the Old Testament in a very, hmmmm... how to type what should be taken in by the ear? I can't represent the sound of the Hebrew language for your eye except by example and that would be a too-long sidetrack, still, the very characteristics of the original language contribute to the richness of the Word of God and also may be used to illustrate my point.

Consider the vast amounts of information that is carried by music, for instance. Sure, that vehicle of transport may be used to carry precise information and to teach, but to reduce it to formality of precise, computerized, digital, components and then introduce distortions MAY be called music, but it may also introduce focal hand dystonia to the musician and harmonic disphony and a difficulty in producing vocal sounds; enfeebled or depraved voice in the singer. Returning then from the tangent, we may understand that the intent of the Word of God remains true in the Hebrew and what is found within those base concepts.

Now then, putting the discussion about precise categories aside, and leaving taxonomy to taxonomists, leaving the academic discipline of defining groups of biological organisms to those who do such things well, and avoid the pitfall of thinking that their work is what God referred to when He spoke about His work, we endeavor to find and prove all things biblical as we look outward and focus on creation as part of the process of understanding more about our Creator. This will, of course, leave some out of the conversation. They leave when they hear such things. That's okay, they'll likely come back and take note of what is said, if only to privately plan on their reply to someone else. Others may leave because they suspect where "we" are heading with this. That's okay too. What I do not appreciate, is the noise levels of a conversation going up just when the truth is spoken as if by this interference the truth will not be known. And what is the truth, you say?

Well, frankly, I am not as sure as you might think. My way of looking at this is from a very minimalist view. What is absolutely demanded by God when He speaks of creation and His creative acts in Genesis? What boundaries must we consider at minimum? At this point, my mind becomes very literal. Not because I'm trying to exemplify the most fundamentalist of thoughts, but instead because I do not to introduce thoughts that limit our ability to understand what we are looking at unduly. So then, where has God said, "this far, and no further?" Are these not the very instructions that He speaks about when we consider the Scriptural "like produces like" types of things? Well, yes and no. It depends on where the Lord put the "is they like, or is they not" conditions into the plants and animals.

We would do well to remember though that there is nothing that says that God didn't do more than what He declared. When he gave information about flight to animals it was to various "classes" including what we today call "bats" or "mammals" as well as some of those that we call "insects" and also to "birds". Did he instruct flying fish how to fly? He may have, but I do not find the declaration in the Scripture that demands that he did. It seems that they were left out of the sustained flight "kind" when God portioned those animals out into the groups that flew. Same goes for some squirrels. Even those of the Rocky and Bullwinkle kind. And there that word is again: kind. That's what God did. He created "kinds" and put reproductive boundaries for each of the animals and plants of each "kind" (Hebrew: mîn or mîyn).

The Lord doesn't say much (by way of comparison) about plants and their "kinds" in relation to the "instructions" that He placed into animals. Notice though that what He mentioned is also spoken of within the word animal. Animate. Motion. Movement. Those "kinds" that creep. The "livestock" that moves along the ground (but doesn't creep). The "kinds" that fly. Creatures that swim. And this isn't the only thing that He did. He spoke to those who "team" in their reproduction. There are various reproductive schemes that involve timing. Some reproduce in vast numbers and quickly, others may reproduce slowly and one at a time. The Lord mentions giving these types of instructions in the Beginnings.

These types of things are what are found in the Word that has been given as light to the WORLD. This is the very type of thing that I would hope that open minded scientists (who have the discipline and training) might consider as they ponder the world around us. It's a gift. The scientific atheist doesn't have to give credit to "his" or "her" idea or discovery back to the source. They can tuck away the possibility in their back pocket and then, when the idea comes, they can claim it as their own. God does not retain copyright on His gifts, except at the end, when every knee shall bow, and every tongue confess... but for now? Bon chance, my friend. Or for those in Canada, bonne chance.

Oh, I almost forgot to clearly state what started me off on my tangential thought. Somebody mentioned information and how it was "added". Thank you for that. I had a lot that I wanted to say.

 

[Milk-Drops]

Nobody is denying natural selection or mutations.

Actually, Asyn will depending on the answers in Genesis article he or she is trying to peddle that week.

However, what you won't find is a fox turning into a cat or any other family.

Of course, because the species that split into Felidea and Canidea comes from a single ancestral family and modern cats and Dogs didn't exist during this split. Modern cats and dogs are way to farm from each other to copulate at this point.

Fact is, the fox is in the dog family and the only thing it will ever "evolve" into is a different species of dog.

Actually Foxes aren't dogs at all. They belong to the family Canidea. Wolves also belong to the family Canidea but Foxes and wolves share different genus. A Fox is part of the Vulpes genus while Wolves and Dogs are part of the Canis gensu.

In the above

True, the dna information is arranged differently, but if you map out the dna, it looses dna information through natural selection and mutation.

Could you show us the DNA information that is lost? For example, could you pull up the sequences and show how Modern Dogs have lost information when compared to ancestral wolves?

This is oppsed to Evolution which states new information is created.

Actually, could you possibly define what you mean by information? IS it nucleotide sequences? Genes? Proteins?

Could you also site where evolution makes the claim that new information is created? As far as I'm aware all Evolution states is that the most adapted organisms in an enviroment are the most likely to survive to breed. Is it possible you are confusing Evoltuion with Genetics.

 

[stovebolts]

Sparrow,
I sure hope I didn't spur your tangent! My reply was to simply say that the dna record only shows a loss of information when natural selection or mutation shifts the structure of dna. It was in response to the mutation in the fox and my point was once that mutation occured, you'll never re engineer it back into a fox.

 

[stovebolts]

Meatballsub,

My phone battery is dying and I wont have a chance to get to a pc till tomorrow. I look forward to responding to your last post.

Thanks!

 

[Milk-Drops]

Meatballsub,

My phone battery is dying and I wont have a chance to get to a pc till tomorrow. I look forward to responding to your last post.

Thanks!

Its cool, no rush. I'll be happy to read it tomorrow then.

 

[cupid dave]

Could you show us the DNA information that is lost?
For example, could you pull up the sequences and show how Modern Dogs have lost information when compared to ancestral wolves?

Actually, could you possibly define what you mean by information? IS it nucleotide sequences? Genes? Proteins?

Could you also site where evolution makes the claim that new information is created? As far as I'm aware all Evolution states is that the most adapted organisms in an enviroment are the most likely to survive to breed. Is it possible you are confusing Evoltuion with Genetics

What seems implied by the ToE is that new abilities appear as the consequence of evolution.

These abilities allow for better and improved adaptation to the environment confronting the organism.
In some cases, trait dominance is all that has appeared to have taken place.

An example of this is that in Modern Homo sapiens,dominance for sexual prudence is contrast with the recessive Neanderthal genes for bi-sexual/sexual promiscuity so notable in the bono-apes.

Another example pretains to that fusion that separated our species from the apes back 7 million years ago, wherein intelligence was dramatically affected, that is, altered as a result of the fusion, regardless of whether "information" was lost or increased as is being implied here.

 

[stovebolts]

Found some time!

Actually, Asyn will depending on the answers in Genesis article he or she is trying to peddle that week.

Gotcha. Let me rephrase then. "I wont deny natural selection or mutations."

However, what you won't find is a fox turning into a cat or any other family.

Of course, because the species that split into Felidea and Canidea comes from a single ancestral family and modern cats and Dogs didn't exist during this split. Modern cats and dogs are way to far from each other to copulate at this point

Do you have evidence that both the cat and dog came from the same family? This is what I found on Wikipedia.

The Canidae (pron.: /ˈkænɨdiː/) [2] are the biological family of carnivorous and omnivorous mammals that includes domestic dogs, wolves, foxes, jackals, coyotes, and many other lesser known extant and extinct dog-like mammals. A member of this family is called a canid (/ˈkeɪnɨd/). The Canidae family is divided into two tribes: Canini (related to wolves) and Vulpini (related to foxes). The two species of the basal Caninae are more primitive and do not fit into either tribe.

Fact is, the fox is in the dog family and the only thing it will ever "evolve" into is a different species of dog.

Actually Foxes aren't dogs at all. They belong to the family Canidea. Wolves also belong to the family Canidea but Foxes and wolves share different genus. A Fox is part of the Vulpes genus while Wolves and Dogs are part of the Canis gensu.

LOL, ok, well move it up a notch. My point was a generic point lol, but I'm sure you got my point lol. But to clarify, the fox falls under the Canidae Family. From within the Canidae Family, it falls under the Vulpini "tribe" aka genus. As such, it will never produce offspring from any other genus. How's that? lol

True, the dna information is arranged differently, but if you map out the dna, it looses dna information through natural selection and mutation.

Could you show us the DNA information that is lost? For example, could you pull up the sequences and show how Modern Dogs have lost information when compared to ancestral wolves?

I don't have the dna records, and if I did I wouldn't be able to read them anyway lol. But as far as showing how DNA information is lost, you made my point earlier when you said, "Modern cats and dogs are way to far from each other to copulate at this point". If both Cats and Dogs came from the same family (Canidae), then what we see is both natural selection and utations that result in a loss of information. If all the DNA information was intact between genus, then it would be possible to reconstruct the dna of a cat and produce a dog. The fact that Natural Selection and mutations shows different genus that drift further from it's origen is self evident don't you think? That being said, I'm sure if I searched hard enough I could find something for you. Do you really want me to find Dna sequencing for you?

Actually, could you possibly define what you mean by information? IS it nucleotide sequences? Genes? Proteins?

Could you also site where evolution makes the claim that new information is created? As far as I'm aware all Evolution states is that the most adapted organisms in an enviroment are the most likely to survive to breed. Is it possible you are confusing Evoltuion with Genetics.

Here
is a quick and simple answer.

*****************************************************

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/ee/natural-selection-vs-evolution

Using the genes A, B, and C as examples of recessive/dominant traits in dogs, if an AaBbCc male were to mate with an AaBbCc female, there are 27 different combinations (AABBCC . . . aabbcc) possible in the offspring. If these three genes coded for fur characteristics, we would get dogs with many types of fur—from long and thick to short and thin. As these dogs migrated around the globe after the Flood, they encountered different climates. Those that were better suited to the environment of the cold North survived and passed on the genes for long, thick fur. The opposite was true in the warmer climates. Natural selection is a key component of the explanation of events following the Flood that led to the world we now see.

*****************************************************

As far as evolution, my son and I were watching the History Channel a few months ago (The history of us) or something like that and according to evolution, we started out as single cells, then looked like worms, then fish etc etc etc. For something to evolve it has to have the initial dna information to construct and build off. Observational science shows that as animals "evolve", they loose dna instructions. Do you know how complex the dna structure is to design a feather? Yet we are to believe we started as a single cell or before that, nothing?

 

[Asyncritus]

I don't know where all this tripe comes from CD.

It is quite simply hopeless nonsense. Go look up Crick, Hoyle and anybody else of any reputation who talks about abiogenesis. You'll find that Pasteur's work has never been refuted, and life just does not, CANNOT, arise from non-living matter.

The palaeontologists agree that there sre no real connections btween the major groups. They just appear fully formed in the geological record.

So where do you go from there?