We do not need to see the fossilized remains of every species that ever lived to support the abundant evidence of evolution. You can deny history all you want but that does not change the facts.
Posted on 02/14/2010 9:38:05 AM PST by SeekAndFind
The Church of England's governing body on Friday approved a motion that emphasizes the compatibility of belief in both God and science.
Dr. Peter Capon, a former computer science lecturer, introduced the motion arguing that "rejecting much mainstream science does nothing to support those Christians who are scientists ... or strengthen the Christian voice in the scientific area."
He urged Christians to take scientific evidence seriously and avoid prejudging science for theological reasons.
The vote comes as more than 850 congregations throughout the globe are celebrating Evolution Weekend with the aim of demonstrating that evolution poses no problems for their faith.
Religion and science are not adversaries, they say. Rather, the two fields should be seen as complementary, they maintain.
Evolution Weekend, which kicked off Friday, is supported by those of various faith traditions including Christians, Jews, Muslims and Unitarian Universalists.
"Religious leaders around the world are coming together to elevate the quality of the discussion about this important topic. They are demonstrating to their congregations that people can accept all that modern science has learned while retaining their faith," said Michael Zimmerman, founder of Evolution Weekend and professor of Biology at Butler University in Indianapolis.
Since 2004 more than 12,400 Christian clergypersons from various denominations in the United States have signed "The Clergy Letter," expressing their belief "that the timeless truths of the Bible and the discoveries of modern science may comfortably coexist."
In the letter, Christian clergy contend, "Religious truth is of a different order from scientific truth. Its purpose is not to convey scientific information but to transform hearts.
"We ask that science remain science and that religion remain religion, two very different, but complementary, forms of truth."
Zimmerman, who is leading "The Clergy Letter Project," says those who promote "narrow religious views" and reject the compatibility of science and faith do not speak for all of the world's religious communities.
"Evolution Weekend shows that the disagreement is actually not between religious leaders and scientists, but rather between those who believe that their particular religious views should be incorporated into the science curriculum and clergy who recognize and respect the diversity of different faith traditions," he noted.
The compatibility, or lack thereof, of evolution and faith remains a hot debate among Christians. Prominent evangelical theologian Dr. R. Albert Mohler Jr. has said he finds it impossible to reconcile the two. While he does not deny that changes do take place in the animal kingdom and that there is even a process of natural selection, he firmly rejects theistic evolution and the argument that the process is entirely natural and in no case supernatural.
"God was not merely fashioning the creation of what was already pre-existent, nor was He merely working with a process in order to guide it in some generalized way, nor was He waiting to see how it would turn out," Mohler has said.
Evolution Weekend is scheduled to be celebrated in conjunction with Charles Darwin's birthday and the anniversary of the publication of his book, On the Origin of Species.
Question: Since life is structured and controlled by information, where did the original information come from? For instance, codons are used to assemble amino acids into proteins - where is the dictionary that defines which of 20 amino acids is associated with each of 64 codons?
Why is Faith called faith?
But what is your point?
Again with the straw man. The evolutionary theory does not address the origins of life, it only shows how life has changed since its inception.
I understand it is a common creationist/i/d tacit to use the straw man as to avoid facts to do not support their creation myth.
Faith is not based on proof.
But, for the sake of discussion, let's assume there is a starting organism. There is still information involved. But information is more than symbols/code. There are rules for employing the code, there is then meaning of the assembled code. And there is some type of purpose for the "organisms" that the code builds. Where does that "stuff" come from? Meaning is not a property of matter or energy.
Example: blood clotting - necessary to repair wounds in the organism. Blood clotting requires 13 proteins, all of which are dormant until there is a cut. The cut activates the protein cascade, one protein activating the next, until they are all activated. What would it take for an organism to retain one protein until all 13 are in place? What would it take for an organism to retain 12 proteins until the 13th comes along, and then what would bind them together? Where would the trigger come from? Why would there be a trigger? And how did all of the animals survive until the full blood clotting mechanism was in place and operational?
The problem with organisms is that they are extremely complex. And totally interdependent. Hardly the stuff of chance and natural selection!
It is no valid objection that science as yet throws no light on the far higher problem of the essence or origin of life” (Darwin, Charles. The Origin of Species. 6th edition, 1882. p. 421
So far all you have done is throw out a statement that is not supported by the facts, put up two versions on the same straw man, and an Argument from personal incredulity. I guess when that is all you got, you have to go with it.
You guys are full of straw men, there is no such thing as devolution.
Please provide one creditable peer-reviewed paper that supports this assertion.
See post 26...how do you answer the questions posted there?
Trying the same straw man again, it did not work for Michael Behe, and Casey Luskin what makes you think it will work for you?
An “Irreducible Core?” Here’s where things get really, really interesting. Luskin maintains that the “irreducible core” is a “long-standing concept within ID thinking,” and argues that this concept is well-supported by current research on the system. Well, is it? Does the blood-clotting system really contain an “irreducible core?”
Not even close. Luskin’s own sketch of that core highlights seven (count ‘em) components in that core (click here for that image. The core is the red box in his diagram). Those seven components are:
Tissue Factor
Factor VIII (Antihemophilic Factor)
Factor X (Stuart Factor)
Factor V (Proaccelerin)
Factor II (Prothrombin)
Factor XIII (Fibrin Stabilizing Factor)
Fibrinogen
According to Luskin, these form an “irreducible core” without which blood clotting would not be possible.
Once again, ID fails, and the culprit isn’t a liberal judge, the ACLU, or even a slick-talking smoke-and-mirrors biology prof. It’s nature itself, in the form of a collaboration between a nasty little beast called the lamprey (Petromyzon marinus), and a pioneering scientist who has spent his career working out the evolution of the clotting cascade. That scientist is Russell Doolittle of the University of California at San Diego Diego (which, as it happens, is the very same university where Casey got two degrees in Earth Science while simultaneously founding and managing his creationist “Intelligent Design and Evolution Awareness” [IDEA] Club).
His 2008 paper [Doolittle et al, 2008] reports on a careful search through the lamprey genome. The lamprey, as luck would have it, has a perfectly functional clotting system, and it lacks not only the three factors missing in jawed fish, but also Factors IX and V.
Now, Luskin could object that Factor IX wasn’t part of his “core,” but Factor V certainly was. And, as Behe pointed out at length, the absence of factor IX causes potentially-fatal hemophilia in humans, which was part of his argument for the irreducible complexity of the whole system. The lamprey genome does contain a single gene, somewhat related to Factor X and Factor V, but not identical to either. As the paper’s authors put it: “In summary, the genomic picture presented here suggests that lampreys have a simpler clotting scheme than later diverging vertebrates. In particular, they appear to lack the equivalents of factors VIII (or V) and IX, suggesting that the gene duplication leading to these factors, synchronous or not, occurred after their divergence from other vertebrates.” [p. 195]. To make things even worse for Luskin’s “core,” a previous study from Doolittle’s lab [Jiang & Doolittle, 2003] had already shown that the bits and pieces (protein domains) of most of the clotting factor proteins are present in a primitive, invertebrate chordate. This is exactly what one would expect from an evolutionary trajectory leading to the current system in vertebrates — the assembly of a complex pathway from pre-existing parts.
So, what are we left with? Nothing more than a vain attempt to pretend that ID’s collapse in the Dover case was the result of misrepresentation and deception. For Mr. Luskin and his employers at the Discovery Institute, the generation of sound and fury continues, but in scientific terms, their continuing noise signifies nothing more than the utter emptiness of their failed ideas.
Might I suggest a little bit of independent research instead of regurgitating the same old debunked creationist/id talking points.
Evolution is based on molecular genetics.
What is the genetic difference between Homo habilis and Homo erectus? And between erectus and sapiens?
You can’t tell me because you don’t know. Nobody can because nobody has the slightest idea.
If they could answer, I would ask how many evolutionary steps separated any two of these along the arrow of nature.
What came in between, and why are there no fossils of those in between species?
There are no in between fossils because species don’t evolve.
BTW - your reference to my, what was it, "regurgitating" creationist talking points - did you think all of the information you posted? Or, were you dependent upon the research of someone else? We all cite our "experts" as justification for the positions we take. I happen to think that my "experts" are right, and more logical than yours.
Not so good for your irreducible complexity .
We do not need to see the fossilized remains of every species that ever lived to support the abundant evidence of evolution. You can deny history all you want but that does not change the facts.
Evolution is defined as a genetic transition.
Without a description of the genetic change, it doesn’t describe evolution. It describes a hypothesis, or a guess.
I would be satisfied with the fossilized remains of only 50% of every species.
We don’t even have 1%.
You know teh google can be your friend.
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=evidence+of+genetic+evolution
“Genetic evidence for evolution
If there is evolution, is there any evidence for it at the genetic level?
The answer is yes. Scientists who have been studying genetic changes occurring in the human genome over the last 15,000 to 100,000 years, have found that over this relatively short period of time the human genome has changed by as much as 10 percent”
Just an example of one of the 2,050,000 hits I got in 0.28 seconds
By the way you know it would be impossible to find 50% of a species as fossils. You really should study up on fossilization and how really rare it is, lest you make your self look foolish by moving to goal post to a completely unattainable distance.
We miss you.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.