Creation or Evolution

[rossum]

You are wrong Dear
there is an ultimate truth
to be red in the bible
precondition of course is
to read by heart - not just brain

Why is that so?
Because brain tells us: Things are such and such! No question.
Heart tells us, Yes things are such, - but…

This “but” is all the difference from living as any creature (cat or dog or cow or whale) to the living of the created human, loved by God.

You are not the first person to notice my signature. The original source is Mark Siderits, “Thinking on Empty: Madhyamika Anti-Realism and Canons of Rationality” in S Biderman and B.A. Schaufstein, eds, Rationality In Question (1989). Dordrecht: Brill.

I have not read Siderits but saw the quote in a piece on Nagarjuna. The “Madhyamika” in Siderits’ title refers to the religious and philosophical school that Nagarjuna founded. I have seen the same quote again in other places in reference to the Madhyamika and Nagarjuna - it seems quite popular. The quote is intentionally paradoxical; paradox is necessary to remind us that words are insufficient when trying to describe the fundamental nature of reality.

For a philosophical discussion of Nagarjuna and reality see the web article Nagarjuna and the Limits of Thought. The Siderits quote is at the end of section four of the article:

There is, then, no escape. Nagarjuna’s view is contradictory. The contradiction is, clearly a paradox of expressibility. Nagarjuna succeeds in saying the unsayable, just as much as the Wittgenstein of the Tractatus. We can think (and characterize) reality only subject to language, which is conventional, so the ontology of that reality is all conventional. It follows that the conventional objects of reality do not ultimately (non-conventionally) exist. It also follows that nothing we say of them is ultimately true. That is, all things are empty of ultimate existence; and this is their ultimate nature, and is an ultimate truth about them. They hence cannot be thought to have that nature; nor can we say that they do. But we have just done so. As Mark Siderits (1989) has put it, “the ultimate truth is that there is no ultimate truth.”

rossum

 

[Bruno_Schulz]

**A really remarkable list of the smartest authors, witnessing the some people guiding principle, that there is as they think, "no ultimate truth”.

And if that list of philosopher who sermonize this recognition, would twice entwine the world, it wouldn’t thus become true. It remains rubbish and they all will see the absolute truth the moment they arrive before God.

You might read all philosophic literature of the world; non of them, no human spirit. will ever reach the highness, the majestetic-dignity and moral culture of Christianity, as it lays and shines in the gospels, and even holds the world together.
Compared to the Bible, every single one of these “philosophic works” seems as poor chitchat like that of a couple of adolescents.

Beware of believing them more, than the word of Christ.
**

 

[Bruno_Schulz]

**I often said in this forum
“when ARRIVING BEFORE GOD”
I know that’s somehow wrong.
What I mean is: When we die and arrive in heaven, finding ourselves before Gods throne to be judged.
I don’t like this “before”

Yours
Bruno**
My e-mail address is
Krippenfiguren at-sign t-online.com

 

[The_Barbarian]

Barbarian notes that Cardinal Schoenborn’s clarification does not differ with the Pope’s characterization of evolution as “virtually certain.”

Of course he does not disagree with the teaching of the Church. His views are in line with the Church’s document on Creation,which are not what you suppose.

As you learned, the Church’s teaching on creation and evolution are not what you thought.

In an unfortunate new twist on this old controversy, neo-Darwinists recently have sought to portray our new pope, Benedict XVI, as a satisfied evolutionist. They have quoted a sentence about common ancestry from a 2004 document of the International Theological Commission, pointed out that Benedict was at the time head of the commission, and concluded that the Catholic Church has no problem with the notion of “evolution” as used by mainstream biologists - that is, synonymous with neo-Darwinism.

Let’s see, he wrote…

Since it has been demonstrated that all living organisms on earth are genetically related, it is virtually certain that all living organisms have descended from this first organism. Converging evidence from many studies in the physical and biological sciences furnishes mounting support for some theory of evolution to account for the development and diversification of life on earth, while controversy continues over the pace and mechanisms of evolution.

Yep. That’s definitely Neo-Darwinian. No wonder they concluded he agreed with them.

The commission’s document, however, reaffirms the perennial teaching of the Catholic Church about the reality of design in nature. Commenting on the widespread abuse of John Paul’s 1996 letter on evolution, the commission cautions that "the letter cannot be read as a blanket approbation of all theories of evolution, including those of a neo-Darwinian provenance which explicitly deny to divine providence any truly causal role in the development of life in the universe."

Yep. You may have noticed the Darwinans here have repeatedly pointed out that any theory that affirms or denies the supernatural is not science. Again, the Pope’s statements affirm evolutionary theory.

Furthermore, according to the commission, “An unguided evolutionary process - one that falls outside the bounds of divine providence - simply cannot exist.” >

Now what theory of evolution is not materialist?

The current one, among others. No scientific theory can be ontologically materialistic, since that would be (as the Pope said) trying to move science beyond it’s proper boundaries.

What theory of evolution does not explicitly deny to God a truly causal role in the development of life?

None that I every heard of. And it’s been that way since the start. Darwin, for example, in The Origin of Species, attributed creation to God.

What form of methodological naturalism does not explicitly deny supernatural causes?

By definition, methodological naturalism cannot deny supernatural causes. Can’t even hint that there aren’t supernatural causes.

**Many modern philosophers of science[1][2] use the terms methodological naturalism or scientific naturalism to refer to the methodological assumption that observable effects in nature are best explainable only by natural causes. In other words, methodological naturalism is the view that the scientific method (hypothesize, predict, test, and repeat) is the only effective way to investigate reality. Any method of inquiry or investigation or any procedure for gaining knowledge that limits itself to natural, physical, and material approaches and explanations can be described as naturalistic.

Methodological naturalism can be contrasted with the ontological naturalism or metaphysical naturalism, which refers to the metaphysical belief that the natural world (including the universe) is all that exists and, therefore, nothing supernatural exists.

This distinction between the two types of naturalism is made by philosophers supporting science and evolution in the creation–evolution controversy to counter the tendency of some proponents of Creationism or intelligent design to refer to ‘methodological naturalism’ as ‘scientific materialism’ or as ‘methodological materialism’ and conflate it with ‘metaphysical naturalism’.**
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalism_(philosophy

Barbarian observes:
Meantime, Shoenborn turns out to agree with the Pope after all. From his website:
**
The Catholic position on “creationism” is clear. Saint Thomas Aquinas says that one should “not try to defend the Christian faith with arguments that make it ridiculous, because they are in obvious contradiction with reason”. It is nonsense to maintain that the world is only six thousand years old. An attempt to prove such a notion scientifically means provoking what Saint Thomas calls the irrisio infidelium, the mockery of unbelievers. Exposing the faith to mockery with false arguments of this kind is not right; indeed, it is explicitly to be rejected. Let that be enough on the
subject of “creationism” and “fundamentalism”.**
ignatius.com/chanceorpurpose/

He does not say anything about the theory of evolution here.

He points out that ID/creationism is logically absurd. He has also conceded that Darwinism may be correct, after all. So he’s not really opposed to the teaching of the Church.

His opinion is not completely in accord with that of the Pope, but accepting science is not a requirement for a Catholic.

 

[The_Barbarian]

Barbarian on speciation:
No, it’s an observed fact.

Since it has not happened,it cannot be an observed fact.

Even most educated creationists admit it’s a fact. Since there are documented instances, they have little choice.

Barbarian on ring species:
The gulls at the extremities of this species cannot reproduce with each other.

They can’t reproduce with each other for geographical reasons,not genetic reasons.

No, that’s wrong.

The last is the eastern representative of the Lesser Black-backed Gulls back in north-western Europe, including Great Britain. However, the Lesser Black-backed Gulls and Herring Gull are sufficiently different that they do not normally interbreed; thus the group of gulls forms a continuum except in Europe where the two lineages meet.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_species

You’re just making up things, now.

Barbarian observes:
The only way for gene transfer to occur is by intermediate populations. If they were to die out, these would become two separate species.

That doesn’t follow.

Yep. Once reproductive isolation is produced, the two species will increasingly diverge.

Lack of gene flow between two geographically isolated populations does not amount to speciation.

But reproductive incompatiblity does. And we know this is true, because the extreme eastern and western populations meet in northern Europe and do not interbreed.

Barbarian observes:
That’s also an observed fact. Some thousands of years ago, a number of kaibab squirrels got isolated on one side of the Grand Canyon away from the rest of the population. The two populations increasingly evolved away from each other, and are now incipient species, or perhaps have already become separate species.

If they can still reproduce together,even very partially,then they are of the same species.

Perhaps you don’t know what “incipient” means. But apparently no one has tried hybridizing them, so we don’t know if they’ve speciated completely or not. They are anatomically more different from each other than many mammalian species differ from one another.

(assertion that macroevolution in dipterans still produces flies)

Barbarian observes:
Sort of like humans are still primates.

Incapable of breeding with other primates.

Like that new species of fly is incapable of breeding with other flies. You got it.

Barbarian observes:
The point is that macroevolution would produce two species where the was formerly one.

Macro-evolution is large-scale evolution.

Speciation. Microevolution is variation in a species. Macroevolution is speciation.

Barbarian observes:
No, that’s an error. Founder effect greatly increases the likelihood of speciation, since it will almost always involve a different allele frequency than a larger population.

As a result of the loss of genetic variation, the new population may be distinctively different, both genetically and phenotypically, from the parent population from which it is derived. In extreme cases, the founder effect is thought to lead to the speciation and subsequent evolution of new species.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Founder_effect

Again,speculation.

Right. Macroevolution, not microevolution.

Scientists think that it leads to the evolution of new species,but they have never observed this.

Faroe Island Mouse.

Apparently it’s the thought that counts.

In science, evidence counts.

Founders have much less genetic variation than the original population.
That means the new colony will have much less capability for speciation than the original population.

That’s actually a pretty astute observation. And that is why bottlenecks usually end in extinction. If the founder population had all the alleles of the parent population, and the environment was roughly the same, then speciation might not occur. But with some of the alleles missing, the population would be off the fitness peak, and therefore more inclined to evolve than the parent population, which normally be in stasis caused by stabilizing selection. If the isolated founders survive the bottleneck, they are likely to produce a new species.

Hence, the greater likelihood of speciation in isolated pockets of individuals.

In this case, your facts are right, but your conclusion is faulty.

 

[Bruno_Schulz]

**I often said in this forum
“when ARRIVING BEFORE GOD”
I know that’s somehow wrong.
What I mean is: When we die and arrive in heaven, finding ourselves before Gods throne to be judged.
I don’t like this “before”

Yours
Bruno**
My e-mail address is
Krippenfiguren at-sign t-online.com

The Mailaddress is wrong - sorry
right is:
Krippenfiguren at-sign t-online.de

 

[anthony022071]

[rossum]

I live in the UK. Here we have both ends of the circumpolar ring species: Herring Gulls and Black Backed Gulls. They do not interbreed and are separate species.

Sub-species. Not separate species. They are not genetically isolated.

However, as you travel round the pole through Greenland, Canada, Alaska, Siberia and Northern Scandinavia you can find gradually changing populations of interbreeding gulls than link these two species. It has happened and it is an observed fact.

What has happened? Variation within the general species of gulls? So what?

Please do yourself a favour and do some research before posting incorrect information. As I said, I live in the UK and we have both Herring Gulls and Black Backed Gulls. The reason a “ring species” is called a “ring species” is bacause it forms a ring - both ends meet.

Actually,the idea that the gulls are a ring species has been debunked.

darrennaish.blogspot.com/2006/02/no-no-no-no-no-herring-gull-is-not.html

sofnet.org/apps/file.asp?Path=2&ID=2900&File=Liebers+%26+Helbig+Proc+R+Soc+2004.pdf

It is not that the two species are incapable of breeding with other,but they prefer to breed with species that they are more closely related to.

Geographic isolation may in time lead to genetic speciation.

Speciation perhaps,but not above the species level.

Minor changes in one of the two geographically isolated populations, for example a change in the timing of the breeding season, would result in an inability to interbreed when the populations merged.

The Barbarian said “incipient species”, which is correct.

That’s like saying a species does not yet exist.

Speciation is a continuum from full interbreding to partial interbreeding with sterile males (ligers and tigons) to sterile hybrids (mules) to no interbreeding.

Are you saying that lions and tigers are the same species? Are horses and donkeys the same species?

Not in the sense that dogs and cats are. Or humans and apes.

Both those pairs of species can partially interbreed.

And?

Ants cannot breed with beetles, yet both are members of the insects (Insecta).

Ants and beetles are different species. ‘Insects’ is as wide a category as ‘birds’.

Primate is a far wider category than species.

And a meaningless category.

Macro-evolution is defined as speciations at or above the level of species. The Answer in Genesis article I referenced above contained one example; there are many more. Creationists need to have macro-evolution (i.e. speciation) in order to fit all the animals onto Noah’s Ark.

You’re conflating speciation with macro-evolution. Speciation is just a process of variation,but macro-evolution is large-scale,fundamental change.

 

[anthony022071]

[The Barbarian]

Even most educated creationists admit it’s a fact. Since there are documented instances, they have little choice.

You were talking specifically about the gulls. What you predicted might happen (“If they were to die out, these would become two separate species.”) has not happened. So you are just speculating.

And the idea that it is a case of a ring species has been debunked.

darrennaish.blogspot.com/2006…ll-is-not.html

sofnet.org/apps/file.asp?..R+Soc+2004.pdf

No, that’s wrong.

The last is the eastern representative of the Lesser Black-backed Gulls back in north-western Europe, including Great Britain. However, the Lesser Black-backed Gulls and Herring Gull are sufficiently different that they do not normally interbreed; thus the group of gulls forms a continuum except in Europe where the two lineages meet.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_species

You’re just making up things, now.

You should pay closer attention to what you quote. The article says only that they* do not normally* interbreed. It does not say they are totally genetically isolated.

Yep. Once reproductive isolation is produced, the two species will increasingly diverge.

No,they would not be able to diverge because they would have less genetic variety. They would more likely adapt to the lack of intermediate sub-species and start breeding with each other.

But reproductive incompatiblity does. And we know this is true, because the extreme eastern and western populations meet in northern Europe and do not interbreed.

They don’t interbreed because they prefer to interbreed with species more nearly related. That does not amount to reproductive incompatibility.

Barbarian observes:
That’s also an observed fact. Some thousands of years ago, a number of kaibab squirrels got isolated on one side of the Grand Canyon away from the rest of the population. The two populations increasingly evolved away from each other, and are now incipient species, or perhaps have already become separate species.

Which is it? incipient or separate?

Perhaps you don’t know what “incipient” means.

It means beginning to come into being. But a species is something which already has come into being. So there is no such thing as an incipient species.

But apparently no one has tried hybridizing them, so we don’t know if they’ve speciated completely or not.

So there’s no point in bringing it up.

They are anatomically more different from each other than many mammalian species differ from one another.

Like that new species of fly is incapable of breeding with other flies. You got it.

The new species of flies are not capable of breeding at all,so they just die off. No evolution at all going on there. Just a dead end. Not even worth calling species.

Speciation.

No,that’s not the definition of macro-evolution. Macro-evolution is evolution on the grand scale.

Microevolution is variation in a species. Macroevolution is speciation.

Macro-evolution is not speciation. It involves speciation.

 

[rossum]

What has happened? Variation within the general species of gulls? So what?

If you are going to discuss biology then you need to understand the terminology. Gulls are a group of species, there is more than one species of Gull. They form a Family, the Laridae, which includes a number of Genera, each of which consists of one or more species. This is basic taxonomy, which you need to understand if you are going to talk sensibly about this subject.

Moving the example from Gulls to humans, we are species Homo sapiens. We are the single living member of the Genus Homo, though there have been other members, now extinct, such as Homo ergaster. The Genus Homo is part of the family Hominidae along with other Genera such as Pongo (orangutan), Gorilla and Pan (chimpanzees). The word “Gulls” covers species as different as ourselves and orangutans. Is there just one “general species” that includes both ourselves and orangutans? Are the differences between ourselves and Gorillas just “variation within the general species”?

Not in the sense that dogs and cats are. Or humans and apes.

Humans are a single species, apes are a Family, the Hominidae. You are making a category error here. Contrasting humans and apees is like contrasting apples and fruit. The scientific category ape (= Hominidae) includes humans; scientifically we are a species of Hominidae.

Ants and beetles are different species.

No, both ants and beetles include great numbers of species, especially the beetles. Beetles (Coleoptera) are an Order; ants (Formicidaeare) are a Family of the Order Hymenoptera, which includes ants, wasps and bees.

‘Insects’ is as wide a category as ‘birds’.

Correct, both are Classes.

And a meaningless category.

False. Primate has a perfectly well defined meaning. It is an Order (like the beetles’ Coleoptera), and includes a number of species with certain characteristics.You have five fully-developed fingers and five fully-developed toes. Your toes are still prehensile and your hands can grasp with dexterity. You have only two lactal nipples and they are on your chest as opposed to your abdomen. These are pointless in males, which also have a pendulous penis and a well-devoloped ceacum or appendix, unlike all other mammals. Although your fangs are reduced in size, you do still have them along with some varied dentition indicative of primates exclusively. Your fur is thin and relatively sparse over most of your body. And your claws have been reduced to flat chitinous fingernails. Your fingers themselves have distinctive print patterns. You are also susceptible to AIDS and are mortally allergic to the toxin of the male funnel web spider of Australia, (which is deadly to all primates, but only dangerous to primates, which is why you’d be better beware of these spiders.). And unlike all but one unrelated animal in all the world, your body cannot produce vitamin-C naturally and must have it supplemented in your diet, just as all other primates do. Nearly every one of these individual traits are unique only to primates exclusively. There is almost no other organism on Earth that matches any one of these descriptions separately, but absolutely all of the lemurs, tarsiers, monkeys, apes, you, and I match all of them at once perfectly, implying common descent.

Source: You are an Ape

You’re conflating speciation with macro-evolution. Speciation is just a process of variation,but macro-evolution is large-scale,fundamental change.

There is a common source of confusion between biologists and creationists over the word “macroevolution”. Each side has its own different definition of the word. In the 1920s creationists denied evolution altogether, as at the Scopes trial it was against the law to teach evolution in some states. By the 1950s creationsts had accepted that some evolution happened, but they only accepted evolution within a species, not evolution between species. At this point creationists adopted the scientific terms microevolution and macroevolution. Microevolution means evolution within a species; macroevolution means evolution above the level of species - speciation. These terms fitted nicely with what creationists could accept - microevolution; and what they could not accept - macroevolution.

Since then creationism has changed again, evolution is now accepted within Biblical “kinds” (aka Baramin). A common example is “Bear kind” which was a single pair on the Ark which has now evolved into the different species of bears we see today. However the creationists have retained their use of microevolution and macroevolution for acceptable and non-acceptable evolution. Hence the creationist use of “macroevolution” now means “evolution between kinds” while science has retained the original meaning of “evolution above the level of species”.

From the scientific point of view “macroevolution” is speciation, by definition. If we get a new species then we ipso facto have macroevolution. I realise that the creationist definition is different, but I use the scientific definition.

Speciation is not always “large scale fundamental change”. The simplest example of speciation I know of is three mutations. One mutation caused a colour change and the other two caused a change in the time of breeding - the new species looks different and breeds at a different time of year. See Chrysopa carnea and Chrysopa downesi.

rossum

 

[anthony022071]

[rossum]

If you are going to discuss biology then you need to understand the terminology. Gulls are a group of species, there is more than one species of Gull. They form a Family, the Laridae, which includes a number of Genera, each of which consists of one or more species. This is basic taxonomy, which you need to understand if you are going to talk sensibly about this subject.

Gulls in general are a species. They are a kind of bird. And species means “kind”.
If you want to talk sensibly and honestly you must recognize the difference between the species of gulls in general and the sub-species of gulls.

Apologists for macro-evolution are always deceptively going back and forth between those two levels of meaning of the word species. So any kind of speciation gets used as evidence for macro-evolution.

Moving the example from Gulls to humans, we are species Homo sapiens.
We are the single living member of the Genus Homo, though there have been other members, now extinct, such as Homo ergaster.

Before you can claim that there were other members of the human family,you would have to show that our ancestors were once interfertile with the populations that have dies out.

The Genus Homo is part of the family Hominidae along with other Genera such as Pongo (orangutan), Gorilla and Pan
(chimpanzees).

And that is a stupid category of family,a stupid concept of family.

The word “Gulls” covers species as different as ourselves and orangutans.

That’s not true. All gulls are birds and are recognized as gulls,whereas men are all part of mankind and are not recognized as orangutans.

Is there just one “general species” that includes both ourselves and orangutans?

No. There is only one general kind of mankind.

Are the differences between ourselves and Gorillas just “variation within the general species”?

No. I don’t believe men and gorillas are part of the same general species.

Humans are a single species, apes are a Family, the Hominidae. You are making a category error here.

No,I’m not. Mankind is a family as well as a species. Species means “kind”.

Contrasting humans and apees is like contrasting apples and fruit.

No,apples are a kind of fruit,but mankind is not a kind of ape.

The scientific category ape (= Hominidae) includes humans; scientifically we are a species of Hominidae.

Scientists are misguided.

No, both ants and beetles include great numbers of species, especially the beetles.

Ants and beetles are also species unto themselves. That is why ants and beetles can be easily told apart.

False. Primate has a perfectly well defined meaning.

No,it is not well defined. It has little practical use outside of science,so it rarely used outside of science. If someone told you that they were going to hook you up with a fine female primate,you would have reason to be afraid.

 

[edwest2]

To The Barbarian -

Why do you ignore what the Church tells Catholics about science?

“evolution is not a complete, scientifically proven theory” Pope Benedict

ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20070411/pope_evolution_070411/20070411?hub=SciTech

“Both popular and scientific texts about evolution say that ‘nature’ or ‘evolution’ has done this or that.”

“Just who is this ‘nature’ or ‘evolution’ as (an active) subject? It doesn’t exist at all!” the Pope said.

news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,21548399-663,00.html

You say “science,” by which you mean evolution, requires evidence. What is this evidence used for? Nothing? In a court of law, evidence is used to reach a conclusion.

Textbook biology regarding evolution is atheistic. Nothing you can write will make that go away. Catholics are not allowed to believe in atheistic evolution. And Catholics are told in Human Persons Created in the Image of God, part 69, that evolution that does not include divine providence simply cannot exist.

God has no physical body but He took the form of a man and actually lived among us, dying for our sins, and rising again.

You and I will be judged by the living God, not some vague concept.

God bless,
Ed

 

[The_Barbarian]

Why do you ignore what the Church tells Catholics about science?

What seems to have you upset, is me citing what the Church says.

“evolution is not a complete, scientifically proven theory” Pope Benedict

Good for him; no scientific theory is proven. “Proof” is not part of science, because it can never give you logical certainty.

You say “science,” by which you mean evolution, requires evidence.

All science needs evidence. This is what the Pope means here:

**Since it has been demonstrated that all living organisms on earth are genetically related, it is virtually certain that all living organisms have descended from this first organism. Converging evidence from many studies in the physical and biological sciences furnishes mounting support for some theory of evolution to account for the development and diversification of life on earth, while controversy continues over the pace and mechanisms of evolution. While the story of human origins is complex and subject to revision, physical anthropology and molecular biology combine to make a convincing case for the origin of the human species in Africa about 150,000 years ago in a humanoid population of common genetic lineage. However it is to be explained, the decisive factor in human origins was a continually increasing brain size, culminating in that of homo sapiens. With the development of the human brain, the nature and rate of evolution were permanently altered: with the introduction of the uniquely human factors of consciousness, intentionality, freedom and creativity, biological evolution was recast as social and cultural evolution.
**
Report of the International Theological Commission

You see, he is talking about a scientific theory, and so he cites the evidence. This Pope, although he has made some scientific errors, is perhaps the most scientifically trained Pontiff since the middle ages.

What is this evidence used for?

In science, it is used to confirm or refute a hypothesis. The Pope’s point is that since there is abundant evidence to support it, the theory is well grounded in fact.

Textbook biology regarding evolution is atheistic.

Never saw one like that.

Nothing you can write will make that go away. Catholics are not allowed to believe in atheistic evolution.

As the Pope acknowledges, the current theory is consistent with our faith.

And Catholics are told in Human Persons Created in the Image of God, part 69, that evolution that does not include divine providence simply cannot exist.

Yep. But that’s consistent with evolutionary theory, which makes no claims about that sort of thing. The only theories (of any kind, not just biological) that we can’t accept is those (as Pope John Paul II said) that explicitly deny divine providence.

You and I will be judged by the living God, not some vague concept.

I’m glad that you at least accept that.

 

[edwest2]

Textbook biology regarding evolution is atheistic. You seem content to sidestep issues with glib remarks. Point is, the Church acknowledges God’s role, textbooks don’t, therefore, they are atheistic.

You can ignore it but I won’t. It’s the reason the Church tells us we can’t believe in atheistic evolution.

Peace,
Ed

 

[rossum]

Gulls in general are a species.

No they are not. In biology “species” has a very specific meaning and each species has a particular name, in binomial form. We are Homo sapiens. That is our binomial name. We are in the genus Homo and our species name is sapiens. Another species in genus Homo, now extinct was Homo neanderthalis. Same Genus, different species. You do not get to redefine the meaning of words in science on a whim. Gulls are birds that are members of the Family Laridae. That Family includes many different species. If you are going to discuss biology sensibly then you need to learn the terminology. For example, here is the classification of the lion (Panthera leo):Kingdom: Animalia
Phylum: Chordata
Class: Mammalia
Order: Carnivora
Family: Felidae
Genus: Panthera
Species: Panthera leo

Here is the equivalent for Gulls:
Kingdom: Animalia
Phylum: Chordata
Class: Aves
Order: Charadriiformes
Suborder: Lari
Family: Laridae
Genera: Larus, Rissa, Pagophila, Rhodostethia, Xema, Creagrus
Species: many
Notice that Gulls include many different Genera. Within those different Genera are more species, for example in the Rissa we have the Black-legged Kittiwake (R. tridactyla) and the Red-legged Kittiwake (R. brevirostris) among others, while in the Pagophilia we have only a single species, the Ivory Gull (Pagophila eburnea). If you want to argue about science then you need to know the background and the vocabulary.

They are a kind of bird. And species means “kind”.

Not in biology. “Species” has a precise meaning, and “kind” is not precise. “Ant” may be a kind, but it is not a species. Birds are a Class, the Aves, not a species.

If you want to talk sensibly and honestly you must recognize the difference between the species of gulls in general and the sub-species of gulls.

If you want to talk sensibly and honestly you must recognize the difference between the Family of Gulls, the different Genera of Gulls and the different species of Gulls.

Apologists for macro-evolution are always deceptively going back and forth between those two levels of meaning of the word species. So any kind of speciation gets used as evidence for macro-evolution.

I am not equivocating on the mening of “species”. I am sticking to the correct biological definition, and using it consistently. I have been at pains to point out the correct terminology throughout this discussion.

Before you can claim that there were other members of the human family,you would have to show that our ancestors were once interfertile with the populations that have dies out.

Easy. Our ancestors and their ancestors were once the same population. That population split into two groups. We have the genetic and the fossil evidence to show it.

And that is a stupid category of family, a stupid concept of family.

Stupid or not, that is the correct scientific term:Kingdom: Animalia
Phylum: Chordata
Class: Mammalia
Order: Primates
Family: Hominidae
Genus: Homo
Species: Homo sapiens

That’s not true. All gulls are birds and are recognized as gulls,whereas men are all part of mankind and are not recognized as orangutans.

I have shown you the classifications above. Gulls are a group of birds classified together in the Family Laridae. Hominidae are a group of Primates classified together in the Family Hominidae. Family Hominidae contains the Genus Homo and the Genus Pongo. You can research this yourself, and you will find that I am correctly using the scientific terminology.

No,I’m not. Mankind is a family as well as a species. Species means “kind”.

We have discussed this above. You are using your own terminology, I am using scientific terminology.

No,apples are a kind of fruit,but mankind is not a kind of ape.

The casual meaning of “ape” does not include humans. The scientific category, Hominidae, does. I made it clear in my post that I was using the scientific terminology.

Ants and beetles are also species unto themselves. That is why ants and beetles can be easily told apart.

Again you are misusing the word “species”. If you are not going to use the correct vocabulary then you are just making Humpty Dumpty arguments where words mean what you want them to. That form of argument does not convince anyone. We are talking about biology so we need to use the correct terminology.

No,it is not well defined.

Again you are wrong. The Order of Primates has been well defined since 1758 when Linnaeus (a Christian creationist) defined it.

It has little practical use outside of science, so it rarely used outside of science.

That is not a valid point in a discussion about science. “Transubstantiation” is rarely used outside of theology. That does not invalidate including transubstantiation in a discussion about theology. Every field has its own specialised vocabulary.

If someone told you that they were going to hook you up with a fine female primate,you would have reason to be afraid.

Why? My mother, grandmother and sister are all primates. I am a primate, just as I am a mammal, a vertebrate and a chordate.

rossum

 

[The_Barbarian]

Gulls in general are a species. They are a kind of bird. And species means “kind”.

If you learn nothing else here, learn that species does not mean “kind.”

If you want to talk sensibly and honestly you must recognize the difference between the species of gulls in general and the sub-species of gulls.

No. Gulls comprise the Family Lauridae. Most gulls are in the genus Larus. And then there are a host of species within the genus.

The Genus Homo is part of the family Hominidae along with other Genera such as Pongo (orangutan), Gorilla and Pan
(chimpanzees).

And that is a stupid category of family,a stupid concept of family.

“Creation scientists” also use it. If you want to talk science, you have to learn the terminology.

The word “Gulls” covers species as different as ourselves and orangutans.

That’s not true.

Yep. It’s true. In fact, some people put us in the same genus, not just the same family.

All gulls are birds and are recognized as gulls,whereas men…

… and apes are mammals, and recognized as primates.

Is there just one “general species” that includes both ourselves and orangutans?

Yes. The family Hominidae includes man and all the apes except the Hylobatids (gibbons and saimangs)

False. Primate has a perfectly well defined meaning.

No,it is not well defined.

Primates:

1. Mammal characterized by pentadactyly, opposable thumbs, tendency to a reduced snout, forward-facing eyes, color vision, and a tendency toward upright posture, and a strong clavicle/scapula joint, permitting wide rotation of upper limbs.
2. A bishop of highest rank in a province or country.

This was of some interest, when a German scientists wrote a book that in English translated to “Sex Life of the Primates.” It sold surprisingly well in England, where that is the usual title for Archbishops.

 

[beeliner]

Textbook biology regarding evolution is atheistic. You seem content to sidestep issues with glib remarks. Point is, the Church acknowledges God’s role, textbooks don’t, therefore, they are atheistic.

You can ignore it but I won’t. It’s the reason the Church tells us we can’t believe in atheistic evolution.

Eddy, as I keep telling you, it’s hard to believe you’re serious.

I went to high-school a long time ago, so I don’t know what sort of biology texts are used in Catholic schools today, but I would guess that there is a fair chance that such texts, assuming that they are designed specifically for Catholic schools, mention God in one way or another.

The scientific facts of how species evolve, however, are the same for those which mention God and those which do not, and when the ones which mention God do so, that is religion, that is not science.

Implying that Catholics are not allowed to study science unless God is mentioned is really quite silly. Must God be mentioned in a study of differential calculus for such a course to be acceptable for Catholics? Are Catholics forbidden to study linguistics unless the tower of Babel is mentioned, or even taught as fact? Forbidden to study fluid dynamics without including those of Noah’s ark?

 

[beeliner]

Primates:

1. Mammal characterized by pentadactyly, opposable thumbs, tendency to a reduced snout, forward-facing eyes, color vision, and a tendency toward upright posture, and a strong clavicle/scapula joint, permitting wide rotation of upper limbs.
2. A bishop of highest rank in a province or country.

This was of some interest, when a German scientists wrote a book that in English translated to “Sex Life of the Primates.” It sold surprisingly well in England, where that is the usual title for Archbishops.

The difference is, strictly speaking, the first is pronounced pree-MAH-teez and the second PRY-maits.

But that distinction is not always observed.

 

[The_Barbarian]

Textbook biology regarding evolution is atheistic.

Then you don’t know much about textbooks. Can’t think of one that denies God. Do you?

You seem content to sidestep issues with glib remarks.

The truth matters. If you doubt it, show me a textbook that says there is no God.

Point is, the Church acknowledges God’s role, textbooks don’t, therefore, they are atheistic.

If so, then plumbing manuals are atheistic; they don’t acknowledge God’s role, either. Oh, and cookbooks. Few of them, discuss God’s role in cooking. My wife’s Fanny Farmer cookbook is “atheistic.”

Whodda thunk?

You can ignore it but I won’t.

I see the light, Ed. Our problem is that today’s society is overrun with atheistic plumbers and cooks.

It’s the reason the Church tells us we can’t believe in atheistic evolution.

Actually, it says that we can’t accept any theory that “explicitly denies” God or divine providence.

Which ones do?

 

[edwest2]

To beeliner -

You sidestep the issue. The point is, Pope Benedict tells Catholics evolution is not a complete, scientifically proven theory. Do you think he is not serious?

Do you think he is not serious when he quotes St. Basil about those “fooled by the atheism they carry”?

msnbc.msn.com/id/10007382/

The Church knows what the atheists want. Why do you think The Barbarian is so excited about the Church’s comments about “common descent is virtually certain”? I thought the Church was only about faith and morals, but apparently not.

God bless,
Ed

 

[edwest2]

Then you don’t know much about textbooks. Can’t think of one that denies God. Do you?

The truth matters. If you doubt it, show me a textbook that says there is no God.

If so, then plumbing manuals are atheistic; they don’t acknowledge God’s role, either. Oh, and cookbooks. Few of them, discuss God’s role in cooking. My wife’s Fanny Farmer cookbook is “atheistic.”

Whodda thunk?

I see the light, Ed. Our problem is that today’s society is overrun with atheistic plumbers and cooks.

Actually, it says that we can’t accept any theory that “explicitly denies” God or divine providence.

Which ones do?

Textbook biology explicitly leaves no room for God. The theory is sufficient in and of itself. It’s all chance and necessity. All chance and necessity. That’s what gets drilled into every teenagers’ head.

God bless,
Ed