Do you believe Evolution

[rossum]

Until you can provide evidence, or proof if you could, that our structures change in function and nature rather than in just size and color, this does not serve as evidence.

Certainly. We have three bones in our ears. Reptiles have only one. The two bones in our ears were part of the jaws of reptiles. Evolution has changed the function of those bones from jawbones to ear bones. There is a good evolutionary series showing this transition as it is part of the change from the Therapsids (Mammal like reptiles) to early mammals. There is an illustration on this page, and a list of some of the known intermediates here.

Natural Selection is an observable phenomenon. Observable phenomenon cannot be used as its own evidence.

I am not sure what you are saying here? Lightning is an observable phenomenon. Can lightning not be used as evidence for lightning? Can observations of lightning not be used to study lightning?

Furthermore, this kind of argument tres to conscript inheritence as an evolutionary cornerstone when it is, in reality, mutually exclusive to evolutionary theory. This is another observable phenomenon and cannot be used as its own evidence.

Inheritance is crucial to evolutionary theory, because evolution deals with inherited traits. Things that are not inherited, such as an amputated finger, are nothing to do with evolution.

You greatly constrict the definition of “science.” The term simply means to approach a situation with a certain algorithm. The act of observation does not assign legitimacy to the theory it studies. This is where the phrase “junk science” came from.

The standard definition of science is the search for natural explanation of natural phenomena using the scientific method: observation, hypothesis, experiment.

Please to note: Not only does Genesis first tell us about the Great Deluge, dinosaurs, and document our fore fathers before other historian elements were able to find the evidence that pointed to these things, but also provides its own direct link to the archeological evidence at Jericho, Sodom and Gammorah, and Mt. Ararat. Homer modeling his fantasy around a real war doesn’t even compare.

No one has yet found evidence for the worldwide flood, no-one has yet found evidence of any Ark on Mount Ararat.

Even if you were to argue that evidence points to Adam and Eve being fictional people (see also: Absence of proof is proof of absence), you’d still have the obstacle of every other confirmably real person in the Old Testament to deal with. Through empirical logic, it only makes sense to consider the Bible historically credible.

I can read War and Peace. I will find “confirmably real” people such as Napoleon and the Tsar. That does not make War and Peace factual. Parts of the Bible are perfectly good history. Other parts of it are not and should not be treated as such. If I say “1 + 1 = 2 and you owe me a million dollars”, the fact that the first part is true does not make the second part true as well.

So please refrain from referring to scripture as “mythology.”

I have never referred to the Tripitaka as mythology.

Genesis documents history from, roughly, 18,000 years ago, those things would still be present using your timeline.

There are a lot of YECs who would dispute that.

rossum

 

[Pariah]

Certainly. We have three bones in our ears. Reptiles have only one. The two bones in our ears were part of the jaws of reptiles. Evolution has changed the function of those bones from jawbones to ear bones. There is a good evolutionary series showing this transition as it is part of the change from the Therapsids (Mammal like reptiles) to early mammals. There is an illustration on this page, and a list of some of the known intermediates here.

You cannot use the topic of dispute as a pillar for your argument. The very theory of physiological morphology, or macro-mutation, is what’s up for debate here.

Also, could we please refrain from using TalkOrigins as a talking point?

I am not sure what you are saying here? Lightning is an observable phenomenon. Can lightning not be used as evidence for lightning? Can observations of lightning not be used to study lightning?

Yes. But you can’t use its presence alone to explain a theory that has no direct relation except for what you assume it would have. For example: I believe that God controls the whether directly, but I’m not about to say that since lightening exists, and that it’s a phenomenon, that it’s evidence that God exists or that God controls it. Likewise, one cannot say that the theory of evolution is untenable simply because we have Natural Selection, inheritence, and cases of macro-mutation. All of these things mean exactly what they’re defined as individually and not necessarily what people want to associate them with.

Until we actually witness the development of a branching sub-species, there is no empirical evidence that can be assigned to evolutionary theory. That includes empirically sustained processes like the ones listed above.

Inheritance is crucial to evolutionary theory, because evolution deals with inherited traits. Things that are not inherited, such as an amputated finger, are nothing to do with evolution.

Exactly, the theory itself tries to conscript natural phenomenon such as inheritance when it’s scientifically inappropriate. Such a way of approaching an observable element of nature would end up corrupting said element since its status as a factual entity is employed as a footnote for an otherwise unstable theory. You’re basically mixing fact and fiction. Even if the theory you’re pairing up the observable phenomenon with turned out to be true, the approach would still lack proper ettiquete due to the combination’s ratio of unprovable(sp) elements.

The standard definition of science is the search for natural explanation of natural phenomena using the scientific method: observation, hypothesis, experiment.

This is basically a restatement of what I said without the “junk-science” comment.

No one has yet found evidence for the worldwide flood, no-one has yet found evidence of any Ark on Mount Ararat.

I could dispute the Ark, but I won’t. For now I’ll just point out that we’ve already found deluge strata the world over.

I can read War and Peace. I will find “confirmably real” people such as Napoleon and the Tsar. That does not make War and Peace factual.

And it wasn’t presented as being so–Nor was the Illiad. In the case of the Bible however, we have a ratio of historically documented events mixed in with other events that simply haven’t been confirmed yet. The war at Troy and the European war were implemented as plot-devices for stories, not as a complement to summaries that were trying to document history (as was the case with the Bible).

Neither Homer nor Tolstoy were trying to document history. The Biblical writers, on the other hand, were.

the fact that the first part is true does not make the second part true as well.

Again, this is why we must consider the parts not sustainable by word of mouth to be considered empirical evidence. We may not be able to confirm the names of the people or a lot of what they did, but the scripture itself gives us no reason not to believe it. Not simply because its remained in allignment with past events, but also because we have no choice–Of course we could choose not to believe based on faith, but that wouldn’t make the documents any less evident as a description of the past (or “alleged” if you wish).

There are a lot of YECs who would dispute that.

Eh…Youth EnCounters?

Yeah, I dunno.

 

[Deconi]

Also, since the contention is that we are in the same lineage as the primates, the argument is whether the chimp outlived ALL OUR ANCESTORS in between, since, clearly there must be several thousands if not milleniums of species missing between IT and US!

The 14 odd skulls you’ll probably refer me to are a joke! (talkingorigins) since the chimp’s skull has to go in at the very beginning of that lineage! Where’s the rest of the skull owners?

The 2-bones that supposedly ‘developed’ between the squasmosal bone and the dentry requires millenias to form. What did the animal do for hearing while it was eating in a volatile environment? …since it would have to either eat or listen? But then, was it a reptile or a mammal at that point?

Evolution is good talking origin though!

 

[rossum]

You cannot use the topic of dispute as a pillar for your argument. The very theory of physiological morphology, or macro-mutation, is what’s up for debate here.

You were the one who said “Until you can provide evidence, or proof if you could, that our structures change in function and nature rather than in just size and color, this does not serve as evidence.” You asked for evidence I provided it. You cannot just wave the evidence away, or do you deny that these bones changed their function?

Yes. But you can’t use its presence alone to explain a theory that has no direct relation except for what you assume it would have. For example: I believe that God controls the whether directly, but I’m not about to say that since lightening exists, and that it’s a phenomenon, that it’s evidence that God exists or that God controls it.

Lightning is the same whether it is caused by electricity, Thor, Zeus, Indra or any other mechanism. Science is the process of testing these different explanations against reality to see which ones are best. The Theory of Evolution is the best explanation we have of many observed phenomena. Going back to my example of earbones and jawbones. In the development of mammalian embryous (including humans) the two bones in question start growing near the jaw but in later development they move into the ear. Evolution explains this behaviour well - other theories have difficulty explaining it.

Until we actually witness the development of a branching sub-species, there is no empirical evidence that can be assigned to evolutionary theory.

At the risk of annoying you further, here is a list of Observed Instances of Speciation, and Some More Instances of Speciation. We have witnessed speciation many times.

And it wasn’t presented as being so–Nor was the Illiad. In the case of the Bible however, we have a ratio of historically documented events mixed in with other events that simply haven’t been confirmed yet. The war at Troy and the European war were implemented as plot-devices for stories, not as a complement to summaries that were trying to document history (as was the case with the Bible).

So where is your evidence? According to Genesis there were humans [Gen 1:27] and cattle [Gen 1:24] on the earth during Creation Week; sheep [Gen 4:2] appeared soon after. There were also human habitations such as cities [Gen 4:17] within 130 years [Gen 5:3]. Where is your evidence of any of these things from early rocks? If you cannot provide any such evidence then I will continue to doubt that Genesis is literal history.

rossum

 

[rossum]

Welcome to CAF.

Also, since the contention is that we are in the same lineage as the primates,

We are primates - we meet all the criteria. We have been classified in the primates since Linnaeus in 1735.

the argument is whether the chimp outlived ALL OUR ANCESTORS in between, since, clearly there must be several thousands if not milleniums of species missing between IT and US!

We are not descended from chimps, any more than you are descended from your cousins. Both ourselves and chimps are descended from a common ancestor, now extinct. The probability is that the common ancestor looked more like a chimp than us, but it was not a chimp.

The 2-bones that supposedly ‘developed’ between the squasmosal bone and the dentry requires millenias to form.

Yes, it was a slow process.

What did the animal do for hearing while it was eating in a volatile environment?

Reptiles have a single ear bone and multiple jaw bones. Their jaw is hinged between the quadrate (skull) and angular (jaw) bones. The mammal like reptiles (therapsids) show a steady decrease in size of the bones at the rear of their jaws over time. As the dentary jawbone became bigger it eventually reached back as far as the skull and formed a second jaw hinge between the squamosal (skull) and dentary (jaw) bones. We have found a fossil therapsid, Probainognathus, with double jaw joints: both quadrate-angular and squamosal-dentary. Later we see only the squamosal-dentary with the other small (formerly) jaw bones moving into the ear. It is worth noting that in modern reptiles the rear jaw bones also play some part in transmitting sound to the ear so the change is more of a specialisation from two functions to one.

…since it would have to either eat or listen?

As I explained, it could always do both. See The Therapsid - Mammal Transitional Series for more details.

But then, was it a reptile or a mammal at that point?

Mammals are defined as having a single jawbone with the squamosal-dentary jaw hinge.

Evolution is good talking origin though!

Agreed.

rossum

 

[Ginger2]

Science has not proved evolution nor the big bang.

Big Bang theories (and there are many different theories) all defy the laws of physics. So the Big Bang is scientifically impossible.

How do scientists explain this? By inventing another theory!!! Maybe the laws of physics didn’t exist until after the Big Bang!

 

[Ahimsa]

I pledge allegiance to evolution
of the biological diversity on earth,
and to the theistic guidance from which it evolved,
one DNA under God, cellularly divisible,
with allopatric speciation and adenine triphosphate for all.

 

[buffalo]

I pledge allegiance to evolution
of the biological diversity on earth,
and to the theistic guidance from which it evolved,
one DNA under God, cellularly divisible,
with allopatric speciation and adenine triphosphate for all.

Can evolution make things less complicated?

Scientists suggest cell origins involved a forward-and-backward process

We’ve all seen the popular cartoon of evolution’s march from an ancient sea, beginning with a single floating cell that morphs into increasingly complicated creatures, on the way to the punch line of Weekend Man slumped in his armchair. It’s just a joke, but the idea that life starts simple and gets more complex over time persists even in scientific circles. Yet one of the biggest events in evolutionary history — the origin of the cells that make up every tissue in our bodies — may be a case of life getting less complicated, according to recent research.

more…

 

[Doug50]

St. Augustine on the Literal Meaning of Genesis

xent.com/pipermail/fork/Week-of-Mon-20050808/037436.html

pibburns.com/augustin.htm

 

[DRIVING_BEAR]

I Think the theory of evolution can best described as proof that Satan is into recycling .
In my opinion evolution is similar to the lie Satan told Eve in the garden of Eden.
Remember that Satan did not promise EVE Gold , power , or Parade Shoes if she ate the fruit. He promised her she would be like God. The theory of evolution states that there is no God . Therefore Since there is no God , that makes man the most powerful being in the universe.
What do you call the most powerful being in the universe : GOD
In essence evolution teaches that man is God.

Also as to the argument about the age of the earth, I have one thing to say : Al Gore’s the inconvenient Truth.
In Al Gore’s film he talked about a Glacier at antarctica that slid off into the sea , and the scientist said it would take 100 years to melt. It melted in 35 days.
So a process took about 1/1200 the time the scientist said it would and this was a process was one that was one that happened in real time. How then are we to accept on faith the time line about the beginning of the universe the scientist present

 

[Doug50]

“The theory of evolution states that there is no God.”

Do you have a quote from a scientific journal on evolution that supports this claim?

 

[Donald45]

One doesn’t really believe in evolution, any more than one “believes in” gravity, plant photosynthesis, or the principles of physics. It’s simply something one either accepts or rejects.

In light of this, I’d answer that I do indeed affirm the scientific theory of evolution. At the same time, as a Catholic, I also believe in (as is proper with theological ideas that are known through divine revelation) the Christian doctrine of creation, that is, that God created all things other than himself.

Don
+T+

 

[rossum]

Science has not proved evolution nor the big bang.

Correct, science does not “prove” anything since all theories are always up for revision in the light of new data. Since we can never know what the future may show all theories are provisional. However, all theories are the best explanation we currently have. That includes BB and ToE.

Big Bang theories (and there are many different theories) all defy the laws of physics. So the Big Bang is scientifically impossible.

No, it is merely an unusual event. We know that some of our theories do not work close to the Big Bang - General Relativity being one. Others do work at that scale - quantum mechanics.

How do scientists explain this? By inventing another theory!!! Maybe the laws of physics didn’t exist until after the Big Bang!

If your current theory does not explain the data then another theory is required. That is why Newton’s theory was replaced by Einstein’s and why Einstein’s will be reaplced by a theory of quantum gravity. That is the way science works. Theories that don’t work are rejected, theories that do work are accepted.

rossum

 

[rossum]

Can evolution make things less complicated?

Yes. Have a look at a tapeworm. Like many parasites it has lost a lot of unneccessary features such as a gut and a mouth. Cave fish can evolve to lose their eyes.

Evolution can make things less complicated if that is advantageous in the environment.

rossum

 

[Donald45]

Which scripture, saint, theologian or church father teaches that again?

Which biblical passage, Church Council, or ex cathedra pronouncement necessarily forbids evolution again, as a matter of faith or morals?

Don
+T+

 

[dixieagle]

Science has not proved evolution nor the big bang.

Big Bang theories (and there are many different theories) all defy the laws of physics. So the Big Bang is scientifically impossible.

How do scientists explain this? By inventing another theory!!! Maybe the laws of physics didn’t exist until after the Big Bang!

Did you know that the Big Bang theory was first proposed, in 1927, by a Belgian Catholic priest, Fr. Georges-Henri Lemaitre? And that Pope Pius XII said, of the Big Bang theory, that “scientists are beginning to find the finger of God in the creation of the universe.” Interesting, isn’t it?

 

[dixieagle]

One doesn’t really believe in evolution, any more than one “believes in” gravity, plant photosynthesis, or the principles of physics. It’s simply something one either accepts or rejects.

In light of this, I’d answer that I do indeed affirm the scientific theory of evolution. At the same time, as a Catholic, I also believe in (as is proper with theological ideas that are known through divine revelation) the Christian doctrine of creation, that is, that God created all things other than himself.

Don
+T+

Thank you - you put it in a nice little nutshell!

 

[Ginger2]

The “big bang” is impossible, according to the known laws of physics. AND…

Without the “big bang” the theory of evolution is impossible.

I am amazed that seemingly intelligent people find it so easy to believe that two lifeless cells could somehow come together all by themselves and become LIFE.

An of course there could be no oxigen in the atmosphere until nearly the precise moment the 2 cells unite, otherwise they would deteriorate before they join. THEN miraculousy, oxigen has to appear to support that new life at precisely that same moment they join.

And it is impossible for petrification to take place over millions of years because the organic material will also deteriorate and rot away. But it can take place in a matter of weeks! (ie Mother Shipton’s Cave)

 

[jpasta]

evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/4_0_0/evo_01

evolution 101…