Evolution! Did we come from monkeys?

[RoBo_Hobo]

God created the World
Science describes it

In this manner both are compatible, least this is my view of it…I believe there is enough evidence to support many of these theories including evolution.

Some refuse to even consider evolution on the grounds that god created man, but what if god created man through evolution?

Just my two cents
-RoBo_Hobo

 

[PhilVaz]

Robo << Some refuse to even consider evolution on the grounds that god created man, but what if god created man through evolution? >>

Uh oh, “death before sin” objection – generates approximately 5,923 posts

And “Adam/Eve” and “how to interpret Genesis 1-3 and hold to orthodox Catholic doctrine” objection – generates approximately 9,352 posts

Phil P

 

[Philip_P]

RikasAngel:

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.

I have theological issues with Intelligent Design, though. It seems to make God into a kind of mechanic - a very advanced and skilled one, but still, ultimately, nothing more than a highly specialized watchmaker. If you hold this view, though, He actually turns out not to have done that good of a job after all. Look at how many evolutionary dead-ends there have been, how many creatures have gone extinct due to being improperly “designed” for their environment. Making evolution teleological - that is, directed to specific ends - also makes God purposefully cruel or unskilled. That can’t be right.

I prefer the far more poetic conception of God in Genesis, where God creates by breathing his spirit into the world. Then life, including evolution, is not a mechanistic “design,” but rather a flowering. Different species are not evolutionary dead-ends, but ends in themselves, unique manifestations of creation, much like individual flower petals or tree branches.

 

[buffalo]

<< 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

I wish my evolving eyes could see that small font. I really thought they would get better as I evolved.

 

[maklavan]

“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”

At last, a breth of fresh air! Poor old Darwin would be amazed at what he is supposed to have said!

There is a real danger that, if we take a fundamentalist stance on issues like evolution, scientific progress can leave us with egg on our faces. The Catholic church has a lucid and simple statement on the subject, so why do people get so excited about it?

 

[buffalo]

“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”

At last, a breth of fresh air! Poor old Darwin would be amazed at what he is supposed to have said!

There is a real danger that, if we take a fundamentalist stance on issues like evolution, scientific progress can leave us with egg on our faces. The Catholic church has a lucid and simple statement on the subject, so why do people get so excited about it?

I think you have the essence of the debate wrong. There are theological conflicts that we have been discussing as well.

 

[Steve_Andersen]

john doran:

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

You can believe that

And I’m sure most of us here do…theistic evolution is pretty much the position of the church AFAIK

But I don’t think you can prove it since the observable world described by both natural selection and intelligent design would be indistinguishable

 

[Zosimus]

With all do respect &thanks for taking your time.
Steve Andersen:

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

For example: considering but one side of a matter or question So if science/scientist set out to prove evolution they will/have followed evidence pro evolution all the while ignoring other possible/plausible evidence against it. I have yet to find a report made non bias by either side that weighs the evidence equally over this great debate.example one:Darwin’s Theory of Evolution - The Premise

Darwin’s Theory of Evolution is the widely held notion that all life is related and has descended from a common ancestor: the birds and the bananas, the fishes and the flowers – all related. Darwin’s general theory presumes the development of life from non-life and stresses a purely naturalistic (undirected) “descent with modification”. That is, complex creatures evolve from more simplistic ancestors naturally over time. but an entirely different creature

Wheres the devils advocate here? Its all one sided from the beginning.

Sometimes it is better to be faster, smaller, better camouflage, disease resistant, or in the case of humans…smarter.

Perhaps you prefer the words inferior species? Or do you agree to disagree on this as well?

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.

**spe·ci·a·tion **NOUN: The evolutionary formation of new biological species.

EVILUTION 101: Evolution means that we’re all distant cousins: humans and oak trees, hummingbirds and whales. We all evolved from a single cell organism.

So yes evolution does state “major genetic mutations” from monkeys to man is a major genetic mutation wouldn’t you agree? And that the most popular of Darwins theory in gist.

Merely the accumulation of manly smaller variations.

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

Yes I agree there are many minor mutations especially on the cell level or bacteria. No argument with that.

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”

I think their agenda is being questioned the silence

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

As I stated before the design of so called modern new world monkeys are the same they have not evolved into a new species in the past 30 million years.

Any citings? (cute)

Your local zoo

Or did they evolve into something else?

No, for 30 million years they are still monkeys

 

[Joseph_Bilodeau]

???

 

[john_doran]

Steve Andersen:

But I don’t think you can prove it since the observable world described by both natural selection and intelligent design would be indistinguishable

sure you could - you prove it like any other theory: you demonstrate that the evidence doesn’t support the hypothesis, or at least doesn’t support it as well as an alternative explanation…

and all models are indistinguishable based solely on what you’re calling the “observable world” - that’s the point of theories: to account for the observable world.

 

[Jim_B]

Steve Andersen:

You can believe that

And I’m sure most of us here do…theistic evolution is pretty much the position of the church AFAIK

But I don’t think you can prove it since the observable world described by both natural selection and intelligent design would be indistinguishable

What did Pope John Paul II have to say about this issue?
“A theory proves its validity by the measure to which it can be verified.” (Oct. 31, 1996) Address to Pontifical Academy of Sciences

Since “organic evolution” - molecules assembling themselves into the first cell randomly - cannot be verified (the Miller Apparatus did not generate a single protein, only left-handed amino acids) then the theory itself is unverifiable.
We should never be afraid of the truth - and if it is the truth that life originated on its own from non-living matter, then I can accept that. But the more I learn about cellular complexity, the less likely it appears to have started by accident. I have been teaching high school biology for 24 years. I have come to this conclusion -
If organic evolution, which is the prerequisite of biological evolution, did not happen, then the more complex process of biological evolution did not happen. Molecules to cells is the foundation upon which ‘natural selection’ rests. When we step into eternity - our defense or critique of evolution will count for nothing.
What will matter is this - were we faithful creatures in loving our Creator by doing His will?

God Love Ya!
Jim B

 

[RikasAngel]

Hello All,

Many question Evolution because of the “theological” issues like “death” which are mentioned in scripture. I see it like this: When the Lord said that Adam and Eve would die after eating the fruit of the tree of Good and Evil, Adam and Eve didn’t literally die. The Bible talks about Adam living 900 years. It is likely that not only was Adam’s age symbolic, but perhaps the Death mentioned was a spiritual death. Remember Original Sin killed the eternal life of Adam, Eve, and all their descendants. Which is the whole purpose of Christ death on the Cross.

Now the question that causes many Christians to doubt the validity of Evolution, is the question of the parenthood of Adam and Eve. The Monogenism issue. I still don’t know all the ins and outs of the issue, but so far I’ve come to this conclusion. Geneticists discovered that ALL human beings share a single ancestor in Africa several hundred thousand years ago. When this issue came to light, many prominent Anthropologists rejected it because it flew in the face of the theory that all humans evolved from different lineages in different parts of of the world. Now was this “Mitichondrial Eve” the Biblical Eve? We do not know, we can only speculate. But, the Mitochondrial DNA does support the Church’s belief on Monogenism.

As for the issue of God being “cruel” for using evolution as a tool to form life. Look at it this way, when we see those nature films were a pack of wolves ravage a deer, do we think that is so cruel? Not really, the animals are simply behaving like animals. If our bodies came to be as a result of slow adaptive change, that does not question the reality that God was the creator. Also, we have to remember that our souls are an act of special creation. God infuses all of us with a soul at the moment of conception. Who is to say God did not infuse the first Homo Sapien with a soul once he evolved.

Ultimately, until we can get into a time machine and actually see how man came to be, all our theories are speculation. All we as Catholcs have to worry about is the fact that God created us, Man rejected God, God loved man enough to Die for us, and he left us a Church to care for us until his return.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

We believe there is an objective truth involving evolution. Opinions vary as to what that truth is.

It doesn’t matter whether evolution is objectively true or not. You can construct a spiritual and/or physical explanation for just about anything given some facts or assumptions to work with. Therefore, eloquent speakers, each assuming they are spirit-filled, give conflicting views of the details of the objective truth. The Church has no official position of its truth, but does indeed recognize it as a useful insight into the nature of God’s creation.

What would it hurt to have each person believe whatever they want to believe on this issue? If my belief in evolution v. another person’s disbelief in it makes any bit of difference to our salvation, then I have apparently missed the gist of the Good News.

Insisting that I am right and the my brother is a fool for beliefs he innocently holds, however, could have a significant impact on my salvation.

Alan

 

[Steve_Andersen]

john doran:

sure you could - you prove it like any other theory: you demonstrate that the evidence doesn’t support the hypothesis, or at least doesn’t support it as well as an alternative explanation…

yeah, I know that
I was just being polite
john doran:

and all models are indistinguishable based solely on what you’re calling the “observable world” - that’s the point of theories: to account for the observable world.

Well, no

Some models are better predictors than others

e.g. relativity is more accurate than Newton’s laws

Or the ideal gas law is only a good predictor under limited conditions

 

[Steve_Andersen]

Zosimus:

I have yet to find a report made non bias by either side that weighs the evidence equally over this great debate.example onearwin’s Theory of Evolution - The Premise

Darwin’s Theory of Evolution is the widely held notion that all life is related and has descended from a common ancestor: the birds and the bananas, the fishes and the flowers – all related.

Yes
CD did the basic work using morphology, geology, and paleontology etc. But recent biochemistry studies have backed him up

Zosimus:

Darwin’s general theory presumes the development of life from non-life and stresses a purely naturalistic (undirected) “descent with modification”. That is, complex creatures evolve from more simplistic ancestors naturally over time. but an entirely different creature

Wheres the devils advocate here? Its all one sided from the beginning.

That is his theory (sorta).
But what is your objection? You don’t present country evidence in the Premise.
(Although “Abstract” would be a better term. Premise sounds like it belongs in a philosophical discussion….is that where you cut and pasted that from)

You have a set of data; you make a presumption about a mechanism, make predictions with that mechanism, and see how it holds up to additional data.

Remember that the presumption prior to Darwin and Lyell were of a young earth and static species. There was no “devils advocate” there. It is the duty of any new theory to do the proving until it has established itself as the better theory. After that it is perfectly fair to presume it is so.

How else are we supposed to do additional work if every paper or experiment has to reconsider very single theory? That would be like asking an airplane navigator to plot two courses; one for a round earth and one….just in case it really is flat.

Zosimus:

Perhaps you prefer the words inferior species? Or do you agree to disagree on this as well?

No…inferior is not precise either.
The survivors are simply better suited to changed conditions.

Zosimus:

spe•ci•a•tion NOUN: The evolutionary formation of new biological species.

EVILUTION 101: Evolution means that we’re all distant cousins: humans and oak trees, hummingbirds and whales. We all evolved from a single cell organism.

So yes evolution does state “major genetic mutations”

Well
(a) You don’t use dictionary common usage when defining scientific terms and
(b) Neither of those definitions you cited uses the words major genetic mutations
(c) I’m not sure if it has been established if all life is descendant from a single celled organism. The split may have been at the proteinoid level. (?)

Zosimus:

from monkeys to man is a major genetic mutation wouldn’t you agree? And that the most popular of Darwins theory in gist.

That may be the most popular interpretation of the theory but that doesn’t make it accurate

While there is certainly a net major change between species that occurs over many, many… (did I mention many) generations
The changes between generations are very slight and that is evolution

BTW technically it was some anthropoid to monkeys and anthropoid to man (with some intervening steps) once again common ancestor not direct decent

Zosimus:

Yes I agree there are many minor mutations especially on the cell level or bacteria. No argument with that.

there you go! Since the biochemistry is so close then what works for the e-coli works for the gander

Zosimus:

I think their agenda is being questioned the silence

I’m not sure I understand what you’re saying here

Zosimus:

As I stated before the design of so called modern new world monkeys are the same they have not evolved into a new species in the past 30 million years.

Yes, I read that the first time…I still don’t believe my eyes.

There are over 50 species of new world monkey all derived from common stock
Some are so recently speciated that they can only be distinguished with genetic testing

The very definition of new world monkeys is that they’re monkeys that evolved in the new world
If they hadn’t changed then they would look the same as the old world monkeys
(Or are you saying that they evolved while their poor relations in the new world didn’t?)

Zosimus:

Any citings? (cute)
Your local zoo

While my pun was intentional I was asking for a reference for your claims. Such as:

csam.montclair.edu/ceterms/mammals/newworldmonkeys.html

Zosimus:

No, for 30 million years they are still monkeys

Sigh

 

[john_doran]

Steve Andersen:

Well, no

Some models are better predictors than others

e.g. relativity is more accurate than Newton’s laws

Or the ideal gas law is only a good predictor under limited conditions

and some models turn out to be false. but you miss the point.

different theoretical models will of course always be different theoretically, and distinguishable by their theoretical virtues and vices. but they’re all compatible with the way the world appears, because it’s the apparent world that provides the starting point for them all.

look. the world looks the same whether newtonian mechanics or relativistic physics holds. (in fact, and for example, milne and mccrea developed a newtonian cosmology that is logically equivalent to general relativistic cosmology). of course, there are differences between the two in terms of simplicity, parsimony, elegance, consistency with other accepted models, etc… but the world seems the same under both systems.

same goes for einsteinian and lorentzian relativity. or matrix and wave mechanics. and so on.

the point, in the end, is that if a theoretical model isn’t even compatible with the way the world looks, then it’s not even going to last as a model. which means that the models that do last are all at least capable of explaining the gross, observable anatomy of the world.

just like neo-darwinian and ID theory…

 

[Philip_P]

AlanFromWichita:

What would it hurt to have each person believe whatever they want to believe on this issue? If my belief in evolution v. another person’s disbelief in it makes any bit of difference to our salvation, then I have apparently missed the gist of the Good News.

Insisting that I am right and the my brother is a fool for beliefs he innocently holds, however, could have a significant impact on my salvation.

Alan

Hi Alan,

I note you are from Wichita - I grew up there, though I no longer live there. Living in KS, though, I’m sure you’ve probably heard more than you want to about Evolution v. ID by now. However, this controversy points out exactly what’s wrong with letting people believe whatever they want. I kind of agree with you that, on a spiritual level, so long as we accept that God is Creator it doesn’t matter whether we accept evolution or ID (though ID’s reduction of God to a watchmaker still troubles me). However, by turning it into a science vs. religion issue and forcing people to choose, as creationism does, or by confusing the two through outright awful science, as ID does, does a disservice to students. The US has a hard enough time getting students excited about science and math as it is; attacks on science can only make this harder. Ultimately, this will also harm us as a nation as science, technology, and innovation go offshore.

 

[PhilVaz]

Hey Phil P 2, I’m Phil P 1.

You’ve heard of www.IDtheFuture.com

Meet www.IDthePast.com

I’m into buying domain names and I thought this was cute.

BTW, all the Kansas evolution hearings are available for free download

Phil P

 

[Steve_Andersen]

I guess that the only good thing to come out of Kansas is that by mostly abandoning the “young earth” position and conceding “micro”-evolution* the ID folks are coming down the slippery slope to reality

I just hope they don’t set science education back any further. For a nation with the greatest technical graduate programs in the world we sure do have terrible primary and secondary science education. I wonder if that is a cause or a result…

*(micro-evolution…is that sorta like a micro-pregnancy?)

 

[Daisy_Duck]

No, we don’t descend from apes or monkeys. The theory of evolution is that we have a common ancestor; at some point, the apes went in one direction and humans went in another.