E
- Status
S
StAnastasia
Guest
Mike, is it possible that the designer purposely messed around with the genome so that it appeared to have happened by evolution. Is it possible that in actuality the Creationists are right, and God is just messing with our minds for the fun of it?
A
Annie39
Guest
That sounds very interesting. Yesterday I wrote to Mike that I would let him know if my daughter-in-law gives birth to a child who can fly. I was being facetious of course. However, before I waste time hunting for this I have a question. Will I find the equivalent? Is there really incontrovertible evidence in PICTURES no less of two species, one of one species and its child having changed into another?
Annie
S
StAnastasia
Guest
The evolutionary explanation has never claimed this.
M
mpartyka
Guest
From the article:
This, frankly, is a flat-out lie. Even if one chooses to believe that humans and chimps have always been separate species, it is well-known that human chromosome 2 is the result of an end-to-end fusion of two earlier chromosomes that are still distinct in chimp DNA. We know this because chromosomes have specific DNA sequences that mark their ends and middles. Human chromosome 2 has the following structure: “end”-“middle”-“end/end”-“middle”(inactive)-“end”. So, humans, just like all other primates, once had 48 chromosomes, not 46.
–Mike
A
Annie39
Guest
Really St. A. That is what has had to have happened in order for one species to change into another. How about the primate whose ancestors started out as one with our ancestors? Are there pictures of the babes of the one common ancestor beginning to look like different species of one another? What will I see if I take time out of my day or probably days to find these pictures?
B
buffalo
Guest
When one walks down the beach and sees a left footprint in the sand as far as can be seen what conclusion should be reached? Should we conclude that someone just wanted to mess with our mind?
M
mpartyka
Guest
Why do I get the feeling that even if you were given pictures of such a thing, you’d simply demand videotape – and if that were provided, you’d insist that a creature give birth to its evolutiontionary descendent right in front of you?
This is starting to remind me of an episode of “The Family Guy” in which Brian is trying to convince Lois that her brother is the serial killer who’s been targeting fat people. Brian takes Lois to her brother’s room, and there are pictures of fat people all over the walls and ceiling. When that doesn’t convince her, Brian shows her a dead fat person under the bed. And when that doesn’t convince her, Brian shows her a dying fat person lying next to the bed who says, “Your brother did this to me!” (That convinces her.)
–Mike
S
StAnastasia
Guest
It would depend on the depth and spacing of the left foot impressions. It could be a one-legged person hopping; it might be a two-legged person hopping on one foot; it might be a left-foot mold (like the Bigfoot molds people use) stamped in the sand at regular intervals.
StAnastasia
S
StAnastasia
Guest
No, that did not have to happen. Change is gradual and incremental, over million s of years. Dinosaurs did not give birth to eagles. Chimps did not give birth to humans. No evolutionist has ever claimed they did.
S
StAnastasia
Guest
I have an earnest suggestion for Annie and Ed and Buffalo:
You are never ever going to get the world’s scientists to dump science and replace it with a world view based on an ancient Mesopotamian myth. Try as you might on obscure internet fora, it’s just not going to happen. A more satisfying experience for you might be to get the various Fundamentalist Catholic colleges and universities to host their own conferences, research programs, journals, chairs, etc. You might include Christendom College in Virginia, Ave Maria University in Florida, the Franciscan Univedrsity of Steubenville, and a number of others. You could even invite Protestant Fundamentalist colleges, although they might not be happy to consort with the anti-Christ!
If you did this, you could develop your own Mesopotamian science free from the kinds of bother you have to put up with from mainstream scientists. You could hold conferences on the 6,000 year-old earth, the global flood survived by Noah, light from stars that only appear to be billions of light years away, and so forth.
This is of course only a suggestion, but it might work. It might solve a variety of problems at once, and absolve you from having to try incessantly to convince Catholic (and other) scientists to abandon their life’s work, which will never happen. Let me know what you think about this idea.
StAnastasia
B
buffalo
Guest
or we could just become heretics. Not!
S
StAnastasia
Guest
Buffalo, no one said you should. But you yourself should realize by now that the world’s scientists and theologians – including all the Catholic ones – are not going to dump modern science in favor of the world view of an ancient nomadic tribe who took their cosmological cue from Mesopotamian civilization. It’s not going to happen, no matter how long you wrangle on the Internet.
My proposal would give you a forum where you could meet with other opponents of science to discuss your ideas, without the interference of scientists. In fact, here is an International Creationism Conference you might conisder attending:
creationicc.org/
StAnastasia
B
buffalo
Guest
Let me give you the bottom line once again. When the Magisterium makes a formal pronouncement on the origins of man that deals with Eve coming from Adam, bodily immortality, preternatural, gifts, etc… and states we got it wrong all these years and offers an explanation how, then I will believe it true. Until then I will just wait and see what develops.
S
StAnastasia
Guest
That’s fine. But do check out the creationism conference.
E
edwest2
Guest
Since Humani Generis (1950) and Communion and Stewardship, there is no reason for any Catholic anywhere to believe that God did not make Eve from Adam’s side – None.
The secularists and modernists who post here only want one thing – to say the Catholic Church got it wrong based on their own belief system – S C I E N C E.
How many times have they posted here saying Science has nothing to say about God, gods or the supernatural? How many times have they posted here saying there is not one scientific document that mentions God? Anybody?
Yet they come here and go on and on about primitive people and ancient myths and how they didn’t know anything – and we’ve got new, new evidence and modern (and post-modern) evidence that the Church has got it wrong. You can’t ignore it. You’d be a fool not to believe it. Et cetera.
Wake up my fellow Catholics. They do not want to learn the truth more perfectly or understand scripture more perfectly, they want their god - science - to lead humanity into the new age of – M A N. That’s right.
They are clearly going beyond what can be demonstrated by science. Their conclusions exalt only man. And the Catholic Church is against such pronouncements since they are presented not as provisional conclusions, but as final conclusions.
The Church is praised by men when even a few words support what they believe: “evolution is more than a hypothesis.” But the same men offer only insults and profanity when another Pope adds, But it is also true that evolution is not a complete, scientifically proven theory.
As Jesus said to Peter, He who hears you hears me.
Peace,
Ed
The secularists and modernists who post here only want one thing – to say the Catholic Church got it wrong based on their own belief system – S C I E N C E.
How many times have they posted here saying Science has nothing to say about God, gods or the supernatural? How many times have they posted here saying there is not one scientific document that mentions God? Anybody?
Yet they come here and go on and on about primitive people and ancient myths and how they didn’t know anything – and we’ve got new, new evidence and modern (and post-modern) evidence that the Church has got it wrong. You can’t ignore it. You’d be a fool not to believe it. Et cetera.
Wake up my fellow Catholics. They do not want to learn the truth more perfectly or understand scripture more perfectly, they want their god - science - to lead humanity into the new age of – M A N. That’s right.
They are clearly going beyond what can be demonstrated by science. Their conclusions exalt only man. And the Catholic Church is against such pronouncements since they are presented not as provisional conclusions, but as final conclusions.
The Church is praised by men when even a few words support what they believe: “evolution is more than a hypothesis.” But the same men offer only insults and profanity when another Pope adds, But it is also true that evolution is not a complete, scientifically proven theory.
As Jesus said to Peter, He who hears you hears me.
Peace,
Ed
B
buffalo
Guest
I am not an opponent of science. I love science!
A
Annie39
Guest
“Why do I get the feeling that even if you were given pictures of such a thing,”
No, actually it would intrigue me to no end. Did I say intrigue? I would be flummoxed and all those other words the thesaurus can come up with. I would see if I could get in touch with a scientist who does not believe in evolution to interpret the picture. Then I’d see if an evolutionist scientist would comment on the interpretation of the first scientist.
“you’d simply demand videotape – and if that were provided, you’d insist that a creature give birth to its evolutiontionary descendent right in front of you?”
No sir. But there must be incontrovertible evidence in the fossil records that there was a creature who gave birth to its evolutionary descendent.
A long lost second cousin of mine recently made available to me via the internet pictures of our common ancestors. They all look as human as my latest grandson, a two year old cutie. I’m sure that you are not surprised. Evolution so they say happened eons ago. So far back that no one can say for sure how it happened nor indeed when it happened exactly. Nor is there any incontrovertible evidence for same. We must take it on faith. For me Mike, that is the realm of Religion. When I look at the beautiful flowers that one of my sons sent for mother’s day one of the things those flowers does for me is to remind me of the fact that there is a Creator who designed them. I don’t have enough faith to think that a vase of flowers would show up at my door having popped into existence without help. I looked for the card to see which of my children sent them.
“This is starting to remind me of an episode of “The Family Guy”…”
I have never seen that program so I can’t comment on that but I can comment on something else that we have in common. We have both changed our religious opinions based at least in part to the reading of the Church Fathers. I told you something to the effect that if you really understood the Fathers you would be Catholic. You replied that Mary is the stumbling block so to speak to your joining the Church. I, on the other hand have continued to attempt to plumb the depth of the Church’s teaching on Our Lady and have discovered the truth about her and her role in salvation is deep and rich and is accessible to our understanding if we take the time to learn. Similarly, it seems that your search for the truth regarding Creation has been curtailed by a book that you are just sure if I read it, I’ll see the light. I’ll tell you why this can’t happen. A couple of years ago I was given material by evolutionists who thought that if I just read that material I’d be won over. I read their material but discussed it with anti-evolution scientist as well. They had what might be called alternative explanations. This sir, made the evolutionists MAD (like bulls seeing red). How dare I get other opinions? BTW, some of the evolution material was bogus and when they called on it they used verbal gymnastics to distance themselves from those folks.
I have given up reading evolution theories and now am open to PROOF.
H
hecd2
Guest
You are the one who is confused by making distinctions between cladistics and phylogenetics where none exists. A clade (a term first developed by Julian Huxley) is *defined *as a monophyletic group consisting of a common ancestor and all its descendants. A cladogram (also known synonymously as a phylogenetic tree or a phylogeny) defines the evolutionary relationship between clades of organisms. The founder of cladistics, Willi Hennig, called the discipline “Phylogenetic Systematics”. If you must oppose cladistic analysis (or phylogenetic systematics - it’s the same thing) to something, oppose it to numerical taxonomy.
A cladogram or a phylogenetic tree does not explicitly contain the common ancestors. You really ought to know this. You seem to specialise in elementary mistakes and misunderstanding.
Perhaps I can recommend the standard text book on the subject of phylogenetic analysis to you: Joseph Felsenstein, Inferring Phylogenies, Sinauer Associates. You are probably too busy to read it, just as you are too busy to define what you mean by information in the genome.
Alec
evolutionpages.com
H
hecd2
Guest
Yep - that’s correct. And to reinforce this let me quote from my website which has an article on this very topic here:
"Evidence for fusing of two ancestral chromosomes to create human chromosome 2 and where there has been no fusion in other Great Apes is:
- The analogous chromosomes (2p and 2q) in the non-human great apes can be shown, when laid end to end, to create an identical banding structure to the human chromosome 2.
- The remains of the sequence that the chromosome has on its ends (the telomere) is found in the middle of human chromosome 2 where the ancestral chromosomes fused.
- the detail of this region (pre-telomeric sequence, telomeric sequence, reversed telomeric sequence, pre-telomeric sequence) is exactly what we would expect from a fusion.
- this telomeric region is exactly where one would expect to find it if a fusion had occurred in the middle of human chromosome 2.
- the centromere of human chromosome 2 lines up with the chimp chromosome 2p chromosomal centromere.
- At the place where we would expect it on the human chromosome we find the remnants of the chimp 2q centromere
Go here for more details and explanations of terms like telomeres and centromeres.
Alec
evolutionpages.com
- Status