Evolution: Catholic High School

[Isambard]

Sorry that video is wrong. We’re not apes. At one point it says, “Humans are apes.” That is wrong at the ontological level because apes are irrational and human beings have a rational soul.

Pax Christi tecum.

Actually, we are.
“Ape is a common English word denoting any non-human member of the Hominoidea superfamily of primates.[2] In taxonomy, it is sometimes used as a synonym for Hominoidea, which includes humans, alongside the more exclusive term ‘non-human apes’.”
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ape

It helps if you learn the proper meaning behind the words.

 

[strugglingalong]

Actually, we are.
“Ape is a common English word denoting any non-human member of the Hominoidea superfamily of primates.[2] In taxonomy, it is sometimes used as a synonym for Hominoidea, which includes humans, alongside the more exclusive term ‘non-human apes’.”
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ape

It helps if you learn the proper meaning behind the words.

That definition is erroneous. You cannot group irrational animals with rational beings. Definitions are not infallible by any means.

Pax Christi tecum.

 

[Isambard]

That definition is erroneous. You cannot group irrational animals with rational beings. Definitions are not infallible by any means.

Pax Christi tecum.

Ah okay. Because you take personal offense with the taxonomic classification, biologists everywhere should change it.

I guess humans shouldn’t be considered mammels either, no vertebrates, not etc etc. Thats some lovely logicifying!

 

[CTA1967]

Um…

“Ape is a common English word denoting any non-human member of the Hominoidea superfamily of primates.[2] In taxonomy, it is sometimes used as a synonym for Hominoidea, which includes humans, alongside the more exclusive term ‘non-human apes’.”
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ape

And to the OP, just make sure you get all the facts right and prounoune everything correctly, unlike a certain sience teacher from my Catholic high school…

 

[steveandersen]

Ok let me simplify this a little bit. Question:

What about the claim (yes by Sungenis, but also by others) that there really are no transitional fossils.

all fossils are transitional
As are all species

The ones that are sited(which are rare) are actually abnormalities in which certain animals shared some characteristics of other animals.

since the process of fossil formation itself is fairly rare compared to the total number of organisms it seems odd that he would suggest that they represent a rare abnormal subset rather than the general population

The reason we know this is because there should be an abundant of transitional fossils if the theory of evolution is true.

What sort of criteria would you look for in a fossil to show that it is “transitional”?

Isnt this really the crux of the matter? It would seem, to me, that if species evolved for millions and millions of years then there should be tons of these fossils in the “transitionary” stage (fossils that are between two species). Why do we have tons(if evolution is true) of non-transitional fossils but a small amount at best, of transitional ones?

As I said above, all fossils are transitional
Our museums are filled with draws of fossils of species over time.
We may only have species 1,3, 4, 7,9, 12, 13, 15
(or maybe more appropriately species 1, 1.05, 1.4, 1.7,.2.0)
But how much of a trend line do you want?

More importantly, DNA evidence supports the fossil record.

 

[steveandersen]

That definition is erroneous. You cannot group irrational animals with rational beings. Definitions are not infallible by any means.

Pax Christi tecum.

reminds me of an old, funny post

 

[strugglingalong]

reminds me of an old, funny post

I’m just saying that they are ontologically different. They classify them on whatever they wanted but ontologically apes and mankind are different: one has a rational soul (the latter) and the other does not. That is the greatest of differentiations.

Pax Christi tecum.

 

[cerad]

I’m just saying that they are ontologically different. They classify them on whatever they wanted but ontologically apes and mankind are different: one has a rational soul (the latter) and the other does not. That is the greatest of differentiations.

Pax Christi tecum.

Can you demonstrate a means of determining what has a soul and what does not? I suspect the answer is no in which case it would be foolish to attempt to scientifically classify organisms based on the possession of a soul.

And why do you refuse to accept the fact that you are classified as a mammal?

 

[rossum]

Wait. If evolution never stops why isn’t man continuing to evolve?

We are. Currently we are evolving responses to malaria, AIDS and the fat-rich western diet (Apolipoprotein A-I Milano).

Will we evolve to something else?

That depends on how you define “human”.

rossum

 

[Rogerteder]

all fossils are transitional
As are all species
since the process of fossil formation itself is fairly rare compared to the total number of organisms it seems odd that he would suggest that they represent a rare abnormal subset rather than the general population

What sort of criteria would you look for in a fossil to show that it is “transitional”?

As I said above, all fossils are transitional
Our museums are filled with draws of fossils of species over time.
We may only have species 1,3, 4, 7,9, 12, 13, 15
(or maybe more appropriately species 1, 1.05, 1.4, 1.7,.2.0)
But how much of a trend line do you want?

More importantly, DNA evidence supports the fossil record.

I dont think you are correct in saying all fossils are transitional fossils. Since evolution states, as I understand it, that species evolved, slowly, into other species(higher forms) then we should have a fossil record of species that shair characteristics of two different species. According to those who oppose evolution, these fossils should be just as abundant as the non-transitional fossils. As the evolutionary prcoess went on (and I guees is going on) there should be millions of years where these “species” (species evolving into other species) lived, died, and left a fossil record. It is the contention, of those who deny evolution, that this fossil record does not exist. Therefore, evolution is suspect at best.

 

[cerad]

I dont think you are correct in saying all fossils are transitional fossils. Since evolution states, as I understand it, that species evolved, slowly, into other species(higher forms) then we should have a fossil record of species that shair characteristics of two different species. According to those who oppose evolution, these fossils should be just as abundant as the non-transitional fossils. As the evolutionary prcoess went on (and I guees is going on) there should be millions of years where these “species” (species evolving into other species) lived, died, and left a fossil record. It is the contention, of those who deny evolution, that this fossil record does not exist. Therefore, evolution is suspect at best.

Which is exactly why you should leave the teaching of science to those that understand science. Nothing to be ashamed of. the basic principles of natural selection are easy to understand. The details are much more difficult.

Look at it this way, would you want a secular math teacher to explain the concept of the trinity or do you think something like that is best left to the theologians.

 

[Rogerteder]

They are wrong.Of course they claim this. They have to because even one transition fossil will destroy their literal interpretation of Genesis.There are lots of transitional fossils. Do some research at non-YEC sites.No it is not.
What you are looking for is not on the species level, you are looking at the family or above level. Things like Tiktaalik: tiktaalik.uchicago.edu/

Another source of information regarding transitional fossils:
talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html

Keep in mind that even a single transitional fossil would validate evolution and invalidate the brand of biblical literalism that people like Sungenis adhere to.

Peace

Tim

Well Tim I dont think Sungenis would agree with that. He would say “one transitional fossil” is probably not one at all. According to Sungenis there must be an abundance because of what evolution claims. There should be many many fossils that are not a “bird” a “frog” a “horse,” but should be in between in the transitionary stage. Are you saying there are many such fossils? Remember, we are not talking about fossils, of the same species, that have “evolved” in their characteristics. For example, a bird who’s wings or bone structure is different (evolved) then it was years and years ago. Everybody, including Sungenis, acknowledge this type of evolution. What is being challengd is the fossils that are “transitional.” Transitional, in the sense that they are not one species or another, but both “sorta.” In between two species. I think you will understanding what I am saying. According to Sungenis, there should be many many of these transitionary forms. Since, presumably these transitionary forms lived for millions of years.

 

[Rogerteder]

Which is exactly why you should leave the teaching of science to those that understand science. Nothing to be ashamed of. the basic principles of natural selection are easy to understand. The details are much more difficult.

Look at it this way, would you want a secular math teacher to explain the concept of the trinity or do you think something like that is best left to the theologians.

Well sir the question is inevitable. The students are going to ask about the literal interpretation of Genesis, and how the science of evolution corresponds to that. With all due respect your position seems ludacrious.

 

[masterjedi747]

There should be many many fossils that are not a “bird” a “frog” a “horse,” but should be in between in the transitionary stage.

No. That’s not how transitional fossils work. That’s not how evolution works. Transition does not occur between modern two species like that.

Remember, we are not talking about fossils, of the same species, that have “evolved” in their characteristics. For example, a bird who’s wings or bone structure is different (evolved) then it was years and years ago.

Yes, we are. That’s exactly what we’re talking about, only on a much much larger scale than you might imagine.

What is being challenged is the fossils that are “transitional.” Transitional, in the sense that they are not one species or another, but both “sorta.” In between two species.

Not in between two modern species. Between a modern species and an ancient (no longer existing) species, yes.

 

[cerad]

Well sir the question is inevitable. The students are going to ask about the literal interpretation of Genesis, and how the science of evolution corresponds to that. With all due respect your position seems ludacrious.

You simply tell them that the literal interpretation conflicts with science and therefore that interpretation should not be used. If someone objects then you can point out the head honcho (Pope) has made this clear.

If you start talking about “higher forms” in the context of evolution then you run the serious risk of losing all credibility.

Again, suppose someone in a geology class asks about Noah’s flood. Do you really want a secular science teacher to describe in detail how absurd the notion of a world wide flood is? I suspect you would want such questions to be addressed to the theo people.

 

[Orogeny]

Well Tim I dont think Sungenis would agree with that. He would say “one transitional fossil” is probably not one at all.

Of course he would say that. His personal beliefs would be shattered if even one transitional fossil was found. Unfortunately for him, many have been.

According to Sungenis there must be an abundance because of what evolution claims. There should be many many fossils that are not a “bird” a “frog” a “horse,” but should be in between in the transitionary stage. Are you saying there are many such fossils?

Tiktaalik for one. tiktaalik.uchicago.edu/

Remember, we are not talking about fossils, of the same species, that have “evolved” in their characteristics. For example, a bird who’s wings or bone structure is different (evolved) then it was years and years ago. Everybody, including Sungenis, acknowledge this type of evolution. What is being challengd is the fossils that are “transitional.” Transitional, in the sense that they are not one species or another, but both “sorta.” In between two species. I think you will understanding what I am saying. According to Sungenis, there should be many many of these transitionary forms. Since, presumably these transitionary forms lived for millions of years.

Sungenis is not a scientist. I can’t stress that enough. His opinion is based 100% on his faith and 0% on science. His reply to any transitional fossil will be simply “no it isn’t”. He doesn’t even have to see the actual fossil (not that it would do him any good since he wouldn’t know what he was looking at in the first place).

talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html

Peace

Tim

 

[Rogerteder]

You simply tell them that the literal interpretation conflicts with science and therefore that interpretation should not be used. If someone objects then you can point out the head honcho (Pope) has made this clear.

If you start talking about “higher forms” in the context of evolution then you run the serious risk of losing all credibility.

Again, suppose someone in a geology class asks about Noah’s flood. Do you really want a secular science teacher to describe in detail how absurd the notion of a world wide flood is? I suspect you would want such questions to be addressed to the theo people.

That assumes what has yet to be proven. That is, the fact that science is in conflict with the literal interpretation of Genesis.

 

[Rogerteder]

No. That’s not how transitional fossils work. That’s not how evolution works. Transition does not occur between modern two species like that.

Yes, we are. That’s exactly what we’re talking about, only on a much much larger scale than you might imagine.

Not in between two modern species. Between a modern species and an ancient (no longer existing) species, yes.

I didnt say they do occur between two modern species. Maybe I wasnt clear. I am talking about fossils that are not merely a horse, but a fossil that is a “horse” and another species in a transitionary from. If species evolved into other species shouldnt these fossils exist?
Also Sungenis, and others acknowledge that species change and evolve. They would have to be fools not to. They are denying that species evolve into other species.

 

[steveandersen]

I dont think you are correct in saying all fossils are transitional fossils.

Evolution is an ongoing process
Any fossil or living animal is will represent the population and time it came from.

It will be minutely different from both its immediate ancestors and descendants with greater divergence as you get further from it in time before and after.

Since evolution states, as I understand it, that species evolved, slowly, into other species(higher forms)

Evolution says nothing about “higher” or lower” forms. All it says is that isolated populations will diverge from each other and that over time enough changes can accumulate for speciation to occur.

then we should have a fossil record of species that shair characteristics of two different species.

What evolution predicts is that existing species have common ancestors, and that that this commonality will be reflected in the fossil record. This is indicated through common traits.

For example, all terrestrial vertebrates share similar characteristics with the lobe-finned fish and not other branches of the fish family, indicating that they had a common ancestor before the split into reptiles, birds and mammals.

There has been a lot of work recently on the various lobe fishes and the transition to terrestrial vertebrates.

According to those who oppose evolution, these fossils should be just as abundant as the non-transitional fossils. As the evolutionary prcoess went on (and I guees is going on) there should be millions of years where these “species” (species evolving into other species) lived, died, and left a fossil record. It is the contention, of those who deny evolution, that this fossil record does not exist. Therefore, evolution is suspect at best.

I don’t know which particular book or set of skeptics that you are referring to but my experience has been that those who claim that there are no transitional species often fail to define what exactly they are looking for.
The recent work done on the origins of the whales has identified numerous transitional forms but still some say they are not transitional enough.

 

[masterjedi747]

I didnt say they do occur between two modern species. Maybe I wasnt clear. I am talking about fossils that are not merely a horse, but a fossil that is a “horse” and another species in a transitionary from.

Let’s take that example (the horse example) and run with it.
What kind of species are you expecting the horse to have transitioned from?

Look at something like this:



And now just imagine how the chart would continue to trace back if it showed even further.
Are you really going to tell me that those are not different species with transitionary forms?