R
Rau
Guest
The following subjects as taught also “exclude” God: maths, physics, chemistry, history, economics, to name a few. Do you protest about this also?
Last edited:
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
E
edwest211
Guest
The topic is evolution and human origins.
F
frobert
Guest
Thanks for the feedback. It was not my intent to bully you or anyone else. I will attempt to better word my questions in the future.The way it is presented can be felt to be bullying, a way of saying that all those learned people agree with you.
T
Techno2000
Guest
I took a look at Caryophyllales, and they look and act nothing like Droseraceae.Look at the Tree of Life. Sundews and Flytraps are both members of the Droseraceae. Look at the other members of the Droseraceae, and the next larger group, Caryophyllales, for an idea of what the Sundew’s ancestor looked like.
T
Techno2000
Guest
Right, kinda like how you can create a thousand different things from Legos pieces, but they are still just Legos.Looking at it from a Catholic perspective, I would also like to mention design. I can take a 3-D program and design a basic creature framework: head, upper and lower torso, and four limbs. Using that template and using human and animal skeleton models, I could change hooves to hands and feet, change size relative to a human, remodel the skull and so on. From an environment standpoint, it would have to function in earth gravity, breathe our air and eat available vegetation and/or meat and fish. All of these details need to be perfectly integrated, with a few modifications. Dogs have a better sense of smell than humans, a few birds have better long-range vision. On top of that, they have to integrate with their environment. So, just building a creature that is functional does not mean it can eat what vegetation or animals are available or breathe our air or visually perceive its environment correctly. So going from a single cell organism to an unnecessary and hard to believe, self-upgrading ability, makes the theory suspect. As any good science journal will tell you, there are shared genes between different creatures, but if I was designing creatures to survive on earth, sure certain genes would be needed in all creatures created in order for them to survive in the same environmental conditions.
Last edited:
E
edwest211
Guest
But Lego pieces can’t arrange themselves.
A
Aloysium
Guest
Don’t sweat it. Poor choice of words on my part. “Bullying” carries too much power with its connotation of harm. “Influence” would perhaps be better, but it still didn’t fit. I was thinking “argumentum ad verecundiam” but it messed with the flow of the sentence, taking the steam out of the point I was trying to make. This isn’t to influence people; my dazzling arguments should take care of that. More to keep people reading when the primary purpose of forums is to vent. That’s not entirely true though, since they do offer an opportunity to grow through the sharing of knowledge.
T
Techno2000
Guest
True, but what I’m try to say is… this is how all the DNA is related.God uses the same building blocks.But Lego pieces can’t arrange themselves.
T
theCardinalbird
Guest
So out of this entire debate, is it safe to say that Catholics can accept Darwin’s theory, providing that God created evolution?
T
Techno2000
Guest
I guess they can ,but I believe the theory is wrong from the start. Why would God use evolution the when he can create something immediately?So out of this entire debate, is it safe to say that Catholics can accept Darwin’s theory, providing that God created evolution?
Last edited:
E
edwest211
Guest
Pretty much. I wonder about certain specialized additions like wings or shells or butterfly cocoons. But, let’s talk about humans and fruit flies.
"Genetically speaking, people and fruit flies are surprisingly alike, explains biologist Sharmila Bhattacharya of NASA’s Ames Research Center. “About 61% of known human disease genes have a recognizable match in the genetic code of fruit flies, and 50% of fly protein sequences have mammalian analogues.”
“That’s why fruit flies, known to scientists as Drosophila melanogaster, are commonplace in genetic research labs. They can be good substitutes for people. They reproduce quickly, so that many generations can be studied in a short time, and their genome has been completely mapped. “Drosophila is being used as a genetic model for several human diseases including Parkinson’s and Huntington’s,” notes Bhattacharya.”
“They’re about to become genetic models for astronauts.”
Source: NASA
"Genetically speaking, people and fruit flies are surprisingly alike, explains biologist Sharmila Bhattacharya of NASA’s Ames Research Center. “About 61% of known human disease genes have a recognizable match in the genetic code of fruit flies, and 50% of fly protein sequences have mammalian analogues.”
“That’s why fruit flies, known to scientists as Drosophila melanogaster, are commonplace in genetic research labs. They can be good substitutes for people. They reproduce quickly, so that many generations can be studied in a short time, and their genome has been completely mapped. “Drosophila is being used as a genetic model for several human diseases including Parkinson’s and Huntington’s,” notes Bhattacharya.”
“They’re about to become genetic models for astronauts.”
Source: NASA
T
Techno2000
Guest
And they are a pain to get rid of, just like some people I know. :crazy_face:Pretty much. I wonder about certain specialized additions like wings or shells or butterfly cocoons. But, let’s talk about humans and fruit flies.
"Genetically speaking, people and fruit flies are surprisingly alike, explains biologist Sharmila Bhattacharya of NASA’s Ames Research Center. “About 61% of known human disease genes have a recognizable match in the genetic code of fruit flies, and 50% of fly protein sequences have mammalian analogues.”
“That’s why fruit flies, known to scientists as Drosophila melanogaster, are commonplace in genetic research labs. They can be good substitutes for people. They reproduce quickly, so that many generations can be studied in a short time, and their genome has been completely mapped. “Drosophila is being used as a genetic model for several human diseases including Parkinson’s and Huntington’s,” notes Bhattacharya.”
“They’re about to become genetic models for astronauts.”
Source: NASA
G
Glark
Guest
Nonsense. Evolution is a process that requires mutations - which are random - and natural selection - which apparently is not random. If one part of the process is random, then the net outcome of the entire process is random. Therefore evolution is random.Your characterisation of evolution as “blind and unguided” shows that you need to learn more about evolution. Random mutations are blind and unguided; natural selection is not blind and not unguided. Hence, evolution as a whole is neither blind nor unguided.
Your Darwinist argument is just a lame attempt to explain how complex systems can arise from chaos.
G
Glark
Guest
Mainstream Catholicsm - including it’s education facilitites - has become so corrupt that the only thing you can trust the Church to do faithfully is dispense the Sacraments.
G
Glark
Guest
I can’t decide which is funnier: Humans and plants share a common ancestor … or … Whales evolved from a deer.
G
Glark
Guest
How would you explain God waiting billions of years for Adam to “evolve”, but then creating Eve instantaneously?
Last edited:
R
rossum
Guest
No. Take some sand/gravel with randomly sized grains; that is your random (name removed by moderator)ut. Pass those mixed-size grains through a sieve. The output from the sieve is not random, but has a strict non-random upper size limit.Evolution is a process that requires mutations - which are random - and natural selection - which apparently is not random. If one part of the process is random, then the net outcome of the entire process is random.
Random mutations are the random (name removed by moderator)ut into evolution. Natural selection weeds out deleterious mutations, ignores neutral mutations and amplifies beneficial mutations. The resulting output is lower in deleterious mutations and higher in beneficial mutations than the (name removed by moderator)ut. The next generation takes that modified output and cycles it through again.
A random (name removed by moderator)ut to a non-random filter results in a non-random output, just like a sieve giving non-randomly sized grains of sand as output.
rossum
R
Rau
Guest
Do you think you know or can deduce the mind of God in the matter of how he might choose to bring the universe into existence?Why would God use evolution the when he can create something immediately?
R
Rau
Guest
Does Natural selection lead to species becoming better equipped to flourish in their environment or less well equipped or does it have no effect? Plainly it is the former. Therefore, despite mutations being random, the net net effect (the direction of the ensemble of changes after natural selection) is not random.Therefore evolution is random.
Last edited:
F
frobert
Guest
It is more nuanced than just accepting Darwin’s theory. Darwin began the study of evolution which has been modified and corrected over time as its been subjected to the scientific method. I think that many of the creationist fail to understand that science is self correcting so they view any change or correction as proof that evolution is bogus and only God could have been responsible for the change.So out of this entire debate, is it safe to say that Catholics can accept Darwin’s theory, providing that God created evolution?
Evolution is taught in every Catholic college and university and you will be hard pressed to find a Catholic college that teaches creationism. While the Catholic Church does not say that creationism is bogus we can safely assume from their actions that it is pretty safe to say that the Catholic Church accepts evolution theory.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.