Catholics and Evolution

[nerfherder]

Being new here, I think the last thing I wanted to do was to drop into a discussion and “snipe” someone else’s post but since no one has apparently picked up on this, I figured I’d bite.

In order to make the claim above, one would have to believe:

• that African Elephants, as a species, have come to the realization that they are being poached for their tusks
• that these elephants have consequently decided to grow shorter tusks in order to dissuade the poachers
• that these elephants have been able to bring about these changes somehow
• that all of this has occurred over only 50 years, knowing that the lifespan of an african elephant is about 50-60 years

I don’t mean to cause a ruckus but I can’t for the life of me understand how this could make sense to anyone.

Come to Africa and talk to one of the Game Rangers in Kruger National Park in South Africa. I know that 50 years is a short time; I know that this should not have happened. It is not a matter of elephants wishing to evolve in a certain way - we can be sure of that. And sure elephants live for ages - often much longer than fifty years.

The important thing is the length of a generation, which is about 10 years. That means over the past 50 years, we have had five generations of elephants in which to effect a change in response to the depletion to the point of extinction of Africa’s elephant herds.

My understanding is that most of the largest tuskers were poached out very early on, by random hunters in the early part of the 19th century, by sport hunters mid-century, by soldiers (Mau Mau in Kenya and Frelimo in Mozambique for example) and by people needing meat to eat and ivory to sell from the 1960s on.

The genes of the big tuskers more or less died out, or at least became dangerously close to extinction, except in isolated herds. (The Kruger National Park Museum at Letaba North has the skulls of five famous tuskers of enormous size.)

If the genes died out, if the great tuskers were no longer there to fertilise the harem, then male elephants with shorter tusks would do the job. And so on through the generations during the past century - to the point that we now have very few great tusks left anywhere in the Southern Africa region. What there is is hardly worth poaching.

I consider, on the basis of observation over forty years, and what I have read, that I have seen evolution happening among elephants.

You can also consider the case of mixomatosis in Australian rabbits: the alien microbe was introduced into rabbits with a view to clearing out the rabbit population which ate grain intended for sheep. The microbe first killed 99% of rabbits; but it and the rabbits reached an amicable balance within 6 generations (3 years, given that a rabbit generation is 6 months). It is hypothesised (Plagues and Peoples) that statis between a microbe and a human being or another mammalian is reached in six generations. And that is an excellent exemplar of evolution - for me at least.

I am hoping that this is what will happen in the case of the HIV prion: governments are sure not getting their acts together with regard to prevention or cure, and I know that because that is my profession. It looks as if we will have to wait out the 6 generations (150 years) before we reach an amicable relationship with the HIV microbe - unless we all die first.

 

[mich2]

ID is not scientific. It offers no explanation as to how the Designer actually arranges DNA to suit its design. It makes no predictions. It is difficult to engage in a scientific discussion when one side is not doing science. From what I can see, ID is a political scheme to get religion taught in science classes in US state schools.

In my opinion, many scientific theories involve metaphysical implications.The point of Singularity, which hypothetically existed before the birth of the universe is a metaphysical entity. The steady state theory of the universe, which implies an eternal universe, is also metaphysical in essence.If the point of singularity can be offered as a scientific theoretical hypothesis in a science class, then, any gaps found within scientific theories, such as the ones found in the process needed for macroevolution to occur, ought to be able to be filled with some possible hypothetical processes, even if it implies a metaphysical one. The idea that evolution occured in the same way an embryo develops into a human person ought not to be discouraged, in my opinion. It’s actually the same form of observation which Darwin used to introduce his theory; it’s also the simplest of solutions; and some observations, explained through Quantum Mechanics, exists to support such a process. If this would be the case, then, the process of evolution had to be intellegently designed.

pnews.org/ArT/TrU/QuantumEvolution.shtml

Quantum mechanics tells us that the protons in DNA that form the basis of DNA coding are not specifically localised to certain positions but must be smeared out along the double helix. But these different positions for the coding protons correspond to different DNA codes. At the quantum mechanical level, DNA must exist in a superposition of mutational states.

If these particles can enter quantum states then DNA may be able to slip into the quantum multiverse and sample multiple mutations simultaneously. But what makes it drop out of the quantum world? Most physicists agree that systems enter quantum states when they become isolated from their environment and pop out of the multiverse when they exchange significant amounts of energy with their environment, an interaction that is termed quantum measurement. Cells may enter quantum states when they are unable to divide and replicate perhaps they cant utilise a particular substrate in their environment. They may collapse out of those quantum states when their DNA superposition includes a mutation that allows them to grow and replicate once more. In this way the environment interacts with, and performs a quantum measurement on the cell, to precipitate advantageous mutations. From our viewpoint, inhabiting only one universe, the cell appears to choose certain mutations.

The observation below would support such an hypothesis

But is there any evidence for this? When John Cairns of the Harvard School of Public Health in Boston set out to test the dogma that mutations occur at the same rate whether or not they provided an advantage, he found that things were not so simple. Cairns examined bacteria that were deficient in their ability to utilise the milk sugar lactose. When he exposed these bacteria to conditions in which lactose was the only food source, they starved. The cells did not die but instead went into a kind of suspended animation state, called dormancy. Dormancy was a well-known phenomenon so Cairns was not surprised to find that his bacteria managed to survive in this state for many weeks. What did come as a surprise was the discovery that, after a lag period of a day or two, several of his bacterial cells managed to grow and replicate. These replicating cells had acquired a mutation that allowed them to feed on the lactose. What was even more surprising was his observation that the cells only acquired these lactose-eating mutations when lactose was available.

This would suggest the eye to have evolved because light first had to exist. Whatever hypothesis could support this
ought to be introduced within science classes, in my opinion. Intelegent Design would hold, in my opinion, such a view.

Name some non-creationist ID proponents please. Johnson, Behe, Dembski and Wells are all creationists of some sort or other: they all believe that God created the universe. Please indicate who your “many” non-creationist ID proponents are. I take “creationist” to include a broader spectrum than just young earth creationists: Behe is Catholic and a creationist though not a YE creationist.

rossum

Are you not asking which atheistic scientist believe in some evidence for the existance of God?

Andre

 

[Sixtus]

s there any evidence that humans have evolved? An aethiest geologist friend of mine alleges there is no evidence that ‘man’ [humanity] has evolved.

If evolution is correct then there should be horizontal branches on the human tree but there are not.

There should also by definition be evidence of diversity but there is not.

If evolution is correct per se, then there should be a systematic increase in species as they evolve. Over the last 15,000 years species have been in decline so that on average one specie becomes extinct every year. This is anaethema to the concept of evolution,

In nature there is no evidence, not one shred not one iota that ‘information’ has ever evolved. All information is the product of Intelligence. Nowhere but nowhere is there any trace of naturally occuring information. That in itself proves that evolution is not credible. In all the known universe not one single shred of evidence of naturally occuring information exists

 

[Delphinus85]

There should also by definition be evidence of diversity but there is not.

Well there ARE different human races. Diversity, every one is different. With different strengths and weaknesses.

 

[Sixtus]

Well there ARE different human races. Diversity, every one is different. With different strengths and weaknesses.

My friend I agree we are all different. So guess that is diveristy. But I would say ‘there are different cultures’ there is but ONE race and that is the HUMAN race.

 

[zian]

s there any evidence that humans have evolved? An aethiest geologist friend of mine alleges there is no evidence that ‘man’ [humanity] has evolved.

He would be wrong.

Silly geologists!!

If evolution is correct then there should be horizontal branches on the human tree but there are not.

There should also by definition be evidence of diversity but there is not.

Ah, but there is …

talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/

You’re welcome!!

If evolution is correct per se, then there should be a systematic increase in species as they evolve.

why?

Over the last 15,000 years species have been in decline so that on average one specie becomes extinct every year. This is anaethema to the concept of evolution,

extinction is anathema? says where? more like extinctions are expected, given the ebb and flow of selection pressures.

 

[Delphinus85]

well, there ARE genetic diversities (black skin, slanted eyes, etc…) but obviously this doesn’t make any person less of a person in any way that a chihuaua is less of a dog than a great dane is. Racism is for people who are dumb and egotistical. We are all HUMAN but we each have a genetic diversity.

 

[Linkowski]

Jesus spoke of Adam and Eve as real people and so should we. Also, I would like to know how we are speaking of evolution…if evolution is true, why the gaping holes in the transitions from one form to another?

Genesis speaks of God making them all “after their kind”…

Ge 1:11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so. {grass: Heb. tender grass}
Ge 1:12 And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
Ge 1:21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
Ge 1:24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.
Ge 1:25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

1:11,12 according to its kind. God set in motion a providential process whereby the vegetable kingdom could reproduce through seeds which would maintain each one’s unique characteristics. The same phrase is used to describe the perpetuating reproduction of animals within their created species (vv. 21,24,25), and indicates that evolution, which proposes reproduction across species lines, is a false explanation of origins.

MacArthur, John Jr: The MacArthur Study Bible. electronic ed. Nashville : Word Pub., 1997, c1997, S. Ge 1:11

 

[123rock]

I am a PhD student. I couldn’t do a lot of my research if I didn’t believe in evolution. For instance we believe that the important residues in a protein tend to be conserved through evolution whilst the less important filling-in type residues tend to change. If we couldn’t make these types of observations our ability to do biochemistry would be seriously compromised.

If you’re a PhD student you should know the difference between microevolution and macroevolution.