The Myth of Darwinian Evolution

[shernren]

I have posted dozens of discussions of the Chimpanzee Genome paper only to find that evolutionists still aren't clear on what the level of divergence is when reduced to a ratio.

You possess 50 megabases in your genome that your mother doesn't have. Your mother possesses 150 megabases in her genome that you don't have.

That makes for a total difference of 200 megabases, which out of a total 3 billion megabases gives a 6.6% divergence between you and your mother.

Your methodology for calculating divergence would make you and your mother different species - and you think we aren't clear on genetic divergence?

Try finishing this thread before you start yet another one full of the same random errors.

 

[shernren]

I did a quick google for: catholic church list of anathemas
The first hit gives a handy list you might want to look over, the site itself looks pretty rabid, but the quotes look genuine. You might want to have a look over them and see which one apply to you the next time you want to anathematise people over evolution or Original Sin.

For what it's worth, you're anathema if you quote the Bible in English, or buy it without the Apocrypha.

And it has thought it meet that a list of the sacred books be inserted in this decree, lest a doubt may arise in any one's mind, which are the books that are received by this Synod. They are as set down here below:

Of the Old Testament: the five books of Moses, to wit, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy; Josue, Judges, Ruth, four books of Kings, two of Paralipomenon, the first book of Esdras, and the second which is entitled Nehemias; Tobias, Judith, Esther, Job, the Davidical Psalter, consisting of a hundred and fifty psalms; the Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, the Canticle of Canticles, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Isaias, Jeremias, with Baruch; Ezechiel, Daniel; the twelve minor prophets, to wit, Osee, Joel, Amos, Abdias, Jonas, Micheas, Nahum, Habacuc, Sophonias, Aggaeus, Zacharias, Malachias; two books of the Machabees, the first and the second.

Of the New Testament: the four Gospels, according to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John; the Acts of the Apostles written by Luke the Evangelist; fourteen epistles of Paul the apostle, (one) to the Romans, two to the Corinthians, (one) to the Galatians, to the Ephesians, to the Philippians, to the Colossians, two to the Thessalonians, two to Timothy, (one) to Titus, to Philemon, to the Hebrews; two of Peter the apostle, three of John the apostle, one of the apostle James, one of Jude the apostle, and the Apocalypse of John the apostle.

But if any one receive not, as sacred and canonical, the said books entire with all their parts, as they have been used to be read in the Catholic Church, and as they are contained in the old Latin vulgate edition; and knowingly and deliberately contemn the traditions aforesaid; let him be anathema.
​

Time to get yourself a Latin refresher mark, you wouldn't want to be anathematized by the Council of Trent now would you?

 

[juvenissun]

I think animals evolved and then God created man.

This is acceptable to me in theology. However, I still don't think it is true.

Evolution is too big an idea and it simply can not be a scientific fact. A good researcher may give ONE example, which "strongly suggests" that evolution is a possible process. But that is the best we can do. Even we could have one example which actually "prove" the evolution process. The example would still be "A" example. And the knowledge can not be applied to all (millions of) other cases in the animal world. There will always be million times more questions than answers.

In addition to this, there is another critical problem of time.

 

[walkingxshadow]

there is no myth. darwinian evolution is a thing. it is a well documented processed backed and supported by the continued study of genetic machinery and inheritance. genetics and darwinian evolution together create a beautiful picture of change over time. evolution is more of the inheritance and genetics/molecular biology are the parts that show how it happens.

 

[walkingxshadow]

oh and by thte way there are ERV's in the human genome. in humans they are generally referred to as HERV's. we just have better machinery that controls the transposable elements(easiest way to explain transposons/human endogenous retro viruses) so that they only show under extreme conditions such as cancer when your genetic machinery had been hijacked by the cancer.

 

[Jack544]

We have observed evolution. Macro evolution is simply micro evolution over a long period of time.

This is acceptable to me in theology. However, I still don't think it is true.

Evolution is too big an idea and it simply can not be a scientific fact. A good researcher may give ONE example, which "strongly suggests" that evolution is a possible process. But that is the best we can do. Even we could have one example which actually "prove" the evolution process. The example would still be "A" example. And the knowledge can not be applied to all (millions of) other cases in the animal world. There will always be million times more questions than answers.

In addition to this, there is another critical problem of time.

 

[sfs]

Evolution is too big an idea and it simply can not be a scientific fact.

How would you know? Are you claiming to be an expert in biology or genetics?

 

[thephilosophizer]

Well the thing is I have debated them a lot, the fact is that most of them can't keep their facts straight. For some reason they think they are smarter and better informed then creationists, even when they are not.

Anyway, your right, I don't think they know what they are trampling under their feet.

Grace and peace,
Mark

Sorry, my irony meter was beeping, and I needed to find the source. Anyway, carry on.

 

[shernren]

Sorry, my irony meter was beeping, and I needed to find the source. Anyway, carry on.

That's a remarkably robust irony meter. Where do you buy yours?

I've stopped using them. The last time I tried one on CF.com, the explosion sent me looking for a new house.

 

[juvenissun]

How would you know? Are you claiming to be an expert in biology or genetics?

I don't know. But I can see.

You know something about human evolution. But you are still exploring, and there is probably no end to it. And you probably does not know much about dinosaurs (have you ever looked any of their genes?).

Would the example of you fit what I said?

 

[juvenissun]

We have observed evolution. Macro evolution is simply micro evolution over a long period of time.

NO.

We have observed "parts" of evolution. And the blue text is simply an idea.

 

[Jack544]

Macro evolution doesn't just happen overnight. God guides evolution.

NO.

We have observed "parts" of evolution. And the blue text is simply an idea.

 

[walkingxshadow]

dont you just love it when ppl who have no idea what they are talking about like to argue back with invalid points full of holes that they claim are perfectly reasonable. unsubscribing. peace.

 

[Jack544]

Not everyone gets it from the start. Some people take more to convince them.

 

[sfs]

I don't know. But I can see.

You know something about human evolution. But you are still exploring, and there is probably no end to it. And you probably does not know much about dinosaurs (have you ever looked any of their genes?).

Nope, we haven't looked at dino DNA. And there is still a great deal to learn about evolution, and many things will never be known. What we do know, however, is that evolution (by which I mean common descent of all life on earth from some small number of ancestral forms) is a scientific fact, in the only sense that that term means anything. It is well enough supported that we can take its truth for granted, and we do.

We don't have to look at the DNA of every extinct species to come to that conclusion. Since, by looking at their DNA, we can tell that all existing species are related by common descent, and since extinct species like dinosaurs fit neatly into the tree of life, we can ignore the possibility that they are somehow bizarre exceptions to the relationships we see everywhere else. I doubt anyone would seriously propose that birds, mammals, lizards and alligators were all descended from fish, but that dinosaurs somehow weren't.

Would the example of you fit what I said?

Fit what? We look at far more than one example of evolution. Every time we compare species, evolution smacks us in the face, and we never look at a species without seeing evidence for it. At some point, it becomes simply perverse to pretend that it isn't simply correct.

 

[juvenissun]

Nope, we haven't looked at dino DNA. And there is still a great deal to learn about evolution, and many things will never be known. What we do know, however, is that evolution (by which I mean common descent of all life on earth from some small number of ancestral forms) is a scientific fact, in the only sense that that term means anything. It is well enough supported that we can take its truth for granted, and we do.

We don't have to look at the DNA of every extinct species to come to that conclusion. Since, by looking at their DNA, we can tell that all existing species are related by common descent, and since extinct species like dinosaurs fit neatly into the tree of life, we can ignore the possibility that they are somehow bizarre exceptions to the relationships we see everywhere else. I doubt anyone would seriously propose that birds, mammals, lizards and alligators were all descended from fish, but that dinosaurs somehow weren't.

Fit what? We look at far more than one example of evolution. Every time we compare species, evolution smacks us in the face, and we never look at a species without seeing evidence for it. At some point, it becomes simply perverse to pretend that it isn't simply correct.

If you are talking about human population, then I won't argue about it. Otherwise, I like to know an example of that. In particular, I wonder how could you treat this conclusion as a "fact". I really need some better education on the idea of "common ancestor". So, if you will, please use your best example to teach me some.

 

[juvenissun]

Macro evolution doesn't just happen overnight. God guides evolution.

Why not? New life form can simply pop up.

 

[Jack544]

Evidence points to the contrary.

But man did kinda pop up, God made man separate.

Why not? New life form can simply pop up.

 

[juvenissun]

Evidence points to the contrary.

But man did kinda pop up, God made man separate.

You know that the "evidences" of human evolution is not any weaker than animal evolution (but is, in fact, stronger). The only thing which positively supports that human is not an evolved product is the spiritual part of human, which can not be observed in genetics and can not be preserved in fossil record.

So, if you don't think human is evolved, then your argument on the animal evolution is rather strange.

 

[Deaver]

There are two major theories of biological evolution:

Microevolution - Unequivocally proven through numerous scientific studies. Includes concepts such as mutation, recombination, natural selection, etc.

Christians that believe in creation with ongoing evolution of the species can support microevolution.

Macroevolution - Extrapolation of microevolution to account for all changes in body designs, speciation, appearance of new phyla, etc.

For those that support macro evolution or as I like to call it “atheistic evolution”, as I believe Darwin did the answer is really simple. Evolution has become a religion. It seems that its supporters have based their personal convictions, values and above all comfortable lifestyle on this idea that we are just the product of time and chance. We are just an 'accident' and there is no God. Therefore we can do what we want and when we want it, because we are not accountable to anybody. We are our own gods and we should live life to achieve maximum pleasure.

I believe that Darwin’s theory is in crisis at best. After all, didn’t Darwin in his work "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life," 1859, p. 155. confess, "To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree."