Does Darwin's theory of evolution contradict Catholicsm?

  • Thread starter Thread starter theCardinalbird
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
No, it’s not. If human beings had this built-in ability, we would less susceptible to a lot of bad things, but we don’t.
 
It’s changing genetic material at random. Most of them die. Some of them succeed. And the ones which succeed propagate.

That’s the definition of evolution by natural selection.

And humans do have it, though a bit more slowly. It’s called sexual reproduction.
 
An assumption that is not reproducible in the lab. “We cannot haul 10,000 generations into the laboratory,” according to Pope Benedict.
 
XndrK said:
It’s changing genetic material at random. Most of them die. Some of them succeed. And the ones which succeed propagate.

That’s the definition of evolution by natural selection.

And humans do have it, though a bit more slowly. It’s called sexual reproduction.
Click to expand...
And you can extrapolate this to mean that mindless chemicals produced your mind ?
 
Rau said:
Is this statement of the (generally) obvious more compelling because a pope said it? I don’t think so.
Click to expand...
No need for that, billions of generations have been haul out right front of our eyes already, and still no new animal is being transformed.
 
edwest211 said:
An assumption that is not reproducible in the lab. “We cannot haul 10,000 generations into the laboratory,” according to Pope Benedict.
Click to expand...
Pope Benedict is incorrect here. Lenski’s Long Term E. coli Experiment has been running for 50,000 generations.

rossum
 
No. I’m not arguing that. I believe that the mind and soul are products of a supernatural act of God.

I just think that evolution is how we got to that point.
 
Must be some sort of Sisyphean gene that compels people to post. So, following Lenski’s observations, are we to conclude that 50,000 generations later, two creatures of the same species would produce offspring of the same species?
 
XndrK said:
I just think that evolution is how we got to that point.
Click to expand...
I’m wondering how you figured that out. I believe it is something you’ve been told and that it fits with other things you’ve been told. And, together they make sense.

I suppose you define evolution as happening through random mutations and natural selection based on survival. That being the case, I think you would agree with the notion that a brain of sufficient size to do mathematics and science and to think about God, is coincidental to God’s bestowing this stardust with His spirit.

Since molecules will not haphazardly organize themselves in patterns far more complex than any computer, in fact supposedly more complex than all the gravitational forces between every star in the universe, no matter how many billions of years we give it, I would assume He had a hand in forming our body too.
 
Last edited:
You’d think if there was a huge issue with evolutionary science and the like, that Lamarck’s work would have been condemned.
 
Aloysium said:
Must be some sort of Sisyphean gene that compels people to post. So, following Lenski’s observations, are we to conclude that 50,000 generations later, two creatures of the same species would produce offspring of the same species?
Click to expand...
Erm… These are bacteria: E. coli. It only takes one bacterium to reproduce. It divides into two and there are two bacteria.

If you want to comment sensibly on biology then you really need to learn the basics first.

rossum
 
How come the Gall mite hasn’t changed in 230 million years something might be wrong with the dating.
 
rossum said:
40.png
Aloysium:
Must be some sort of Sisyphean gene that compels people to post. So, following Lenski’s observations, are we to conclude that 50,000 generations later, two creatures of the same species would produce offspring of the same species?
Click to expand...
Erm… These are bacteria: E. coli. It only takes one bacterium to reproduce. It divides into two and there are two bacteria.

If you want to comment sensibly on biology then you really need to learn the basics first.

rossum
Click to expand...
Lol

I was extrapolating to make the experimental data relevant to the discussion. I take it you consider it of no value. I’ll agree. Instead of chastising people about whom you know nothing, address the point they are making. In this case it was: 50k generations with change but no evolution. I should have spelled it out.

This requires further clarification. Let’s say that fifteen years or so constitutes a human generation. The human equivalent for 50k generations would be about half a million years. So in all that time we would expect there to have been little change according to Lenski’s findings.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top