Does Darwin's theory of evolution contradict Catholicsm?

[Techno2000]

Organisms that eat other organisms didn’t emerge until around 1.2 billion years ago

So these new Organisms pop out on the scene out of nowhere, and started eating the algae what else was there to eat ?

 

[IWantGod]

So these new Organisms pop out on the scene out of nowhere, and started eating the algae what else was there to eat ?

The very first cells probably metabolised hydrogen sulphide and carbon monoxide.

The very first cells probably metabolised hydrogen sulphide and carbon monoxide.

 

[Techno2000]

I’m not talking about cells, I’m talking about life that has to be supported by a Food Chain.

 

[Rau]

I thought the old CAF had a rule banning discussion on various topics, one of which was Evolution. Reading the reams of armchair drivel on this thread masquerading as scientific judgement, I can well understand why.

 

[Church_Militant]

It’s just a theory and so it contradicts nothing. That’s the way theories work and since it’s never been proven it’s not a big deal.

It’s only when you take a theory as fact and build a belief system out of it that you go wrong.

 

[Church_Militant]

Not anymore it doesn’t…

 

[Techno2000]

Not anymore it doesn’t…

Thats a good thing, if it really bother everybody it will get flagged and I don’t see that happening.

 

[rossum]

Does it say that Adam and Eve had no further children between Cain, Abel, and Seth? Does it say that Cain took a wife immediately after slaying Abel?

You are adding words to the Bible. Your merely human assumptions about the meaning of the text are just that, human assumptions. The Bible does not say that the United States is not dedicated to Lucifer and Mamon. Does that make my statement true?

Cain’s wife was on[e] of his (many) sisters.

And brothers. The city of Nod needed a population of a thousand or more.

Besides the genetic evidence is against you. Biologists can detect past genetic bottlenecks, as in cheetahs about 10,000 years ago. There was no genetic bottleneck of two (or eight for that matter) in humans. If there were then transplant rejection would be a much smaller problem, as it is in cheetahs.

rossum

 

[rossum]

Our olfactory systems are fully developed and specialized. Our ocular systems are also fully developed and specialized.

Yes they are, compared to ourselves. They are underdeveloped compared to a dog’s. They are overdeveloped compared to a Dolphin’s. A lizard’s legs are underdeveloped compared to our legs, but they are sufficient for a lizard.

We have to go back and find the creature that has a half-nervous system, where some parts of it exist but not quite the whole thing.

That is a jellyfish. It has peripheral nerves, but it does not have a spinal cord and it does not have a brain. Compared to ourselves it has only part of our nervous system, yet that single part functions well in its own. If you removed our brains and spinal cords we would die. What is essential for us is not essential for a jellyfish.

Or we have to assume that a creature with absolutely no nervous system at all was the progenitor of a creature with a fully functioning nervous system, with no “slow, gradual” process between the generations.

Sponges do not have a nervous system, nor does Volvox, nor do any single-celled organisms (though some do have a light-detecting apparatus).

Your sources appear ignorant of biology and are misinforming you. I suggest that you find better sources.

rossum

 

[rossum]

As far as I can see lions are still producing lions and tigers are still producing
tigers, same with Horses and donkeys .

A liger is the offspring of a male lion and a female tiger. A tigon is the offspring of a male tiger and a female lion. In both cases the females are fertile while the males are not.

With mules (the offspring of a horse and a donkey) they are almost always infertile, with rare exceptions: Morocco’s Miracle Mule.

This shows that lions and tigers are in the process of separating, while horses and donkeys are closer to completing the process.

rossum

 

[rossum]

I can discount that possibility because you

you don’t have enough time
you don’t have that information
you don’t have the technology/process

You are wrong. In one documented case, three genetic changes were enough to result in speciation. See Tauber and Tauber (1977) Sympatric Speciation Based on Allelic Changes at Three Loci: Evidence from Natural Populations in Two Habitats.

This change is relatively recent, the range of the new species is entirely contained within the range of the old species – they have not yet had time to spread far. The process is understood. The first of the three mutations changed the insect’s colouration/camouflage so it was better camouflaged in evergreen trees rather than deciduous trees. The other two mutations changed the breeding season so it did not interbreed with the original population. This was beneficial since crossbreeds had intermediate colouration and so were not camouflaged in either type of tree.

rossum

 

[rossum]

The word ‘useful’ implies purpose. The problem with evolution, or at least an undirected form, is that it assumes no purpose behind the changes. So with evolution we can’t really say if something is or is not useful. It just is.

You are partly right. The initial changes are random, as in “Random Mutation”. However, that is not the whole process. Following random mutation we have Natural Selection, and natural selection is not random. It is at the natural selection stage where “useful” applies as a criterion, basically the number of grandchildren: a measure of the number of mature fertile offspring you have.

Deleterious mutations reduce the number of grandchildren below average and those mutations will disappear from the population over time. Beneficial mutations increase the number of grandchildren above average and those mutations will spread through the population over time.

rossum

 

[rossum]

.He talking about one animal transitioning into a new animal and how can this new “in-between creature” have a chance for survival .

Have a look at a chimp’s eyes. They are as functional as our eyes. The transitional from which we are both descended had either the same or very similar eyes. If the ancestor was fully able to function in its environment, then the descendant will have inherited a reasonably functional set of systems to start with. There is no part of a human body that does not have its equivalent in a chimp’s body. The proportions are different, as with arms and legs, but every part is there and was present in our common ancestor.

A new species does not have to develop everything from scratch, it inherits working systems from its ancestors. If those systems did not work, then the ancestors would have died out and not have any descendants.

rossum

 

[ericc]

This change is relatively recent, the range of the new species is entirely contained within the range of the old species – they have not yet had time to spread far. The process is understood. The first of the three mutations changed the insect’s colouration/camouflage so it was better camouflaged in evergreen trees rather than deciduous trees. The other two mutations changed the breeding season so it did not interbreed with the original population. This was beneficial since crossbreeds had intermediate colouration and so were not camouflaged in either type of tree.

That’s really microevolution. I’m ok with it. The issue is with macroevolution. How did single celled organism differentiated into so many taxonomic groups within the time span of 4 billion years via natural processes? Where did that information come from? How did it know how to process the information? How did it know how to create biological factories for reproduction and multiplication? DNA/RNA? Chicken and egg problem again. Where did DNA/RNA get its information/program/code on how to assemble itself?

Check out Haldane’s Dilemma on the difficulty.

When I mention process, I mean how did the cell “know” what to do with the DNA/RNA information? It is just globs of chemicals. Someone very smart not only provided the recipe but also the process manual and the means to effect it. A self replicating factory.

 

[rossum]

That’s really microevolution. I’m ok with it.

No, it is macroevolution: the two species do not interbreed because of the different breeding seasons. Not interbreeding is a sign of a new species.

rossum

 

[Wesrock]

They were chemosynthetic bacteria. They “ate” the non-living chemicals in the water, incorporating them into their own structure and self-replication process. Some of these forms may have, due to light’s radiation, had the light cause chemical reactions within them, which may have been beneficial, which would give rise to the first primitive photosynthetic life. Over the course of 1.2 billion years as these items became more common and densely populated, some types of life may not have just collected and broken down chemicals, but encountered patterns of bumping into similar types of organisms and actually breaking those down in a primitive, non-specialized fashion and incorporating those in their own, becoming the first primitive predators. Competition for resources led to further specialization of these systems. They don’t “pop out on the scene out of nowhere.”

 

[Erikaspirit16]

That’s really microevolution. I’m ok with it. The issue is with macroevolution. How did single celled organism differentiated into so many taxonomic groups within the time span of 4 billion years via natural processes? Where did that information come from? How did it know how to process the information? How did it know how to create biological factories for reproduction and multiplication? DNA/RNA? Chicken and egg problem again. Where did DNA/RNA get its information/program/code on how to assemble itself?

Read “How Life Began” by Alexandre Meinesz. He explains all that and more.

I think you and others on this thread are not recognizing the facts. Bacteria originated not too long after the earth formed. They had 2 billion years to evolve before more complex creatures evolved. And how many bacteria are there, in say, a cubic foot of water? Billions. And how big are the oceans? So you have an absolutely astronomical number of bacteria with 2 billion years of evolution. The average bacterium’s lifespan today is about 12 hours. Divide 2 billion years by 12 hours. That’s how many generations of bacteria are involved. So to say “How did they know…” misses the point. They didn’t “know” anything–but by pure chance mutation certain changes appeared, and if they were helpful, these changes became established–remember the 12 hour lifespan. It wouldn’t take long.

 

[exnihilo]

So to say “How did they know…” misses the point. They didn’t “know” anything–but by pure chance mutation certain changes appeared, and if they were helpful, these changes became established–remember the 12 hour lifespan. It wouldn’t take long.

I agree. They can’t know. What seems strange to me is that genetic information is added. It is strange for any information to be created by chance. In fact I would say no information can be created by chance as that would make it not information.

Practically speaking mutations that I’m aware of are all changes in expression of pre existing information. And in general mutations result in a loss of a function rather than the creation of one.

 

[setarcos]

IF, as Christians believe, the Earth was created in this universe as a home for man to have dominion over that guarantee would absolutely be necessary. This all depends on whether Gods intention for creation was a relationship with man or a relationship with what ever developed out of his created initial conditions. Christians it is my understanding are of the belief that creation was intended for man and not some other highly developed creature. As for chance development, the universe IS full of billions and billions of apparent opportune sites for life or creatures of self consciousness to have developed yet there has been absolutely no verification of life outside this orb. We should be awash in life if given the time span that has passed the universe were an opportunistic place for life to develop and correspondingly man as a creature God intended to have developed. That being said though I agree that this apparent rarity of discovered life in the universe does not guarantee that man wouldn’t have developed eventually according to Gods specially chosen initial conditions. It would seem though more likely that man would not have developed than the converse if left merely to chance given the time span we have to work in at least in the sense of man being what God were waiting for to develop in his image since the bible clearly states God as wanting man to develop. The bible is a story of not what developed through chance given Gods initial conditions but one of what God directly intended to create. I see what your saying about things acting according to their nature but we still are left with the question of who or what is the originator of the development of that nature. The bible is clear that all things act according to the natures that God infused and sustains within them. The bible is also clear that the creation of man and the creation of other creatures were separate events. The earth was populated with life and then man was created not from this established life but from the inorganic dust of the ground as a separate event in itself. The Genesis statements themselves indicate that man developed not from the advanced life forms found on earth at the time but in retrograde from the primordial conditions of the dust of the earth in apparent violation of the laws of undirected evolution.

 

[Wesrock]

IF, as Christians believe, the Earth was created in this universe as a home for man to have dominion over that guarantee would absolutely be necessary. This all depends on whether Gods intention for creation was a relationship with man or a relationship with what ever developed out of his created initial conditions. Christians it is my understanding are of the belief that creation was intended for man and not some other highly developed creature. As for chance development, the universe IS full of billions and billions of apparent opportune sites for life or creatures of self consciousness to have developed yet there has been absolutely no verification of life outside this orb. We should be awash in life if given the time span that has passed the universe were an opportunistic place for life to develop and correspondingly man as a creature God intended to have developed. That being said though I agree that this apparent rarity of discovered life in the universe does not guarantee that man wouldn’t have developed eventually according to Gods specially chosen initial conditions. It would seem though more likely that man would not have developed than the converse if left merely to chance given the time span we have to work in at least in the sense of man being what God were waiting for to develop in his image since the bible clearly states God as wanting man to develop. The bible is a story of not what developed through chance given Gods initial conditions but one of what God directly intended to create. I see what your saying about things acting according to their nature but we still are left with the question of who or what is the originator of the development of that nature. The bible is clear that all things act according to the natures that God infused and sustains within them. The bible is also clear that the creation of man and the creation of other creatures were separate events. The earth was populated with life and then man was created not from this established life but from the inorganic dust of the ground as a separate event in itself. The Genesis statements themselves indicate that man developed not from the advanced life forms found on earth at the time but in retrograde from the primordial conditions of the dust of the earth in apparent violation of the laws of undirected evolution.

It would be a mistake to think of God and evolution/chance like you would a clockmaker and his clock, where He sets the initial conditions and stands back. We must also not give into the mistake of the anthropomorphic picture of God sitting around twiddling His metaphorical thumbs as He waits for certain opportunities to interact or to see what happens. God is not subject to time, and I don’t mean that He steps forward and time and backwards as if it’s just another spatial dimension, but that He is not a temporal being at all. When properly seen as acting from eternity in one great act directed at all points in time, acting completely across creation and not just at its start, then a world in which evolution occurred through its physical, “chance” processes can be seen as infused with purpose and intent from start to finish, though it might not be measurable by only looking at the material efficient causes behind it.