Austiran Cardinal talks about evolution

[Heresson]

Re: Austiran Cardinal talks about evolution

Originally posted by Atahualpa


The church's ideas can be hoped to be included as alternative teachings when it has some scientific base on a God that has created humans. If they cannot provide good enough facts that sound credible, then they should reconsider. And no, some old book is definately NOT credible. We all know how much books value in the scientific world, if it's not an article of a good journal or proceedings to a good conference, the credibility is low.

Anyway it's funny to see the church and its arrogance to say what is true and what not. Still after all the years and how they failed in the past they should know better. The earth is flat as well, I guess.

Huh?
WHat do You expect? The church accepts evolution, it just points out that if it existed, it is not completely random, it is a means in the hand of God.
Believing in complete randomness is definitely against the dogmas of the church. Faith is not pseudo-science, it's You who has troubles understanding that, not the church.

[Spiffor]

Yeah, I know you acknowledge "microevolution", but your jibe with Boris was a riot nonetheless

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Last Conformist
This discussion is becoming increasingly unreal. In this context, "ID" has a fairly restricted definition; the idea that there are biological systems that cannot have evolved naturalistically, and that we therefore must presume that a "designer" at some point intervened in the development of life.

Even with that definition, I don't understand why the following statement is incompatible with ID:

Well there you go again mixing jargon. If I believe that god created the world and is omnicient, then all nature is is gods computer program following the course it was programed to do.

And of course we can even decetralize it. He just created the set up and then let things run as they will, but evolution and the natural mechanisms that it follows are still gods design.

... unless you think that the IDers believe that the external force must maintain the "design" in the same shape, and thus must keep intervening in the system once it is set up.

[Last Conformist]

Originally posted by Spiffor


Even with that definition, I don't understand why the following statement is incompatible with ID:

Well there you go again mixing jargon. If I believe that god created the world and is omnicient, then all nature is is gods computer program following the course it was programed to do.

And of course we can even decetralize it. He just created the set up and then let things run as they will, but evolution and the natural mechanisms that it follows are still gods design.

... unless you think that the IDers believe that the external force must maintain the "design" in the same shape, and thus must keep intervening in the system once it is set up.

Hm. I suppose it could be compatible with ID if the world was created at some point during the development of the world, complete with eubacterial flagella and similar unevolvable (according to IDers) gadgets, and the appearance of a prebiotic past. This would combine all the bad things of omphalism with the possibility of being disproved.

(Omphalism is, essentially, a nice word for Last Thursdayism. It's widely considered bad theology; it makes God a liar.)

I assumed, however, that he meant that the apparent history of the world is real, that the set-up was at the beginning of time, in which case flagella et sim. would be evolved, in contradiction with ID. This would essentially be a deistic position.

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


True, which is why it causes problems, since the theory needs to be modified beyond all recognition in order to fit in with what we know. Epicycle after epicycle is being added to make it more 'flexible', yet no one questions whether the fault is in the model, not in the precision.

Please explain what the problem is with modifying a theory.

Atomic Theory has undergone many changes over time since Dalton but I don't think that it invalidates what we today know about the issue.

[Ben Kenobi]

Please explain what the problem is with modifying a theory.

The problem is not with the modifications, rather that no one asks the question that maybe the theory itself is wrong. The more settled opinion is that one theory must be right, the more modifications that are usually required to save the theory. That's why I said, beyond all recognition.

[Immortal Wombat]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
The problem is not with the modifications, rather that no one asks the question that maybe the theory itself is wrong.

The question has been asked many times. Really. The answer has always been that evolution is a better answer than any alternative.

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


The problem is not with the modifications, rather that no one asks the question that maybe the theory itself is wrong. The more settled opinion is that one theory must be right, the more modifications that are usually required to save the theory. That's why I said, beyond all recognition.

If there were strong evidences against the theory and if there was basis for alternative theories, then I'm sure that those would be promoted.

It's no wonder that there has been some modifications since darwin didn't know anything about such things as DNA, but as far as I know the overwhelming part of new knowledge supports the basic parts of the theory.

[Last Conformist]

Modern evolutionary biology has hardly changed beyond all recognition since Darwin's day. His notions of the mechanisms of heredity and the transmittability of acquired characters have been discarded, but I can't think of anything else of note; most "modifications" have in fact been expansions.

[Bill3000]

Plus, evolution makes cooler TV shows than theology does. That's one of its strong points.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
I would challenge whether the fossil record was so poor as to prevent folks from establishing that the record did not show changes. At the time, there had been dinosaur fossils found, before the origin of species was written and published, and these bones were unlike anything that currently walked the earth. 1824, Buckland named the first genus of dinosaurs, which is before the origins of species.

That old fossils of extinct species existed isn't the issue, the issue is whether there existed a fossil record that was substantial enough to show common descent for species. There wasn't, and Darwin pointed this out explicitly in OotS. There were, in fact, NO precambrian fossils whatsoever when Darwin was writing in 1859. Darwin predicted that Precambrian fossils would be found. He wrote that the total absence of fossils in Precambrian rock was "inexplicable" and that the lack might "be truly urged as a valid argument" against his theory. When such fossils were found, starting in 1953, it turned out that they had been abundant all along. They were just so small that it took a microscope to see them. Prediction proven.

So, my question, is anything then qualified as a chimera. That's the problem with defining it based upon lineage, since lineage is how the relationship between species is determined. The platypus would be evidence in itself that there is a link between birds and mammals, and hence, would automatically cease to be a chimera.

I see you didn't bother to read the link on platypus evolution I provided. Typical.

The platypus is not an example of such "lineages" because it does not have avian heritage whatsoever. It's features that superficially resemble birds are a result of nice evolution of features, not descendancy from birds. The point of the lineage statement was that, were there existed "chimeras" that were truly half mammal/half bird, it would disprove evolutionarty theory. If you crossed a cat with a dog and got a hybrid cat-dog, it would disprove evolution.

But the platypus is clearly NOT such a combination creature to anyone who looks beyond superficial resemblances.

You never stated the word 'population' until now. If you are referring to mutations accumulated over time, then I suggest you refer to such. I'm not a mindreader Boris.

It's not my fault you are ignorant of what the scientific terminology means. The statement was that a mechanism that prevents accumulated mutations would disprove evolution. Since the very definition of evolution is the change in alleles in populations, it's a give. Mutations that spark evolutionary change do not accumulate in individuals, they accumulate in populations. I assumed you would know this, because discussing accumulated mutations on an individual level is nonsensical.

Mutations accumulated over time, are the sum of the individual mutations. The fact that the individual mutations are checked, acts as a check on the accumulation of mutations.

Patently preposterous, and more evidence you don't have a clue what you're talking about when it comes to genetics. Phenotypal changes that result from mutations are not limited to single genes, but often are a result of combinations of genes. A single mutation in a gene, small as it may be, can lead to large-scale phenotype changes, especially in combination. there exists NO barrier that we can see to the changes in phenotype that can occur. The limit to them simply seems to be the rate at which mutations can occur, plus whatever selection pressures are at hand.

A ball dropped in air faces air resistance. The same is true of mutations over time, in that while the mutations continue, there are still limitations to how quickly they can happen. That mutations are checked, is a significant barrier, the same way that air is a barrier to motion.

What I said: There has never been discovered any "barrier" to this. If morphology can be shown to "increase" on even the smallest level, then over larger time periods, there would be no qualitative barrier to larger changes.

Maybe you don't know what "qualitative" means as opposed to "quantitative," but all you've addressed above is quantity. No body argued otherwise, as mutation rates and natural selection certainly hinder quantity. But there's nothing that we know of that hinders qualitative changes, and that's the barrier you would need to make your assertions true. Where is this barrier?

Ex nihilio? From the earth is not from nothing, Boris. From dust you are, and to dust you will return. Even the creationists don't claim that creation comes from nothing.

Play all the semantics game you want, but the point remains the same. I do find it curious that you'd say that creationist's don't claim that "creation" comes from nothing. You've said before that God exists outside the physical universe, hence he is not made of matter. So at some point, the matter had to be "created" by this god. What did he make it out of? Since he was all there was at first, and he isn't made of matter, isn't the logical deduction that, being omnipotent, he "poofed" it into being? Or is god made of subgod particles (godons?) that he uses to manufacture all his wares?

The point was, evidence for a supernatural being interfering in anything is non-existent, and it's rightfully not assumed in scientific endeavors. Were it assumed as so, science would come to a screeching halt. There's a reason why scientific progress exploded when such assumptions were done away with.

Secondly, the same standard applies to evolution. We don't observe monkeys turning into people, so how can we be sure that men used to be monkeys?

Shifting goalposts again, eh? The issue was if evolution had been observed. It has, in numerous organisms, and it has left a huge amount of evidence in terms of the fossil record, DNA relationships, morphology, embryology, etc., etc., ad infinitum.

A mystical designer creating beings has not been observed, nor has it left any evidence indicating such.

True, which is why it causes problems, since the theory needs to be modified beyond all recognition in order to fit in with what we know. Epicycle after epicycle is being added to make it more 'flexible', yet no one questions whether the fault is in the model, not in the precision.

More disinformation, as others have pointed out. Do us a favor this time and put your money where your mouth is. State the theory of evolution as it stands today as it relates to the theory Darwin initially posited. We'll see if it's changed "beyond all recognition." One of the most preposterous stories you've told so far.

Oh, and please don't recycle the "Punctuated Equilibrium is a patch to save Darwinism" falsehood, since I dispensed with that one already in a previous thread.





CBeast

[Ben Kenobi]

Spamming, Boris, I'm ashamed.

If there were strong evidences against the theory and if there was basis for alternative theories, then I'm sure that those would be promoted.

Why do you assume scientists to be totally rational? Even if the evidence overwhelmingly favoured alternative theories, there would be plenty of resistance to changing things from what they were.

It's no wonder that there has been some modifications since darwin didn't know anything about such things as DNA, but as far as I know the overwhelming part of new knowledge supports the basic parts of the theory.

There still isn't much evidence in favour of the core of his theory, with respect to macroevolution. All we have is indirect evidence, which seems to suggest that this is what happened, but no direct observations. Darwin makes the leap by saying that mutations and differentiation within a species will produce new species, assuming that the two are governed by the same process.

The problem with expanding anything, is that the theory begins to get applied into areas where it was not designed to work. Even the most successful theories fall prey to their own success over time.

[Ben Kenobi]

That old fossils of extinct species existed isn't the issue, the issue is whether there existed a fossil record that was substantial enough to show common descent for species.

Actually, the point was whether or not the species record was static or dynamic, which could be shown through the presence of extinct species in fossils.

There wasn't, and Darwin pointed this out explicitly in OotS. There were, in fact, NO precambrian fossils whatsoever when Darwin was writing in 1859. Darwin predicted that Precambrian fossils would be found. He wrote that the total absence of fossils in Precambrian rock was "inexplicable" and that the lack might "be truly urged as a valid argument" against his theory. When such fossils were found, starting in 1953, it turned out that they had been abundant all along. They were just so small that it took a microscope to see them. Prediction proven.

Yet, that's a different prediction than the one that you listed earlier. We were talking about a static or a dynamic fossil record, and how you said evidence of a static fossil would prove Darwin's theory wrong. Since you haven't chose to defend that point, it makes sense to me to toss out that as evidence of the falsifiability of evolution.

Secondly, this point relies on the assumption that pre-cambrian fossils can show a common descent for all animals. This requires several other assumptions on the fossil record, that in fact, there is a relationship between extinct species in the fossil record, and the animals that we see today. To establish the lineage, is still speculation, since we are trying to also establish relationships between animals based upon indirect evidence.

The fact that Darwin predicted precambrian fossils, which were found, is what I was looking for, the trouble is that he made the prediction based upon assumptions about the lineage of animals, which may or may not be true.

The platypus is not an example of such "lineages" because it does not have avian heritage whatsoever. It's features that superficially resemble birds are a result of niche evolution of features, not descendancy
from birds.

And this is why I brought up my point of how lineage can always work in favour of the evolutionist, in that evidence to the contrary can always be dismissed.

First of all, how do we know for a fact that the platypus has no avian heritage? How can we know for certain who the ancestors of the platypus are?

The platypus lays eggs, which is not a feature of any other mammals, yet it also has fur resembling mammals.

The statement was that a mechanism that prevents accumulated mutations would disprove evolution. Since the very definition of evolution is the change in alleles in populations, it's a give. Mutations that spark evolutionary change do not accumulate in individuals, they accumulate in populations. I assumed you would know this, because discussing accumulated mutations on an individual level is nonsensical.

The way in which mutations are accumulated within a population, starts with mutations within the individual. Therefore a discussion of one, ought to also involve discussion of the other. I think you should try to step away from insulting me and focus more upon the points at hand.

Phenotypal changes that result from mutations are not limited to single genes, but often are a result of combinations of genes. A single mutation in a gene, small as it may be, can lead to large-scale phenotype changes, especially in combination. there exists NO barrier that we can see to the changes in phenotype that can occur. The limit to them simply seems to be the rate at which mutations can occur, plus whatever selection pressures are at hand.

Genes can shut down as a result of mutations, to the point in which they don't work properly. It's one of the reasons why aging affects the body over time, as the cells within the body gradually die.

Secondly, large scale mutations are kept in check, by requirements for the organism to continue to function. If a massive mutation, results in an organism that cannot survive, then that is a check upon the rate of mutation.

These are two different ways in which the rate of mutations are checked in the population.

If morphology can be shown to "increase" on even the smallest level, then over larger time periods, there would be no qualitative barrier to larger changes.

I'm not sure how it makes sense to describe a mutation rate as qualitative, over a quantitative sense. That seems to me a circle, since by definition, evolution produces 'positive' mutations over time in the population.

Secondly, a positive mutation only makes sense in context to the environment, since changes in the environment place different values on different characteristics. A quantitative sense of a mutation rate, is better understood, since you can see the size of the change, in terms of the genes of the organism.

The issue was if evolution had been observed. It has, in numerous organisms, and it has left a huge amount of evidence in terms of the fossil record, DNA relationships, morphology, embryology,

Indirect evidence, Boris. I've been asking consistantly for direct evidence. We see changes within species, we see the existance of different species within the fossil record, yet we are always making assumptions as to how the lineage works between the fossils, and the creatures in which we see alive today.

If you even take a look at early human lineage, the uncertainty of the relationships seems to me reason to place doubt upon the relationships inferred from the fossil record.

Oh, and please don't recycle the "Punctuated Equilibrium is a patch to save Darwinism" falsehood, since I dispensed with that one already in a previous thread.

It is a patch. Evolution works in convenient bursts in response to massive catastrophes. Why not believe that God causes the catastrophes, directing evolution in the manner of his choosing?

This is why Darwin attempted to distance himself away from this, in stating that evolution happened slowly, at a steady rate of change over time.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
It is a patch. Evolution works in convenient bursts in response to massive catastrophes. Why not believe that God causes the catastrophes, directing evolution in the manner of his choosing?

For the same reason that we don't believe He's the cause of the weather?

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Actually, the point was whether or not the species record was static or dynamic, which could be shown through the presence of extinct species in fossils.

The presence of fossils of extinct species wouldn't mean anything in and of itself. It is fossils of extinct species that bear relationship to modern species (or other extinct species of other times) that matters. In other words, it's that the fossils shows species changing over time. If they didn't show that, then evolution would be false. That's what "dynamic" means in this sense.

Yet, that's a different prediction than the one that you listed earlier. We were talking about a static or a dynamic fossil record, and how you said evidence of a static fossil would prove Darwin's theory wrong. Since you haven't chose to defend that point, it makes sense to me to toss out that as evidence of the falsifiability of evolution.

How is it not relevant? We're talking about common descent. The precambrian fossil record is part and parcel to Darwin's prediction that modern species were all descended from ancient ancestors. The lack of precambrian fossils would be a severe problem for this claim, since the "explosion" of larger life forms in the Cambrian era would be inexplicable. The locating of these fossils thus proved Darwin correct in that the species of the Cambrian era had their pregenetors.

Secondly, this point relies on the assumption that pre-cambrian fossils can show a common descent for all animals. This requires several other assumptions on the fossil record, that in fact, there is a relationship between extinct species in the fossil record, and the animals that we see today. To establish the lineage, is still speculation, since we are trying to also establish relationships between animals based upon indirect evidence.

The fact that Darwin predicted precambrian fossils, which were found, is what I was looking for, the trouble is that he made the prediction based upon assumptions about the lineage of animals, which may or may not be true.

The lineage of animals wasn't established on the fossil record, it was establised on very precise observations by Darwin. One of the reasons why Darwin's work was so quickly accepted by the scientific community is that he provided overwhelming observations, carefully collected, in OotS that showed the relationship between species, like the Galapagos finches. He traced a very clear line of development for the finch species across the islands. Among tons of other species he observed.

And the lineage of animals has been completely borne out by DNA evidence, which, of course, Darwin didn't even know existed at the time. To insinuate that the lineage of animals is an "assumption" is simply false.

And this is why I brought up my point of how lineage can always work in favour of the evolutionist, in that evidence to the contrary can always be dismissed.

Evidence to the contrary couldn't always be dismissed. If the playtpus's "avian" features were truly avian, that would be a problem. It is not a melding of two different animals, which is what a "chimera" would be.

First of all, how do we know for a fact that the platypus has no avian heritage? How can we know for certain who the ancestors of the platypus are?

1.) We know the platypus has no avian ancestors because of its DNA.
2.) We know the platypus has no avian ancestors because the fossil record of its ancestors does not bear it out.
3.) We know it doesn't have avian heritage because the features some ignorants claim are "avian" are not such under scrutiny. I linked to a page that explained this. Did you bother to read it?

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/platypus.html

"In fact, scientists have always known that the bill has nothing in common with that of a duck except for the shape. The bill of a duck is a hard keratin structure, while that of the platypus is a soft flexible organ packed with electrical and touch sensors. While underwater, the bill is used to explore the environment and find food."

The platypus lays eggs, which is not a feature of any other mammals, yet it also has fur resembling mammals.

Reptiles lay eggs, too. In fact, that's where scientists see the platypus's evolving from. Its eggs have much more in common with reptiles than birds. But it is 100% mammal, it is not half bird, or half reptile, or anything else.

Bats have wings and can fly, which no other animal can do. But they're not in any way half mammal/half bird.

All of this is missing the point that a "chimera" is a cross between two distinct species. That's clearly not what a platypus is, and such a creature does not exist, as far as we know.

The way in which mutations are accumulated within a population, starts with mutations within the individual. Therefore a discussion of one, ought to also involve discussion of the other. I think you should try to step away from insulting me and focus more upon the points at hand.

It's not insulting to point out you don't know what you're talking about when you, in fact, don't know what you're talking about.

Evolution does not depend on macromutations. It depends on the accumulation of variation in populations. Simple as that. Evolution does not occur at the individual level.

You seem to be describing transmutation or saltation, that large single mutational jumps in an individual are what evolution is about. Not at all. Even if all macromutations were bad (and they aren't--we've observed beneficial ones. Look up polyploidy), it wouldn't matter, since evolution is built upon the accumulation of small mutations. And by mutations, we mean variations.

Genes can shut down as a result of mutations, to the point in which they don't work properly. It's one of the reasons why aging affects the body over time, as the cells within the body gradually die.

Sure, but the don't have to do so (polyploidy again). Regardless, this is irrelevant, since evolution isn't predicated on such mutations. It's predicated on the small mutations that don't cause harm. Since natural selection is at work, bad mutations will be weeded out.

Secondly, large scale mutations are kept in check, by requirements for the organism to continue to function. If a massive mutation, results in an organism that cannot survive, then that is a check upon the rate of mutation.

These are two different ways in which the rate of mutations are checked in the population.

Two? You gave only one. You just reworded it. And you are still missing the point: large mutations aren't needed for evolution, period. Large changes in phenotype are (mostly) accomplished through small mutations, not macromutations.

I'm not sure how it makes sense to describe a mutation rate as qualitative, over a quantitative sense. That seems to me a circle, since by definition, evolution produces 'positive' mutations over time in the population.

Qualitative is referring to the scope of the phenotype change, not the number of mutations that occur. I trust you know the difference, yes?

Small variations can have large phenotypical effects. Small variations that don't have much effect on their own can have a big effect when combined with other genes.

Secondly, a positive mutation only makes sense in context to the environment, since changes in the environment place different values on different characteristics. A quantitative sense of a mutation rate, is better understood, since you can see the size of the change, in terms of the genes of the organism.

Or Thirdly?

The rate at which mutation occurs has no bearing on the type of phenotypical changes that can result from an accumulation of mutations in a population, given enough time. There are barriers to runaway evolution, but that's in a quantitative sense, not qualitative. And those barriers are selection pressures.

Small variations are passed on to progeny who have their own small variations who pass them on to progeny who have their own small variations who pass them on to progeny who have their own small variations who pass them on to progeny, etc., so on and so on. The end result is that, over generations, the small variations add up to big variations. You've not shown any barrier to this accumulation occuring, and indeed none has ever been shown. The accumulation of said changes has been observed both in laboratory and natural conditions. It's real, we've seen it happen, and that fact isn't going to go away.

Indirect evidence, Boris. I've been asking consistantly for direct evidence. We see changes within species, we see the existance of different species within the fossil record, yet we are always making assumptions as to how the lineage works between the fossils, and the creatures in which we see alive today.

I already pointed you to the direct evidence, Ben. The link that catalogued the observed instances of speciation. You ignore it because it's inconvenient, I know, but it's still there. We have observed speciation, directly.

If you even take a look at early human lineage, the uncertainty of the relationships seems to me reason to place doubt upon the relationships inferred from the fossil record.

Cite such uncertainty. There's not much uncertainty that I'm aware of--nothing that arises to anything that would significantly challenge our descent from primates. Paleontologists and evolutionary biologists aren't uncertain about it, that's for sure.

It is a patch. Evolution works in convenient bursts in response to massive catastrophes. Why not believe that God causes the catastrophes, directing evolution in the manner of his choosing?

Wrongo. PE doesn't even rely on catastrophes, it can be as simple as a species migrating over a mountain range and isolating itself from the parent group. Are we to assume god directed the migrations? Why should we?

And as Spiffor said, why even assume catastophes are the work of a god, (like assume tornadoes are the work of Thor), when we know how they occur naturally? And we have no evidence that such catastrophes are directed by any miraculous beings?

This is why Darwin attempted to distance himself away from this, in stating that evolution happened slowly, at a steady rate of change over time.

Blatant mischaracterization of Darwin. You said this exact thing before and I pointed out why you were wrong. Yet you repeat it. I can only assume it's dishonesty now.

http://ucsu.colorado.edu/~theobal/PE.html

PE is not a "patch," since Darwin himself mentioned that evolution likely proceeds very slowly but then has spurts:

"But I must here remark that I do not suppose that the process ever goes on so regularly as is represented in the diagram, though in itself made somewhat irregular, nor that it goes on continuously; it is far more probable that each form remains for long periods unaltered, and then again undergoes modification." (Darwin, Ch. 4, "Natural Selection," pp. 152)

Now how on earth does this support your baseless assertion?