Do you believe in evolution?

[Noose001]

A valid question. It’s importance is lost on most.

Time is a pure quantitative construct . It is not a concept or an abstraction. Man does not perceive time, nor does he measure it. There is no such thing as a “sense of time”, or of “time passing”. And that’s not because time is silent. It’s because it does not exist.

Man does perceive rhythms : the swinging of a pendulum, night and day, winter and summer. Cycles. But time he must mentally construct by counting such cycles. There is no other way to arrive at “time”. And when man forgets how many cycles he had already counted, time is gone. Irrecoverably lost. Not died or decayed or misplaced, but simply vanished. Unlike length or weight, it cannot be re-measured — because it was never a measurement to begin with. Of what could time be a measurement?

To speak of time that “happened” or “passed” or “took place” in the absence of man is illogical in the profound sense of that word. A pure mental construct does not apply to a world not inhabited by the (pathologically) mental creatures that construct it.

Finally, you put a smile on my face.

 

[Rau]

To speak of time that “happened” or “passed” or “took place” in the absence of man is illogical in the profound sense of that word.

When we leave the room, and then return, I find the clock has counted just the number of cycled expected. The click was fine without us. Perhaps the dust mites counted in my absence?

 

[StudentMI]

It’s not a matter of belief. Evolution has been demonstrated scientifically. Therefore the logical result is that evolution happened.

 

[Noose001]

When we leave the room, and then return, I find the clock has counted just the number of cycled expected. The click was fine without us. Perhaps the dust mites counted in my absence?

The clock just does what you (man) set it to do.

 

[Noose001]

It’s not a matter of belief. Evolution has been demonstrated scientifically.

So why the debate? i guess some are just credulous, the threshold for what they call evidence or demonstration is very low.
For evolution to be demonstrated, there has to be an evidence of at least a single beneficial mutation followed by natural selection. On the contrary, the idea of speciation through beneficial mutations and natural selection is easily falsified; if i’m able to show a specific trait that has nothing to do with mutations or natural selection.

 

[Bill_B_NY]

Your understanding of evolution is incorrect.

Evolution claims to have an explanation for the origin of human beings.
You are saying that this is incorrect.
I can cite the literature for you, if you’d like.

 

[Bill_B_NY]

So, God did not have a “direct causal presence” in the origin of the universe and cosmology is fine without mentioning God. You might want to rethink you attitude to a great deal of science. Or are you trying to tell us that God did not create the universe?

It’s a strange question. Perhaps you do not understand.
God created all matter, space and time (the universe) - from the power of His own Being. That’s de fide Catholic doctrine.
So, a theory of the origin of the universe, as some attempt, that does not include God’s direct causality is false. You cannot get something from nothing - thus God is the First Cause.

 

[Dan123]

For evolution to be demonstrated, there has to be an evidence of at least a single beneficial mutation followed by natural selection.

And there is.

On the contrary, the idea of speciation through beneficial mutations and natural selection is easily falsified; if i’m able to show a specific trait that has nothing to do with mutations or natural selection

How so? If God gave a species xray vision but the rest of them came about through mutation and natural selection, how would that disprove speciation?

 

[Bill_B_NY]

So why the debate? i guess some are just credulous, the threshold for what they call evidence or demonstration is very low.
For evolution to be demonstrated, there has to be an evidence of at least a single beneficial mutation followed by natural selection. On the contrary, the idea of speciation through beneficial mutations and natural selection is easily falsified; if i’m able to show a specific trait that has nothing to do with mutations or natural selection.

Agreed. Some scientists disagree with the claim that “evolution has been demonstrated”. Even more disagree with the notion that natural selection is the primary mechanism for the development of life on earth. Some (Larry Moran) propose that Natural Selection has almost zero impact and all change is through genetic drift (random accumulations alone).
There’s no consensus on this, as much as evolutionists claim there is.
I have heard some claim “evolution is not random” - and to prove this they say it can be statistically modelled.
But any random process can be statistically modeled, and predictions can be made.
Snowflakes fall in a random dispersion, so we can predict that they all won’t fall into a 20 foot pile leaving none elsewhere. To say that “this is not random” is false.
The sorts of predictions evolution makes are so trivial as to prove how weak the theory really is.
Most mutations are neutral or harmful to the organism. In fact, the organism has repair mechanisms to protect against mutations. Thus, the supposed driver of beneficial change is blocked by repair.

 

[Bill_B_NY]

The evolution of blood clotting is one open question for evolution, as I see it (and other scientists agree).
When the function of blood clotting was not present on earth, what stopped blood flow from killing every creature that got a slightest blood flow (cut, scrape, blemish)?
There is all sorts of hand-waving about how blood clotting evolved, but I haven’t seen a good answer to the question about what happened on earth before blood clotting existed.

 

[Bill_B_NY]

Obviously godless evolution is false, but the Church does allow for theistic forms. The Church doesn’t sit with falsehood.

I fully agree that godless evolution is false. That is the predominant theory of evolution that is promoted today by the scientific establishment. In fact, I don’t really know of a good source for the theory of theistic evolution. What, precisely, does God do in that scenario?

Father Michael Chaberek offers some insights on how Thomistic Theology is opposed to evolutionary theory (and supports Intelligent Design):

Thomas Aquinas on Evolution and Intelligent Design |

aquinas.design

I think of theistic evolution along the lines of Fr. Teilhard de Chardin, perhaps. As I see it, that idea is wildly unscientific and simply incorrect in terms of theology also. Teilhard did not believe in Catholic doctrine about the nature of God.

The other theistic evolutionist I am aware of is Ken Miller. He proposes godless evolution, except that God was somehow watching it all, or something? He claims that God Himself, did not know that evolution would produce human beings.
So, it’s an heretical construct - I’m not going to buy into that.

 

[Noose001]

And there is.

Then you haven’t got the slightest idea what a mutation is

How so? If God gave a species xray vision but the rest of them came about through mutation and natural selection, how would that disprove speciation?

I said, if i can show a specific trait that has nothing to do with mutation and natural selction, i will have disproved evolution. And i can.

 

[Bill_B_NY]

I said, if i can show a specific trait that has nothing to do with mutation and natural selction, i will have disproved evolution.

That falsifies Darwinism, yes. Many evolutionists today realize that’s the case. They won’t admit that Darwin has been falsified - they just “extend” his failed ideas by adding on new (contradictory) concepts.

 

[Noose001]

Agreed. Some scientists disagree with the claim that “evolution has been demonstrated”. Even more disagree with the notion that natural selection is the primary mechanism for the development of life on earth. Some (Larry Moran) propose that Natural Selection has almost zero impact and all change is through genetic drift (random accumulations alone).
There’s no consensus on this, as much as evolutionists claim there is.
I have heard some claim “evolution is not random” - and to prove this they say it can be statistically modelled.

True because gene expression follows the Mendel’s proven model of Hereditary science, it doesn’t care about environmental pressure, the dominant gene will be expressed regardless.

 

[StudentMI]

Read the book Your Inner Fish. I’m out of this thread.

 

[Dan123]

True because gene expression follows the Mendel’s proven model of Hereditary science, it doesn’t care about environmental pressure, the dominant gene will be expressed regardless.

Only if the creature reproduces, which is what natural selection is about, which members of a species are more likely to survive.

Then you haven’t got the slightest idea what a mutation is

As shown above you don’t seem to understand what natural selection is.

I said, if i can show a specific trait that has nothing to do with mutation and natural selction, i will have disproved evolution. And i can.

How would you prove a trait had nothing to do with mutation? Would you be proving the trait was always there throughout it’s lineage?

 

[Mythicalbio]

I posted some examples earlier of theistic evolution theorist, here is another: Process Theology and Sophiology | Henry Karlson

The point is, it is possible to reconcile because the Church allows it. There isn’t one set theory though. I don’t even have one, even though I basically accept evolution, it’s not something I think about.

 

[Roguish]

When we leave the room, and then return, I find the clock has counted just the number of cycled expected. The click was fine without us. Perhaps the dust mites counted in my absence?

The clock doesn’t count anything. It’s a machine rhythmically spinning its hands around a dial on which you and your fellows have painted funny symbols. It’s you who has been trained to mentally construct time every time you look at that contraption. And you’ve been trained so thoroughly that you can’t not do it anymore. The mental reflex has been implanted so deeply that you don’t notice that it’s always you who is fabricating time. There is no time out there. Your making it up again and again, and so do all the people around you, which makes it seem so real.

As for the clock being fine without us, of course it is. The clock in itself has nothing to do with time. It’s no better at keeping time than a stapler.

 

[Noose001]

Only if the creature reproduces, which is what natural selection is about, which members of a species are more likely to survive.

Those members of the species that are likely to survive will still express the dominant gene whether it is beneficial or not, mutations don’t make a gene dominant.

How would you prove a trait had nothing to do with mutation? Would you be proving the trait was always there throughout it’s lineage?

I know of one, human language.

 

[Bill_B_NY]

I posted some examples earlier of theistic evolution theorist, here is another: https://www.patheos.com/blogs/henrykarlson/2019/10/process-theology-and-sophiology/

The point is, it is possible to reconcile because the Church allows it. There isn’t one set theory though. I don’t even have one, even though I basically accept evolution, it’s not something I think about.

Mr. Karlson appears to be a blogger of some sort with a background in religious studies. For me, I wouldn’t consider that a scientific, biological theory of evolution in this case. In other words, to follow theistic evolution I’d have to confine myself to a non-specialist amateur who hasn’t published any scientific work?

But also, the Church allows something, but that does not mean that it is possible to reconcile evolution with the Faith. The Church could have an incorrect notion on this in scientific terms. There’s nothing wrong with knowing that. Popes Pius XII and St. John Paul II gave warnings about evolutionary theory. It’s not a blanket endorsement.