Sorry about that.English, man! If you want me to understand you you need to speak English!
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Evolution My ToE
- Thread starter nPeace
- Start date
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
No worries, it is always a pleasure to add on to my limited knowledge.
This is 30 year old training. I am impressed I remember it so well. Keep that in mind if you discover errors. But do let me know too.
YoursTrue
Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
OK, not that I understand all of that, but maybe I can learn more about that another time. So my next question is about the number of chromosomes for cats (38) and the number of chromosomes for humans (46). I hope this does not seem like a silly question, although when I asked such questions in school, a nice teacher would generally say, "There are no stupid questions." So here is my question: does a human have 38 cat chromosomes, and 8 more chromosomes that are not cat chromosomes?
YoursTrue
Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
I think I have to go slower than the information you're presenting. I don't understand what you mean when you say first that the number of chromosomes does not equate to the total genetic sequences. Since I don't understand why the number of chromosomes (47 in humans) does not equate to the total genetic sequences, which I also don't understand. I'm thinking I don't understand what shared dna is. Or phenotypic expression. So unless it's explained to me in a way I can understand, I do not understand it.
No. Not even close.
Although what *is* interesting is that chimpanzees have 48 chromosomes that are almost identical to those of humans, except that two pairs of the chimp chromosomes have fused into one pair of human. This is one of the strong pieces of evidence that chimps and humans are related by a common ancestor.
Genetic sequences are *short* pieces of DNA in the chromosomes that code for proteins. How those genetic sequences are arranged in the chromosomes varies from species to species. And the number of human chromosomes is 46, not 47 (unless you have Down's syndrome or some other issue like that).
Shared DNA consists of those small genetic sequences that are the same in different locations.
Phenotypic expression is the shape and metabolic processes in the organism produced by the expression of the DNA. So, having two arms and two legs is a (very basic) aspect of phenotypic expression, but more subtle things are also (eye color or blood type, etc).
tas8831
Well-Known Member
So sad - looks like @Hockeycowboy is ignoring me. I was so looking forward to his fact-filled explanation as to how apoptosis (i.e., programmed cell death) is a barrier to macroevolution.
I'm sure it would have totally sensible and scientific.
tas8831
Well-Known Member
Yes I did - I've read many other similar articles.
But, if your linking to it wasn't meant intended as some kind of accusation, why did you link it?
As I wrote, peer review is not perfect, but it is better than mere belief.
What annoys me about many of these kinds of articles is the implicit lumping together of all scientific publications, despite, in most cases, a focus on medicine/clinically-related ones, where there is potentially big money involved.
I like how frequently evolution haters accuse evolution researchers of being in it for the money, accusing us of just toeing the party line to get funding and all this.
That is truly an idiotic accusation, because, for one thing, much if not most purely evolution-related research is NOT very well funded, especially by government grants. The NSF funds some, but more often, if one is, for example doing a fossil dig or something like that, you need private funding.
The Institute for Human Origins, for example, is housed at the U of Arizona, but is almost entirely privately funded. My previous research, while my primary interests were evolution, had to include relevant research on a particular group of blood disorders to receive funding. And that was just enough to get by - no big bucks for me or most of my colleagues.
Anyway, back to the failure of peer review...
Most interesting - did you click on any of the links within that article?
I'm betting not, but I did. And just as I implied above, pretty much ALL of them were to articles on clinically-related research. The titles for the first 4 links:
Peer-review practices of psychological journals: The fate of published articles, submitted again
Reproducibility of peer review in clinical neuroscience: Is agreement between reviewers any greater than would be expected by chance alone?
Differences in review quality and recommendations for publication between peer reviewers suggested by authors or by editors.
...
DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS:
Observational study of original research papers sent for external review at 10 biomedical journals.
Effects of editorial peer review: a systematic review.
...
METHODS:
To examine the evidence of the effects of editorial peer-review processes in biomedical journals,
The last 2 were in JAMA, by the way.
Your point?
What do you propose is better?
tas8831
Well-Known Member
You do know that there are OLD EARTH creationists and YOUNG EARTH creationists, yes?
You'd best get your own house in order before you go casting aspersions at others.
If you really want me to start digging into the lies of creationists and the shoddy garbage they call 'science', I will do so.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Like too many other creationists here refute him too many times and one is put on ignore.
nPeace
Veteran Member
Thanks. I'll get back to you on this later. If you don't hear from me on it, in a week's time (by next Monday), just give me a reminder... if you remember.
I'll be using another thread or two (more likely).
Later.
Oh. Could you give me an example of how a study session of theology goes.
Audie
Veteran Member
Now now, that is snark, and hoc wont even see it.
tas8831
Well-Known Member
Yet, it is true.
Audie
Veteran Member
The point as I see it is to imply what cannot be
demonstrated, that all of science is
and unreliable, driven by greed and corrupted
by bias.
Science is squishy, nothing is proven, facts chamge,
it is all in the paradigm of interpretation.
Why else do we see peer review brought up over
and over, genrrally in quotation marks? ( which
of course, the quotstion marks themselves are
used to imply something )
The charges are unasnwerable in their broad
vagueness and thus serve a most satisfactory
purpose.
One can never get a creationist to settle on
one fact relevant to disproving evolution,
to statevit clearly and defend it with logic and
data.
It seems to me there is no such fact, and in
the absence of same, the gish approach
becomes popular.
For one, it leads to the satisfaction of being able to
argue a whole roomfull of evos to a standstill.
Audie
Veteran Member
Well now you are just getting all factual on me.
Last edited:
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
It all depends on what's being studied. Most of the time it deals with the study of a particular scriptural narrative, whereas different resources, including different Bibles at times, whereas everyone has an opportunity to throw in their two cents.
Often other sources are brought in, such as accounts and theories from Roman historians, for example, or from language scholars familiar with Koine Greek and/or early Hebrew. .
Sometimes agreements may be reached, and sometimes not, but consensus is not considered a must. I was involved in Torah study for quite a few years whereas sometimes we were so involved in looking somethings up we couldn't get through even one chapter in the Bible over an hour and a half.
At the college level that I took some classes in, it was largely lecture, but with the opportunity to ask questions. In two of my theology classes, I had a Jesuit (Catholic) professor who was the author of the most widely used adult catechism in the U.S. and Canada, and he was one of the most brilliant men I have ever known; and I wasn't even a Catholic back then, btw.
Finally, and on a different note, are you willing to accept official Catholic sources as being what they are in regards to what they teach that the Church actually teaches even if you don't agree with them personally? I don't cater to dishonesty and lying in the name of God is completely unethical under even the most basic Christian standards, imo.
IOW, as the saying goes, "One can have their own opinions but not their own facts". For example, the Church does not teach that worshiping the sun is acceptable-- period. And I've posted quotes and links to official Catholic sources to show this, and yet that same person kept repeating the bold-faced lie that we do worship the sun. If you feel the same way, then I have no desire whatsoever to deal with people who tell such lies, supposedly in the name of God.
This is something that is always confusing to me. Perhaps it is naivete, hope, or confusion of my own that leads me here.
How can you draw the conclusions that you have and then openly declare that you do not understand the material you are making conclusions about? The only reason I can determine that creationist reject this science is ideological. But that conclusion is always rejected by creationists and they follow that with claims that their rejection is based on an understanding of the evidence.
Ignorance of the basic scientific information and understanding of it cannot exist at the same time. Yet, this is where it all comes together.
What I see is that selective rejection of science is ideological and for no other reason. But creationists recognize this has been a failing rejection within their own growing awareness of the power of science in different areas they do not reject. But rejection has to be maintained to support ideology, so creationists convince themselves and try to convince others that it is based on understanding.
While I am glad to see a creationist openly acknowledge a lack of understanding of the material, and I do hope you find understanding, recognizing the actual basis for the selective rejection of science would be the next logical step.
That appears to have just happened to me regarding another that did not like that I disagreed with her claims and conclusions.
Rejection is all based on ideology and various church doctrines. They just cannot bring themselves to admit that.The point as I see it is to imply what cannot be
demonstrated, that all of science is
and unreliable, driven by greed and corrupted
by bias.
Science is squishy, nothing is proven, facts chamge,
it is all in the paradigm of interpretation.
Why else do we see peer review brought up over
and over, genrrally in quotation marks? ( which
of course, the quotstion marks themselves are
used to imply something )
The charges are unasnwerable in their broad
vagueness and thus serve a most satisfactory
purpose.
One can never get a creationist to settle on
one fact relevant to disproving evolution,
to statevit clearly and defend it with logic and
data.
It seems to me there is no such fact, and in
the absence of same, the gish approach
becomes popular.
For one, it leads to the satisfaction of being able to
argue a whole roomfull of evos to a standstill.