Evolution! Did we come from monkeys?

[Huiou_Theou]

The purpose of this paper is to defend a doctrinal thesis which is quite simple, very clear, very classical, but now very unpopular—not to say openly scorned and derided. I will argue that the formation by God of the first woman, Eve, from the side of the sleeping, adult Adam had, by the year 1880, been proposed infallibly by the universal and ordinary Magisterium of the Catholic Church as literally and historically true;so that this must forever remain a doctrine to be held definitively (at least) by all the faithful. I would express the thesis in Latin as follows:

Definitive tenendum est mulierem primam vere et historice formatam esse a Deo e latere primi viri dormientis.

I believe this paper trumps that paper. Please read the very bottom of the document and note who approved it.

The last statement by you, appears to avoid the domatic thrust your friends quote. Did you mean something else by “I believe this paper trumps that paper?”
eg. were you only talking about the opinion expressed in first link, or the dogma it cites? your response is either incomplete, or anti-dogma. I just would like clarification.

 

[RobbyS]

AlanFromWichita:

Circumstantial evidence proves nothing, although it can possibly be sufficiently convincing beyond some particular level of doubt in any given mind.

I neither endorse or refute macroevolution, except within the strict realm of intellectual argument. In the realm of science, it is one explanation that may have some merit for that realm. In the realm of faith in God, I don’t see why it’s relevant. My children were taught in their conservative Catholic high school religion classes that Genesis is intended to be interpreted figuratively. I was relieved to hear that because there are so many practical difficulties one has to deal with if one is to attempt a literal interpretation.

The question, “did we come from monkeys” along with some of its traditional associates such assertions this lowers our dignity as human beings, can be an effective way to bring about emotional responses to the evolution debate. It doesn’t bother me a bit that I might be a monkey’s nephew. Life is so complex and wonderful that I wouldn’t put it past God to make me out of dirt, if that’s what He wants to do. Why would I have less dignity or value if He used living building blocks instead of starting from completely inert materials?

I’ve gone through some stages between the time I was a gleam in my father’s eye and now that aren’t very “dignified.” When babies are first born they look like bloody, slimy, oxygen-deprived monsters; that doesn’t reduce their dignity or their ability to “clean up” into actual human beings.

I have another question. How about the myriad microorganisms which live symbiotically within us? Our bodies cannot function without them. Are they a part of us, or part of our environment? Isn’t it rather disgusting to think that all these ugly little things are going on inside of us? If it isn’t, then why is a monkey for an ancestor a problem?

Alan

The Holy Father has a little book, IN THE BEGNNING that deals withg this matter, Only 100 hundred pages, an extended essay. In general, his view is that evolution is science and Evolution is scientism.

 

[Orogeny]

Huiou Theou:

The last statement by you, appears to avoid the domatic thrust your friends quote. Did you mean something else by “I believe this paper trumps that paper?”
eg. were you only talking about the opinion expressed in first link, or the dogma it cites? your response is either incomplete, or anti-dogma. I just would like clarification.

The use of the academic paper as an argument against evolution is trumped by the official Vatican publication.

Peace

Tim

 

[Huiou_Theou]

Ok, so it is the paper citing dogma, and not the dogma itself.
e.g. “Original sin” is still in effect, and the descent by generation is from one set of parents.

Some people think of the non-scientific buzzword – survival of the fittest, which is so amorphous that it can even mean – survival of those whom God likes. Which isn’t exactly the common notion of evolution.

I think ScottH, myself, and others would benefit from having some ambiguity stripped from the arguments. What, in your view, constitutes Adam and Eve in history, and what exactly do you mean by evolution?

 

[Orogeny]

Huiou Theou:

Some people think of the non-scientific buzzword – survival of the fittest, which is so amorphous that it can even mean – survival of those whom God likes. Which isn’t exactly the common notion of evolution.

Unfortunately, that is true. And that is the problem. It is difficult to discuss scientific subjects when your audience don’t understand the basic science.

I think ScottH, myself, and others would benefit from having some ambiguity stripped from the arguments. What, in your view, constitutes Adam and Eve in history, and what exactly do you mean by evolution?

Adam and Eve - our first human ancestors.

Evolution - change in the gene pool of a population from one generation to the next.

How do you define evolution?

Peace

Tim

 

[Huiou_Theou]

How do you define evolution?

Ummm… R.O.L.A.I.D.S.

I am not certain how to definie it except in the tradional method of a change in species whereby new species arise which have never existed before in history.

And then I get really annoyed by things like the American chestnut being called a seperate species from the European chestnut, even though the two can interbreed with absolutely no problems. etc.

I can’t really define it in terms of a population, because that is no better than a species. (What’s a population?, over how large an area, of what?).

An increase in Genetic material seems to be a necessary, but insufficient definition of evolution. Consider: Virii and parasites often have the capability of changing genetic material in a host, but do not change the host itself over time. Hence, some salimanders are very different than their parents, but their offspring who are not exposed to the egg invading parasites, revert to the original state of their ‘grandparents’. etc.

Also,
Recessive mutations in the gentic material, which are often lethal if expressed, do change the gene pool – but have no effect on the species itself. These Genes are not expressed – and hence are a moot point.

Everything I have seen along the lines of evolution, show evidence only at the speciation level. And that is where the debate is – what is a species. (I am not able to define it adequately, that is why I asked the question.)

As far as the theories of evolution goes, I understand that less than 10% of the fossil record is available for inspection.
The risk of error on theories based on that little amount of evidence are high. It is very difficult to say with certanty that a given species has never existed in the entire hisory of the world, and has come into existance only after a given time and date.

Being that genes allow a wide variety within a species, it is possible that the species has existed before, but that a particular variation has not been expressed in the past.

I am not an expert on the subject, but rather than scope the problem way up on diffent interpretations of evolution, let’s understand yours.

If evolution was defined as the mere change in the gene pool over all time, what is the minimum ‘difference’ required for it to be ‘evolution’?

 

[Orogeny]

Huiou Theou:

As far as the theories of evolution goes, I understand that less than 10% of the fossil record is available for inspection.

Without knowing the actual volume of undiscovered fossils in all the rocks of the world, I would say that the 10% figure is meaningless.

The risk of error on theories based on that little amount of evidence are high. It is very difficult to say with certanty that a given species has never existed in the entire hisory of the world, and has come into existance only after a given time and date.

Even if 10% is correct, that still represents a large amount of information. The thing about fossils is that new discoveries continue to fit at least generally into the theory. None of those fossils support creation as described in Genesis.

If evolution was defined as the mere change in the gene pool over all time, what is the minimum ‘difference’ required for it to be ‘evolution’?

Well, being that I am a geologist and not a biologist, we are really getting out of my area. Having said that, I would suggest that there is no “minimum”. Change is by definition evolution.

Peace

Tim

 

[Huiou_Theou]

The figure of 10% is based on the concept of nearly uniform density which is estimated on the same genrality of theory which you are appealing to say that the theory ‘generally holds’.
The figure itself comes from my Father. His job was associated with biology and the endangered species act here in the U.S.
It was his job to aid in the development of recovery plans for endangered species ( very politically turbulent ).

I don’t think just any change really qualifies as evolution.
When a genetic enginner replaces material in one plant species with genetic material from another, that is not evolution – it’s design.
Sexual reproduction, hybridization, reduplication, are all processes designed into a genetic pool. So to speak, the possibilites were pre-coded in the genetic material so that the gene may expand, contract, and mix according to predefined rules.
I am uncomfortable callling those changes ‘evolution’.

They definitely are not the ‘small’ incremetal changes which Darwin envisioned as driving speciation.

 

[jjwilkman]

## Better to be descended from a long line of simians, than from some humans one might think of ##

clapping my hands. applause!

 

[jjwilkman]

Mike_Olson:

I hate to try to interject something else but I have been told numerous times how much I look like a monkey. I have also been told at work that I can beat any monkey crawling up on the overhead. I just wish I had one of them tails.
Oh well maybe in another million years!

i my self would give anything to have prehensile feet. imagine having 4 hands to work with! take off your shoes and have four hands,. to assemble a rochester 4 barrel carb.

 

[jjwilkman]

john doran:

so you believe that any answer to a scientific question that involves postulating intelligence is, in fact, a non-scientific answer?

that seems a little odd, don’t you think? does that mean that forensic specialists are doing “religion” when, in their analysis of the evidence at a crime scene, they contradict the murder suspect who says that the death was a random event, and say instead that the evidence entails that the death was the result of intelligent agency?

but that is as may be. if the answer to the question “how was it done?” that is entailed by the evidence is a religious answer, then science does, in fact, point to religion. right?

applause!

 

[jjwilkman]

john doran:

well, i disagree - that’s an enormous oversimplification of scientific methodology and epistemology that would take far longer to explain and discuss with you than i have energy

define “epistemology” …it doesen’t appear in my random house college dictionary. are we running away…a common human (monkey) defense

 

[jjwilkman]

john doran:

or so says popper, at least…

ironic, then, that popper himself at times declared the theory of evolution to be unfalsifiable.

unfalsifiable?? what dictionary do use? is there one that i don’t know about?

 

[jjwilkman]

we are created in the image of God. God is a supernatural spirit. thus are we. we are stuck in a body for a short time. a fallible stupid body. but then, let’s see what the future holds.

 

[Orogeny]

Huiou Theou:

I don’t think just any change really qualifies as evolution.
When a genetic enginner replaces material in one plant species with genetic material from another, that is not evolution – it’s design.

And that is assuredly not what we are discussing. We are (I thought) discussing natural changes, not artificial changes.

Sexual reproduction, hybridization, reduplication, are all processes designed into a genetic pool. So to speak, the possibilites were pre-coded in the genetic material so that the gene may expand, contract, and mix according to predefined rules.
I am uncomfortable callling those changes ‘evolution’.

Since you are obviously more versed in biology than I am, don’t genetic mutations occur rather frequently? If the mutation is a useful mutation that sticks around and passed on to offspring, wouldn’t that fall outside of the predefined rules?

You may be uncomforable calling those changes evolution, but that seems to fit the definition many if not most biologists use for evolution.

They definitely are not the ‘small’ incremetal changes which Darwin envisioned as driving speciation.

Your saying that doesn’t make it a true statement. My limited understanding of biology is that those small changes are exactly what leads to speciation. I could be wrong. It has been known to happen.

 

[john_doran]

jjwilkman:

unfalsifiable?? what dictionary do use? is there one that i don’t know about?

i’m not sure i know what you mean…

“unfalsifiable” means “incapable of being proven false”.

 

[john_doran]

jjwilkman:

define “epistemology” …it doesen’t appear in my random house college dictionary. are we running away…a common human (monkey) defense

e·pis·te·mol·o·gy (http://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/...co.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/emacr.gif) n.
The branch of philosophy that studies the nature of knowledge, its presuppositions and foundations, and its extent and validity.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

And that is assuredly not what we are discussing. We are (I thought) discussing natural changes, not artificial changes.

That is why I asked for clarification. I wanted to know exactly what was being discussed – in the document cited from the Vatican, Intelligent Design was in fact part of the document.
Why was it being ignored?

You may be uncomforable calling those changes evolution, but that seems to fit the definition many if not most biologists use for evolution.

Sure, but many is not all. Theories until fully proven, are just theories.

My being ‘versed’ in genetics is beside the point. I am aquainted with it – not an expert. Let me simplify the argument for a moment into your arena.

Is the examined fossil record is sufficiently complete, then one ought to be able to trace out ALL small mutations in speciation (regardless of their source) without inexplicable jumps.

If the fossil record is insufficient, or Darwinism (small mutations) is incorrect, then there will be gaps. No proof, therefore, exists yet for the theory – other theories may fit the facts better.
(e.g. evolution occurs only in large jumps – inexplicable by random mutations).

My father is fond of pointing out that all the scientific experiments undertaken in his day (e.g. using radiation to cause rapid mutations, etc.) led not to speciation, but to destruction.

Variations in environment, seperation in breedability, and time are some of the factors in classifying species. However, small “random” mutations being the only or even sufficient source of major speciation has not been proven. That is what I would ask of you concerning the fossil record – does it prove the case.

When I say that small incremental changes are likely not what drove speciation – I do not mean how a red bird became a black bird or whatever. Small variations exist in the gene pool already and selective breeding can draw them out. ( But only so far, you can’t selectively breed a rabbit into another species e.g. dog, cat, prarie-dog, … – it has been tried ).

I mean how a panda’s thumb formed from its predecessor. Or, again, how did capability for ART evolve? Can all the steps for a major transformation be traced in small incremental steps for any given ability or form without jumps or gaps all the way through.

e.g. Can you find paintings done partially well by a predecessor of the human, and then done better by an intermediary? leading up to the full ability to do art in a human being?

 

[Huiou_Theou]

P.S. I do not mean proof as in a deductive statement from principles, I am only referring to a well supported hypothesis.

It is the nature of science to determine cause and effect through the experimental method. Otherwise what we have is mere correlation.
Experiments do ‘disprove’ theories regularly.

When I say there is ‘no proof’ what I mean is that many experiments and observations do not support, and even tend to contradict, Darwin’s conception of evolution.

I apologize for being ambiguous in my previous post.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Huiou Theou:

e.g. Can you find paintings done partially well by a predecessor of the human, and then done better by an intermediary? leading up to the full ability to do art in a human being?

Certainly. You can find primitive art work in many areas (Pictoglyphs in the American Southwest, the caves of Lascau). You can see more developed but stylized work (Egyptian paintings, the Archaic smile in Greek sculpture), and the development of more realistic and natural-appearing sculpture and painting, and finally the development of perspective.