Evolution! Did we come from monkeys?

[wanerious]

iamrefreshed:

That’s a valid point for diseases that attack from OUTSIDE the body.

I was referring diseases humans get through their gene pool. Shouldn’t they have been eliminated through natural selection? Why are their still children born with Down’s Syndrome for instance?

That’s a really good question. I’m not a biologist, or of that ilk, so I have no authority, but I can speculate. My guess is that the “errors” that cause Down’s Syndrome are related to common problems in the machinery that copies genes passed down to succeeding generations. In order to eliminate those errors in transcription, a more or less complete overhaul of the entire DNA-copying mechanism would be needed. As relatively few adults with this syndrome reproduce, the percentage of the population with this disorder remains fairly constant, and represents the probablility that an error is made in copying.

 

[Zosimus]

Steve Andersen:

Evolution is the observed phenomenon
Natural selection is the theory to explain it

Evolution is observed through he fossil record using in my humble opinion one-seded explinations.i.e they want to tel a story of developement which leaves it open to interpretaion.

Not the strong
The most likely to pass on more offspring

The strong is the most likely to pass on their offspring. Not sure what you meant here other than just a cheap shot or to reiterate what I just stated but I doubt the later part.

why wouldn’t there be?
Modern monkeys have also evolved and are adapted to their current environment
Macro-evolution claims that through major genetic mutations one species can evolve into another, so over a long period of time fish could evolve into insects, birds and mammals. From this concept it’s suggested that all life could have evolved from simple chemical structures, thus life could have resulted from natural processes without the need for a creator.

The first primates did not appear until around 60 million years ago. The first primate-like mammals** **evolved in the early Paleocene Epoch. They were roughly similar to squirrels and tree shrews in size and appearance. New World monkeys appeared for the first time about 30 million years ago. Due to the comparative scarcity of Oligocene Epoch prosimians in the fossil record, it is generally believed that the monkeys out-competed and replaced them in most environments at that time.
So you have “New World Monkeys” that have been around for 30 million years that you say: Modern monkeys have also evolved and are adapted to their current environment. As if to say the have evolved away from their original design which simply isn’t true.

---

Homo sapiens (100,000 years ago to present)

The modern form of Homo sapiens first appeared about 100,000 years ago. This species is distinguished by large brain size, a forehead that rises sharply, eyebrow ridges that are very small, a prominent chin, and lighter bone structure

The Darwinist claim holds that modern man evolved from some kind of ape-like creature. During this alleged evolutionary process, which is supposed to have started from 5 to 6 million years ago, it is claimed that there existed some transitional forms between modern man and his ancestors. According to this completely imaginary scenario, the following four basic categories are listed:

1. Australophithecines
2. Homo habilis
3. Homo erectus
4. Homo sapiens

Evolutionists call the genus to which the alleged ape-like ancestors of man belonged Australopithecus, which means “southern ape.” Australopithecus, which is nothing but an old type of ape that has become extinct.

No, Australopithecus was bipedal

Actually if you look at the skelital structure you will notice its curved spine this is found prodominantly in tree dwellers!

IIRC recent finds indicate that bipedalism is much older than originally thought

Of course they gather evidence and try to construct explanations

That’s what science** is.**

 

[Steve_Andersen]

iamrefreshed:

Something I don’t understand about your last paragraph. Forgive me as I am far from a scientist. How does the incidence of the mutation decrease? Is it because of natural selection?

Well in my example there is probably also artificial selection due to medical advances (since we can test for the gene adn carriers can be advised against marrying other carriers) as well as other natural processes such as marrying outside of the West African gene pool which are quickening the process but yes, the basic mechanism is natural selection.

If two carriers have children each will have a 50% of being carriers themselves; a 25% chance of being normal (and thus susceptible to malaria); and a 25% chance of developing Sickle cell.

And (more significantly) each child of a carrier and a normal person would have a 25% chance of being a carrier.

The health effects from malaria are bad but not necessarily fatal so most “normal” people go on to reproduce…but some don’t and it is that marginal difference which offsets the mortality from sickle cell and allows the gene to stay in the population.

(the gene will never be too numerous obviously unless malaria itself becomes particualry more fatal)

Once people left areas where malaria is endemic there was no longer a marginal survival benefit to having the gene. All of a “normal” couple’s children were just as likely to survive to reproduce but only around 75% of the carriers’ children would.

 

[Steve_Andersen]

iamrefreshed:

That’s a valid point for diseases that attack from OUTSIDE the body.

I was referring diseases humans get through their gene pool. Shouldn’t they have been eliminated through natural selection? Why are their still children born with Down’s Syndrome for instance?

Well there are a couple of reasons

The most obvious is that Downs usually occurs with older mothers; with "older being like over 35. In nature (that is before medicine or agriculture or all the new stuff that we haven’t really had time to adapt to) not that many people lived to be 35 much less reproduce then. And if they did they live that long would have more than likely already have children

So there was no selective pressure to remove the process that causes the syndrome

Like wanerious I’m not a biologist so there maybe other factor operating here. The syndrome could be a malfunction of an otherwise beneficial process I don’t know.

 

[iamrefreshed]

Steve Andersen:

Well there are a couple of reasons

The most obvious is that Downs usually occurs with older mothers; with "older being like over 35. In nature (that is before medicine or agriculture or all the new stuff that we haven’t really had time to adapt to) not that many people lived to be 35 much less reproduce then. And if they did they live that long would have more than likely already have children

So there was no selective pressure to remove the process that causes the syndrome

Like wanerious I’m not a biologist so there maybe other factor operating here. The syndrome could be a malfunction of an otherwise beneficial process I don’t know.

I would like to combine this post with the sickle cell example and see if I understand this clearly. Let me start by stating I in no way mean to be confrontational. I’m just trying to understand this a little better. You seem to have a better grasp on this than I do so if I sound like a dolt just reach out a smack me one.

Downs may have been a poor example. Pick any disease not caught but inherited. Here’s my question…

Why would in the sickle cell example would the body eliminate the mutation it no longer needs but in another disease not eliminate a mutation that is inherently bad for it?

Do you see where I am going?

 

[Steve_Andersen]

iamrefreshed:

…Why would in the sickle cell example would the body eliminate the mutation it no longer needs but in another disease not eliminate a mutation that is inherently bad for it?

Do you see where I am going?

Like I said I’m not a biologist but as far as I know Downs is not related to a specific set of genes…it is something that can occur in any pregnancy
Without it being related to a gene how can it be selected against?

And I don’t know where the malfunction that causes Downs occurs. If it is an otherwise useful feature it would probably be very difficult to “weed out”

This, sad to say, is one of the major criticism of intelligent design

In natural selection a given design doesn’t have to be perfect, it merely has to be better than the next guys
(Like the old joke: “I don’t have to outrun the bear…I just have to outrun you.”)

This means that designs that are good enough get to survive

Take for example the eye. In all vertebrates the eye is fed by blood vessels that are IN FRONT of the retina. This creates those little spots we all see. It is not detrimental but it is not perfect.

The same thing could be said for our knees, spines, and other parts

You would think that a thought out and planned design would have perfect structure

 

[romano]

EVOLUTION IS A MYTH.

 

[Joseph_Bilodeau]

Zosimus:

…The strong is the most likely to pass on their offspring. Not sure what you meant here other than just a cheap shot or to reiterate what I just stated but I doubt the later part…

This is not a cheap shot, it is merely the more precise terminology. The aforementioned sicle-cell disorder is a good example: Which is the “stronger” organism, the one with a physical condition negatively affecting the ability of a significant number of its red corpuscles to transport O2 and CO2 throughout its body, or the organism that lacks this condition? All else being equal, the organism with the more efficient cardiorespiratory system is better able to work without tiring, which certainly fits at least one definition of stronger.

Which may be the one more likely to live long enough to successfully reproduce and raise to reproduction age its own offspring as compared to “weaker” organisms of its own species? Again, all else being equal, the organism with the more efficient cardiorespiratory system is better able to work without tiring. Under conditions in which succesfully reproducing and raising offspring is hard work, organisms without this physical disorder might be expected to reproduce more successfully.

Which may be the one more likely to live long enough to successfully reproduce and raise to reproduction age its own offspring, under conditions in which the same physical disorder that disrupts its red corpuscles ability to transport O2 and CO2 also provide a protection (absent in individuals lacking this physical disorder) against an endemic disease that negatively affects non-protected individuals to a greater extent than the disruption of O2 and CO2 transport capability affects individuals with this physical disorder, under conditions in which this endemic disease is not a factor? (I defy anyone to diagram this sentence ) Under these conditions, even a “weaker” organism which is capable of work only at a lower level than that which might be expected of an organism not affected by this physical disorder, might be expected to reproduce more successfully than an unprotected organism who may not be capable of any work at all under these conditions.

The point being, “strength” is broadly descriptive, applicable to many conditions including those not related to the passing on of genetic traits. “The more likely to pass on more offspring” deals precisely with the passing on of genetic traits, and is a concise statement to boot.
Steve Andersen:

Like I said I’m not a biologist but as far as I know Downs is not related to a specific set of genes…it is something that can occur in any pregnancy…

Yes and no. Down Syndrome is caused by a third member (complete or partial) of the 21st chromosome pair. The normal condition is for there to be only 2 chromosomes in each pair, one contributed by each parent. The existence of an extra chromosome in a given pair is called trisomy, so Down Syndrome is also called Trisomy 21. The lack of one member of a given chromosome pair is called monosomy. Trisomy or monosomy can occur inn any pregnancy, however genetic conditions of these sorts exist from conception (or possibly from very early stages of cell division soon after conception.) So a baby developing in utero who does not have one of these conditions can not “catch” Down Syndrome at some later time.

 

[wanerious]

romano:

EVOLUTION IS A MYTH.

At first, I was set to resolutely hold on to my scientific training and ignore your post. But since your message was in such a large font, you have convinced me. I will now be on your side.

 

[Steve_Andersen]

Zosimus:

Evolution is observed through he fossil record using in my humble opinion one-seded explinations.i.e they want to tel a story of developement which leaves it open to interpretaion.

Care to provide specific examples of one sidedness?

If you mean “one sided” in that all the researchers use the scientific method then you’re right

Considering how competitive science can be and how any new paper must be peer review there is a mechanism to weed out bad science

Zosimus:

…The strong is the most likely to pass on their offspring. Not sure what you meant here other than just a cheap shot or to reiterate what I just stated but I doubt the later part.

No, cheap shot intended. Strength per se is not necessarily always a benefit…it usually means you’re larger and have to support (i.e. feed) more muscle mass which could be trouble in time of famine or on a limited environment like an island where dwarf species are common. Sometimes it is better to be faster, smaller, better camouflage, disease resistant, or in the case of humans…smarter.

Zosimus:

Macro-evolution claims that through major genetic mutations one species can evolve into another, so over a long period of time fish could evolve into insects, birds and mammals.

The vertebrate and invertebrate lines diverged a long time ago
Fish didn’t evolve into insects or vice versa.

What evolution “claims” is that birds and mammals had a common ancestor and it was a type of fish similar to modern coelacanths. Other types of fish responded to different pressures and their decedents either died out or went on to evolve into modern fish.

And evolution does not state that “major genetic mutations” cause speciation.

Merely the accumulation of manly smaller variations.

Observed instances of speciation have included hybridization, genetic drift, or selection through environmental pressures

talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB910.html]talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB910.html]talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB910.html]talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB910.html

talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html#part5

Zosimus:

From this concept it’s suggested that all life could have evolved from simple chemical structures, thus life could have resulted from natural processes without the need for a creator.

Since science can’t measure the supernatural it makes no comment at all on the existence of a creator.

Frankly it is not their call
They answer “How it was done” rather than “Who did it”

Zosimus:

So you have “New World Monkeys” that have been around for 30 million years that you say: Modern monkeys have also evolved and are adapted to their current environment. As if to say the have evolved away from their original design which simply isn’t true.

Are you saying that modern new world monkeys are the same as those of 30 million years ago?

Any citings?

Zosimus:

Evolutionists call the genus to which the alleged ape-like ancestors of man belonged Australopithecus, which means “southern ape.” Australopithecus, which is nothing but an old type of ape that has become extinct.

Or did they evolve into something else?

 

[john_doran]

Steve Andersen:

They answer “How it was done” rather than “Who did it”

what if the answer to the former question is something like “it was done by something intelligent”?

 

[buffalo]

wanerious:

At first, I was set to resolutely hold on to my scientific training and ignore your post. But since your message was in such a large font, you have convinced me. I will now be on your side.

Romano! Congratulations - you accomplished what no one else was able to do - convince Wanarius. WOW! Wanarius, I am looking forward to your future posts.

 

[Philip_P]

john doran:

what if the answer to the former question is something like “it was done by something intelligent”?

Then that wouldn’t be the Intelligent Design theory being pushed in contrast to Evolution. That would just be an ordinary biology class where they teach science, followed by a religion class where they teach religion.

 

[john_doran]

Philip P:

Then that wouldn’t be the Intelligent Design theory being pushed in contrast to Evolution. That would just be an ordinary biology class where they teach science, followed by a religion class where they teach religion.

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?

 

[Joseph_Bilodeau]

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?

No, but if the forensic specialists were to suggest that God intelligently created fatal knife wounds in the victim ex nihilo (I am imagining this hypothetical murder to be a stabbing) without the agency of a knife or other known physical causes, then those forensics experts would be practicing religion, if you want to call it that. It certainly wouldn’t be science.

This is not to say that an omnipotent God can not create knife wounds ex nihilo, nor that persons (including forensics specialists) may not believe that God may have actually done this; only that such belief, as it falls outside the realm of the observable or measurable, falls outside the realm of science.

 

[john_doran]

Joseph Bilodeau:

No, but if the forensic specialists were to suggest that God intelligently created fatal knife wounds in the victim ex nihilo (I am imagining this hypothetical murder to be a stabbing) without the agency of a knife or other known physical causes, then those forensics experts would be practicing religion, if you want to call it that. It certainly wouldn’t be science.

well, fair enough, i guess. but that’s not what i was suggesting, which was simply that there are answers to certain scientific questions that are entailed by the evidence and which also at the very least point in the direction of the supernatural.

 

[Joseph_Bilodeau]

john doran:

well, fair enough, i guess. but that’s not what i was suggesting, which was simply that there are answers to certain scientific questions that are entailed by the evidence and which also at the very least point in the direction of the supernatural.

No, the most science can do is say that no known natural means can be suggested at this time. The supernatural lies outside the realm of science, so science can not point to it. Once again, this is not to say that Scientists can not be men and women of faith. It simply means that science has rules limiting it to matters that can be observed or measured, and scientists doing science must work within those rules.

 

[john_doran]

Joseph Bilodeau:

No, the most science can do is say that no known natural means can be suggested at this time.

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

 

[RikasAngel]

Hello All,

We seem to be having the same agrument over and over again. Firstly, we need to remember that Evolution does not state that we evolved from monkeys. It states that Humans and Apes share a common ancestor generations ago. Secondly, Evolution, in and of itself, does not challenge Theism. It is the interpretations that some reach as a result of Evolution is the problem.

It is easy to look at the evolutionary evidence, objectively, and come to the conclusion that all life exists as a result of “Natural” causes. However, it is just as easy to look at the same evidence and conclude that the Universe is “Designed”. Which is what Intelligent Design is all about.

We as Catholics are free to believe in instant or prolonged creation. Though, we MUST believe that it is Created. We need to stop having these arguments which are not beneficial to the Catholic Faith. Remember everyone, Evolution is not the problem, Atheism is.

 

[PhilVaz]

<< We seem to be having the same agrument over and over again. >>

Heck yeah dude, now going on 1 year. Happy anniversary Catholic Answers boards. And no one’s been converted yet away from evolution except for wanerious based on the scientific evidence of large font sizes. OH yeah I almost forgot to repeat something very important:

evolution is a fact

International Theological Commission of Cardinal Ratzinger said so last year