Christian Medical Schools and Evolution

[rockydoc]

you are EXACTLY right....finally....this is what I mean

you are observing "microevolution" (sorry if that term irks you) and then you extrapolate that into the possibility, (an yes it is a logical possibility) that millions of years of these changes will result in macro-evolution (once again, sorry for the term) . All that Im trying to say is that what if the extrapolation isnt true, what if there is a God, and there was no need for evolution....this is all that i am saying....there is no way to observe macro-evolution at this point in time, so until then, I can believe something else without going against science....

I am not trying to be abrasive, and I dont think you are either....I think these discussions are important and useful..when done in the right manner

There are multiple beliefs, and not all of them include evolution....but these people (muslim, christian, jewish, eastern-new age, or whatever) are still capable of being oustanding scientists and physicians

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Quix]

you are EXACTLY right....finally....this is what I mean

you are observing "microevolution" (sorry if that term irks you) and then you extrapolate that into the possibility, (an yes it is a logical possibility) that millions of years of these changes will result in macro-evolution (once again, sorry for the term) . All that Im trying to say is that what if the extrapolation isnt true, what if there is a God, and there was no need for evolution....this is all that i am saying....there is no way to observe macro-evolution at this point in time, so until then, I can believe something else without going against science....

I am not trying to be abrasive, and I dont think you are either....I think these discussions are important and useful..when done in the right manner

There are multiple beliefs, and not all of them include evolution....but these people (muslim, christian, jewish, eastern-new age, or whatever) are still capable of being oustanding scientists and physicians

You are misinterpreting what I am saying. There is no epistemic leap from "micro-evolution to "macro-evolution", it's all the same process. There are simply times when the process speeds up due to geographical, seasonal, or temporal barriers, which induces speciation. "Macro-evolution" is observed in every generation of every species, precisely because it is the *exact same mechanism* that produces the "micro-evolution" between generations. It is observed in changes in model organisms, when the first reproductive barriers arise between different subpopulations of the same parent population. This same barrier arose when two of our chromosomes fused, producing 46 in us versus 48 in other great apes. Evolution is not a "belief" in the same sense that a religion is a belief.

 

[rockydoc]

right, you believe that they are the same mechanism, but that is difficult to support....and by support, I dont mean with extrapolations, which do make sense, if you hold to an evolutionary view point. they dont make sense if you hold to a creationist or other viewpoint.

All that Im asking is for someone to honestly admit that there are aspects to the evolutionary theory which can only be held to if you already are inclined to that world view. I am not trying to 'disprove' evolution, just simply say that it is ok for an intelligient human being to believe in creationism.
I just get upset when people often assume that a creationist is dumb or 'Not-evolved' because they dont agree
by the way, Im not saying that you are doing this

 

[Quix]

right, you believe that they are the same mechanism, but that is difficult to support....and by support, I dont mean with extrapolations, which do make sense, if you hold to an evolutionary view point. they dont make sense if you hold to a creationist or other viewpoint.

All that Im asking is for someone to honestly admit that there are aspects to the evolutionary theory which can only be held to if you already are inclined to that world view. I am not trying to 'disprove' evolution, just simply say that it is ok for an intelligient human being to believe in creationism.
I just get upset when people often assume that a creationist is dumb or 'Not-evolved' because they dont agree
by the way, Im not saying that you are doing this

That's simply not true; it's not difficult to support, as has been evidenced by countless experiments over the past 150 years, including the generation of novel species under ecological and laboratory conditions. The issue isn't one of "what are our basic assumptions", it's "what is empirically supported and verifiable". You've repeatedly insisted that aspects of evolution haven't been, but haven't shown this at all, nor have you attempted to explain how to get around the conceptual and experimental flaws fundamental to creationism. If one wants to call creationism a science, then it has to adhere to scientific principles and methodologies like the generation of explanatory and predictive hypotheses, falsifiability, repeatability, etc., etc. Evolution as an explanatory paradigm accounts for all of these in a parsimonious manner via experimentation in the disciplines contained under its umbrella, and unless you have some data to back up your position, creationism doesn't.

 

[Lokhtar]

right, you believe that they are the same mechanism, but that is difficult to support....and by support, I dont mean with extrapolations, which do make sense, if you hold to an evolutionary view point. they dont make sense if you hold to a creationist or other viewpoint.

All that Im asking is for someone to honestly admit that there are aspects to the evolutionary theory which can only be held to if you already are inclined to that world view. I am not trying to 'disprove' evolution, just simply say that it is ok for an intelligient human being to believe in creationism.
I just get upset when people often assume that a creationist is dumb or 'Not-evolved' because they dont agree
by the way, Im not saying that you are doing this

Well, I'm doing it. Its really not OK, if by creationism you mean young earth, or even that all species aren't related. Because you really need to have your head completely up your own alimentary canal and choose to simply ignore 150 years of solid scientific evidence. There is really no way around that.

 

[Lokhtar]

Would you call this macro evolution?

http://www.newscientist.com/channel...make-major-evolutionary-shift-in-the-lab.html

But sometime around the 31,500th generation, something dramatic happened in just one of the populations – the bacteria suddenly acquired the ability to metabolise citrate, a second nutrient in their culture medium that E. coli normally cannot use.
Indeed, the inability to use citrate is one of the traits by which bacteriologists distinguish E. coli from other species. The citrate-using mutants increased in population size and diversity.
"It's the most profound change we have seen during the experiment. This was clearly something quite different for them, and it's outside what was normally considered the bounds of E. coli as a species, which makes it especially interesting," says Lenski.

 

[rockydoc]

I guess it would help if you give me a specific empirically supported, verifiable, ecological situation in which this has been observed, and then we can discuss it and I could show you where Im coming from. And I am not about to call creationism science, becuase its not. I do believe that the science which is behind both the theory of evolution and creationism are in fact very similar. (im not saying that science can prove the existence of God, but that science can point to the possibility of an alternative to evolution---the jump to creationism is done on one's own)

And for Lokhtar, I almost gurantee that there will be at least one student in your med school or one of your patients or whatever that you will come across who will hold to creationism....i suggest that you get used to being tolerant and at least try to understand where people who dont agree with you are coming from. I like to believe this is a discussion not a mindless argument where we just throw insults at each other

 

[Lokhtar]

I guess it would help if you give me a specific empirically supported, verifiable, ecological situation in which this has been observed, and then we can discuss it and I could show you where Im coming from. And I am not about to call creationism science, becuase its not. I do believe that the science which is behind both the theory of evolution and creationism are in fact very similar. (im not saying that science can prove the existence of God, but that science can point to the possibility of an alternative to evolution---the jump to creationism is done on one's own)

And for Lokhtar, I almost gurantee that there will be at least one student in your med school or one of your patients or whatever that you will come across who will hold to creationism....i suggest that you get used to being tolerant and at least try to understand where people who dont agree with you are coming from. I like to believe this is a discussion not a mindless argument where we just throw insults at each other

Sure, I know many people who believe in Creationism. Tolerance is an odd word - I am not hostile toward them, but if the subject comes up, I'll try to let them know about the evidence and hopefully they aren't completely irrational about it.

You didn't answer about that article. Would you consider that to be macro evolution, considering it can be classified as another species? If not, what would you consider macro evolution for that e.coli?

And I am not about to call creationism science, becuase its not. I do believe that the science which is behind both the theory of evolution and creationism are in fact very similar.

In what way? You realize that the main proponents of ID, such as Behe, admitted that if their brand of 'science' were actually classified as science, so would Astrology and almost anything else?

 

[Quix]

I guess it would help if you give me a specific empirically supported, verifiable, ecological situation in which this has been observed, and then we can discuss it and I could show you where Im coming from. And I am not about to call creationism science, becuase its not. I do believe that the science which is behind both the theory of evolution and creationism are in fact very similar. (im not saying that science can prove the existence of God, but that science can point to the possibility of an alternative to evolution---the jump to creationism is done on one's own)

I'm away from the university at the moment, so I don't have access to the biology research databases. But this is beside the point; you concede the mechanisms of evolution, you are making the positive immaterial causation claim, so you have the burden of proof.

 

[rockydoc]

good questions,

ok, ill get back to you in a bit, right now I must do some work

 

[rockydoc]

OK, i guess we can use this article for discussion.

"Indeed, the inability to use citrate is one of the traits by which bacteriologists distinguish E. coli from other species. The citrate-using mutants increased in population size and diversity."

This is definitely an interesting article.
Well of course I am going to say that I wouldn't consider that macro-evolution. The problem which is often run into is how people classify or define a species. As you know, there are several different methods of classification and people often dispute which method is more accurate of a true species. You also know from microbiology, that there are several tests which can be used to identify a specific bacterium. Almost none of these tests are self-sufficient and only some are exclusive. A good microbiologist must compile the results of several different tests (metabolic, morphological, genetic, etc) to positively ID bacteria. Even then, Im sure you are aware of the countless anomolies which occur in bacteria cultures.

In this case, there are several E coli which have adapted to their environment and are able to metabolize citrate. Therefore, a citrate test alone would show these bacteria to no longer be considered E coli. However, if the multiple other tests were conducted, it would still be shown that the bacteria are indeed still E coli. Of course you could say that several consecutive, transmittable mutations such as this in one population of E. coli could, over time result in an organism barely resembling the original E coli. But as of yet, this is not the case. What has been observed here is nothing really new, because there are countless examples of species undergoing changes similar to this to better adapt. However, there have yet to situations observed where one very specific species has evolved into something totally different. Obviously this cant really be observed because the whole idea of evolution requires extreme lengths of time. Since it cant be observed then how do you tell me that evolution (the kind that made man from monkey........from swamp gas) is verifiable, and empirically supported. To me that is no better verifiable than my beliefs. This is where most creationists come from really.

I would consider macro-evolution to be the change of say a dinosaur to a bird, or a bateria to a protozoan, etc. These are the major changes (whether or not done over millions of years through micro-processes such as the E coli) which are required for evolution to be true. As of yet, we only observe micro-processes which support an evolutionary theory, ill give you that. But they do not necessarily harm an ID theory either. the same micro-processes can fit well into one's belief of creation.

"In what way? You realize that the main proponents of ID, such as Behe, admitted that if their brand of 'science' were actually classified as science, so would Astrology and almost anything else?"

I agree. What I was saying is that creation/ID are not science. I know that. But I do believe that actual science is supportive of a conclusion which leads to creation or ID. I definitely know that Behe is a very ingenious scientist (i've been to his conferences) and he would not disagree with me on this. That's what his whole missions is: to show how science can support ID. Not that ID is science.

 

[batch5000]

the second law of thermodynamics states that every reaction leads to an increase in entropy...in other words everything is moving toward a greater state of disorder.

I'm not so sure about this. The entropy of the system can be negative so long as the entropy of the universe is increased. If your statement were true, how would a star be possible. After all, the fusion of two atoms seems superficially entropically unfavorable. But consider the energy that it radiates. That energy contributes more entropy to the universe than the fusion takes out.

 

[batch5000]

I think what he meant to say was that all thermodynamic processes will increase the entropy of the universe (as long as you account for both the system and environment). So it's wrong because the entropy of the universe may remain unchanged.

No. The universe seems to be expanding. It is becoming less ordered and thus higher in entropy. Like a dye diffusing in a glass fish bowl.

 

[DEdm]

.

 

[Dienekes]

 

[Brodiewankenobi]

 

[Concubine]

For some reason this looks familiar. Is it from a Jehovah's Witness magazine?

 

[bcat85]

 

[LostLost]

[quote="ghostfoot, post: 6109237"]The class is boring because it's always taught by some blowhard trying to convince themself that there is no God.  

It's annoying because the theory has more holes than Swiss cheese, but they insist that "evolution has more evidence than gravity" (and other nonsensical platitudes).  

And if you question a devout evolutionist's faith, the typical response is along the lines of "I can't waste my time explaining this most basic science..."  

There is no way to replicate any of the claims (evolution is a faith-based belief), but they insist that it's scientific.  When they do offer "evidence," it is always evidence of natural selection or genetic drift, or some concept that is far removed from life-forms developing new abilities.[/quote][/QUOTE]

you sounds like you must have read Darwin on Trial by Phillip Johnson

 

[Haemulon]

I have not read through this thread, but whatever the specific argument is about ... this clearly wins it.

 

[soparu]

rofl, i want a flesh of christ crayon please

 

[betheltim]

Nevermind, haha.

 

[betheltim]

Nevermind again.

 

[betheltim]

Nevermind... Again.

 

[RySerr21]

Nevermind, haha.

why did you nevermind? i was in the middle of responding when you edited. what exactly your point was? I dont mean that to sound rude, i just wasnt sure what you were trying to get at.

 

[Lokhtar]

 

[Begaster]

Trying to convince a creationist that evolution is reality is about as fruitful and worth your time as trying to convince a Truther that the government didn't take down the buildings. Logic and rationality serve no place in their minds.

Honestly, save yourself the time and effort - leave the nutters alone to their beliefs.

 

[Droopy Snoopy]

Trying to convince a creationist that evolution is reality is about as fruitful and worth your time as trying to convince a Truther that the government didn't take down the buildings. Logic and rationality serve no place in their minds.

Honestly, save yourself the time and effort - leave the nutters alone to their beliefs.

Problem is the nutters won't leave you alone, because they are numerous and have other beliefs besides evolution. Like how God wants them to hate homosexuals, block the use of stem cells curing debilitating disease, and buy Joel Osteen a new learjet instead of funding an animal shelter or university.

 

[betheltim]

why did you nevermind? i was in the middle of responding when you edited. what exactly your point was? I dont mean that to sound rude, i just wasnt sure what you were trying to get at.

No offense taken. I noticed the posts I was responding to were old, and I don't want to come off as elitist or self-righteous, etc. I'd rather keep the peace than stir anything up, and staying civil and maintaining peaceful relationships, despite whatever superficiality they may have here, is more important than being right, I decided. Feel free to respond though! Is there any way I can read what I said? Haha..

 

[Haemulon]

Problem is the nutters won't leave you alone, because they are numerous and have other beliefs besides evolution. Like how God wants them to hate homosexuals, block the use of stem cells curing debilitating disease, and buy Joel Osteen a new learjet instead of funding an animal shelter or university.

I am sure your point is taken, but we should be carefull not to spin this thread out into a broader political discussion and then to the inevitable flame war.