MY SECOND ANN COULTER THREAD - EVOLUTION DISCUSSION (or Here We Go Again)

[DungeonMaster]

Never heard of him.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"The ToE was the seed to a larger movement."

BS.

"The Big Bang is the beginning."

The Big Bang could be falsified tomorrow and the ToE (which is a theory ONLY of biology) would be totally untouched.

"Stellar evolution leads us the creation of heavy metals and planetary evolution, which leads to biological evolution. It's all one big continuum."

It's all a part of science. But by your reasoning, the Big Bang is a part of EVERY scientific theory, because without matter/energy, there would be nothing to observe and study. What a silly notion of what science is you have.

"The fact that it wasn't part of Darwin's original idea is completely irrelevant."

The fact that it has nothing AT all to do with any theory in biology IS perfectly relevant.

Again, quit while you're way behind.

[Dimensio]

The ToE was the seed to a larger movement.

Please justify this claim.

The Big Bang is the beginning.

Incorrect. The Big Bang was a replacement to steady state theory, which held that the universe had existed eternally. It was not, in any way, a result of the theory of evolution. Falsifying the theory of evolution would not, in any way, falsify the Big Bang. Falsifying the Big Bang theory would not, in any way, falsify the theory of evolution. They are not related subjects.

Astronomers discuss Galactic and stellar evolution constantly.

Such concepts are not a part of the theory of evolution, which employs specific mechanisms not present in stellar formation.

Stellar evolution leads us the creation of heavy metals and planetary evolution, which leads to biological evolution. It's all one big continuum

Please explain how falsifying current theory on stellar formation would falsify common descent. Be specific. If you cannot show such a link, then your claim is false.

The fact that it wasn't part of Darwin's original idea is completely irrelevant.

This is correct. It is the fact that the Big Bang is a theory of physics and cosmology that makes it not related to the biological theory of evolution.

[furball4paws]

He's full of it, of course, as you point out. In addition, 60-70% of the primary productivity today comes from the ocean and certainly that was closer to 100% before land plants. Primary productivity is a direct measurement of oxygen production. Stromatolites go way back and they are partly the products of blue green algae - i.e. oceanic oxygen production. BGA are still responsible for close to half of the primary productivity even today.

[DungeonMaster]

Please justify this claim.

How would you like me to justify the claim? The idea that the universe is here as a result of natural causes vs super natural causes is not a new idea and needs no proof. I do not dispute your statement that the Big Bang is not the only natural explanation for the universe though. It's just a popular one due to red shift.

[Dimensio]

How would you like me to justify the claim?

Demonstrate that the theory of evolution was a "seed" for the Big Bang.

The idea that the universe is here as a result of natural causes vs super natural causes is not a new idea and needs no proof.

The theory of evolution says nothing whatsoever regarding the means by which the universe originated, including whether nor not supernatural causes were involved. The theory of evolution does not, in any way, address the Big Bang.

[steve-b]

Astronomers discuss Galactic and stellar evolution constantly.

By this "logic", the Orkin Man is just like Hitler, because both directed a program of "extermination".

[DungeonMaster]

Demonstrate that the theory of evolution was a "seed" for the Big Bang.

OK that helps. It's a matter of terminology. If the word evolution had never been used there would certainly still be a big bang theory. That theory came out as red shift was discovered. By that time it seems that the term evolution was already abundantlly in use to describe all natural processes and the advancement of the universe from a simpler state to it's current state. The key to the whole natural process is spontaneous, ie without external interference.

So the seed is the power of the term evolution. It encompases all of nature and spontaneous change leading from hydrogen atoms to man.

Carl Sagans series has that quote "These are some of the things hydrogen atoms do given billions of years".

[Bryher1]

Straight question: Can someone guide me toward some articles or books that explain why DNA/RNA seems to be the only game in town? Why, on such a planet full of life forms, are the building blocks always the same?

[Russ_in_NC]

You’re missing the point of my reply ... many Christians are offended that a leader of a mainstream church would distort Biblical truth just to get along with, what is considered, mainstream scientific view.

Papal Infallibility is a primary Catholic doctrine. When the leader of this church speaks, many hold it to be the final truth, especially those who do not have access the Holy Bible and those that can’t read. That is why many Christians were offended by that declaration from the Pope.

(BTW, you're the one who brought up the Pope. I was simply replying to your post)

[Dimensio]

So the seed is the power of the term evolution. It encompases all of nature and spontaneous change leading from hydrogen atoms to man.

You are attempting to use a word with multiple meanings and usages as a justification for claiming a logical connection between a theory of biology and a theory of cosmology. That is a semantic play, not a logical argument.

[SampleMan]

You actually provided some usable information in your fist post. Although not a biologist I am at least familiar with the type of DNA tracking you referenced.

That's great stuff, but certain assumptions go into the creation of the research that directly determine its findings. This is fine, but a certain caution should exist that those assumptions may not be correct (like the evolution of carbon 12 dating). My understanding is that in certain examinations mitochondrial DNA is examined in a given population, a constant past mutation factor is assumed from current mutation observation and this gives an idea of past population diversity in time. The other method I'm aware of are studies done on male DNA, which provides a statistically much higher rate of mutation. But I haven't read how either answers "why".

Genetic drift is not exactly what I described. Genetic drift assumes random mutation, not progressive mutation along several lines of DNA.

In any event, I'm convinced of two things.
1. I'm not hallucinating. The condescension and venom coming from many here make discussion essentially impossible.
2. I'd like to do more reading on this work, but given #1 I'll have to do it without the benefit of any discussions on FR.

Good day.

[ahayes]

Singularities: Landmarks on the Pathways of Life, by Christian de Duve.

[ahayes]

Genetic drift is not exactly what I described. Genetic drift assumes random mutation, not progressive mutation along several lines of DNA.

I'm not sure what you mean, but genetic drift can be responsible for phenotypic changes such as a change in size or length of a body part.

[atlaw]

My word! You're right! I had never noticed it before, but the word evolution is just flat everywhere! Why, there's the evolution of drywall sanding, the evolution of salsa, the evolution of portrait painting, the evolution of plumbing . . . .

Just type the word evolution into google, follow it with any dang thing that pops into your head, and look on in wonder at the result!

It's a commie-atheist-nazi-socialist-naturalist-marxist-capitalist-hedonist-liberal-statist-existentialist-humanist-materialist-pantheist-racist-totalitarian plot, all emanating out of the singular seed of Darwinism!

[Gumlegs]

Russ ... you're undoubtedly a nice guy, but you've really got to start reading and understanding the posts you're replying to before you reply.

You’re missing the point of my reply ... many Christians are offended that a leader of a mainstream church would distort Biblical truth just to get along with, what is considered, mainstream scientific view.

Why would "many Christians" be more qualified than the Pope to interpret "Biblical truth," and therefore capable of determining the Pope was "distorting" it? Please be specific.

You've missed my point -- it's entirely possible to be a serious Christian and not reject the Theory of Evolution. That "many offended Christians" don't agree with JPII is irrelevent. I'm not saying JPII was right about this, I'm saying that unless you want to say the JPII was not serious about religion, or wrong, you'd better be prepared to demonstrate how. And how you'll demonstrate he was wrong about Catholic doctrine is an event I eagerly await.

Papal Infallibility is a primary Catholic doctrine. When the leader of this church speaks, many hold it to be the final truth, especially those who do not have access the Holy Bible and those that can’t read. That is why many Christians were offended by that declaration from the Pope.

Don't preseme I'm ignorant of the doctrine of Papal infallibility or how it works. You are the one who made a howler of a post that seemed to confuse Papal infallibility with being "without sin."

Do you know what the Pope actually wrote about evolution, btw? (It's on the internet, but it requires no little concentration to parse. This could present a problem).

(BTW, you're the one who brought up the Pope. I was simply replying to your post)

I was responding to your post 383, which was directed to steve_b.

[steve-b]

you're the one who brought up the Pope

No, I am (for the purpose of demonstrating the inanity of your claim that acceptance of the science behind the theory of evolution is the province of atheists and weak Christians).

[Gumlegs]

He won't get it. Did you know the Doctrine of Papal Infallibility means the Pope is without sin?

[Gumlegs]

Do you understand the difference between an observation and a prescription?