Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

St. Tom was right...

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • St. Tom was right...

    A common creationist objection to evolution is that man could not evolve as the intended creation of God, since evolution, although not random, is affected by random factors. "How,"the creationist might ask,"can a process that is at least partially due to contingent factors result in an intended outcome?"

    As Stephen Gould wrote, rewind the process, and something very different might result. A tiny difference in momentum, and the Chixlub object will miss the Earth, and the mammals remain mostly small, marginal organisms, dodging the dinosaurs.

    St. Thomas Aquinas had an answer:

    "The effect of divine providence is not only that things should happen somehow; but that they should happen either by necessity or by contingency. Therefore whatsoever divine providence ordains to happen infallibly and of necessity happens infallibly and of necessity; and that happens from contingency, which the plan of divine providence conceives to happen from contingency."

    Aquinas, Summa Theologiae

    So "time and chance happen to them all", but that's O.K., because God can use time and chance. Not everyone buys that conclusion, since it's really hard to test.

    The question is, "could intelligent creatures evolve with much the same behavioral basis, even if they evolved from very different organisms?"

    The answer seems to be "yes."

    Curr Biol. 2018 Oct 8;28(19):3136-3142.e4.
    A Conserved Role for Serotonergic Neurotransmission in Mediating Social Behavior in Octopus.
    Edsinger E1, Dölen G2.

    Abstract
    Human and octopus lineages are separated by over 500 million years of evolution [1, 2] and show divergent anatomical patterns of brain organization [3, 4]. Despite these differences, growing evidence suggests that ancient neurotransmitter systems are shared across vertebrate and invertebrate species and in many cases enable overlapping functions [5]. Sociality is widespread across the animal kingdom, with numerous examples in both invertebrate (e.g., bees, ants, termites, and shrimps) and vertebrate (e.g., fishes, birds, rodents, and primates) lineages [6]. Serotonin is an evolutionarily ancient molecule [7] that has been implicated in regulating both invertebrate [8] and vertebrate [9] social behaviors, raising the possibility that this neurotransmitter's prosocial functions may be conserved across evolution. Members of the order Octopoda are predominantly asocial and solitary [10]. Although at this time it is unknown whether serotonergic signaling systems are functionally conserved in octopuses, ethological studies indicate that agonistic behaviors are suspended during mating [11-13], suggesting that neural mechanisms subserving social behaviors exist in octopuses but are suppressed outside the reproductive period. Here we provide evidence that, as in humans, the phenethylamine (+/-)-3,4-methylendioxymethamphetamine (MDMA) enhances acute prosocial behaviors in Octopus bimaculoides. This finding is paralleled by the evolutionary conservation of the serotonin transporter (SERT, encoded by the Slc6A4 gene) binding site of MDMA in the O. bimaculoides genome. Taken together, these data provide evidence that the neural mechanisms subserving social behaviors exist in O. bimaculoides and indicate that the role of serotonergic neurotransmission in regulating social behaviors is evolutionarily conserved.
    This message is hidden because ...

  • #2
    A common tactic by Darwinists is to ignore substantive, scientific objections to their religion in favour of attempting to debunk religious or philosophical ideas.

    They know they have more leeway when the focus is on more aesthetic ideas.
    Where is the evidence for a global flood?
    E≈mc2
    "the best maths don't need no stinkin' numbers"

    "The waters under the 'expanse' were under the crust."
    -Bob B.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Stripe View Post
      A common tactic by Darwinists is to ignore substantive, scientific objections to their religion in favour of attempting to debunk religious or philosophical ideas.

      They know they have more leeway when the focus is on more aesthetic ideas.
      By what backward thinking could Darwinian evolution possibly be called religion? The very thought is long dead in the realm of reason and logic, as you surly must know.

      And what "substantive, scientific objections" are you talking about? YEC, like Flat Earth-ism, crystal healing, Homeopathy, Dowsing and other long out-dated notions may well be "religious or philosophical ideas," but substantive, scientific objections.....? Really?

      Still, what does it really matter? Watching The Barbarian trounce you off the page gets a tad tedious after the first thousand times. And while his grasp of the science leaves you for dead, for which he deserves kudos, he still seems to believe there's a little supernatural magic involved on some level. Horses for course... maybe. But then horses and courses are both real

      Oh well....
      I think it more interesting to be a Rising Ape than a Falling Angel - Terry Pratchet

      ---Science is the poetry of reality---

      Plenty of things happen after you die but none of them will involve you.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Hedshaker View Post
        By what backward thinking could Darwinian evolution possibly be called religion?
        When Darwinists are prepared to define their terms and stick with the definitions, and engage rationally over the evidence, we might stop calling them religious fanatics.

        They won't do that though, because they'd shake off the religion immediately were they to do so.

        The very thought is long dead in the realm of reason and logic, as you surly must know.


        What "substantive, scientific objections" are you talking about?
        The top objection is the entropy problem.

        Still, what does it really matter? Watching The Barbarian trounce you off the page gets a tad tedious after the first thousand times. And while his grasp of the science leaves you for dead, for which he deserves kudos, he still seems to believe there's a little supernatural magic involved on some level. Horses for course maybe. But then horses and courses are both real
        Oh well....
        Where is the evidence for a global flood?
        E≈mc2
        "the best maths don't need no stinkin' numbers"

        "The waters under the 'expanse' were under the crust."
        -Bob B.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Stripe View Post
          When Darwinists are prepared to define their terms and stick with the definitions, and engage rationally over the evidence, we might stop calling them religious fanatics.
          Who are these Darwinists? Do they have a club or a church somewhere outside of TOL?

          They won't do that though, because they'd shake off the religion immediately were they to do so.
          Most shake off the religion before engaging in science. It's not a requirement but it seems to help. You should try it

          The top objection is the entropy problem.
          You see evidence I see apologetics


          Good one. You're still a deep thinker I see
          I think it more interesting to be a Rising Ape than a Falling Angel - Terry Pratchet

          ---Science is the poetry of reality---

          Plenty of things happen after you die but none of them will involve you.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Stripe View Post
            ...

            The top objection is the entropy problem.

            ...
            oh oh. now you've done it!

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Hedshaker View Post
              By what backward thinking could Darwinian evolution possibly be called religion?
              It's not unusual for creationists to do this. It reveals a truly sad lack of confidence in one's own faith, doesn't it? It would as if the United States accused Venezuela's ruler of practicing democracy.
              This message is hidden because ...

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by The Barbarian View Post
                It's not unusual for creationists to do this.
                Right. It's not strange in any way, shape or form. It's a perfectly sensible observation given the facts.

                Darwinists have a fanatic's devotion to their religion.

                It reveals a truly sad lack of confidence in one's own faith, doesn't it?


                Our faith is solely in the saving grace of Jesus Christ, who died on a cross so that all men might have a chance.

                You know: the same thing you believe.

                If you think that evidence-based analysis of rocks and things is faith, then you're even more deluded than your Internet persona conveys.

                It would as if the United States accused Venezuela's ruler of practicing democracy.
                And my analysis bears out. Darwinists will glom onto anything to avoid a rational discussion over the thing they hate most: Evidence.
                Where is the evidence for a global flood?
                E≈mc2
                "the best maths don't need no stinkin' numbers"

                "The waters under the 'expanse' were under the crust."
                -Bob B.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Stripe View Post
                  A common tactic by Darwinists is to ignore substantive, scientific objections to their religion in favour of attempting to debunk religious or philosophical ideas.
                  Stripe: Sensible objection to Darwinism.
                  Barbarian: BUT VENEZUELA IS SOCIALIST!!!!!!!!!1111

                  Where is the evidence for a global flood?
                  E≈mc2
                  "the best maths don't need no stinkin' numbers"

                  "The waters under the 'expanse' were under the crust."
                  -Bob B.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Stripe View Post
                    The top objection is the entropy problem.
                    Is this your idea of a rational discussion?

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by chair View Post
                      Is this your idea of a rational discussion?
                      Is there something irrational in/about what Stripe said?

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Evidently, the odds of even a single protein molecule forming in any "primordial soup" puts that one single event in the impossible category anywhere in the entire universe.

                        How much more impossible then is the forming of two protein molecules close enough to each other to do anything together, let alone all the protein molecules needed to form one cell, let alone have them all organized so as to be "alive" let alone reproduce?

                        The only reasonable and scientific answer is that God did it
                        "And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship and in breaking of bread and in prayers." Acts 2:42

                        "Fulfil ye my joy, that ye be likeminded, having the same love, being of one accord, of one mind" Philippians 2:2

                        Pro scripture = Protestant

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by The Barbarian View Post
                          A common creationist objection to evolution is ....

                          my objection to evolution being compatible with God is that, as a theory/concept, evolution relies on random changes to the DNA of descendants of any specific organism, random changes that are more often harmful than beneficial, a population of descendants with a higher proportion of birth defects than microscopically incremental improvements

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by JudgeRightly View Post
                            Is there something irrational in/about what Stripe said?
                            Maybe you are right. Misunderstanding or deliberately misusing scientific concepts is not "irrational", just plain ignorant and/or dishonest.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Making blanket statements doesn't move the discussion forward. Could you be more precise:

                              Originally posted by chair View Post
                              Maybe you are right. Misunderstanding
                              What has Stripe misunderstood?

                              [QUOTE]or deliberately misusing scientific concepts[QUOTE]

                              How has Stripe deliberately misused scientific concepts, and which ones did he misuse?

                              is not "irrational", just plain ignorant
                              How is Stripe being ignorant?

                              and/or dishonest.
                              How is Stripe being dishonest?

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X