Evidence for Evolution

[SeekingCatholic]

Our brain is “born” completely devoid of basic survival instincts (which the lower animals simply appear programed with) an in bodies which are incredibly weak (relative to weight). We can’t lift our ungainly fragile heads for 3 months or stand up for nearly a year.

And what is the best explanation for this? God’s design for the infant is deliberately and extremely suboptimal? Or that these limitations arise from evolutionary constraints - the “cost” of developing an increased brain size?

On top of this we are terribly sensitive to the smallest deviations in envirnmental conditions. Many of us literally could not survive a single day of full sun exposure,

Those with more melanin in their skin can do so easily.

or live 12 hours in a sub 40 degree temperature without not only knowing how to protect ourselves against these things and to also have the means of attaining the protection (we are completely tool dependent) readily available.

Eskimos survive much harsher conditions than that, with very primitive and limited technological advancement. Populations adapt to the climates they are in.

I think we had to have been put here, with a mature and knowing mind, and we had to be taught the basics of survival.

What’s your theory? After expelling Adam from the garden God gave Adam a crash course in survival? God taught Adam how to build a plow?

Despite your sophisticated arguments about viruses and such, this is why it will never add up for me. Natural selection would not select us. We had to have a fairly high level of culture from the very first instant of our arrival, or we wouldn’t have lived two days in the natural world.

And who is to say we didn’t? It isn’t individuals that evolve, but populations, which are certainly capable of taking care of the vulnerable infants.

 

[Brian_Millar]

quote: What’s your theory? After expelling Adam from the garden God gave Adam a crash course in survival? God taught Adam how to build a plow?

As you recall God making clothes out of animal skins for Adam and Eve, now I know why this is included based upon your argument here, for it indicates that God had to teach them to survive. Thank you for teaching me something today.

 

[mapleoak]

Something just has me perplexed here. How can someone call themselves Catholic and reject Genesis? Where is it that they decided all of a sudden, this part of the bible is incorrect? If they deem this part incorrect, and all out lies, it really makes me question the validity of their faith, I then must reflect upon 2 Timothy 3 and place those individuals within that context.

This is perplexing to me as well. You will also notice how in order to make such evolutionary claims ‘work’ they have to selectively pick and choose which portions of the same document to interpret literally or allegorically, so as not to have God contradict their conclusions.

 

[Nullasalus]

Something just has me perplexed here. How can someone call themselves Catholic and reject Genesis? Where is it that they decided all of a sudden, this part of the bible is incorrect? If they deem this part incorrect, and all out lies, it really makes me question the validity of their faith, I then must reflect upon 2 Timothy 3 and place those individuals within that context.

That is a terrible caricature.

I don’t reject Genesis. I don’t believe it’s all lies, or even incorrect. I believe a given interpretation is incorrect. Genesis itself is truth.

Does it strike you as odd that you’re a Catholic, yet you’re looking at this from what amounts to a sola scriptura stance? There’s room for multiple views on Genesis - while certain truths are essential, the Church does not require we interpret everything in the way you’re arguing.

 

[The_Barbarian]

(Barbarian points out that the large intestine does what the appendix does, but does it without causing life-threatening infections)

Scientists: Appendix Protects Good Germs

Lets take a look…

Adhesion of commensal bacteria to the large intestine wall in humans.
C L Hartley, C S Neumann, and M H Richmond
Small right arrow pointing to: This article has been cited by other articles in PMC.
Abstract
Biopsies taken during colonoscopic examination of the human large bowel were used to examine the relationship of the commensal bacterial to the mucosal epithelial cell surface. Bacteria were seen adhering to the exposed epithelial cell surface and also to the mucus sheet. Isolation of aerobic organisms showed that Escherichia coli are closely associated with the gut wall throughout the large intestine. One strain of E. coli predominated in each biopsy, and this strain was present along the whole length of bowel. Adhesion of bacteria to the gut wall does occur in vivo and may be one of the factors involved in the ability of an organism to colonize and persist.

Surprise. And it does it without the problems associated with the appendix. And as you learned, the appendix is vestigial not because it doesn’t have a function, but because it no longer has its original function.

 

[The_Barbarian]

The flamingos used the site according to the article throughout the formation of the green river area.

Apparently so. Their footprints, and those of other waterfowl, are apparent throughout the varves. If we’ve only found a few nesting areas, that is odd, but since, as Glenn Morton points out, stromatolites, caddis worm structures, and other features of very gradual formation clearly indicate a long period of time for these deposits, it seems that common sense would suggest a reason for not finding the other nesting sites.

 

[Thing]

Apparently so. Their footprints, and those of other waterfowl, are apparent throughout the varves. If we’ve only found a few nesting areas, that is odd, but since, as Glenn Morton points out, stromatolites, caddis worm structures, and other features of very gradual formation clearly indicate a long period of time for these deposits, it seems that common sense would suggest a reason for not finding the other nesting sites.

Yes the caddis structures need to be explained or at least described in more detail.
Flamingos don’t nest every thousand years, they should at least nest several years in a row on the same site.

 

[mulligan59]

And what is the best explanation for this? God’s design for the infant is deliberately and extremely suboptimal? Or that these limitations arise from evolutionary constraints - the “cost” of developing an increased brain size?

The only feasible one is that God created Adam and Eve whole in adult form with the ability to efficiently communicate (language) and a practical understanding of their environment. How are trade offs (such as a bigger brain at the expense of brute strength) selected naturally? The whole premise is more of this will survive and make more babies than that. Lower forms are clearly better at this.

Those with more melanin in their skin can do so easily.

Eskimos survive much harsher conditions than that, with very primitive and limited technological advancement. Populations adapt to the climates they are in.

My point is that we wouldn’t have survived long enough to skin our first seal if we had been born naked, by chance, into even a more temperate environment. It makes no sense that we were naturally selected, but for that matter nor does it make sense that all of the comlex mechanisms of a honey bee were either.

What’s your theory? After expelling Adam from the garden God gave Adam a crash course in survival? God taught Adam how to build a plow?

Yes. Precisely. We know from Genesis that he taught them to make clothes.

And who is to say we didn’t? It isn’t individuals that evolve, but populations, which are certainly capable of taking care of the vulnerable infants.

So to where, and why, did our very nearly human ancestors, capable of suckling Adam, depart? We have the fossils of tiny sea creature alleged to be billions of years old, but nothing close to a “pre-human”. There are no missing links. No transitional forms.

 

[The_Barbarian]

The only feasible one is that God created Adam and Eve whole in adult form with the ability to efficiently communicate (language) and a practical understanding of their environment.

Or, if you accept the evidence, humans evolved from other animals. Then there’s no problem at all.

How are trade offs (such as a bigger brain at the expense of brute strength) selected naturally?/quote]

Natural selection. Chimps, which are not as strong as leopards, are able to live in the same area, because they make weapons and coordinate with each other in confrontations with leopards.

Leopards generally avoid them.

The whole premise is more of this will survive and make more babies than that. Lower forms are clearly better at this.

The key is how many survive to reproduce. There are two main strategies;

1. Make as many offspring as possible, and hope some make it to adulthood
2. Make a few offspring, and nurture them. Both systems work in different circumstances.

Would you like to learn how we know this?

**Those with more melanin in their skin can do so easily.

Eskimos survive much harsher conditions than that, with very primitive and limited technological advancement. Populations adapt to the climates they are in.**

My point is that we wouldn’t have survived long enough to skin our first seal if we had been born naked, by chance, into even a more temperate environment.

Until very recently, some aboriginal Australians went naked all their lives. Doesn’t seem to be a major issue. But as you might know, chance isn’t what causes evolution.

It makes no sense that we were naturally selected,

That’s what the evidence shows.

but for that matter nor does it make sense that all of the comlex mechanisms of a honey bee were either.

You think so? Which ones? What if I told you that there were simpler versions in many species?

**What’s your theory? After expelling Adam from the garden God gave Adam a crash course in survival? God taught Adam how to build a plow? **

Yes. Precisely.

If so, he was a lousy teacher. It took thousands of years for people to learn to make a plowshare. The first “plow” used by humans was a sharpened stick.

So to where, and why, did our very nearly human ancestors, capable of suckling Adam, depart?

Extinction. We have a large number of hominins which show that there were many different intermediate species between us and more primitive primates. Would you like to learn about some of them?

We have the fossils of tiny sea creature alleged to be billions of years old, but nothing close to a “pre-human”.

See above. You’ve been badly misinformed about that. Would you like to look at the evidence itself, and test your beliefs?

 

[mulligan59]

See above. You’ve been badly misinformed about that. Would you like to look at the evidence itself, and test your beliefs?

You continue to miss (or pretend to) what should be obvious points. But you seem to me claiming to have found the missing link. I guess I missed it in the news. Sure, show it to me.

 

[The_Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
See above. You’ve been badly misinformed about that. Would you like to look at the evidence itself, and test your beliefs?

You continue to miss (or pretend to) what should be obvious points.

Nope. You’ve just been convinced that there are such points.

But you seem to me claiming to have found the missing link.

“Missing link” is not a scientific term. All populations that give rise to new taxa are “missing links” until we find them. Some significant ones in the last few years include whales with functional legs, feathered dinosaurs, and transitions between the genera Homo and Australopithecus.

I guess I missed it in the news. Sure, show it to me.

Sure. Here’s the deal; if there are no transitions between humans and other apes, you should be able to distinguish between the two rather easily. I’ll show you a few skulls of existing and modern hominins, and you tell me if they are apes, humans, or transitional. Fair enough? If so, we’ll get underway in the next post.

Let us know if you’re willing to put your beliefs to the test.

 

[mapleoak]

“Missing link” is not a scientific term. All populations that give rise to new taxa are “missing links” until we find them. Some significant ones in the last few years include whales with functional legs, feathered dinosaurs, and transitions between the genera Homo and Australopithecus.

And there is no compelling reason to conclude that a whale with functional legs descended from a whale without legs, or that a feathered dinosaurs didn’t always have feathers.

 

[rossum]

This is perplexing to me as well. You will also notice how in order to make such evolutionary claims ‘work’ they have to selectively pick and choose which portions of the same document to interpret literally or allegorically, so as not to have God contradict their conclusions.

So what about Genesis 1:6-8And God said: Let there be a firmament made amidst the waters: and let it divide the waters from the waters. And god made a firmament, and divided the waters that were under the firmament, from those that were above the firmament, and it was so. And God called the firmament, Heaven; and the evening and morning were the second day.
So, without selectively picking and chosing, tell us what the “firmament” is. What are the two waters that it divides?

rossum

 

[The_Barbarian]

And there is no compelling reason to conclude that a whale with functional legs descended from a whale without legs,

Indeed. The evidence shows that whales without legs evolved from those with functional legs. In fact, they still have genes for hind legs, which are usually inactivated. But every now and then, they get expressed anyway. Would you like to learn about that?

or that a feathered dinosaurs didn’t always have feathers.

By definition, feathered dinosaurs have feathers. But there is abundant evidence that the scales on dinosaurs are genetically and chemically related to feathers. Would you like to learn about that?

 

[mapleoak]

Actually I said that backwards. There is no compelling reason to believe that whales without legs evolved from those with legs.

Indeed. The evidence shows that whales without legs evolved from those with functional legs. In fact, they still have genes for hind legs, which are usually inactivated. But every now and then, they get expressed anyway. Would you like to learn about that?

Yes, I would like to learn about that. Would you like to then learn that these ‘abnormalities’ that surface from time to time are not really even legs at all?

 

[edwest2]

This has become the “Anything but God Thread.” Or the “No, God didn’t do it” Thread.

In their quest to explain away Genesis, some have got to deal with the fact that Adam was in perfect union with God, as was Eve, until the Fall. The Bible tells us that through one, sin entered the world. But, obviously, members of the Bible is not the Word of God industry are here.

God performs miracles, even today.

God bless,
Ed

 

[mulligan59]

Sure. Here’s the deal; if there are no transitions between humans and other apes, you should be able to distinguish between the two rather easily. I’ll show you a few skulls of existing and modern hominins, and you tell me if they are apes, humans, or transitional. Fair enough? If so, we’ll get underway in the next post.

The fact that I may not be able to tell proves nothing except that I am not a trained anthropologist. But of course in the very recent past, trained anthropoligists have been proven wrong and fallen for hoaxes. People see what they want to see. People dedicated to science are no more objective than those who appearing dedicated to religion. There are charlatans and profiteers in both fields. I don’t think either one of us has a chance to move the other.

 

[The_Barbarian]

(Mulligan asserts that there is no evidence for human evolution)

Barbarian proposes:
Sure. Here’s the deal; if there are no transitions between humans and other apes, you should be able to distinguish between the two rather easily. I’ll show you a few skulls of existing and modern hominins, and you tell me if they are apes, humans, or transitional. Fair enough? If so, we’ll get underway in the next post.

The fact that I may not be able to tell proves nothing except that I am not a trained anthropologist.

If you don’t even know how to evaluate the evidence, what makes you think you know what it says?

But of course in the very recent past, trained anthropoligists have been proven wrong and fallen for hoaxes.

I know of one, and it was debunked by evolutionists. The point remains; if you don’t understand the evidence, what makes you think you are more competent to say what it says or doesn’t say, than people who actually understand it?

People see what they want to see.

Sorry, not buying that postmodernist junk. Reality is not whatever you want to make of it. You’ve pretty much abandoned evidence for your beliefs.

 

[mulligan59]

(Mulligan asserts that there is no evidence for human evolution)

Sorry, not buying that postmodernist junk. Reality is not whatever you want to make of it. You’ve pretty much abandoned evidence for your beliefs.

Postmodernist? I prefer to think of myself as a “pre-modernist” reactionary. I think postmodernist gives modernism too much of an aire of credibility. Someday you too will know the truth.

 

[The_Barbarian]

This has become the “Anything but God Thread.” Or the “No, God didn’t do it” Thread.

Not unless that’s what you’re arguing for. No one else here has said anything like that.

In their quest to explain away Genesis, some have got to deal with the fact that Adam was in perfect union with God, as was Eve, until the Fall.

Pope Benedict XVI doesn’t seem to think so. In fact, he seems to think that accepting evolution is consistent with Genesis. Too bad he doesn’t have you there to explain Catholic faith to him.