Evolution is contradictory?

[_Crucesignatus]

Evolution is a scientific theory that has been verified by both observation and experiment.

It has been by scientists themselves, but they still lack crucial evidences. Scientists tend to make a lot of theories to make themselves seem valuable and necessary.

Some interpretations of the Bible do not work with this theory, while other interpretations do. Just ask Francis Collins or Ken Miller (who is Catholic).

Those modern (false) interpretations are quite tiresome. I’ll stick to how the Church handled God’s words before Vatican II.

 

[o_mlly]

And the scenario is usually fit/fitter, since the parent species will be reasonably well adapted to its environment.

First up, one only gets genetic diversity if the environment for one group of organisms is sufficiently different to that of another …

Seems these two scenarios are in opposition. Either the parents are adapted (rossum) or they are not (Bradski) in order to evolve.

I favor rossum since parents that live in significantly different environments would also decrease significantly the possibility of mating (requires proximity).

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

Aloysium:

The evidence for macroevolution is not there. It’s not that difficult to admit. It’s an assumption.

The sense in which you use the word “assumption” applies to many scientific theories that we all generally accept. Probably you do too. It is just this one theory for which the word “assumption” is a deal-breaker for you.

People are claiming that evolution is scientific fact, something observed in nature.

A scientific theory. But yes, that’s what it is - as valid as other scientific theories.

 

[Aloysium]

Aloysium:

It doesn’t show that at all. It shows a correlation between the DNA of more primitive species and that of more complex organisms.

So, the Flood story in Genesis is wrong. More than one species of kangaroo survived the Flood.

rossum

The story of the flood is not straight forward. It is clearly ontologically true, but it did occur in time. I haven’t given the historical aspect enough thought to argue the point.

BTW, continuing to write about species, as they are defined by evolutionary theory when the theory itself is seen to be defective, will not win any converts to your way of thinking.

 

[Bradskii]

I favor rossum since parents that live in significantly different environments would also decrease significantly the possibility of mating (requires proximity).

That was a joke, wasn’t it. Tell me that was a joke. It’s just so hard to tell with most of the comments.on these type of threads.

 

[rossum]

It’s still a crayfish.

It is a new species of crayfish. Crayfish is a clade that has over 400 species. Your post #127 above asked:

give me one scenario of some kind of animal evolving into a whole new species. (emphasis added)

I have shown you exactly what you asked for, the evolution of a “whole new species” and now you are frantically trying to dodge the facts. Do you realise how bad that makes you appear?

Why do you object to the evolution of humans if humans are “still a primate”?

rossum

 

[Bradskii]

BTW, continuing to write about species, as they are defined by evolutionary theory when the theory itself is seen to be defective, will not win any converts to your way of thinking.

The term species is not and was not determined by the theory of evolution. That we are using a definition that can be understood by even the most uneducated people simply shows how far the matter has to be dumbed down so that they can understand it.

If you point out that two types of fish or two birds are different species, you can hear the spluttering begin almost immediately (But…what? But they are still birds! How can they be different species?).

Edit: Or crustaceans - see above for a timely and suitably confused and ill-educated response.

 

[rossum]

People are claiming that evolution is scientific fact, something observed in nature.

It is. We observe weeds evolving resistance to new herbicides.

Evolution, as the modern mythos of our origins, is a way of framing with assumptions, the raw data, about which there is little disagreement.

Science works by using the best theories we currently have. For a long time Newton’s theory of gravity was the best. Then Einstein came along with a better theory and replaced Newton.

Evolution explains the origin of species, as in the title of Darwin’s book. If you want to replace Darwin’s theory then all you need to do is to find a better theory to replace it. Your better theory will need to explain all that evolution currently explains and also explain some things that evolution currently does not explain. That is what Einstein did, and it is open to you to do something similar. Though I will warn you, it will take a lot of work.

rossum

 

[Aloysium]

A scientific theory. But yes, that’s what it is - as valid as other scientific theories.

Not in my eyes. Others are validated by the evidence; evolution is not. Genetics and the fossil record tell us of the material structure of living organisms, and there are better ways to conceive of life and its origins than how the evidence is presented in evolutionary theories. A more comprehensive approach is able to incorporate the psychological and spiritual. Leaving these out, it is no surprise that we hear talk of random physical changes; a distorted explanation of what is truly a highly designed organizing principle at the very least, and what we believe to be the creative act of God.

 

[rossum]

BTW, continuing to write about species, as they are defined by evolutionary theory when the theory itself is seen to be defective, will not win any converts to your way of thinking.

Species were scientifically defined starting in 1735 with Linnaeus, who was a Christian and lived well before Darwin published.

You appear not to be arguing against evolution here, but against some sort of fantasy-evolution that bears very little resemblance to the actual scientific theory. For that reason a lot of your points are completely missing the mark.

rossum

 

[mVitus]

Those modern (false) interpretations are quite tiresome. I’ll stick to how the Church handled God’s words before Vatican II.

1950 was before Vatican II.

1. For these reasons the Teaching Authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions, on the part of men experienced in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter

http://w2.vatican.va/content/pius-x...nts/hf_p-xii_enc_12081950_humani-generis.html

He does go on and mention to proceed carefully in the matter. Given that later popes continued the trend of seeing evolution and scripture as being compatible, I would say that procession was cautious.
He does also mention that evolution was not certain, which isn’t surprising for when he wrote Humani Generis given that the evidence for evolution and our understanding of it was not as good then as it is now. But as mentioned, our understanding has improved since then and the Church has not felt a need to say it contradicts faith.

 

[o_mlly]

I favor rossum since parents that live in significantly different environments would also decrease significantly the possibility of mating (requires proximity).

Hard to believe one would favor rossum but there you have it: his speculation is superior to yours.

A joke would be, "What happens when one takes Occam’s Razor to the theory of evolution? Answer: Creation. Here’s another:
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[rossum]

A joke would be, "What happens when one takes Occam’s Razor to the theory of evolution? Answer: Creation.

No. Occam’s Razor would eliminate all deities. Evolution is much simpler and is sufficient to explain what we observe. No need to add Vishnu to the mix.

rossum

 

[Bradskii]

Hard to believe one would favor rossum but there you have it: his speculation is superior to yours.

Good grief, you thought that when I said that ‘diversity is the result if the environment for one group of organisms is sufficiently different to that of another’, you thought I meant that if it was different for both parents.

And you actually pointed out that reproduction requires a certain degree of proximity. Gee, really?

You couldn’t make this stuff up.

 

[sevenswords]

I would love to see a fossil showing one species evolve into another, not a makey uppuy thing or a fabricated fossil like gluing wings onto a rat or something but a real fossil showing evolution at work would bring me over to the evolution side of the argument but to save you time you won’t find one as there are none. The same goes for Biology and DNA, I wish people would use facts and not hear say. DNA is a big big hindrance to Evolution not a proof, DNA is a code a message of huge complexity and I am supposed to believe it came about by chance in a slime pool, thats a bit of a stretch i think.

 

[sevenswords]

I am all for good science it is a remarkable thing it does great works, but there is evil in this world and as God says in the last days I will send a strong delusion upon them and people have always believed lies over the gospel and without going into the great lack of evidence for evolution i would like to use the first page of scripture.
God fashioned man from the earth and breathed life into his Nostrils
no where does this imply evolution, it does not mean that God formed man slowly over millions of years, it says that man had a pair of nostrils and the holy Spirit breathed life into man and he woke a perfect sinless pure being and God was pleased. Adam was not an Immaculate conception from his parents he was created without sin, he was not born without sin. I think believing science is a good thing but when it is bias and agenda driven then we should question it and have God as the authority.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

I am all for good science it is a remarkable thing it does great works, but there is evil in this world and as God says in the last days I will send a strong delusion upon them and people have always believed lies over the gospel and without going into the great lack of evidence for evolution i would like to use the first page of scripture.
God fashioned man from the earth and breathed life into his Nostrils
no where does this imply evolution, it does not mean that God formed man slowly over millions of years, it says that man had a pair of nostrils and the holy Spirit breathed life into man and he woke a perfect sinless pure being and God was pleased. Adam was not an Immaculate conception from his parents he was created without sin, he was not born without sin. I think believing science is a good thing but when it is bias and agenda driven then we should question it and have God as the authority.

I personally believe in everything you just wrote about God’s role in the creation of man. Completely. And I believe in evolution as a scientific theory that has considerable evidence in its favor. You don’t have to pick one or the other.

 

[buffalo]

Of course I disagree with your characterization of evolution as secular dogma. It is just science, like any other science.

It is the godless creation myth.

 

[o_mlly]

No. Occam’s Razor would eliminate all deities. Evolution is much simpler and is sufficient to explain what we observe. No need to add Vishnu to the mix.

rossum

Evolution as a science would not eliminate or indicate any deity as causal. However, evolution as a philosophy (this is the Philosophy forum) does attempt to eliminate God.

Let’s be candid. The church does not care if science determines that ding-bats are a sub-species of bats or not. But scientists who still search the geological record for evidence that modern man descended from the lower animals like the ape will, as they have always been, be unsuccessful. Too many missing links in the record prevent any reputable scientist to claim that such evolution is a proven fact. To cover for the lack of evidence, evolution theory becomes more and more convoluted and brings up our friendly friar Occam who reminds them about the law of parsimony.

A true scientist will recognize that physical science has nothing to do one way or another with proving or disproving the existence of God.

 

[goout]

Please read Humani Generis in its entirety.

Humani Generis (August 12, 1950) | PIUS XII

And JP2’s address to the Pontifical Academy…
https://w2.vatican.va/content/john-...p-ii_spe_19821023_pont-accademia-scienze.html
anything by Bp Robert Barron. Google evolution with his name or science
Fr Robert Spitzer is an excellent speaker on these topics.

All of them speak with the mind of the Church.