Evolution

[Theoketos]

[url="http://www.cin.org/users/james/files/whatsaid.htm"]http://www.cin.org/users/james/files/whatsaid.htm[/url]


All you need to know.

[Iacobus]

[quote name='Theoketos' date='Aug 27 2004, 07:50 PM'] [url="http://www.cin.org/users/james/files/whatsaid.htm"]http://www.cin.org/users/james/files/whatsaid.htm[/url]


All you need to know. [/quote]
We both had that site on our "reading" list. It was pretty good. But I don't think it explains what evolution is (as I rember the site) which may or may not have been M's orginal question.

[Oik]

Iacobus, I actually do understand evolution, but I reject the terminology as biased and an attempt by scientists to debunk religion. I don't believe science was meant for that, however, evolution theory is.

[quote]If organisms die from not being able to compete for the finite matter than... [/quote] God's hand in nature is proved, not natural selection. Why do species decline or disappear, is it random selcetion decided by a force with no purpose and chance (which is what NS is). No, it is God, or human beings who hunt or pollute.
[quote]Because they didn't live to reproudce, they were eaten by the birds and other predators.[/quote] Which still doesn't prove that a randomly selective "force" with no purpose determines by chance.
[quote]A mutation does not have to negativly affect the organism.[/quote]
Agreed, however, the way that Evolution purposes mutation is absurd. To suppose that a species is changed while others are not for no other reason than to adapt to enviroment, might be okay. This is not so, though. Evolution supposes that one species actually becomes another species simply because other species are not fit. The reason this is a theory is that there is not explanation as to why species just appear (hmm...God maybe).
[quote]You just showed your misunderstanding of evolution.[/quote] I just showed my theory that evolution is wrong.

The question is not whether God changed them, but rather did, they change them selves also? (one of my fav movies)

No, they don't change themselves.
[quote]Their gentic code is simlar but mutated. Thereby causing the creation of varations.[/quote]
No, their genetic code is created by God to possess certain possibilities, therfore, somethings happen while others don't. Meanwhile, when a feature arises that we think to be unfamiliar or uncommon, we leap for joy that a species has mutated and that over time these mutations become evolution, aka total bunk.

As far as genetics are concerned, we don't understand the full capacity of species and their potential, so what I am proposing is that everything we see as unfamiliar was already possible for that species. The ability of a man to grow longer hair to survie in a cold enviroment proves that men possess the capacity to do so when necessary. It does not prove that man mutates to adapt to the enviroment.

Things appear to chgange, but if they are created with the potential and capacity to do so, then what is the big deal? Example. What if a catipeller in South America goes into a cocoon, but comes out as a spider? I'm sure the evolutionists would shout evolution, evolution. However, if God created that species to metamophisis into a spider every thousand years, why is that evolution. Nature didn't select anything, nothing Random involved.

This is how I very evolution. We say, things change! Well, actually they are ordained to do what they do and nothing escapes God's eye or Will.

[Thy Geekdom Come]

I don't agree that we know that evolution is wrong. Pope John Paul II himself has upheld the possibility that it is true and has stated that it does not conflict with theology.

I think a part of your rationale, Oik, is that you believe God is in control of all. That He is. I believe that as long as it doesn't violate free will, God works intimately withing every facet of creation.

The fact is that what we see as a genetic mutation giving an advantage for survival could be some genetic mutation placed by the hand of God, chances are, in fact, that it is.

[quote] Which still doesn't prove that a randomly selective "force" with no purpose determines by chance.[/quote]

Whether it is random or not depends on factors we cannot determine. However, the secular understanding and the semi-deistic understanding would say that radom mutations lead to certain advantages which would allow a species to live long enough to reproduce and pass on that mutation. That, from a purely human perspective, at least appears to be a random process. God could very well be behind it.

[quote]Agreed, however, the way that Evolution purposes mutation is absurd. To suppose that a species is changed while others are not for no other reason than to adapt to enviroment, might be okay. This is not so, though. Evolution supposes that one species actually becomes another species simply because other species are not fit. The reason this is a theory is that there is not explanation as to why species just appear (hmm...God maybe). [/quote]

The species is not changed for any purpose. There is no ends in mind for evolution. There is an at least seemingly random mutation. That can be good or bad. If it is good, then the animal with the mutation will be have an advantage in its given environment, which will allow it to live long enough to pass on its genes. The genetics to not mutate in accordance with the environment. Rather, they mutate randomly and some of those mutations give an advantage which may be passed on. Furthermore, it is not that other species are unfit so much as it is that certain species with beneficial adaptations are more able to survive.

Genetic mutations do happen. That's what cancer is. That's what explains the little German infant born recently who can hold a seven lbs. weight out at arms length for a decent amount of time (something most adults can't do).

[quote]No, they don't change themselves.[/quote]

Well of course not, then it wouldn't be random. The scientists wouldn't even say that it was.

[quote]No, their genetic code is created by God to possess certain possibilities, therfore, somethings happen while others don't. Meanwhile, when a feature arises that we think to be unfamiliar or uncommon, we leap for joy that a species has mutated and that over time these mutations become evolution, aka total bunk.[/quote]

Nice semantics.

It is not unreasonable that believe that God is causing changes. It is also not unreasonable that we term these changes as [i]mutations[/i]. That is simply a matter of terminology.

[quote]What if a catipeller in South America goes into a cocoon, but comes out as a spider? I'm sure the evolutionists would shout evolution, evolution. However, if God created that species to metamophisis into a spider every thousand years, why is that evolution. Nature didn't select anything, nothing Random involved.[/quote]

That's correct, but that is a huge change. Before such a thing could be considered evolution it would have to happen through at least several generations (i.e. those genes would have to get passed on). The thing is, we can read DNA now. We can tell by DNA the difference between a caterpillar/butterfly and some sort of caterpillar/spider hybrid.

I wish to share with you a meditation I came up with some years ago on the separation between science and religion. I should say that I don't think a separation is proper.

Imagine a Punch and Judy show. This is one of those shows with two hand puppets, one male, one female, who always beat up on one another. As you are watching this show, you begin to contemplate what is going on here. There are two puppets beating each other to pulp. The secularist sees two puppets magically moving enough to kill one another. The zealot sees two bare hands fighting. The religious scientist sees two hands wearing two puppet hand covers. Which view is most informed and wise?

[Oik]

[quote]I don't agree that we know that evolution is wrong.[/quote]I am trying to show that evolution goes against God. Therefore, I am trying to show it is wrong. I do not claim that the Church has taken a stand on the matter, as I know that she has not. Therefore, it [b]is not[/b] wrong, currently to believe in evolution, as the Church has explained. Keep in mind that believing that the sun revolved around the Earth was okay to believe once.
[quote]God could very well be behind it.[/quote] Not only am I saying God is behind it, but I am saying that God commands and is involved in every single decision that has and everwill be made, every effect is a direct result of God, The Cause. Essentially, what I am rejecting is the notion that (god-involved) evolution teaches, which is that God designed things to work a certain way and then he lets them play out. I believe God is involved in every single instance, not just beginning and end or beginning and end with certain times of involvement.
[quote]If it is good, then the animal with the mutation will be have an advantage in its given environment[/quote] This is why I do not like evolutionary theory. It proposes, essentially that a force with no purpose randomly chooses and the result is a change with a specific purpose, or the idea that unintelligence randomly creates intelligence (this is of course not including deistic (sp) evolution).
[quote]That's what cancer is.[/quote]Right, except all people are born with the cancer gene. Cancer is then triggered by something, or lies dormate, never activated. We already have the capacity for Cancer, it not just something that happens.
[quote]Nice semantics. [/quote] Actually, evolutionary terminology is semantics. This is what I am trying to show. IE, Iacobus pointed out that the word mutation means change. Agreed, however, evolution relies on the idea that mutations advance current species and also cause the development of one species into another. That makes mutatution a tool for rooting out the "geneticly inferior" to advance the "geneticly superior" and at times create new species, aka biased.
[quote]The secularist sees two puppets magically moving enough to kill one another. The zealot sees two bare hands fighting. The religious scientist sees two hands wearing two puppet hand covers. Which view is most informed and wise? [/quote] The Truth is my opinion and will change when more Truth is offered. The answer is that they are all right. Why? They all see the different aspects.True Myth. The same thing is true with any given individual. I see you as being a certain way and you see yourself a certain way. In Truth, you are both, how you perceive yourself and how others perceive you. The only way to show who you really are is the make a myth about yourself, however this myth is True. You can not think my thoughts so I have to show you what I am. Of course God sees all so His perspective is the True perspective.

Edited August 28, 2004 by Oik

[hopeful1]

all i know is that one day, when i have my own car (which i've paid for myself!) I wanna put a Jesus fish on one side of the bumper and a darwin fish on the other and have a lisence plate that says "WHAT?"


should make for an intresting conversation

[toledo_jesus]

well I agree, whatever happened, God is responsible. It doesn't matter a whit to me how He chose to create me, only that He did.

[Iacobus]

[quote name='hopeful1' date='Aug 28 2004, 10:43 PM'] all i know is that one day, when i have my own car (which i've paid for myself!) I wanna put a Jesus fish on one side of the bumper and a darwin fish on the other and have a lisence plate that says "WHAT?"


should make for an intresting conversation [/quote]
Once I saw a car with a Jesus Fish eating a Darwin fish. All of the evols died laughing. If the Jesus fish ate teh Darwin fish there would be more Jesus fish in the next generation (ie NS). It was self defating. LOL!

toledo_jesus, I concur.

[hopeful1]

[quote name='Iacobus' date='Aug 29 2004, 12:32 AM'] Once I saw a car with a Jesus Fish eating a Darwin fish. All of the evols died laughing. If the Jesus fish ate teh Darwin fish there would be more Jesus fish in the next generation (ie NS). It was self defating. LOL!

toledo_jesus, I concur. [/quote]
Saw that one too! I think a friend of mine actually has that one on his car.

[Crusader_4]

There was a very good presentation on the net from what i believe was the Univeristy of Edmonton on the dichotomy of Evolution and Theism i will find it.....(took me a good 10 minutes) so you better watch it ahhaha!!! here it is : [url="http://www.ualberta.ca/~dlamoure/beyond.html"]http://www.ualberta.ca/~dlamoure/beyond.html[/url]

[Sanvean]

*sighs*

As a third year biology major, with a concentration in the field of Ecology & Evolutionary Science, I can't help but cringe whenever someone goes on about how wrong the theory of evolution is. Tell me, which one? There are thousands.

A couple of comments... Raphael and Iacobus... so far, great explanations.

Now, I apologize if this is overly technical... I'm sometimes not so good at translating things clearly into laymans terms, and am never sure what level of study someone has obtained in biology.

Oik:

[quote]Right, except all people are born with the cancer gene. Cancer is then triggered by something, or lies dormate, never activated. We already have the capacity for Cancer, it not just something that happens. [/quote]

Ok. That's a pretty big misconception of what cancer is. There is no one cancer gene. The explanation I give you here is only from the notes I have from my Honours Biochem, Honours Genetics, and Honours Cell Biology credits. My text books, which would make this infinitely easier, are sadly all in London.

You are right, everybody has the genes that can sometimes lead to cancer. However, these genes are not "cancer genes". In fact, we need those genes to survive. It is only when we have a mutation in those genes that cancer can happen. In general, there are two classes of genes in which a mutation can lead to cancer:

[b]1. Oncogenes[/b]

Cells reproduce by mitosis, as you probably know. Now, normal cells don't start to divide in culture unless one or more growth factors are present. These growth factors bind to a receptor on the surface of the cell. This triggers a cascade of signaling events inside the cell. Many of these steps involve kinases(enzymes that hook up phosphate groups with other proteins).

Typically, phosphorylation activates the protein and transfers the signal into the nucleus. Here, phosphorylation activates something called transcription factors, which bing to promoters and enhancers in DNA. This turns on their associated genes.

Some of these turned on genes encode other transcription factors. Others, however, encode cyclins that prepare the cell to undergo mitosis.

A gene that participates in any of the above steps can become an oncogene if:
a) They become mutated in such a way as to cause their product to become constantly active(that is, active even without a signal).
b) They produce their product in excess(perhaps because their promotor or enhancer has become mutated).

A single oncogenes does not cause cancer.

However, they increase the rate of mitosis in a cell. Because dividing cells are at an increased risk of mutation, a clone of actively dividing cells can yield cells with multiple oncogenes.

This causes the cell to lose all control over its mitosis, and become well along the path to cancer.

[b]2. Tumour Supressor Genes[/b]

These genes code for protein products that inhibit mitosis. Tumour supressor genes are like antioncogenes. So, while an oncogene is like a permanent "On" switch in a cell, a tumor supressor gene is a cell's "off switch" for mitosis.

A variety of mutations can cause tumour supressor genes to lose their effect. This causes the cell to lose its ability to turn off mitosis. Retinoblastoma is an example of a cancer caused by an error in tumour supressor genes.

Anyway, I could go on... it's a massive topic, but I won't. The point is, there is no gene that singlehandedly causes cancer(although there are various genes that can cause a predisposition to cancer).

-Veronica

Edited August 29, 2004 by Sanvean

[cmotherofpirl]

explain away.... its fascinating!

[Oik]

[quote]Ok. That's a pretty big misconception of what cancer is.[/quote] It's more of a generalazation then misconception. I am not a friggin biology major, Gosh! (read: Napoleon dynamite language, intended to be funny)

[quote]Now, I apologize if this is overly technical... I'm sometimes not so good at translating things clearly into laymans terms,[/quote] That's how theologians feel too.
[quote]You are right, everybody has the genes that can sometimes lead to cancer.[/quote] Right, right.
[quote]A single oncogenes does not cause cancer.[/quote]Right, right.
[quote]The point is, there is no gene that singlehandedly causes cancer(although there are various genes that can cause a predisposition to cancer).[/quote]Right. I think though, if you'll read into my statements in this topic you'll soon realize that I am approaching things from a theological standpoint. Science can not [i]conclusively[/i] account for Faith and God, neither does Philosophy. Only Theology accomplishes this.

Essentially, Evolution is the Law and theories that account for the existantce of mankind and other speices. However, I already have an account, that is the existance of God. Science changes, God does not.

Bottom line is that if (the theory of) evolution shows that decisions are made in a predetermined system, then it is bunk. I don't believe that God created a system and then left it to play out with out his involvement. I don't think science and religion are incompatible, I think that Religion ( that is the True Religion, Catholicism) is superior to science. Science helps explain the world around us, but it is limited to good ideas and facts. Facts change, Truth is eternal. Science books, laws, and theories are factual. The Bible and the laws of God are eternal

[quote]well I agree, whatever happened, God is responsible.[/quote] I agree.

[Oik]

I am not a creationalist either.

[Oik]

[quote]I can't help but cringe whenever someone goes on about how wrong the theory of evolution is. Tell me, which one? There are thousands.[/quote] All of them are wrong.