Evolution: Is There Any Good Reason To Reject The Abiogenesis Hypothesis?

[buffalo]

So Aquinas not only allowed for the emergence of entirely new species of animals ,

No one argues speciation (aka lineage splitting). Microevolution is not an issue.

 

[rossum]

What if every 150 years Adam and Eve grew new adult teeth?

What if the entire universe was created last Thursday with the exact appearance of great age? Yes, that includes your memories of ‘events’ before last Thursday.

 

[rossum]

In terms of today’s understanding of what is “the earth”

It is non-living chemical elements: Carbon, Oxygen, Nitrogen, Iron etc. Genesis tells us that life emerged from those non-living elements.

The soul and the body are one thing,

The body does not survive death. Does the human soul survive death? If it does then they are not one thing but two things.

 

[rossum]

No one argues speciation (aka lineage splitting). Microevolution is not an issue.

Speciation is macroevolution in the standard scientific definition. You do not get to use your own personal definitions in a science discussion. That is the Humpty Dumpty method:

“When I use a word ,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.”

 

[Ghosty1981]

No one argues speciation (aka lineage splitting). Microevolution is not an issue.

That isn’t at all what Aquinas was talking about. Read the quote, as he was explicitly speaking of abiogenesis. I think we can all agree that macroevolution is far less extreme than abiogenesis.

Peace and God bless!

 

[edwest211]

That is a strange question. I know someone who says that he’s a Last Tuesdayist but he means it as a joke.

 

[o_mlly]

I see so many fundamental flaws that I find his analysis useless … For example, he argues that a base species would have more potency while a derived species would have more act, but this conclusion is not warranted by either Thomistic reasoning nor scientific study.

It appears a closer reading of Fr. Chaberek’s work is in order. The “flaw” you cite is predicated on accepting the conclusions of theistic evolution, not intelligent design. The good Father agrees that these conclusions are illogical citing both the principle of sufficient reason and metaphysical potency as withstanding:

And this is contrary to the principle of sufficient reason which says that a lesser cause cannot bring about a greater effect. To achieve the perfection present in higher animals a higher cause is needed than the power of generation in the lower animals or plants. Thus, macroevolution contradicts the metaphysical principle of potency and act as well as the principle of sufficient reason. Macroevolution is therefore impossible.

As your first claim of “flaw” is flawed, examining your subsequent claims of other flaws did not seem advisable at least until you re-read the articles.

 

[Ghosty1981]

As your first claim of “flaw” is flawed, examining your subsequent claims of other flaws did not seem advisable at least until you re-read the articles.

Hardly. I’m contradicting his entire argument that you posted. Macroevolution need not suppose that “higher animals” possess a greater perfection than lower animals. His entire premise wrong.

Later he also says that every new species must be created by God because it must arise from a first parent of the same species, but Aquinas himself directly contradicts this assertion in my citation above.

I’m sorry, but this man’s work is utterly flawed on its face.

Peace and God bless!

 

[rossum]

That is a strange question. I know someone who says that he’s a Last Tuesdayist but he means it as a joke.

Buffalo said “what if…” I replied with another “what if…” Science deals with evidence to sort out the many “what if” proposals. Buffalo has provided no evidence of long lifetimes for early humans so his “what if” remains pure speculation.

Last Tuesdayism is rank heresy. The only true belief is Last Thursdayism. Do not be lead into the gross error of Last Tuesdayism.

 

[Aloysium]

It is non-living chemical elements: Carbon, Oxygen, Nitrogen, Iron etc. Genesis tells us that life emerged from those non-living elements.

That would be an interpretation I do not share. Genesis is about creation taking place in steps over six days and not completed on the first. The creation of new forms of being utilized those that had been previously been brought into existence. These were of a totally different nature, increasing in structural, behavioural and spiritual/ontological complexity.

The body does not survive death. Does the human soul survive death? If it does then they are not one thing but two things.

A few considerations, which may be of help: The past disappears as it stretches back from our present moment, accompanied with an unknown and shortening future. The totality of our lives, existing as they do in each of those moments within our lives, is brought into being from the same Source, ever Now. In other words, it is the relationship we forge with the Ground of our Being, during our lives, that remains. We basically exist in His Mind, which is reality itself, and a cadaver is what is left within the passage of time, as that with which it was one, enters into the eternal Now. The totality of our lives is the seed from which our eternal soul springs, to be resurrected because we are not whole without a body.

I can’t help but reflect on how words fail to express what little we truly know of the mystery that is personal existence.

 

[o_mlly]

Macroevolution need not suppose that “higher animals” possess a greater perfection than lower animals.

But Aquinas does. That is the point.

Later he also says that every new species must be created by God because it must arise from a first parent of the same species, but Aquinas himself directly contradicts this assertion in my citation above.

Your citation from Chaberek’s website does not say as you claim “that every new species must be created by God” nor does your citation from the Summa support that Thomas claims anything to the contrary. ? The good saint replies to Objection 3 which argues that creation continued on the seventh day. ?

> Nothing entirely new was afterwards made by God, but all things subsequently made had in a sense been made before in the work of the six days. Some things, indeed, had a previous experience materially, as the rib from the side of Adam out of which God formed Eve; whilst others existed not only in matter but also in their causes, as those individual creatures that are now generated existed in the first of their kind.

 

[buffalo]

Science deals with evidence to sort out the many “what if” proposals.

And has zero evidence that Adam and Eve did not exist.

An interesting chart:

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[Ghosty1981]

Your citation from Chaberek’s website does not say as you claim “that every new species must be created by God” nor does your citation from the Summa support that Thomas claims anything to the contrary.

I said that he said it later, for example here:

Thus, for Aquinas, there is no way in which a new species can start to exist except by creation. This is based not just on the interpretation of Genesis but on a metaphysical necessity.

He is, quite simply, utterly incorrect in this assertion as I showed above.

The good saint replies to Objection 3 which argues that creation continued on the seventh day. ?

You cut off the next part of that quote, where Aquinas explains how new species can indeed arise without a previous parent. Aquinas didn’t know of any such cases (science in his day being quite limited) but he most certainly didn’t rule them out as you and this author claim; abiogenesis is explicitly included as a possibility in Aquinas’ theology.

I leave you with another quote from Aquinas highlighting what I’m talking about:

But the life of man, as being the most perfect grade, is not said to be produced, like the life of other animals, by earth or water, but immediately by God.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Aloysium]

rossum:

Evolution is science,

It is not empirical science and therefore philosophy.

We have early hominid teeth. We have early Homo teeth. We have Homo sapiens teeth. None of those teeth show an age over 150 years.

You are the one with no evidence about Adam and Eve’s ages at death, and no evidence to support claims you have made about their DNA.

Ahhh, assumptions again. What if every 150 years Adam and Eve grew new adult teeth?

I have a friend in his mid-sixties who’s never had a cavity. The teeth of beavers and rats continuously grow. Clearly it’s possible to have the right genetics and circumstances to have teeth maintained for longer than most people today. The assumption that early mankind was identical to what we find today is just that, we assume. And why not? Because we have heard of another possibility from reliable sources. One would, actually, expect there to be a difference because of random genetic mutations. These have been shown, through gene deletion to be a driving force behind speciation; microevolution that is.

 

[Hobgoblin]

Adam and Eve were specially created and inserted in the timeline where God wished.

There’s no way to prove or disprove this, of course. Which makes the talk of science catching up to your beliefs pointless.

What magisterial document allows for molecules to man evolution?

rossum linked to a fine document. Why spin the question though? You’re the one who’s certain Adam isn’t the result of evolution and you’re claiming this is something the Church has taught for centuries. Shouldn’t you be able to point to a Church teaching that states this explicitly?

I have strong doubts that it happened like you say, but I won’t rule it out because I don’t know. But you’re certain when the Church isn’t. I find this fascinating for a practicing Catholic. I know fundamentalists who believe like you do and that’s one thing because their beliefs are ad hoc. But you’ve actually ruled out something the Church says is permissible. That’s fine for you to do, but it makes it personal revelation.

 

[Hobgoblin]

Again, there’s no way to falsify your beliefs. If you say God will insert whatever’s needed into the timeline how can I possibly disprove that?

 

[Hobgoblin]

Why do you believe God allows us to see design in biology as an illusion?

Free agents can see what they want to see.

 

[edwest211]

Arcanum, Pope Leo XIII

“Though revilers of the Christian faith refuse to acknowledge the never-interrupted doctrine of the Church on this subject, and have long striven to destroy the testimony of all nations and of all times, they have nevertheless failed not only to quench the powerful light of truth, but even to lessen it. We record what is to all known, and cannot be doubted by any, that God, on the sixth day of creation, having made man from the slime of the earth, and having breathed into his face the breath of life, gave him a companion, whom He miraculously took from the side of Adam when he was locked in sleep. God thus, in His most far-reaching foresight, decreed that this husband and wife should be the natural beginning of the human race, from whom it might be propagated and preserved by an unfailing fruitfulness throughout all futurity of time.”

 

[buffalo]

Shouldn’t you be able to point to a Church teaching that states this explicitly?

If you were paying attention I have over and over.

 

[rossum]

And has zero evidence that Adam and Eve did not exist.

Similarly it has zero evidence that Shiva does not exist. Do you believe in Shiva?

An interesting chart:

A chart with false data. There was no global flood. There is no evidence for humans living for more than 150 years. Or do you expect me to believe the 30,000 year lifespans claimed in the Sumerian King lists? I note that your chart leaves them out.