Evolution is contradictory?

  • Thread starter Thread starter buss0042
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Even if this is accurate, it’s interesting to consider that something happened that created a bottleneck for most of the species on the planet.

Either way, I just find it really interesting. If it impacts evolutionary theory, cool. If it doesn’t, cool.
 
Last edited:
Macroevolution, which is a complex form of life deriving from a simple form of life, is not scientific. It is theoretical, and not proven.

And the philosophy behind it contradicts teachings of the Catholic Church in many ways
 
We are fully able to engage in our relationship with Christ and acknowledge His creation and His evolution. It’s not a polarised argument.

Look at how everything evolves,

I read your posts, I read this
40.png
Aloysium:
It sounds as though you are not personally interested in knowing the truth.
Care to explain that
We are not evolving. Everything is falling apart physically as the impact of random events takes its toll on the body, and the power behind natural selection, aka death, weeds it all out. Evolution is a schema superimposed on living forms, projected back through imagined time, creating ancestral links between different kinds of created being, that do not exist, but because of their similarities are assumed. Everything changes in time; it does not evolve. There are built-in genetic and epigenetic capacities that enable organisms to come into being, as expresssions of their kind of creature, created at their beginning, then being in tune with the environment of their time. This is not evolution but a playing out of what they are.

While accepting what one is told by those in authority is noble in its humility, in this world it can hinder one’s search for the truth. Repeating what we’ve been taught, what Google reveals without reflection, without an open mind, well, that does not demonstrate much of an interest in knowing the truth. It does reflect what many teachers try to do in getting the student to absorb as much as they can of what they have to say and repeat it on a test.
 
the power behind natural selection, aka death, weeds it all out.
No, death is not natural selection. If you have ten kids and die at 30, you are more “fit” than if you have no kids and die at 90.

If you are more successful at passing your genes to future generations then you are “fit”.

Remember, if your parents didn’t have any children then the chances are that you won’t either. 🙂

rossum
 
I’m pretty sure you are aware of extinctions, as are happening today at an alarming rate imho. This is natural selection at work.
 
Pointing to a reality far greater than that imagined by evolutionary philosophers, are the following from the Catechism:
Death is a consequence of sin. The Church’s Magisterium, as authentic interpreter of the affirmations of Scripture and Tradition, teaches that death entered the world on account of man’s sin. Even though man’s nature is mortal God had destined him not to die. Death was therefore contrary to the plans of God the Creator and entered the world as a consequence of sin. “Bodily death, from which man would have been immune had he not sinned” is thus “the last enemy” of man left to be conquered.
Death is transformed by Christ. Jesus, the Son of God, also himself suffered the death that is part of the human condition. Yet, despite his anguish as he faced death, he accepted it in an act of complete and free submission to his Father’s will. The obedience of Jesus has transformed the curse of death into a blessing.
Try this: The “causation” referred to in this passage from the Catechism is not bound by time. The cause does not have to precede the effect in normal time. For this reason we can say that death entered the world long before man was placed here in normal time because of the sin the man committed. Thus there were animals dying before man sinned because man did sin.

This notion of cause and effect being uncoupled in time is further confirmed by our understanding of Jesus’s sacrifice to redeem sinners. Jesus died on a cross in the physical world 2000 years ago because of my sins today. Cause does not have to preceded effect.
 
Causation involving God has to by unconstrained by time. In order for ordinary causation to work, the cause has to exist before the effect. In the absence of time, that ‘before’ cannot be determined. God had to create time before(!) ordinary causation could even begin. Anything that God did before He created time could not have been ordinary causation, which implies that He can still do the same now as He has not lost any of His powers.

On the specific subject of death, Romans 5:12 has: “Wherefore as by one man sin entered into this world, and by sin death; and so death passed upon all men, in whom all have sinned. (emphasis added)” That talks about death coming to men, not to animals. The question of what causes animals to die is left open. The Bible does not appear to deal with the death of plants – eating a grain of wheat causes death as much as killing a rabbit.

$0.02

rossum
 
and @rossum, who gave a good reply as well.

We do believe that God acted at certain points in time, as noted in the Creed when we state that our Lord suffered under Pontius Pilate. But a future event does not always immediately effect something that occurred in time previously, since Christ opened the gates of heaven at a point in time after the deaths of the Old Testament patriarchs. The righteous destined for heaven had to wait in the outer fringes of hell until Christ’s descent.
 
Try this: The “causation” referred to in this passage from the Catechism is not bound by time. The cause does not have to precede the effect in normal time. For this reason we can say that death entered the world long before man was placed here in normal time because of the sin the man committed. Thus there were animals dying before man sinned because man did sin.

This notion of cause and effect being uncoupled in time is further confirmed by our understanding of Jesus’s sacrifice to redeem sinners. Jesus died on a cross in the physical world 2000 years ago because of my sins today. Cause does not have to preceded effect.
Makes sense. If I may elaborate on what you say.

Causation to my mind is ontological, arising as it does outside time, in each and every moment of existence.

Temporally there may be a series of events whereby a preceding event leads to another, such as the wind “causing” a tree to fall. The process is like the trajectory of the earth around the sun and the moon around the earth that resulted in yesterday’s blood moon. The cause in these cases is the rational structure of the physical universe, eternal in the sense that it is at the core of every instance in time and encompasses all time.

Our free will is also a cause, as a component of the universe created by God. The will, with our capacities to know and act, enables us to love and thereby commune with what is the Ground of all being - Divine and infinite Love.

We can think of scripture as one event - the presence of the Word in the creation, as He who brings it into existence and He who became on of us that we might be saved. The Garden scene and the crucifixion can be understood as being one. The wood of the two trees is the wood of the cross. The hand that brought the fruit of the tree of good and evil to our mouth in Adam, is that which drove the nail into our hand in Christ. The fruit of the tree of eternal life is the Eucharist, the body and blood of Jesus who died for our sins and was resurrected.

The fall can be understood as happening ontologically at the beginning of time, where it is all brought forth from nothing, at the centre of everything that happens. I would agree with the idea that death would then enter the world from the beginning to the end once the original sin was commited. This sin and the resurrection are points on a timeline that cause what occurs within that entire timeline.

This is how I would put this all together, at least now. It does tie in with a creationist view of Life on earth.
 
Last edited:
and @rossum, who gave a good reply as well.

We do believe that God acted at certain points in time, as noted in the Creed when we state that our Lord suffered under Pontius Pilate. But a future event does not always immediately effect something that occurred in time previously, since Christ opened the gates of heaven at a point in time after the deaths of the Old Testament patriarchs. The righteous destined for heaven had to wait in the outer fringes of hell until Christ’s descent.
We are temporal beings. While this particluar here and now may hopefully be a moment in a greater whole that is ultimately heaven, it is a work in progress, a journey in Christ. God knows the outcome that would include His calling us, His presence and guidance in every moment of our individual lives.
 
Only opinions to be found here. I find that the human idea of evolution - which implies refinement, improvement, development is clearly countered by observable results to the contrary.

Rather than a perfecting of the human genome, we seem to note only an increase in aberrations (mutations) - which is more consistent with an observable pattern of entropy.
 
Only opinions to be found here. I find that the human idea of evolution - which implies refinement, improvement, development…
All evolution does is favour the genome of organisms who live long enough to reproduce. No mor. No less.

What you consider to be refined, improved or developed I would guess might not necessarily align with what evolution turns up with. Unless it actually favours the genome of organisms who live long enough to reproduce.
 
40.png
po18guy:
Only opinions to be found here. I find that the human idea of evolution - which implies refinement, improvement, development…
All evolution does is favour the genome of organisms who live long enough to reproduce. No mor. No less.

What you consider to be refined, improved or developed I would guess might not necessarily align with what evolution turns up with. Unless it actually favours the genome of organisms who live long enough to reproduce.
True, but then we see observable entropy in those…
 
All evolution does is favour the genome of organisms who live long enough to reproduce. No mor. No less.
You forgot the part about organisms having to go through the fit/unfit scenario for millions years before it can morph into something new.
 
You forgot the part about organisms having to go through the fit/unfit scenario for millions years before it can morph into something new.
Evolution can happen very quickly sometimes. And the scenario is usually fit/fitter, since the parent species will be reasonably well adapted to its environment. “Unfit” gets weeded out very quickly: “If your parents didn’t have any children, then the chances are you won’t either.”

rossum
 
You forgot the part about organisms having to go through the fit/unfit scenario for millions years before it can morph into something new.
Does anyone know how long Darwin thought a bear would have to swim around before becoming a whale? Was it just a few river crossings, or something more like crossing a bay or sea? A bear takes a few laps, reproduces, and then a baby bear came out with a slight semblance of a blowhole on its head? 🐻➡️🐳
 
“If your parents didn’t have any children, then the chances are you won’t either.”
But , there are thousands of other parents out there still multiplying and surviving what going to stop that ?
 
40.png
Techno2000:
You forgot the part about organisms having to go through the fit/unfit scenario for millions years before it can morph into something new.
Does anyone know how long Darwin thought a bear would have to swim around before becoming a whale? Was it just a few river crossings, or something more like crossing a bay or sea? A bear takes a few laps, reproduces, and then a baby bear came out with a slight semblance of a blowhole on its head? 🐻➡️🐳
I think process took about 50 million years, I could be off by a couple million years .

 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top