Darwin's Theory of Evolution is not scientific

  • Thread starter Thread starter Uriel1
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
buffalo said:
These are examples of variation within.
Click to expand...
Variation within what? Yes, they are examples of variation within a larger clade, just as the difference between humans and chimps is variation with the Hominidae clade, within the Primate clade and within the Mammal clade. However, that is irrelevant for macro-evolution, which is between species, not between higher clades.

You appear to be lacking relevant knowledge of taxonomy here. Lack of knowledge can be cured by learning.

rossum
 
rossum said:
Variation within what? Yes, they are examples of variation within a larger clade, just as the difference between humans and chimps is variation with the Hominidae clade, within the Primate clade and within the Mammal clade. However, that is irrelevant for macro-evolution, which is between species, not between higher clades.

You appear to be lacking relevant knowledge of taxonomy here. Lack of knowledge can be cured by learning.

rossum
Click to expand...
Yes, that is how it is setup. Genetics and epigenetics are making the old classification system useless.

Sweeping gene survey reveals new facets of evolution

IDvolution - Where faith and reason intersect. - intelligent design Jim Serafin
idvolution.blogspot.com idvolution.blogspot.com
 
buffalo said:
Adam and Eve were real people and is consistent with Church teaching. They were immediately created by God
Click to expand...
But you’re ignoring the fact that the Church also teaches that accepting the ToE is an acceptable alternative.
 
There has been increasing better understanding of how genes mutate and why, and what some seemingly confuse is that just because there’s improvement along these lines doesn’t make the previous understanding completely invalid. And to illustrate that point, I have yet to meet or read an article by a geneticist who doesn’t understand that life forms have and are still evolving, and this includes what some here label "macro-evolution. Are all these geneticists idiots?

One can hardly get through a single copy of “Scientific American” without running across at least one update on an item(s) directly related to genetic research., many of which relate directly to the ToE.

BTW, “America” magazine (Jesuit) periodically has an article on evolution, and I don’t recall seeing a single article that says it’s “false science” or any words similar to that
 
Last edited:
You are reading far too much into that study. It is interesting, but it does not say what you think it does. It says 90% of modern species had their equivalent of M-Eve between 100,000 and 200,000 years ago. How does that break the current taxonomic system? That study does not talk about extinct species, so all the fossil data is unaffected. We have fossil mammals. We have fossil primates. We have fossil Hominidae.

Nothing in that study affects what I posted. You are reading far too much into it.

rossum
 
Metis1 said:
BTW, “America” magazine (Jesuit) periodically has an article on evolution, and I don’t recall seeing a single article that says it’s “false science” or any words similar to that
Click to expand...
Were you expecting to?

See what the top evos are saying and how the modern synthesis is obsolete.
 
Metis1 said:
There has been increasing better understanding of how genes mutate and why, and what some seemingly confuse is that just because there’s improvement along these lines doesn’t make the previous understanding completely invalid. And to illustrate that point, I have yet to meet or read an article by a geneticist who doesn’t understand that life forms have and are still evolving, and this includes what some here label "macro-evolution. Are all these geneticists idiots?

One can hardly get through a single copy of “Scientific American” without running across at least one update on an item(s) directly related to genetic research., many of which relate directly to the ToE.

BTW, “America” magazine (Jesuit) periodically has an article on evolution, and I don’t recall seeing a single article that says it’s “false science” or any words similar to that
Click to expand...
Start here:


and

idvolution.blogspot.com

The death of NeoDarwinism, No Selfish Gene

IDvolution - Where faith and reason intersect. - intelligent design Jim Serafin
idvolution.blogspot.com idvolution.blogspot.com
 
Noble described how bacterial regulatory networks rebuilt those genes in four days by hyper-mutating, actively searching for a solution that would give them tails and enable them to Nind food. Natural selection did not achieve that. Natural genetic engineering did.’”

“It’s appropriate that this meeting is being held at the Royal Society, whose motto, we were reminded yesterday, is “Nullius in verba”: Accept nothing on authority."

“Not one whit of empirical evidence shows that new species arise from the neo-Darwinian mechanism. To the contrary, Darwinian competition causes not the evolution of species but the destruction of species.”
 

Designed changes vs random changes​

This paper shows that some “mutations” are designed changes directed by cellular machinery.

Genomic “tuning knobs” with implicit range are strategies for organisms to change and adapt as needed. We know about fine tuning in the universe, now we see it in life.

Remember the Genetic Piano post (here)? Which keys are chosen to play? What decides?

idvolution.blogspot.com

Designed changes vs random changes

IDvolution - Where faith and reason intersect. - intelligent design Jim Serafin
idvolution.blogspot.com idvolution.blogspot.com
 
Last edited:
Bacteria have the built-in ability to exchange bits of genetic material between different species. Plants have the ability to survive in poor soil and can grow to their full potential in the best soil.
 
buffalo said:
40.png
Metis1:
But you’re ignoring the fact that the Church also teaches that accepting the ToE is an acceptable alternative.
Click to expand...
Show me the magisterial document.
Click to expand...
The church does not teach “an alternative” and is clear that Adam and Eve were real people
The following comes from Wiki so please remember this is a guide only

Pope Pius XII confirmed that there is no intrinsic conflict between Christianity and the theory of evolution, provided that Christians believe that God created all things and that the individual soul is a direct creation by God and not the product of purely material forces.[1] Today, the Church supports theistic evolution(ism), also known as evolutionary creation ,[2] although Catholics are free not to believe in any part of evolutionary theory.

The Catholic Church holds no official position on the theory of creation or evolution, leaving the specifics of either theistic evolution or literal creationism to the individual within certain parameters established by the Church. According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, any believer may accept either literal or special creation within the period of an actual six-day, twenty-four-hour period, or they may accept the belief that the earth evolved over time under the guidance of God. Catholicism holds that God initiated and continued the process of his evolutionary creation, that Adam and Eve were real people, and affirms that all humans, whether specially created or evolved, have and have always had specially created souls for each individual
 
Last edited:
The Church recognizes the freedom of human beings to read and interpret scripture with a wide degree of latitude.
This is not the same thing as a license to ignorance. Ignorance is destructive to the human condition.
For example: There are those who use scripture to avoid medical treatments for sick children, on the belief that prayer is all that is needed to heal them. This is freedom of interpretation and it is also ignorant to the point of destruction.

Likewise, the insistence that mainstream science is wrong or deceptive in it’s investigations and conclusions on evolution is ignorant. And that ignorance scandalizes those trying to integrate the Catholic faith with scientific discovery and reason generally. The Church itself in it’s discussions on the matter encourages Catholics to integrate scientific thought on evolution with our faith. Attempt to do otherwise are anti-ecclesial.

The fact that you are free to hold various interpretations of scripture does not give you license to ignorance.
 
Last edited:
Why is this subject so important? Over one third of those polled in the US reject it entirely.

Those who are sincere in their beliefs and do not get medical help for their children is a matter of faith. If it’s illegal then their children can be taken away.

Some people don’t want flu shots for a number of reasons. One elderly man I knew had a bad reaction and decided to stop getting them. Even in a hospital (where I saw this first-hand), patients can refuse certain tests.

Why not the same treatment for quantum mechanics?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top