So... Creation or Evolution?

[whois]

Why would a surgeon's perspective matter?

because this particular surgeon puts forth some good points.
why would pasteurs or mendels or jenners opinion matter?
they either didn't agree with darwin or never needed evolution for their work.

I actually do work in biomedical research, and my perspective is that evolutionary biology is crucial for a lot of what we do.

i honestly think that "evolution" should be relegated to an historical aspect instead of current research.
in that vein, evolution will never be needed . . . for anything.
so, in that vein, saying evolution is some kind of "integrating" factor simply isn't true.

 

[whois]

Have you read the entire article you're quoting? What's being offered here is a hypothesis, a hypothesis that is then largely rejected in the rest of the article. E.g. "Whatever timescale this change in body plan characters occurred on, it suggests that body plans of metazoan phyla were not formed once then canalized, but were able to evolve in stepwise fashion from one body plan to another. Animal body plans are therefore not immutable."

yes, i have read the entire article, including the last sentence.
please post that sentence if you quote this post.

 

[whois]

Darwin explained the discontinuous nature of the fossil record almost 150 years ago.

yes, and according to benton in 2000 the record is reasonably reliable.
modern research cannot explain what the record shows.
the record simply does not show accumulating changes, and it isn't the fault of an imperfect record.

 

[Loudmouth]

yes, and according to benton in 2000 the record is reasonably reliable.

What makes it reliable?

modern research cannot explain what the record shows.

Why not?

the record simply does not show accumulating changes, and it isn't the fault of an imperfect record.

According to who? Not Ayala, that is for sure.

 

[whois]

What makes it reliable?

you have to ask benton, he did the research

Why not?

you need to ask the people that is doing this research.

According to who? Not Ayala, that is for sure.

according to the people that did the research.

 

[bhsmte]

you have to ask benton, he did the research

you need to ask the people that is doing this research.

according to the people that did the research.

You just post this stuff and have no opinion on what it says?

 

[Ada Lovelace]

This thread has helped me change my view a little bit, while I cannot make a clear statemenet about my opinion about this particulary subject, I now know that evolution is not contradictory to my faith or the catholic one. After all, who really knows? It is not a matter of life and death to me, after all

Yep, evolution is not contradictory to your faith. Or mine. I'm not very knowledgable about Eastern Orthodoxy faith, but I believe they view evolution as compatible with their tenets, as does the Catholic church and many Protestant denominations. Contrary to some zealous statements on here acceptance of evolution doesn't supplant belief and love for God.

There are several articles about Pope Francis's statements of support for evolution and the Big Bang, but this is one from Catholic News:
Pope: Evolution, Big Bang do not push aside God, who set it in motion

And this is a perspective you might find interesting:
Christian Faith Requires Accepting Evolution | Jonathan Dudley

 

[sfs]

yes, i have read the entire article,

Then why did you quote a hypothesis raised in the article as if it argued against evolution, when the same article demolishes the hypothesis? (Not the it actually does argue against evolution; at most it argues against a narrow version of the neo-Darwinian synthesis, which has already been modified in multiple ways.)

including the last sentence.
please post that sentence if you quote this post.

The last sentence is talking about a different issue than your previous quotation, the one I responded to.

 

[sfs]

because this particular surgeon puts forth some good points.

How could you possibly know whether his points are good or not, if you're not involved in biomedical research yourself?

why would pasteurs or mendels or jenners opinion matter?
they either didn't agree with darwin or never needed evolution for their work.

Um, yes. Do you have a point? Were any of them doing biomedical research in the 21st century?

i honestly think that "evolution" should be relegated to an historical aspect instead of current research.
in that vein, evolution will never be needed . . . for anything.
so, in that vein, saying evolution is some kind of "integrating" factor simply isn't true.

Look, I just told you that we use evolution all the time in our research. Are you telling me (again) that I'm lying? Or are you simply accusing me of not knowing the first thing about my own job? Either way, your recurrent bouts of arrogance are a little annoying. Where the heck do you get the nerve to tell me how I do my work?

 

[whois]

Then why did you quote a hypothesis raised in the article as if it argued against evolution, when the same article demolishes the hypothesis? (Not the it actually does argue against evolution; at most it argues against a narrow version of the neo-Darwinian synthesis, which has already been modified in multiple ways.)
​

simple.
the issue remains unresolved, and should not be dismissed (like you are trying to do)

It may be that future work reveals an as yet unknown mechanism for such a dramatic deceleration in molecular rates that could account for the apparently deep molecular divergence between phyla. But until such a mechanism is uncovered, it will be difficult to reconcile the molecular data to a Cambrian explosion of all animal phyla. The bottom line is that the molecular data need to be explained, not dismissed—if the deep molecular divergences were not produced by a long Precambrian history of metazoan lineages, then they must have been produced by some other process. The imperfections of the fossil record—such as temporal gaps in preservation, taxon bias and patchy geographical representation—do not make the fossil record worthless, but they do complicate the interpretation of palaeontological data. Similarly, variation in rates of molecular evolution, imprecision of date estimates, and variation between different genes and taxa do not make the molecular data useless, but they do illustrate the danger of a simplistic interpretation of molecular distances. Molecular data must be telling us something about metazoan evolution, whether or not current molecular date estimates are correct. Much work remains to be done to arrive at an adequate explanation of the deep molecular divergence between animal phyla.
​

-ibid.

The last sentence is talking about a different issue than your previous quotation, the one I responded to.
​

i've included it above, and it's talking about the very thing i brought up.

 

[whois]

How could you possibly know whether his points are good or not, if you're not involved in biomedical research yourself?

are you saying pasteur and mendels work wasn't ground breaking?

Um, yes. Do you have a point? Were any of them doing biomedical research in the 21st century?

yes, i have a point.
evolution is not some kind of "grand unification" theory.
this NOT to say biomed isn't important

Look, I just told you that we use evolution all the time in our research. Are you telling me (again) that I'm lying? Or are you simply accusing me of not knowing the first thing about my own job? Either way, your recurrent bouts of arrogance are a little annoying. Where the heck do you get the nerve to tell me how I do my work?

i don't see how modern biomed research affects an historical process.
evolution is basically a historical process, a record if you will.
if your work applies to evolution, then you are specifically doing research for evolution.

 

[whois]

i can't seem to find any papers from benton in 2000
here's one from 1998:
palaeo.gly.bris.ac.uk/Essays/vertfr/

a nature source i have on my hard drive says this:

The Nature article cites a prior study that showed only 3.8% of assumed primate fossil species were represented by actually discovered fossils! When ‘modern’ primates were examined the study showed only 3.4% had been discovered.[9] The effect on how we view origins and common descent was graphically demonstrated by a hypothetical ancestral tree, shown below, that models a slightly smaller 3% sampling rate.[10] The dotted overall shape depicts a standard ‘descent from a common ancestor’, with the common ancestor being at the bottom and the modern living species being at the top. The dotted lines representing the assumed, but not yet found species.

 

[dad]

There are several articles about Pope Francis's statements of support for evolution and the Big Bang, but this is one from Catholic News:
Pope: Evolution, Big Bang do not push aside God, who set it in motion

And this is a perspective you might find interesting:
Christian Faith Requires Accepting Evolution[bless and do not curse]|[bless and do not curse]Jonathan Dudley

None from Jesus who created all things, though. He di not set Adam in motion, He formed him from the dust of this earth. He did not set the stars or some hot speck in motion before the earth, the world was created before the moon and stars.

 

[whois]

In 1943, published in a paper entitled “Mutations of Bacteria from Virus Sensitivity to Virus Resistance,” microbiologist Salvador Luria, biophysicist Max Delbrück, and bacteriologist and geneticist Alfred Hershey discovered that mutations occur at a constant rate. In 1969, they were awarded the Nobel Prize in Physiology and Medicine “for their discoveries concerning the replication mechanism and genetic structure of virus.”

The Luria-Delbrück Experiment opened the question, are mutations inherent to microbes for the purpose of adaption to rapidly changinging environments and not for evolution? While microbe resistance through mutation is a logical mechanism for evolution, the reality is the bacteria have remained a bacteria and the virus has remained a virus. Preexistent genetic variants determine the range of mutations. Pierre-Paul Grassé, president of the French Academy of Sciences, observed, “bacteria, the study of which has formed a great part of the foundation of genetics and molecular biology … stabilized a billion years ago.”​

The question is whether the mutations are the “raw material for evolution” or nature’s means for the microbes to adapt to the environment. In a 2009 review article by entitled “Darwinian evolution in the light of genomics”, published in Nucleic Acid Research, Eugene V Koonin concluded, “There is no consistent tendency of evolution towards increased genomic complexity” through mutation as expected with current evolutionary theories. Mechanisms of evolution remain beyond any known natural law.​

Reflecting on the role of mutations, Grassé questioned, “What is the use of their unceasing mutations if they do not change?” Grassé concludes, “the mutations of bacteria and viruses are merely hereditary fluctuations around a median position; a swing to the right, a swing to the left, but no final evolutionary effect.” Microbes undergo constant mutations, but do not evolve – mutation stasis.
Eugene V Koonin Archives - Richard William Nelson
​

 

[dad]

Of course, this all comes from a story that when taken literally just doesn't harmonize with what we're learning about what happens when we wear jeans at rock festivals.

It may not harmonize in the minds of some men who believed man over God. In a case like that they should have just taken it by faith. It harmonizes perfectly in my mind because I looked into it.

I came. I saw. I conquered.

 

[sfs]

Then why did you quote a hypothesis raised in the article as if it argued against evolution, when the same article demolishes the hypothesis? (Not the it actually does argue against evolution; at most it argues against a narrow version of the neo-Darwinian synthesis, which has already been modified in multiple ways.)
​

simple.
the issue remains unresolved, and should not be dismissed (like you are trying to do)

It may be that future work reveals an as yet unknown mechanism for such a dramatic deceleration in molecular rates that could account for the apparently deep molecular divergence between phyla. But until such a mechanism is uncovered, it will be difficult to reconcile the molecular data to a Cambrian explosion of all animal phyla. The bottom line is that the molecular data need to be explained, not dismissed—if the deep molecular divergences were not produced by a long Precambrian history of metazoan lineages, then they must have been produced by some other process. The imperfections of the fossil record—such as temporal gaps in preservation, taxon bias and patchy geographical representation—do not make the fossil record worthless, but they do complicate the interpretation of palaeontological data. Similarly, variation in rates of molecular evolution, imprecision of date estimates, and variation between different genes and taxa do not make the molecular data useless, but they do illustrate the danger of a simplistic interpretation of molecular distances. Molecular data must be telling us something about metazoan evolution, whether or not current molecular date estimates are correct. Much work remains to be done to arrive at an adequate explanation of the deep molecular divergence between animal phyla.
​

-ibid.

The last sentence is talking about a different issue than your previous quotation, the one I responded to.
​

i've included it above, and it's talking about the very thing i brought up.

The issue that's unresolved is the one described here: the disagreement between the fossil record and molecular methods about when the animal phyla first arose. The hypothesis you introduced earlier -- the one I responded to -- was that animal phyla, and their body plans, were immutable, and could not have evolved into one another. That hypothesis is a different issue that the dating question, and that question has been resolved, at least according to this paper.

 

[sfs]

are you saying pasteur and mendels work wasn't ground breaking?

No. Had I wanted to say that, I would have said that. I am saying that a surgeon is not an expert on biomedical research. Mendel and Pasteur were indeed ground-breaking -- as were Galileo and Aristotle. None of which tells us anything about how useful evolution is to contemporary biomedical research.

i don't see how modern biomed research affects an historical process.
evolution is basically a historical process, a record if you will.

(I assume you mean you don't see how a historical process affects biomed research; what you actually wrote makes no sense.) Of course you don't see it; there's no reason you should see it. What's so impressive is how you leap from "I don't see how evolution affects biomed research" to "Evolution couldn't possibly affect biomed research" when you don't know anything about biomedical research.

if your work applies to evolution, then you are specifically doing research for evolution.

Exactly how many of my papers have you read, that you feel qualified to tell me what I'm doing research on? Has it occurred to you to ask?

 

[whois]

None of which tells us anything about how useful evolution is to contemporary biomedical research.

biomolecular research is indeed shedding light on the subject.
it persuaded eugene koonin to make his remarks.

Exactly how many of my papers have you read, that you feel qualified to tell me what I'm doing research on? Has it occurred to you to ask?

i have read none of your papers to my knowledge.

 

[James Is Back]

Mod Hat On


Thread closed for staff review.


Mod Hat Off
​

 

[FreeinChrist]

MOD HAT

This thread has undergone a clean up. As a reminder, the site rules include these:

Blasphemy
It is considered blasphemy to insult or mock Christianity or any part of the Trinity-Father (God), Son (Jesus) and the Holy Spirit. Honest debate about the nature of God and Christian Theology is allowed, but derogatory remarks are not.

Flaming and Goading
● Please treat all members with respect and courtesy through civil dialogue.
● Do not attack another member's character or actions in any way, address only the content of their post and not the member personally.
● NO Goading. This includes images, cartoons, or smileys clearly meant to goad.


Statement of Purpose and Off-Topic
Read and abide by each forum's Statement of Purpose; Statement of Purpose threads are sticky threads located at the top of the forum's page. Not all forums have a Statement of Purpose thread. Start threads that are relevant to that forum's stated purpose. Submit replies that are relevant to the topic of discussion.


Disruptive Behavior, Campaigning, Staff Disciplinary Action
Maintain the peace and harmony of CF by not rehashing alleged grievances or disputes, publicly complaining about posts, threads, Christian Forums or its staff. Attempting to undermine these rules or policies via campaigns, petitions, or protests is not allowed. Please do not publicly discuss reported posts or staff actions taken on yourself or other members. Use the Member Services Center to submit questions and complaints about staff disciplinary actions or rules.

In other words, stay civil, be respectful, stay on topic and do not bring up disagreements from other threads.


Hesitantly reopening.
​