An interesting read so far

admin · 09-23-09 8:28 am

While trying to find a website via Google that I had read earlier at school, I came across this .pdf document on Evolution and Creationism. I'm on page 6 of 44 and am enjoying it thus far. I figure there are some out there who'd like a peek, either to refute it or to support it: <a href="http://www.emjc3.com/EvolutionDefinedAndExamined3.1.3.pdf" target=_top>http://www.emjc3.com/EvolutionDefinedAndExamined3. 1.3.pdf</a> Ryan

bob_2 · 09-24-09 1:10 am

Ryan, thanks for bringing this article up. With November 12 La Sierra Board Meeting on this very topic approaching, I want to read this whole article, but I am in agreement with this quote from the conclusion of the article you present: <blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!>quote:Understanding your true origin is essential in determining your final destiny.<!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote>

admin · 10-30-09 10:16 pm

Even though this document has an obvious bias, I found it interesting. Specifically, his focus on information science was a new way of looking at evolutionary thought. For example: "In each of the above examples [of animal variaties], information in the DNA is either reshuffled or reduced and no "evolution" took place; change, yes, but evolution, no." John: What is your view on the "evolution" of DNA information? The author of this document claims it has never happened, that information has never evolved upwards or increased, but has only decreased. He uses as an example the idea that an amoeba doesn't have information in it's DNA for hooves, etc., and that such information is never gained but only lost. This was the kicker for me. I'm open in consideration of my views and beliefs, but there are two ways of looking at this: 1) Macro-evolution, the change of one species to another, is impossible because information is never increased in DNA. 2) The focus on evolution of species from one to another is a red herring. Thoughts?

elaine · 10-30-09 11:41 pm

Doesn't the term "evolution" mean change? At least change of some sort. Humans "evolve" from embryos to full grown adults. Evolution, def: A gradual process in which something changes into a significantly different, especially more complex or more sophisticated, form. Biology: The theory that groups of organisms, as species, may change with passage of time so that descendants differ morphologically and physiologically from their ancestors. Hasn't' the family of canines developed morpholgically quite different? Also, the felines, and many others. What should that process be called, if not evolution? Why has that information never evolved upwards or increased, but only decreased? Examples would be helpful. From the numerous fossils found world-wide, there is abundant demonstration that there must have been great changes from those fossil remains to what is seen today. How can that be classifed as decrease or loss? Having had my personal DNA read by the National Geographic Genome project, it shows that there was a gradual change in the RNA over long periods of time.

elaine · 10-30-09 11:50 pm

On reading the synopsis for the paper above, the writer states that it is done to show theologically why evolution is wrong and the Bible is right (paraphrase). When any premise begins with a stated conclusion, it is no longer science and should be rejected as such. It is theology clothed as "science" and should be found in theology discussions or classes. Is there a theology of physics, math, chemistry? Or is biology the one that is conflated with theology? Stephen Jay Gould was correct: they belong in different majesteria.

admin · 11-02-09 6:24 am

<blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!>quote:Doesn't the term "evolution" mean change? At least change of some sort. Humans "evolve" from embryos to full grown adults. <!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote> No. I believe you missed or are ignoring the point of the author's use of quotation marks. The author is making a distinction between evolution as the kind of change within species that we have observed and evolution as a method of change from one species to another: inter-species evolution. This is why I listed the two ways of looking at the issue. His use of "evolution" does shows the mess one can get into when trying to use one term (evolution) to describe different phenomena. We use the same term to refer to intra-species and inter-species change, when one has been observed and mostly accepted but the other one has not, as far as I can tell. That is the problem. Or, one of many. By the way, since when is biology a theory? I apologize for my lack of clarity, but I'm not talking of information increase or gain in terms of change within species, but in terms of evolution from one species to another. Like I said, this is the kicker. And I can't go with the idea that micro-evolution is just macro-evolution on a smaller scale when logically it doesn't make sense and scientifically I haven't seen proof of information increase in inter-species evolution. I'll wait to be proven wrong. The gradual change in your RNA over long periods of time isn't, as far as I can surmise, an example of inter-species evolution. Ditto for families and the numerous fossils found around the world. So, I listed my two points at the end of my previous post to see what others have to say about the thesis of the impossibility of information gain in inter-species evolution. I listed the second point as a feeler, to find out if a focus on inter-species evolution is a red herring. In regards your second post, Elaine, I agree and disagree. I see the merits of clearly demarcating various spheres of thought or majesteria, but only to a certain extent. I often tell my students when we study literature that the bounds between English as a subject and history as a subject, for example, are very ambiguous. To study English by itself without any influence from history would be impossible and stupid. The same goes for the study and discussion of theology, science, etc., in my opinion. We can study these subjects within their own respective schools or areas, but there comes a time when it's useful and perhaps even essential to study them as a coherent whole.

elaine · 11-02-09 1:09 pm

The teaching of theology and science are too often conflated when taught in Bible-oriented schools. Academic disciplines should not attempt to confuse the two as interchangeable sources for explanations of which no one can be certain. While there are no evidences of species change, there is more than sufficient evidence for microchanges which seems to offer postulates that more than microchanges are probable. How would you explain the platypus, a combination of reptiliean and mammalian characteristics? NATURE: Platypus genome reveals links between reptiles, mammals Unlike placental mammals and marsupials the platypus (Ornithorhynchus anatinus) along with several species of echidnas (Family Tachyglossidae) are mammals that lay eggs. They share other characteristics with placental mammals and marsupials like being warm-blooded, having hair and producing milk amongst other characteristics. Aside from laying eggs, the platypus has several other odd characteristics. It has a duck like bill or snout that is used for feeding and feeling about its aquatic habitat. Also, the male platypus has spurs that produce venom therefore making it one of the few venomous mammals along with some shrews and solenodons that can deliver venom. As a side note, solenodons are very odd mammals too and are very rare. Apparently, the oddities of the platypus continue much deeper into their genetic makeup. From NPR: In addition to bird- and mammal-like genes, the platypus also has genes that trigger features associated with reptiles. Male platypuses produce a potent venom delivered through a spur on their hind legs. The creatures also have very unusual sex chromosomes, Wilson notes. “A male platypus has five X chromosomes, no two alike, and five Y chromosomes,” he says. Scientists are eager to study its genes because the platypus is one of the most ancient mammals, appearing on Earth more than 150 million years ago.

Adventists for Tomorrow

Announcement

#1 09-23-09 8:28 am

An interesting read so far

#2 09-24-09 1:10 am

Re: An interesting read so far

#3 10-30-09 10:16 pm

Re: An interesting read so far

#4 10-30-09 11:41 pm

Re: An interesting read so far

#5 10-30-09 11:50 pm

Re: An interesting read so far

#6 11-02-09 6:24 am

Re: An interesting read so far

#7 11-02-09 1:09 pm

Re: An interesting read so far

Board footer