Do you believe in Darwinian evolution?

Discussion in 'The Voting Booth' started by KO2134, Aug 27, 2013.

?

Do you believe in Darwinian evolution?

  1. Yes

    46 vote(s)
    50.0%
  2. No

    32 vote(s)
    34.8%
  3. Unsure

    7 vote(s)
    7.6%
  4. Need more information

    7 vote(s)
    7.6%
  1. jvarnell

    jvarnell Premium Member

    754
    26
    48
    No you must not have read what I said........DARWIN's Evelution theroy is anti-religous not all eveloutionay theorys...
     
  2. dfreybur

    dfreybur Premium Member

    3,935
    2,394
    133
    You have the arrow of effect and cause pointed in the wrong direction there.

    It does happen that certain teachers of certain sects of a religion can be anti-Darwin. As religion is not a self correcting process, anti-Darwin stances do not automatically self-correct out of existence. Of course the vast number of religions in the world have no teachers and no sects that conflict with Darwin.

    It is possible but rare for any one scientist to be anti-religion. Darwin, of course, was not among these erroneous scientists. Science itself is a self correcting process and as a result all anti-religion stances in science get corrected out of existence. Science is a neutral process that does not address religion.

    Darwin himself view that religion would oppose him. It's why he delayed publishing his Origin of Species for two decades. His wife was a fundie and he preferred domestic tranquility to controversy.

    For a fight to exist, only one party is needed. Do not confuse the existence of a fight with mutual combat intent.
     
  3. BryanMaloney

    BryanMaloney Premium Member

    1,246
    234
    63
    NOBODY USES DARWIN'S THEORY ANYMORE! NOBODY USES IT! IT IS OBSOLETE! THERE IS NO POINT IN ARGUING AGAINST IT!
    We might as well argue against Aristotelian physics, argue against phlogiston, argue against the miasma model of disease origin, argue against non-atomic continuity of matter, argue against the model that claims light has infinite speed.

    NOBODY uses Darwin's theory. It's purely of historical interest.
     
  4. jvarnell

    jvarnell Premium Member

    754
    26
    48
    The theard was "do you beleive in darwins evolution" that is why the discusion. Also as a part of another thread I went back and read morals and dogma again and felt the chapter on the fellow craft illustrated my thoughts on the subject of darwin and politics in this thread. I was never arguing about any thing I was answering with the reasons behind my statments about the word theory and how darwin was being used by the anti-religion communistic groups. Again I think that the fellow craft section of moral explain my thinking.
     
  5. jvarnell

    jvarnell Premium Member

    754
    26
    48
    No I see it the way I stated it.
     
  6. JohnnyFlotsam

    JohnnyFlotsam Premium Member

    485
    62
    28
    Really? Which VSL would that be, exactly? Mine makes it quite clear that nature, including evolution, is "the way things work". So I'll thank you to not call me a hypocrite. And then I'll point out that it may be your choice to believe the universe works according to some collection of ancient myths, but not all of your brothers have made that particular choice.
     
  7. JohnnyFlotsam

    JohnnyFlotsam Premium Member

    485
    62
    28
    For anyone who understands science, including the theory of evolution, there simply is no "face value" to believe in. Conflating that understanding with religious faith is a mistake.
     
  8. BryanMaloney

    BryanMaloney Premium Member

    1,246
    234
    63
    There are people who have very weak faith, very weak, indeed. In their minds, any model that could be interpreted to work without God's activity and without a literal interpretation of their (English translation with modern English metaphors and never any historical context) VSL can ONLY be taken to be active atheism. They can't stomach the idea that there could ever be a model that permits one to not accept God, because in their minds, absolutely and explicitly requiring someone to not be atheist is the ONLY way to prevent everyone from automatically becoming atheist. It's pretty sad.
     
    Morris likes this.
  9. Isaih

    Isaih Registered User

    33
    0
    6
    I joined this mason community because I have a particular interest in the skull and crossbones used by a member "Widow Son" and as the rules of joining did not prohibit me, I hope he may help my research.

    And started reading this topic out of curiosity.

    Interesting to see the difference of opinions on what to me is an easily discerned fundamental truth .

    I'm surprised that masons are part of the mass delusion. Shocked actually. Having read through the topic , think my view (mighty protestant) might have value to some.

    All the traits of Darwin's finches are to be found in the genepool of finches. Darwin did not know that in his day, science does now.
    They're either turned off or on.
    Dominate or recede, to my understanding.
    My father has blue eyes, my mother brown.
    Have I evolved by having brown eyes?
    Have I devolved?
    Or is the information for blue and brown eyes in my DNA, and the brown is switched on and the blue off when producing cells for my eyes, ?
    Is the gene for blue eyes from my father in my seed?

    If my brother with blue eyes is perceived to be more handsome by women and breeds more successfully than me, does that change the DNA code?
    Has he evolved?

    As far as a creator of what I call god's machines. And so all life is-
    DNA Code either proves the existence of a creator of every life form, or disproves Information theory
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_theory

    If you believe evolution disproves Information Theory, you might stop believing in the computer you are currently using because it wouldn't work without Information Theory application.

    I believe Paul prophecises Darwinian Evolution and the discovery of the gene coding in Romans 1:20, if you include the word "when", which seems needed to correct the tense of the next line.

    For (when) the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

    Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.

    Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

    And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things
     
    Last edited: Aug 23, 2014
  10. Aeelorty

    Aeelorty Registered User

    98
    4
    8
    I'm not sure of the point you are trying to make with these rhetorical questions or what side of the fence you fall on. So forgive me if I make some bad assumptions.

    So evolutionary theory describes a change over time and it seems like you might be missing the point, I'm not sure. So the code itself is actually very universal, the same four bases are used by all living life that we know of, so the code does not change. What is changed might be number of individuals expressing a certain trait. Evolution theory and information theory don't conflict at all and they are used in examples for each other quite frequently. I would also like to say that individuals do not evolve, groups do. So your brother wouldn't have evolved but the population group might depending on the circumstances again to have only blue eyed people or people with radically differentiated shades of blue eyes. Again not enough info to really make any predictions on.
     
    ej6267 likes this.
  11. Isaih

    Isaih Registered User

    33
    0
    6
    Aeelorty , each kind of lifeform has its own genepool.
    People have their genepool and lettuces have theirs, and so on.
    these natural boundaries between lifeforms cannot be crossed. (barring Agrobacteria/fallen angels or scientific meddling)

    If they could all life would have "evolved" as a malange of everything. Not distinct kinds of lifeforms as we see today.

    My point was that my brother and I carry the same genes. Some are dominant in me that are recessive in him and vice versa.
    In future generations this might progress in a certain direction or just as easily reverse. But neither of us could ever hope to have descendants that grow lettuce leaves from their eye sockets because that isn't part of the human genepool.

    Each genepool was designed and is fixed. It is what it was when created.

    ---

    According to Information Theory in order to have a language, you must have a sender of it.
    DNA code is a language. Either it had a sender of it ( our creator) or Information theory is wrong.

    Evolutionary theory, is to me, so logically absurd, its very absurdity makes it difficult to argue against.
    If someone claims pink elephants create rainclouds by licking lollipops on Tuesdays, you can debate that notion by stating how rain is actually created. But its very difficult to break down the Pink elephant lollipop theory itself because it is so patently absurd.
     
    Last edited: Aug 23, 2014
  12. Aeelorty

    Aeelorty Registered User

    98
    4
    8
    So the way you understand Evolution is a very absurd theory, so you are right to reject it. That being said your understanding is very inaccurate. It's really a strawman argument. To be more specific you don't have the and combination of alleles as your brother, unless you're twins. Gene as you are using it is not the same as it is used academically. So you and I have the same genes but different versions of those genes. And the example you used is poor because there isn't a conceivable reason we would develop down that path. However it is possible knowing the right code to make it happen given the time and resources since lettuce and humans both use the same 4 nucleic acids to write that code. Now if you look how DA operates you will see receivers and senders of info in the chemicals and proteins that operate on dna. I think you are making the false assumption that intelligence is necessary for info transfer
     
    Last edited: Aug 24, 2014
  13. Isaih

    Isaih Registered User

    33
    0
    6
    Aeelorty, I am not a scientist, as you've rightly pointed out my understanding is probably flawed.
    I'm not convinced it is innacurate though. I believe I have the same genepool exactly as my brother and indeed you too.

    What I believe is we all have the genepool god created in Adam.

    Each kind has a distinct genepool, and although there are obvious similarities in design and components between kinds, that is a reflection of a common creator and raw materials, rather than evidence of life evolving from the same simple organism.

    In Genesis it says that fallen angels mated with men, corrupting the genepool.
    This supernatural corruption of natural law( which is distinct incorruptible kinds of lifeforms), is probably the reason for Noah's flood.
    As in the days of Noah so shall it be at the end, may partly be showing us that the genepool of man may be corrupted again by the fallen angels.

    Which may, if it happens (or happened) be mistaken for human evolution.

    Most men my age, I know, for example are considerably taller than their father.
    I have a bizzare theory on the cause of this, but no more bizzare than evolutionary theory.

    That it might be caused by having fallen angel DNA injected into us as babies.
    Most men my age in protestant countries (and women) were injected with chromosomes from a baby aborted in 1965.

    Its not impossible that this baby was conceived via some flavour of demonology for the purpose of corrupting the human genepool with fallen angel DNA.
    I like this wacky theory a lot more than evolutionary theory, as an explanation for a taller population.
    It is certainly very odd that most of us have been injected with chromosomes from the same baby.

    http://www.immunize.org/concerns/vaticandocument.htm
     
  14. pointwithinacircle2

    pointwithinacircle2 Rapscallion Premium Member

    803
    842
    113
    Or maybe growth is related to the amount and quality of nourishment one receives when growing up?
     
  15. Aeelorty

    Aeelorty Registered User

    98
    4
    8
    So this is not a theory that is testable by science and is immediately excluded from any debate using science because it cannot be tested. Now evolution is a wacky theory it starts with some very basic principles that we can actually test and do sanity checks on.

    So we have actually be able to introduce genes from one species into another and do it very frequently in bacteria. Petsmart sells a glofish which are genetically modified fish that have a jellyfish luminescence gene spliced in. Viruses act by changing the host DNA or RNA to reproduce and bacteria from different species and genus exchange DNA in the form of plasmids. If you look at biolmolecues you can actually see how they have evolved, one common way is for a sub-unit to be replicated to create a new unit made up of repeats of those sub-units. Myoglobin and Hemoglobin is a great example of this.

    There are better theories for why people are taller than others and science isn't about what theory you like its about what can be disproved.
     
    ej6267 likes this.
  16. admarcus1

    admarcus1 Registered User

    115
    66
    28
    I don't remember that part.
     
    dfreybur likes this.
  17. BryanMaloney

    BryanMaloney Premium Member

    1,246
    234
    63
    There is no such thing as "devolving" in biological evolution. There is no such thing as "better" or "higher" in biological evolution except when speaking loosely. If you think in terms of "evolve" vs. "devolve", you have no understanding of how evolution theory is used by biologists, none at all.
     
    Aeelorty likes this.
  18. BryanMaloney

    BryanMaloney Premium Member

    1,246
    234
    63
    Genesis 6:1-4 mentions "sons of God" marrying "daughters of men". However, traditional Jewish interpretation is that the "sons of God" were those people still of a "Godly" line--some of Seth's descendents, not angels. Christian scholarship likewise cites Christ stating that angels do not marry. However, apocryphal works, like the Book of Enoch and the Book of Jubilees (which are very popular among occultists), explicitly identify them as angels. Enoch is not considered to be Canonical by most Christians, neither Protestant/Reformed/Evangalical/"Non-Denominational, nor Catholic, nor Orthodox, although some of these Christians do consider it to be "readable" (has value but should not be taken as normative). It is eagerly embraced by fringe groups, though, because it's a rousing story.
     
  19. Isaih

    Isaih Registered User

    33
    0
    6
    (Bryan I was being facetious with the use of evolve and devolve, I don't believe in evolution or devolution, that was my point.

    Would you agree that Life is ,at a microscopic level, more complex a machine than any manmade machine?
    Do you think machines can design and build themselves through the sole mechanism of "millions and millions of years" ?

    This is logically absurd to me.

    I did like the book of Enoch,( I must be a fringe group.)

    "There are better theories for why people are taller than others and science isn't about what theory you like its about what can be disproved"

    I don't think there are any theories more interesting than mine on this issue, but sure its open to ridicule. The improved nutrition theory is almost as ludicrous as the evolution one though.
    There must be a reason for marked increase in height. In my case I'm 4 inches taller than my father and that is usual. He grew up on a farm and ate very well.

    Aeelorty I was referring to Genesis 6:9 which may explain legends of the Minotaur , the 6 fingered redhaired giants the American Indians fought, Goliath( who apparently died on the spot where Solomon mined his quarries)



    And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them,
    2 That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.
    3 And the Lord said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years.
    4 There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.

    .............

    Noah was a just man and perfect in his generations, and Noah walked with God.(perfect in his generations is an odd phrase, and may refer to him not having his genecode corrupted by fallen angel DNA)
     
    Last edited: Aug 24, 2014
  20. Aeelorty

    Aeelorty Registered User

    98
    4
    8
    So it is important to point out that you can "evolve" chemicals in the lab to have higher binding affinity for a given ligand. Yes machines can build themselves given the proper coding and hardware.

    I don't think you understand that your objections to evolution fall outside the realm of scientific critique. This means they really don't have any value to a discussion based in science because the scientific method has certain perimeters of operation and your theories fall outside of that. Could they be right? Maybe but we have no way to test it so therefore we can't use it in science. Now evolution can be tested and is therefore a better scientific theory.

    Now you seem to be focusing on sexual reproduction in humans through a supernatural force, we can bypass that entire argument by looking at asexual reproduction. Bacteria can reproduce asexually and the offspring should be an exact copy. Mutation causes the offspring be different genetically and they can be caused by a few different things. tautomerization of the nucleotide can cause a change in the sequence. Nucleotides can be added to extend the sequence an extra space or deleted to shorten the sequence, they can be switched for a completely different nucleotide. This is where mutations occur and mutation is what drives evolution. I don't see how angels would be influencing these small singular changes by mating with humans. You idea invokes this sudden massive change but that is not at all what evolution is like and we know this because we can look and see that things change in smaller increments.

    The lettuce example from earlier would be unlikely because we would need to acquire the genes and code to produce those traits and there is very little chance any of the required mutations to occur and also be beneficial for reproduction, there are too many steps that would have to happen for that example to every really be plausible. Now if you start with one set of organisms it is much more reasonable to think that a very small change like a repeated subunit in a protein could be beneficial. Now the group starts to split there because not all will get this new trait. After many splits due to small changes over a very long time we can get species.
     
    dmurawsky likes this.

Share My Freemasonry