Evolution! Did we come from monkeys?

[Steve_Andersen]

ScottH:

… we can see a chair, but none of us has personally witnessed evolution.

Appartently you did not read my earlier posts concerning
Observed Instances of Speciation

It has been observed through a variety of mechanisms including selection from environmental pressures

Or you could just ask someone who has come down with an anti-biotic resistant strain of bacteria

Evolution is both a fact, as clearly shown by biochemistry and comparative anatomy, as well as a theory explaining the process. A theory that makes predictions that have been borne out through observations
You can stand there and put your fingers in your ears all you want but that will not change things

God is not a god of the gaps
The Creation through evolution is His crowning glory

Trying to limit Him to a human scale of 6,000 years or so is a disservice

 

[Chris_Jacobsen]

Perhaps primates decended from human beings because of a loss of genetic material.

 

[ScottH]

Steve Andersen:

Appartently you did not read my earlier posts concerning
Observed Instances of Speciation

It has been observed through a variety of mechanisms including selection from environmental pressures

Or you could just ask someone who has come down with an anti-biotic resistant strain of bacteria

Evolution is both a fact, as clearly shown by biochemistry and comparative anatomy, as well as a theory explaining the process. A theory that makes predictions that have been borne out through observations
You can stand there and put your fingers in your ears all you want but that will not change things

God is not a god of the gaps
The Creation through evolution is His crowning glory

Trying to limit Him to a human scale of 6,000 years or so is a disservice

About as much of a disservice as citing natural selection (the bacteria with the survived immunities) and calling it “evolution”.

Is it still the same type of bacteria? Yes.

Valiant effort though.

 

[Steve_Andersen]

ScottH:

…
Is it still the same type of bacteria? Yes…

No, it is a different strain
Not that the word species has any good meaning in an organism that reproduces asexually But they are as much the same “type” as Homo neanderthalensis and Homo sapiens are the same type.
Very minor differences but just enough……

And once again you ignore the main content of my post

Your doing this just to mess with me right?

I just know that you’re sitting there with a copy of Skeptic Magazine, drinking a beer, and having a good laugh at Steve’s expense.

 

[riverman]

No matter what you all say, I still beleive in the big bang therory. No one can change my views! God said, Let ther be an Earth and Bang! It happened.

As far as evolution, I beleive there were creatures that resembled Humans from long ago but that we Humans came from Adam and Eve as the first Creatures with a soul.

 

[Joseph_Bilodeau]

ScottH:

…Is it still the same type of bacteria? Yes…

In a previous post this writer said:

ScottH:

I’d go with “Biblical Kind”

A creature capable of mating with a creature of its opposite sex and creating progeny. That should define it clear enough.

Can apes and humans mate and create offspring?
No.

Can dogs and cats mate and create offspring?
No.

While this definition may work reasonably well for organisms that reproduce sexually, bacteria reproduce asexually. It does not seem reasonable to use mating as criterion to identify species among organisms that do not mate. (some unicellular organisms do sometimes exchange some genetic material between individuals, thus possibly increasing genetic diversity within their gene pool, but this is not necessarily connected to asexual reproduction and not all known unicellular organisms have been observed to exchange genetic material.) So other criteria will have to be used. Bacteria can be assigned into species based on a number of traits those bacteria might share or not, such as physical appearance, genetic patterns, habitat, preferred food sources, etc.

One very common way many microorganisms are defined is by the diseases or disorders they may be known to cause, or by the antibiotic agents known to be effective in treating or imunizing against these diseases. In this case, a strain of bacteria or other microorganism known to cause a particular disease, and known to be descended from a bacterium or microorganism known to cause a different disease, or known to be imune or resistant to an antibiotic agent known to be effective against the earlier organism (or vulnerable to an antibiotic agent against which the earlier organism was imune or resistant), might quite reasonably be considered a different type than the earlier organism, especially if the earlier type still coexists with the more recent. If the differences between the two types become suffiently different, it might be quite reasonable to consider them as separate species, descended from the same stock, evolving in different directions.

 

[jjwilkman]

AlanFromWichita:

This is an excellent point.

For that matter, it goes for all material existence, too. The Vatican may have come up with the Big Bang theory which works as a model for many scientists, but that theory requires just as much faith as any Biblical story, for you just can’t get from something to nothing.

Sure, Einstein and others show us how matter and energy can be interchanged, but energy had to have a source, too, or so-called “scientific” theories of origin are no less fantastic than Mother Goose.

One of my favorite quotes attributed to Einstein is, “religion without science is blind. Science without religion is lame.”

Alan

HAH! in the beginning, there was nothing. God said “let there be light”

 

[jjwilkman]

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

applause!! i have no problem thinking that i might very well be a glorified monkey (GLORIFIED!) is the operative word. i have a soul implanted in my self at the moment of my conception…(think of that!) what would have happened if i had been coat hangered? actually distinct possibility. but here i am. you’re stuck with me.

 

[jjwilkman]

Steve Andersen:

The brief answer is that these issues have been explained, in great detail, and the ?criticisms? rebutted many times. There?s a real solid ground floor.

Try the talk origins FAQ for brief concise answers to your questions and a startignpoint for further searching
talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-qa.html

The truth will set you free

Where did you dig up that site?



Since Chrisitanity puts a lot of weight on the material reality of Christ?s existence this eastern brand of philosophical Idealism is quite problematic

BTW we didn?t ?come form monkeys?, monkeys and humans share common ancestry as proven by comparative anatomy, biochemistry, genetic studies, the fossil record, and our own eyes.

to use an americanism, um< what do you think God, Our Lord did to Abraham??

 

[RikasAngel]

Hello All,

Please Christians, we need to stop these irritating arguments. It is not a matter of Dogmatic Orthodoxy to believe in the Literal Seven Day creation. God created the Universe, whether creation took seven days or seven billion ears is irrelevant.

The problem people have about have with evolution come from ridiculous misconceptions and arrogance from the Atheist community. Evolution does NOT teach that we came from monkeys. Humans and Apes share a common ancestor thousands of generations ago. Atheists/Humanists pounced on the theory of Evolution as a “proof” that the Judeo-Christian view of Creation was false. They gleefully proclaimed that because all things have “natural” causes, God must not exist. That proclimation is a matter of opinion, not scientific fact.

A person can just as easy see the very same evidence and come to the conclusion that God created the Universe. Which is what Intelligent Design is. It is a different view of the same facts. Many in the Scientific community are defensive about Intelligent Design because it directly challenges the stranglehold that Atheism has had on science.

The fact is, the question of whether a God exists is a philosophical quesion, not a scientific one. Frankly, the philosophical arguments against God are weak. So Atheists use Science to boost their case. However, science is not supposed to be used so. Science is the how, not the why.

 

[Steve_Andersen]

jjwilkman:

to use an americanism, um< what do you think God, Our Lord did to Abraham??

I’m not quite sure what you are asking about

and in Abraham’s case wouldn’t that Americanism be…Ur ?


thank you, thank you
I’m here all week…remember to tip your waitresses

 

[kindlylight]

On a recent visit to our local zoo I perused the monkeys at length with this thought in mind. I regret to say I came to the conclusion after much observation that the monkeys may indeed have come from us. :yup:

 

[buffalo]

Orogeny:

So, you don’t really accept what the former Cardinal and now Pope wrote?

Absolutely not! I have said this all along. God is the realm of theologians, not scientists! Do you agree?

Peace

Tim

No. I said it is reasonable given the information he is receiving from the scientific community. This info could change or simply be disproven. Trying to fit Catholicism to the dynamic scienctific data is not acceptable, since Revelation has told us things that must in fact be in harmony with science for scienctific observation to be true.

God is the realm of everything He created. Science by its own limiting definition does not acknowledge this. That is essentially the chasm that has formed over the last few centuries between religion and science.

String theory predicts 10 dimensions. We have only experience with 4. We have only five senses. These facts limit our vision of the created universe. Suppose we could look back at history seeing it in additional dimensions and senses, we may see something entirely different than we do now.

To me all this suggests we should be very careful in making firm pronouncements on small bits of data. And we should look to heal the rift between science and religion.

Did you catch the points about ID?

 

[Orogeny]

buffalo:

Did you catch the points about ID?

I’ve said all along that God created everything. This letter is consistent with my beliefs and those of the Church.

ID isn’t what they were discussing. As you know, ID is the pseudo-scientific method to get God inserted into school science curriculum.

Peace

Tim

 

[buffalo]

Orogeny:

I’ve said all along that God created everything. This letter is consistent with my beliefs and those of the Church.

ID isn’t what they were discussing. As you know, ID is the pseudo-scientific method to get God inserted into school science curriculum.

Peace

Tim

But they sure do overlap.

 

[Lucam]

RikasAngel:

Hello All,

Please Christians, we need to stop these irritating arguments. It is not a matter of Dogmatic Orthodoxy to believe in the Literal Seven Day creation. God created the Universe, whether creation took seven days or seven billion ears is irrelevant.

The problem people have about have with evolution come from ridiculous misconceptions and arrogance from the Atheist community. Evolution does NOT teach that we came from monkeys. Humans and Apes share a common ancestor thousands of generations ago. Atheists/Humanists pounced on the theory of Evolution as a “proof” that the Judeo-Christian view of Creation was false. They gleefully proclaimed that because all things have “natural” causes, God must not exist. That proclimation is a matter of opinion, not scientific fact.

A person can just as easy see the very same evidence and come to the conclusion that God created the Universe. Which is what Intelligent Design is. It is a different view of the same facts. Many in the Scientific community are defensive about Intelligent Design because it directly challenges the stranglehold that Atheism has had on science.

The fact is, the question of whether a God exists is a philosophical quesion, not a scientific one. Frankly, the philosophical arguments against God are weak. So Atheists use Science to boost their case. However, science is not supposed to be used so. Science is the how, not the why.

That is an incorrect distinction. Philosophy is a science. It’s an organized body of knowledge that’s based on first principles.

 

[Joseph_Bilodeau]

Lucam:

That is an incorrect distinction. Philosophy is a science. It’s an organized body of knowledge that’s based on first principles.

Granted, but it is distinct from the physical sciences in that the body of philosophy is not limited to that which can be observed or measured.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

Buffalo, Orogeny

The linked text also says:

The structures of the world can be seen as open to non-disruptive divine action in directly causing events in the world. Catholic theology affirms that that the emergence of the first members of the human species (whether as individuals or in populations) represents an event that is not susceptible of a purely natural explanation and which can appropriately be attributed to divine intervention

The document is subserviant to the 1880, not superior to it.
The pope accepts dogma, Orogeny.

Eve is a problem for the purely naturalistic evolutionist view.
I am unaware of any particular scientific theory which accounts for Eve in a dogmatically acceptable way. The church does not require one to believe any theory of evolution currently popular in the scientific community. However, It specifically does forbid accepting polygenism in place of Adam and Eve.

Hi ScottH!

 

[Huiou_Theou]

Originally Posted by Joseph Bilodeau
I have no problem with it. A Christian vision of the created universe may certainly be an evolutionary vision.
**
But what if science “proves” otherwise? Then what?
**

How do you figure ScottH?
There are certanly inadequacies in the scientific understanding.
e.g. what is a “species”?

If a bacteria genetically mutates (I know of one), such that it goes from a mouth based bacteria to a bloodstream based one.
We call it a new “species”.
However, once the immune system nearly irradicates it, it can magically mutate back to the original bacteria – even when there were no bacteria of this type found in the mouth for some time.

There are birds which have been discovered to have a similar trait, changing from one “species” to another depending on conditions, and then returning to the original “species” once conditions change back.

The problem with these anomalies is that they violate the popular notion of evolution and speciation. The intent of the classification of species is to distinguish between different animals, but those mentioned above are really the same one – just under different conditions.

Are you thinking of something like that as “proof” or what?

Bacteria may “evolve”, but that doesn’t mean we are descended from bacteria in a purely natural selection sort of way.

Artists will draw in such a way as to use the same technique on many different sculptures, God just appears to do the same.

I don’t see darwanism as triumphing in this kind of debate.
There may be Evolution of some kind, but it isn’t Darwanism.

Survival of the fittest – the one God wants to survive – even if it means a liitle help is required.

 

[Orogeny]

Huiou Theou:

Buffalo, Orogeny

The linked text also says:

The document is subserviant to the 1880, not superior to it.
The pope accepts dogma, Orogeny.

Eve is a problem for the purely naturalistic evolutionist view.
I am unaware of any particular scientific theory which accounts for Eve in a dogmatically acceptable way. The church does not require one to believe any theory of evolution currently popular in the scientific community. However, It specifically does forbid accepting polygenism in place of Adam and Eve.

Hi ScottH!

So what part of that document do you suggest I disagree with?

Peace

Tim