J
- Status
H
Hobble
Guest
Iâll try to find an article or more info to post on it, but I read recently about some new discoveries about evolution.
Basically scientists have found that species donât gain new genes through evolution, but instead species have always had the same genes. The thing is that the genes just turn on or off through evolution. Like for instance, they believe that an Emu at one time was a species of Raptor, and they are currently experimenting with de-evolving certain birds to their dinosaur state. This seems to point to the belief that there is a plan behind evolution, or it would be quite coincidental that when we were in early evolution we already had all the genes we have now, just different ones were active.
Basically scientists have found that species donât gain new genes through evolution, but instead species have always had the same genes. The thing is that the genes just turn on or off through evolution. Like for instance, they believe that an Emu at one time was a species of Raptor, and they are currently experimenting with de-evolving certain birds to their dinosaur state. This seems to point to the belief that there is a plan behind evolution, or it would be quite coincidental that when we were in early evolution we already had all the genes we have now, just different ones were active.
C
cassini
Guest
Iâm sorry oriel16, but the above, while it makes great reading, is difficult to understand. Could you please simplify it for me as I donât know if Iâm with you some of the way, all of the way, or not at all.
J
JReducation
Guest
That would make sense. It is consistent with molecular reorganization. You can have the same molecules and have different forms as the positions of the moleculs change, such going from ice to water to vapor.
JR
K
Kscrawler
Guest
What of it? At some point in the process of moving from slime to Man came Adam and Eve. At that point they posessed the attributes you mention above. After the Fall those things were lost. I still see no conflict.
K
Kscrawler
Guest
Since I made no statements of my own in the post, but only quoted Augustine I guess your arguement is with him. If there is something in this post that is impossible in science and repugnant to Catholic doctrine youâll have to point it out to me.
I suspect you think there are things that are impossible in science and that are repugnant to your interpretation of Catholic doctrine, but that doesnât necessarily transfer to the church as a whole.
Here for example is Catholic doctrine on the issue for the complete article click the link that follows.
Concerning human evolution, the Church has a more definite teaching. It allows for the possibility that manâs body developed from previous biological forms, under Godâs guidance, but it insists on the special creation of his soul. Pope Pius XII declared that âthe teaching authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions . . . take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matterâ[but] the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by Godâ (Pius XII, Humani Generis 36). So whether the human body was specially created or developed, we are required to hold as a matter of Catholic faith that the human soul is specially created; it did not evolve, and it is not inherited from our parents, as our bodies are.
catholic.com/library/Adam_Eve_and_Evolution.asp
G
gam197
Guest
Look to the books or magazines put out by groups like Catholic Answers or EWTN as they usually publish current articles on the Pope or the Councils.
There is a lot of false information on the Church - Galelio and the sciences so read books on Church history. Read books like âA Concise History of the Catholic Churchâ by Thomas Bokenkotter or books by the Anne or Warren Carroll.
B
buffalo
Guest
Eve from Adam?
J
JReducation
Guest
No one says that the creation of Eve from the side of Adam is a historical fact. Exegetes seem to agree that it is a religious metaphor to stress the relationship of the genders, where neither is subordinate to the other, but both are of the same Divine origin.
Fraternally,
JR
A
Abitreckless
Guest
While itâs not inconsistent with Catholic faith to believe in evolution, there has been no proof of evolution, only theories.
Also, many atheists use evolution as a tool to support their atheistic beliefs.
I feel we should be very cautious when it comes to Darwin and evolution.
Also, many atheists use evolution as a tool to support their atheistic beliefs.
I feel we should be very cautious when it comes to Darwin and evolution.
S
Sabbath_Keeper
Guest
I donât know if anybody has made this point yet, but, please consider.
Animal life and planet life depend on each other to survive. Now if the earth had NOTHING on it at the beginning and all things were supposed to have evolved from one living cell, tell me how did that cell survive. Did it need to eat? Did it need Oxygen or air? We know for a fact that all earthly matter must have air to breath, plant life needs carbondioxide to survive, which it turns into air which animal life needs. For all of this stuff to be present then life, both plant and animal (and for expediency sake I include man in the animal category) HAD to have been in existance at the SAME time. Thus, evolution could not have happened as the theory claims that life evolved over millions of years, to slowly for any plant or animal life to interact with one another for their mutual survival.
Iâm done.
Animal life and planet life depend on each other to survive. Now if the earth had NOTHING on it at the beginning and all things were supposed to have evolved from one living cell, tell me how did that cell survive. Did it need to eat? Did it need Oxygen or air? We know for a fact that all earthly matter must have air to breath, plant life needs carbondioxide to survive, which it turns into air which animal life needs. For all of this stuff to be present then life, both plant and animal (and for expediency sake I include man in the animal category) HAD to have been in existance at the SAME time. Thus, evolution could not have happened as the theory claims that life evolved over millions of years, to slowly for any plant or animal life to interact with one another for their mutual survival.
Iâm done.
C
cassini
Guest
I second this question.I donât know if anybody has made this point yet, but, please consider.
Animal life and planet life depend on each other to survive. Now if the earth had NOTHING on it at the beginning and all things were supposed to have evolved from one living cell, tell me how did that cell survive. Did it need to eat? Did it need Oxygen or air? We know for a fact that all earthly matter must have air to breath, plant life needs carbondioxide to survive, which it turns into air which animal life needs. For all of this stuff to be present then life, both plant and animal (and for expediency sake I include man in the animal category) HAD to have been in existance at the SAME time. Thus, evolution could not have happened as the theory claims that life evolved over millions of years, to slowly for any plant or animal life to interact with one another for their mutual survival.
Iâm done.
Alas Sabbath Keeper, watch them worm they way out of it as a direct question and see how they will give you a blurred answer.
O
oriel16
Guest
If you choose to understand God and Creation in the literal manner of Genesis then it is allowed just so long as you do not argue against or diminish the ability of others to appreciate Genesis in a different way and to their ability.As Augustine is used here quite often,I will use his statement in support -
âIf anyone shall set the authority of Holy Writ against clear and
manifest reason, he who does this knows not what he has undertaken; for he opposes to the truth not the meaning of the Bible, which is beyond his comprehension, but rather his own interpretation, not what is in the Bible, but what he has found in himself and imagines to be there.â St Augustine
Even for me Cassini,the end result is enjoying existence as if it were the garden of Eden itself and that is true science -
youtube.com/watch?v=cxqylxfYyQM
There are others Cassini who think Christ and Christianity is superstition and rubbish that is only fit for people who cannot think for themselves and presently they are succeeding with the complicity of Christians,even if they are unwittingly doing so.These guys wish to make the planet and life on it less special
hence the recent media blizzard of new planets/ET , life on Mars searches and a complete distortion of the original reasoning of Copernicus in context of both science and the Church -
abyss.uoregon.edu/~js/glossary/copernican_principle.html
I go to these empiricists science forums and deal with their contentions head on with the gifts God has given me because not only do their contentions undermine genuine biological/geological evolution and astronomy,they create a completely fabricated historical story to cast Christianity and religion in the worse possible light.I go to these forums because I know among them there may be genuine and decent intelligent people who can halt the slide into such a toxic and unstable situation that exists today but my fellow Christian are not helping in the matter by looking for some common ground with these empirical numbskulls.
There is much work to be done but as long as Christians do not see the situation for what it actually is -that many of these empiricists are becoming aggressive in promoting matters of faith as nothing more than an intellectual weakness when I know my faith is the source of curiousity and the celebration of a very special planet and life on it.
R
rossum
Guest
Evolution-as-fact has been shown many times. Every time bacteria evolve resistance to a new antibiotic evolution is shown to happen. The theory of evolution can never be proved because no scientific theory is ever proved. Newtonâs theory of gravity was never proved and it was eventually replaced by Einsteinâs theory - which itself will never be proved.
Agreed, but many atheists use the Bible as well - quoting all those bloodthirsty passages from the Old Testament. Are you going to drop the Bible just because atheists make use of it?
rossum
O
oriel16
Guest
Copernicus nevered feared Church censure,when he wrote to the Pope,he explained that his fear was that lazy and mediocre people would not exert themselves in order to comprehend his line of reasoning -You can always write the Holy Father.
JR
âTherefore I debated with myself for a long time whether to publish
the volume which I wrote to prove the earthâs motion or rather to follow the example of the Pythagoreans and certain others, who used to transmit philosophyâs secrets only to kinsmen and friends, not in writing but by word of mouth, as is shown by Lysisâ letter to Hipparchus. And they did so, it seems to me, not, as some suppose, because they were in some way jealous about their teachings, which would be spread around; on the contrary, they wanted the very beautiful thoughts attained by great men of deep devotion not to be ridiculed by those who are reluctant to exert themselves vigorously in any literary pursuit unless it is lucrative; or if they are stimulated to the nonacquisitive study of philosophy by the exhortation and example of others, yet because of their dullness of mind they play the same part among philosophers as drones among bees. When I weighed
these considerations, the scorn which I had reason to fear on account of the novelty and unconventionality of my opinion almost induced me to abandon completely the work which I had undertaken.â Copernicus
webexhibits.org/calendars/year-text-Copernicus.html
Long after Copernicus died,his worse fear emerged as there was, and remains, no authoritative opposition to the empirical hijacking of his insights and the re-direction of them towards the most spurious of conclusions.It is as though Christians willingly accept the destruction of scientific and Church history for the sake of apologising to people who would willingly see Christianity disappear and with it the incredibly enjoyable and productive scientific heritage that flows from Western Christian tradition.
The empiricists have exploited the Popeâs response to what was essentially a silly betrayal by Galileo of the Popeâs confidence by putting the words of the pope in the mouth of a fictional intellectual weakling âSimplicioâ -
webexhibits.org/calendars/year-text-Galileo.html
The same empiricists do Not know that Newton botched the main argument which Copernicus used for the annual orbital and daily rotational motions of the Earth so now we have a ridiculous and unstable situation where âscientistsâ attack the Church via Galileo while not comprehending the arguments which both Pope Urban VIII and Galileo would have understood via Copernicus.
Write to the Pope indeed !,any authority that presides over a complete disintegration of an astronomical heritage allied with its use against Christianity does not act in the best interests of Christ and Christianity.It is one thing to be unfamiliar with the technical details behind the disintegration of astronomy and evolutionary biology/geology within the Christian tradition,it is quite something else to have an inkling that something has gone badly wrong and not pursue the root cause.
R
rossum
Guest
There is more to life that just animals and plants. At the base of the tree of life there are three major groups: bacteria, archea and eukaryotes (the viruses evolved later). The eukaryotes are divided into protists, plants, animals and fungi. Protists are always single celled. Plants and fungi may be single celled or multi celled. Animals (metazoa) are all multi celled.
The first living thing was probably a very simple single celled proto-bacterium. It did need to eat and basically it would have eaten the chemicals in the water around it. Bacteria can process many different chemicals and since life is theorised to have arisen in the chemical soup, then the first life would have started off eating that soup.
No. The early earth had almost zero free oxygen; all early life was anaerobic - it did not need oxygen. Many bacteria today do not need oxygen - they form the smelly stagnant mess at the bottom of ponds. Oxygen only became important after photosynthesis evolved. For much of early life oxygen was a poison, see the Oxygen Catastrophe.
You have been misinformed. Anaerobic bacteria and archea do not need air to breathe, and indeed for the great majority of then oxygen is a poison. Early life did not require oxygen and was entirely anaerobic.
Photosynthesis evolved about a billion years after the origin of life, before that there were no plants. Multi-celled animals evolved about two billion years after plants. Early plants were all single celled algae. Conditions on the early earth were very different to conditions now. Life on the early earth was also very different to life now. You seem to be trying to extrapolate the present back into the past, this is a mistake. The distant past was very different.
The first life was very probably very simple proto-bacteria. Archaea are also single celled and probably evolved from bacteria before the arrival of photosynthesis (and hence oxygen). At this point various single celled organisms were eating raw chemicals and each other. Once photosynthesis evolved algae could start making their own food from carbon dioxide, water and sunlight. Some bacteria/archaea evolved to make use of the oxygen that photosynthesis produced while others retreated to places where there was no oxygen - the ancestors of the modern anaerobes. Later still a bacterium and an archaea merged to form the first single celled eukaryote. All eukaryotes use oxygen; we are eukaryotes and our mitochondria are the descendants of the bacterial part of the merger. Different elements of the current system evolved at different times, each new arrival making use of what was already present and the existing organisms adjusting to take account of the new presence.
rossum
S
Sabbath_Keeper
Guest
So why canât we reproduce this in the labs of today? It is illogical that life can come from lifelessness.
photosynthesis involves plants, plants have to pollenate, pollenation involves either transferance of pollen by the wind blowing it around or by clinging to an insect, bee, butterfly, ect. No air, no wind. and as animals and insect developed â2 billionâ years after plant life, doesnât work. There is no viable beginning.
Doesnât explain how life developes for lifelessness. Answer that one and perhaps the theory of evolution may start to have some validity.
See above concerning plant life. Iâm not extrapolating anything, just using common sense. Niether plant life nor animal life can survive without the other. To have them evolving seperately defies the natural order of things.
Plant life does not produce carbon dioxide, it produces oxygen, it NEEDS carbon dioxide to set in motion photosynthesis. The time spans are way to long for any plant to survive without animal life to help sustain it. Again, it doesnât work.
O
oriel16
Guest
This is a thumbsucking exercise which already assumes that Darwinâs version of evolution is valid even though the core of his âlawâ is derived from a essay on racial supremacy applied to biological evolution and forces the process down to the level of chemistry.In direct contrast,the original principles of biological evolution which were set in motion by bishop Steno in tandem with geological evolution and extended many centuries later by Wegener into plate tectonic principles is being ignored.
âBut how could fossils end up deep inside rocks? Steno studied the cliffs and hills of Italy to find the answer. He proposed that all rocks and minerals were originally fluid. Floating on the surface of the planet long ago, they gradually settled out of the ocean and created horizontal layers, with new layers forming on top of older ones. Molten rock sometimes intruded into the layers, reaching the top and spreading out into a new layer of its own. As the rocks formed, they could trap animal remains, converting them into fossils and preserving them deep within their layers. Those horizontal layers represent a time sequence with the oldest layers on the bottom and the youngest on top, unless later processes disturbed this arrangement. This ordering is now referred to as Stenoâs Law of Superposition, his most famous contribution to geologyâ
evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/_0/history_04
The fact that we are composed of chemical elements answers nothing about life and its diversity on this planet and the ability to approach biological evolution by reworking the investigations of Mendel into a single line of enquiry and to the exclusion of all else is reckless let alone the conclusions emerging from this blinkered view.
The inability to focus on whether Darwinâs version for biological evolution is valid by way of a âcauseâ should halt any further investigations until some stability returns and you simply cannot ,even with the strongest effort,take a wider view of biological evolution within the geological framework rather than having it dissolve into chemical evolution.
I cannot stress it often enough,what is happening is dangerous because even good and decent people have established the empirical trajectory as a âfactâ .Again,I appeal to Galileo in this matter -
" I know; such men do not deduce their conclusion from its premises or establish it by reason, but they accommodate (I should have said discommode and distort) the premises and reasons to a conclusion which for them is already established and nailed down. No good can come of dealing with such people, especially to the extent that their company may be not only unpleasant but dangerous." Galileo
G
gam197
Guest
I think it was clever of the scientific community to immediately name it a âtheoryâ when it should have been a hypothesis. Initially we were all taught we were descendants of the apes. As more fossil information emerged and more questions arose as to major gaps, leaps, the scientific community distanced themselves from ape ancestry and now has embraced pond scum or bacteria.
Most Christian Churches accepts micro evolution (adaptation) and makes a clear distinction between that and macro evolution. The Church has taken and continues to take a âwait and seeâ approach while constantly looking at new scientific information. Why would anyone have a problem with that?
O
Orogeny
Guest
At its core is natural selection.
I am not following you here. What is your complaint?
Do you have another scientific explanation for the evidence? If so, please tell us.
What are you talking about?
(bolding mine)
If you agree with Galileo, why are you wasting your time on this?
Peace
Tim
- Status