Do you believe in evolution?

[Mythicalbio]

No, I’m sure there are others. I am just not a person focused more on the science than the theological why. That’s why I have basically exclusively linked to more theological answers. I don’t think theistic evolutionist would really change the scheme of evolution much, especially since (unless I’m wrong) it was shown that humans came from two individuals. All I’ve seen them say regarding humans is that either God simply gave souls to them, or placed them here body and soul after the fall (this is a long way around creation being fallen before Adam and eve).

If by incorrect science you mean that the Church would only allow evolutionary theories that part with science at some point, and so isn’t really evolution in the end, yes that’s definitely possible. If that is true then when it becomes clearly said, can’t wait to get bullied for being a fundy lol, even though the Church was trying to keep up. The world will never be satisfied.

 

[Dan123]

I know of one, human language.

How is human language a genetic trait?

 

[Noose001]

How is human language a genetic trait?

It is a specific trait as are all other animal communication methods . Evolution is the idea that species and their traits evolve through mutations and natural selection. Back to you.

 

[Bill_B_NY]

Rossum mentioned HGT - horizontal gene transfer, which is not a mutation-selection mechanism. So, if a person said (which almost nobody does or should) that “evolution is natural selection acting on random mutations”, then they are falsified by HGT.

 

[Dan123]

It is a specific trait as are all other animal communication methods . Evolution is the idea that species and their traits evolve through mutations and natural selection. Back to you.

It’s an emergent property of intelligence, which would be a genetic trait. You’re either misunderstanding or deliberately trying to misuse terms. Evolution is changes in allele frequency over time, that is genetic traits. You might as well argue hair-dos are a trait of humanity the way you’re trying to use ‘trait’.

Rossum mentioned HGT - horizontal gene transfer, which is not a mutation-selection mechanism. So, if a person said (which almost nobody does or should) that “evolution is natural selection acting on random mutations”, then they are falsified by HGT.

That’s in regards to the origin of sexual reproduction. HGT is one way genes can be spread in a population through generations. I don’t believe @rossum claims it was a selection mechanism.

 

[Bill_B_NY]

If that is true then when it becomes clearly said, can’t wait to get bullied for being a fundy lol, even though the Church was trying to keep up. The world will never be satisfied.

it’s a great point and I’m glad to hear it.
I’ve been discussing (arguing) about evolution on-line in various places for over 15 years now.
I am sympathetic. Catholics don’t want to be bullied by atheists. They don’t like to be ridiculed. Atheists spend day and night thinking about evolution - it’s their religion. Catholics come along and simply cannot deal with it (as with any conspiracy theorist, you can’t argue with them because they are obsessed and we are not).
So, the easiest solution is just to “go along to get along”.
The Catholics will say “ok, ok - we accept evolution! No problem.”. But what about God? Well, we will say that God did something, and science can’t see it so it doesn’t matter.
But that’s just an atheistic version of religion - God invisibly doing something, and it looks like random outcomes from godless evolution. We say, “No, God is really there” but there’s zero evidence.
Even our good popes do this. They don’t want another Galileo affair.
So, they go along with anything atheistic-science says and then just try to make it fit our religion.
But at some point, we have to look at the science itself.
For me, evolution does not work - on scientific grounds.
Other scientists have drawn the same conclusion. They can continue to do good science without the need for evolutionary theory. They can believe that God created the first humans, from nothing. This does not cause a huge problem.
That’s my view. God created organisms. Probably the first body types at the Cambrian explosion. God probably created new species, not by evolution. God stopped other things from happening - the extinction of species that He wanted. God allowed nature to have an effect, changing minor characteristics (micro-evolution), but He is involved at all times and created (and creates) new things on this earth continually. He can give plants new benefits and features. Teach even insects (lady bugs) where to go to prevent harm to crops. Let other insects be a punishment (locusts) to people for sin.
Many things God does. The very first life forms - He created. He sustains life. Life belongs to Him. DNA - he created the language. We already mentioned the rational soul - reason, logic, communication, memory. He created - these did not evolve from mindless, blind matter.
Mindless, blind evolution cannot explain development of life on earth. It’s godless.

It takes courage to go against the know-it-all atheists. That may be our Cross of suffering. God has a great reward for that.

 

[Noose001]

It’s an emergent property of intelligence, which would be a genetic trait. You’re either misunderstanding or deliberately trying to misuse terms. Evolution is changes in allele frequency over time, that is genetic traits. You might as well argue hair-dos are a trait of humanity the way you’re trying to use ‘trait’.

1.Emergent?! Each species has its communication means which evolutionists believe is a result of mutations and natural selection, why is it different with humans?

1. Does it mean, in the case with humans that evolution was ditched for something better? because all along the evolutionary line, intraspecies communication has been the property of evolution.
2. I still don’t understand how such a transition takes place, from gene controlled mode of communication to one that is externally acquired through learning. Is this even possible?

 

[Bill_B_NY]

That’s in regards to the origin of sexual reproduction. HGT is one way genes can be spread in a population through generations. I don’t believe @rossum claims it was a selection mechanism.

It’s non-mutational, and thus a refutation of Darwinism.

 

[Bill_B_NY]

Intelligence cannot emerge from blind, mindless, unintelligent matter.

 

[Dan123]

1.Emergent?! Each species has its communication means which evolutionists believe is a result of mutations and natural selection, why is it different with humans?

I didn’t say it was different in humans. We have enough intelligence for our communication to go beyond instinctive communication. We aren’t born with the ability to communicate the way you and I are right now, we have the capacity for it, but we build on that capacity through learning. We’re not the only species who does this, we just seem to do it particularly well.

 

[Dan123]

It’s non-mutational, and thus a refutation of Darwinism.

If a creature undergoes a mutation, and then transfers that gene through HGT, the offspring will have that mutation. You’re really jumping the gun to declare something a refutation before taking the time to research what things are. You don’t have to agree with them but honest debate requires you to at least be able to accurately present the oppositions ideas.

Intelligence cannot emerge from blind, mindless, unintelligent matter.

Assertion without evidence.

 

[Noose001]

I didn’t say it was different in humans. We have enough intelligence for our communication to go beyond instinctive communication. We aren’t born with the ability to communicate the way you and I are right now, we have the capacity for it, but we build on that capacity through learning. We’re not the only species who does this, we just seem to do it particularly well.

You keep disproving you own theory.

1. How was that capacity naturally selected if individuals could not speak?
2. How was the transition? what was the need for transition? from whom do you get to learn the first words and their meaning(s)? You still unaware of the complexity of human languages.

 

[Dan123]

How was that capacity naturally selected if individuals could not speak?

You still unaware of the complexity of human languages.

You should try not to think of things as binaries. You’re presenting in your post the idea that either humans communicate fully as we do today, or we don’t communicate at all. Communication some is always better than not being able to communicate at all. If you were stranded on an island with someone who didn’t speak your language, do you think you’d be unable to establish some type of communication with them?

Human language is complex yes, but it could be much less complex and we’d still benefit from having it. And language is hardly the only way we communicate. If you’re walking down the street and you catch someone looking at you and as you catch their eye they smile, what ‘words’ did that require? We communicate using a lot of methods much more subtle than language but I doubt you’d cite the universal concept of a smile as a refutation of evolution.

The answers to your questions about transition exist all around you in nature. The other great apes display various levels of communication that aren’t as rich as human communication but that still set them apart from much of the animal kingdom.

 

[Noose001]

You should try not to think of things as binaries. You’re presenting in your post the idea that either humans communicate fully as we do today, or we don’t communicate at all. Communication some is always better than not being able to communicate at all. If you were stranded on an island with someone who didn’t speak your language, do you think you’d be unable to establish some type of communication with them?

I understand, creating a language or some agreeable signs from an already existing language is the easiest thing ever, but this doesn’t mirror the transition from gene controlled mode of communication to human language (words and their meaning).

Human language is complex yes, but it could be much less complex and we’d still benefit from having it. And language is hardly the only way we communicate. If you’re walking down the street and you catch someone looking at you and as you catch their eye they smile, what ‘words’ did that require?

Body languages are limited to what the body can do and basic sign language is limited to few signs which is barely a scratch to what the human mind carries. An elaborate sign language is a language with elaborate signs which are designed and professionally taught.

The complexity of human language does not allow for such transition.

The answers to your questions about transition exist all around you in nature.

Nature has nothing to do with learning a language. A deaf person with full capacity to speak will not speak in any environment because of their inability to learn a language.

 

[Neithan]

We’ve been wrestling with this question for 161 years, and it was the atheists who really pushed evolution as a means of opposing Christianity (and still do, ridiculously). Similar to the Galileo affair, it was the [anti] theology that the church responded to and condemned, not the science. Even in the old Catholic Encyclopedia article from 1904, the compatibility of evolution with creation is traced back to the early church: “That God should have made use of natural, evolutionary, original causes in the production of man’s body, is per se not improbable, and was propounded by St. Augustine.”

 

[Bill_B_NY]

Assertion without evidence.

Philosophical evidence. Immaterial entities cannot emerge from material causes.
It’s a conflict of essences.
Zero evidence that evolution can do it. Evolution is a pure assertion on this point.
Demonstrate the emergence of Intelligence from blind, non-intelligent causes.
Failing that, the theory fails.

 

[Bill_B_NY]

If a creature undergoes a mutation, and then transfers that gene through HGT, the offspring will have that mutation.

If the creature does not go through a mutation as you describe, then HGT is not possible?

 

[Bill_B_NY]

“That God should have made use of natural, evolutionary, original causes in the production of man’s body, is per se not improbable, and was propounded by St. Augustine.”

How did the Encyclopedia determine the “probability” of God’s action here?
“There’s a 56% chance probability that God used natural causes in the production of man’s body” ???

 

[Neithan]

It’s probably not that precise.

 

[Bill_B_NY]

Plus or minus 10% ???

We can’t assign probability metrics to God’s action. He is not measured by statistics.