Evolution of Man Disproved?

[Gigmaster]

Well said. Bravo!

Well, you know how Richard Dawkins should really stick to ethology, and stay out of history and philosophy? The good reverend here ought to have stayed out of biology, mathematics, linguistics…

Quaintly enough, there is a paper on this particular claim, entitled ‘How anti-evolutionists abuse mathematics’. The religion and language parts are no better.

For example, in the “language” part, he trots out the tired, silly old claim that all languages come from a single source, something now very thoroughly disproved (look up “language families”, and “isolated languages”), but not nearly as amusing as where he talks about all languages having supposedly come from short words and so he says, “The Hebrew has only about 500 root words of 3 letters ; the stagnant Chinese, 450; the Sanskrit, about the same. All the Semitic languages have tri-literal [3-letter] roots.” Um, yeah, only Chinese has no words of three letters, because Chinese doesn’t have letters, and never has had them.

In the religion part, he says, “According to evolution, all religions were evolved or invented by humanoids. In that case, we would expect them to be widely divergent”. Actually, no, we wouldn’t, because the “humanoids”, or, rather, early humans, were all the same kind of creature, and all thought in the same kinds of ways. It goes on from there, but all in the same direction.

As someone studying biology, you should carefully question what you are being taught, but that questioning is going to lead you to the fact that evolution is our best available explanation of the data. As a Catholic, you can also rejoice in the fact that your Church has had the wisdom to say this: “The question about the origins of the world and of man has been the object of many scientific studies which have splendidly enriched our knowledge of the age and dimensions of the cosmos, the development of life-forms and the appearance of man. These discoveries invite us to even greater admiration for the greatness of the Creator, prompting us to give him thanks for all his works and for the understanding and wisdom he gives to scholars and researchers. With Solomon they can say: “It is he who gave me unerring knowledge of what exists, to know the structure of the world and the activity of the elements. . . for wisdom, the fashioner of all things, taught me.”” (Catechism, 283)

 

[Monica4316]

Please tell me more!! When I was a protestant I was a bible literalist, and then my RICA priest told me that evolution was real. So now I’m confused. :whackadoo:

well evolution is not a Church doctrine. Catholics are free to not believe in evolution, in my understanding. What we must follow as Catholics are the Church’s doctrines which say that God is the Creator, Adam and Eve were real people whose souls were made by God and they fell from grace, and we all descended from them.

I try to just leave the issue to God: He knows how He created the world the Church gives us ways to interpret Scripture, (so we don’t interpret on our own, but with the Church’s Tradition) - but my understanding is that evolution is not a doctrine of the Church.

Our faith is not unreasonable. Faith and reason would not contradict each other. We don’t throw out our reason when we become Catholic. However, this is talking about true reason. We need to make sure our reasoning is true. I think it’s good to remember that evolution is a theory. What we can observe, is natural selection. But this can just be something that happens within species regarding characteristics that vary in the population. But regarding humans evolving from animals: this is a theory, and science always goes through change, we dont know what we would discover in the future. Compare science today to science 500 years ago. Then think of how science can be in the future. It’s always changing.

 

[grannymh]

I came across this link and I don’t really know what to think of it. It makes a lot of valid points, aside from the mathematics of human population growth (in my opinion anyway). The hypotheses on religion and language and such, makes a lot of sense and I believed this anyway, as a Catholic. I am just wondering what anyone else’s take on this is. Do you think it’s valid? Is it possible to disprove the evolution of man theory? Does this mean humans didn’t evolve from apes?

What do you think?

ldolphin.org/wmwilliams.html

First.
The possibility that humans evolved from apes is no longer accepted by scientists. Yet, the ape to man proposal is still the darling of cartoonists.

Second.
The scientific method demands that the evidence cited in a research paper warrants the conclusion. Yet, the impossible extrapolation of a simple conclusion to an universal exclusion is still the darling of some interpreters.

Third.
Divine Revelation (contained in the Catholic Deposit of Faith) trumps!

 

[rossum]

well evolution is not a Church doctrine. Catholics are free to not believe in evolution, in my understanding. What we must follow as Catholics are the Church’s doctrines which say that God is the Creator, Adam and Eve were real people whose souls were made by God and they fell from grace, and we all descended from them.

Indeed:

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 - for the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God.

Source: Humani Generis.

Evolution deals with the origin of the material human body. Science as a whole deals with the material. Evolution says nothing about souls. Souls do not fossilise, nor do they have DNA – there is nothing in a soul for science to work on.

Humani Generis would seem to be taking a sensible line, rendering to science the things that are science’s, and to the Church the things that belong to the Church. Science gets the material body, and the Church gets the immaterial soul.

rossum

 

[Matthew_Holford]

I am a scientist and a Catholic. The two are compatible. I grow weary of those who think science = atheism. That’s not true. Not all scientists are atheists. Science does not promote atheism. Science concerns itself with things it can test. It has no interest at all in things which cannot be tested. Can an experiment be designed and performed that would demonstrate whether God existed or not? No, no such experiment can be designed. Consequently, the existence of God cannot be tested by science. Therefore, science concerns itself not with religion. Obviously, science does not promote any religion but neither does it exist to promote an atheist viewpoint. Science requires evidence. Religion requires belief.

 

[Lochias]

First off, Humans did not “evolve from apes”. Apes, monkeys and humans all developed independently from a common ancestor.

And to suggest that humans evolved from apes is horribly insulting, and disgusting. We owe the apes a huge apology for such an insult. I don’t even consider humans ‘evolved’ at all.

Apes do not kill each other over ownership of a single banana tree, especially when there are hundreds more just like it. Humans go to war over a worthless piece of desert that won’t even grow a decent tomato.

If you give a glass of whiskey to an ape, they will smell it, and throw it away. If you give that same glass to a human, most would drink it. You tell me…Who is more intelligent???

An ape does not hoard all the available bananas and lock them up, refusing to allow other apes to eat. An ape takes what they need and leaves the rest for others. How long would Wall Street exist under those conditions???

Apes live within their environment. They don’t destroy it. Humans…well…

As I said, my apologies to the apes.

The next time I see my neighbors raiding each others’ apartments to kill and devour each others’ young, I’ll let you know.

 

[Matthew_Holford]

First off, Humans did not “evolve from apes”. Apes, monkeys and humans all developed independently from a common ancestor.

And to suggest that humans evolved from apes is horribly insulting, and disgusting. We owe the apes a huge apology for such an insult. I don’t even consider humans ‘evolved’ at all.

Apes do not kill each other over ownership of a single banana tree, especially when there are hundreds more just like it. Humans go to war over a worthless piece of desert that won’t even grow a decent tomato.

If you give a glass of whiskey to an ape, they will smell it, and throw it away. If you give that same glass to a human, most would drink it. You tell me…Who is more intelligent???

An ape does not hoard all the available bananas and lock them up, refusing to allow other apes to eat. An ape takes what they need and leaves the rest for others. How long would Wall Street exist under those conditions???

Apes live within their environment. They don’t destroy it. Humans…well…

As I said, my apologies to the apes.

I think your view of apes is a little sentimental. Much of what you say applies to most species. Studies of chimpanzee populations has revealed that they can be as cruel to each other as humans. My next comment will undoubtedly upset many but we are apes, although probably the worst behaved ones.

 

[rossum]

I think your view of apes is a little sentimental. Much of what you say applies to most species. Studies of chimpanzee populations has revealed that they can be as cruel to each other as humans. My next comment will undoubtedly upset many but we are apes, although probably the worst behaved ones.

The word “ape” is ambiguous. In scientific terms, “ape” means “member of the Hominidae”. In ordinary speech, “ape” means “non-human member of the Hominidae”.

Much confusion is causes by people not realising that there are two different definitions in play. Humans are members of the Hominidae, and so scientifically are apes: tailless primates with a certain conformation of their teeth and a tendency towards upright locomotion.

Humans are excluded from the common definition of “ape”.

rossum

 

[Matthew_Holford]

The word “ape” is ambiguous. In scientific terms, “ape” means “member of the Hominidae”. In ordinary speech, “ape” means “non-human member of the Hominidae”.

Much confusion is causes by people not realising that there are two different definitions in play. Humans are members of the Hominidae, and so scientifically are apes: tailless primates with a certain conformation of their teeth and a tendency towards upright locomotion.

Humans are excluded from the common definition of “ape”.

rossum

It alters not one jot the fact we are apes.

In science ape refers to the superfamily Hominoidea. The family you cited is restricted to the great apes. Tailless primates are not apes. That’s a widely held misconception. No ape has a tail but not all monkeys have one.

 

[rossum]

It alters not one jot the fact we are apes.

In science ape refers to the superfamily Hominoidea. The family you cited is restricted to the great apes. Tailless primates are not apes. That’s a widely held misconception. No ape has a tail but not all monkeys have one.

Some monkeys may lack tails, but they do not have the correct conformation of their teeth, including molars that come to five points interrupted by a “Y” shaped crevasse.

rossum

 

[Matthew_Holford]

Some monkeys may lack tails

Some do and it’s not a distinguising feature that separates apes and monkeys.

but they do not have the correct conformation of their teeth, including molars that come to five points interrupted by a “Y” shaped crevasse.

rossum

Even among apes dentition varies.

 

[TheAtheist]

Well, you know how Richard Dawkins should really stick to ethology, and stay out of history and philosophy? The good reverend here ought to have stayed out of biology, mathematics, linguistics…

No truer words have been spoken.

I am a scientist and a Catholic. The two are compatible. I grow weary of those who think science = atheism. That’s not true. Not all scientists are atheists. Science does not promote atheism. Science concerns itself with things it can test. It has no interest at all in things which cannot be tested. Can an experiment be designed and performed that would demonstrate whether God existed or not? No, no such experiment can be designed. Consequently, the existence of God cannot be tested by science. Therefore, science concerns itself not with religion. Obviously, science does not promote any religion but neither does it exist to promote an atheist viewpoint. Science requires evidence. Religion requires belief.

The sad fact of the matter is that science continues to be abused in attempts by members of religious (and non-religious) communities, political parties, etc in order to justify what are essentially untestable beliefs.

If there was a methodology to prove or disprove God (whatever version you wish) or metaphyiscal concepts like Reincarnation or Chi - we would have performed the experiment already.

Instead, we have scientists playing the the role of philosophers in fields far away from their training (exception must be given to the physicists of course) and theologians attemtping to play scientists by insisting their philosophical views are somehow made manifest through argumentation (without experimentation of course).

On top of which, we have a public more concerned about the unsolvable philosophical question and less about methodologies of valdiation (which remains at the core of all our disciplines).

 

[Lochias]

No truer words have been spoken.

The sad fact of the matter is that science continues to be abused in attempts by members of religious (and non-religious) communities, political parties, etc in order to justify what are essentially untestable beliefs.

If there was a methodology to prove or disprove God (whatever version you wish) or metaphyiscal concepts like Reincarnation or Chi - we would have performed the experiment already.

Instead, we have scientists playing the the role of philosophers in fields far away from their training (exception must be given to the physicists of course) and theologians attemtping to play scientists by insisting their philosophical views are somehow made manifest through argumentation (without experimentation of course).

On top of which, we have a public more concerned about the unsolvable philosophical question and less about methodologies of valdiation (which remains at the core of all our disciplines).

Sorry, you lost my interest at “science continues to be abused.” Please show me how the abstract principle of science has been damaged by abuse. Experiments and measurable results required, of course.

 

[doormouse73]

The Genesis Enigma: Why The Bible Is Scientifically Accurate…

dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1200486/The-Genesis-enigma-How-DID-Bible-evolution-life-3-000-years-Darwin.html

have a read at this… it is very interesting to say the least…

just say for instance that we do come from apes… god has told us that he made man after animals and all the other creations in genesis…

God must have touched one of the men with the holy spirit, who he named Adam.

and Adam must have made eve through love of his heart.not a rib as such.

language back all those thousands of years must have have been totally primitive. the pointing to the chest, shows love from the heart…(in my eyes).

like when we say we have heart burn.our heart does not burn,its acid that causes thatin the chest area…thats the same as love,we point to the heart because we feel it comes from there…

my two pennies worth…hope it make scence to people…

 

[Matthew_Holford]

No truer words have been spoken.

The sad fact of the matter is that science continues to be abused in attempts by members of religious (and non-religious) communities, political parties, etc in order to justify what are essentially untestable beliefs.

If there was a methodology to prove or disprove God (whatever version you wish) or metaphyiscal concepts like Reincarnation or Chi - we would have performed the experiment already.

Instead, we have scientists playing the the role of philosophers in fields far away from their training (exception must be given to the physicists of course) and theologians attemtping to play scientists by insisting their philosophical views are somehow made manifest through argumentation (without experimentation of course).

On top of which, we have a public more concerned about the unsolvable philosophical question and less about methodologies of valdiation (which remains at the core of all our disciplines).