Evolution refuting catholicism?

[PhilVaz]

<< Piltdown man – When subjected to a test developed in 1950 that dated fossils >>
Pounded into the ground by TalkOrigins

<< Nebraska man – A myth was concocted when someone fond a tooth in Nebraska in 1922 >>
Pounded into the ground by TalkOrigins (and I’ve pounded it myself a few times)

<< Peking man – Based on the discovery of 30 skull fragments >>
Pounded into the ground by TalkOrigins

<< Neanderthal man – Once touted as the missing link >>
Pounded into the ground by TalkOrigins

<< Ramapithecus – Based on the discovery of a jaw and a couple of teeth in 1932 >>
Let me help you. Here are the hominid species you need to deal with

<< Australopithecus – Current number one contender for missing link >>
Another home run for TalkOrigins
Also check out fabulous articles by the NCSE on creationists and human evolution, do a search 1986-87 issues I believe
More on Jim Foley’s Pages

<< I was taught “ontogeny recaptulates philogeny” >>
Short answer to that one

<< Where are the retractions for all these frauds and hoaxes? >>
Haeckel has been known about for a long time. None of these are a problem.
Another grand slam breakfast for TalkOrigins

<< How can you trust these people when half are dishonest, the other half are blinded by a theory, and none are purely objective. >>

You can trust them by reading a little bit more and understanding how science works, and how scientists themselves separate the overwhelming massive good evidence for macroevolution from the occasional bad science, and few fakes and frauds that evolutionists themselves expose and correct through the years by better research, better technology, better data, better methods. None of what you have listed so far puts even a dent into evolution. They are all well-known and well-answered at TalkOrigins.

<< These are only SOME of the frauds and errors. >>

No No, please continue. What else can you come up with? Let me just mention you are serving up Jack Chick, Lorraine Boettner, and Dave Hunt type anti-evolution arguments. Just so you know. Please get out of the darkness of your bad creationist sources and get into the light of a university library or TalkOrigins. Whichever is more convenient.

Phil P

 

[Led_Zeppelin75]

dcdurel:

That is incorrect. Einsteins own theory called for an expanding universe. He simply did not want to believe it. So he came up with a factor to make his calculations come up with a steady state universe.
It was the same for Hawkings. He too tried everyway to come up with theories that could justify a universe that always existed, thus one that did not need God. He finally gave up because of all the evidence for an expanding universe, which is not only expanding but the expansion is accelerating.

I have three posts explaining exactly how the universe could exist w/ out a creator in posts 12:04 - 12:07 yesterday (December 4th). I’m sorry, it wouldn’t fit onto one post, it had to go on three.

 

[hecd2]

clmowry:

I didn’t mean that 100,000 years for a comon ancestor and the 6 million years coalesnce were dependent upon and assumed rate of evolution. Perhaps assumed is a bad term. Perhaps based on “currently observable rates of genetic evolution for primates” would be a better way to say it.

Dear Chuck,

As I said in the previous post the 6 million years is based on palaeontological not molecular data. And as I also pointed out, the actual dates and rates cannot get round the fact that 21 human alleles at DRB-1 survive to the divergence of humans and chimpanzees

i.e. I remember reading somewhere that at a rate of change of “400 Darwins” or something like that, that a mouse could become an elephant in 10,000 years. I also remember reading somewhere that the observed rates of evolution varied from like 0.6-10,000 Darwins. (Maybe Darwins refered to physical characteristics rather than genetic characteristics?)

The question was “if” at some point the rate was 400…instead of 0.6 (or whatever is in the “assumption”) would the time for common ancestory and humans and coallescence change dramatically.

You read it here:
talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section5.html
or possibly here:
trueorigin.org/theobald1f.asp
The darwin is a unit of morphological change, in the wild is fundamentally affected by the adaptive environment and the population size, is as you have observed highly variable and is irrelevant to this discussion. The analysis of the mouse genome (The Mouse Genome Sequencing Consortium, ‘Initial sequencing and comparative analysis of the mouse genome’, Nature 420, 520 - 562), concludes that the rate of substitutions in ancestral repeat sequences in the mouse lineage has been twice as fast as in the human lineage on a time basis over the 75 million years since the divergence of mouse and human lineages. A similar difference is seen in deletions from the genome and in four fold degenerate sites. There is no evidence that neutral molecular evolution rates are highly variable.

This is where evolution and I have our disagrement (if I understand what you are saying).

Why would we expect “12” or “10,000” individuals “evolve” at the same time to form this minimum ancestral population?

If I understand you then different some number of chimp/human parents would have to give birth to 12 (10,000) different human ancestors?

Or do I misunderstand what you are saying?

Chuck

I don’t know whether you misunderstand me, because now I don’t understand you. Can you explain what your objection is?

It seems that you have a problem with some aspect of population dynamics, but I can’t quite figure out what it is.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[hecd2]

dcdurel:

It was the same for Hawkings. He too tried everyway to come up with theories that could justify a universe that always existed, thus one that did not need God. He finally gave up because of all the evidence for an expanding universe, which is not only expanding but the expansion is accelerating.

It’s astonishing how many errors of fact can be packed into a short passage.

1. It’s Hawking not Hawkings
2. Hawking, Lucasian Professor of Mathematics at Cambridge University from 1980 to today, an Academician of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences (oh yes!) has never denied an expanding universe (demonstarted by Hubble’s observations decades ago), or the fact of the Big Bang. The idea is preposterous.
3. He has not given up his hypothesis of the no boundary conditions for the universe developed with Hartle, nor the Hartle-Hawking wave function of the universe that implies a unconditional probability of the universe.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[hecd2]

dcdurel:

hecd2:

The Church teaches monogeny. That’s dabbling in science and it’s wrong.

For those of you who think that the Church did not condemn Galileo on ‘scientific’ grounds, read the papal condemnation at his trial:

"Whereas you, Galileo, son of the late Vaincenzo Galilei, Florentine, aged seventy years, were in the year 1615 denounced to this Holy Office for holding as true the false doctrine taught by some that the Sun is the center of the world and immovable and that the Earth moves, and also with a diurnal motion; for having disciples to whom you taught the same doctrine; for holding correspondence with certain mathematicians of Germany concerning the same; for having printed certain letters, entitled “On the Sunspots,” wherein you developed the same doctrine as true; and for replying to the objections from the Holy Scriptures, which from time to time were urged against it, by glossing the said Scriptures according to your own meaning: and whereas there was thereupon produced the copy of a document in the form of a letter, purporting to be written by you to one formerly your disciple, and in this divers propositions are set forth, following the position of Copernicus, which are contrary to the true sense and authority of Holy Scripture:…

That was only theologians who wrote that. Theologians have absolutely no authority to teach for the Church.
In fact, the Popes spend most of their efforts trying to protect Church teachings from the crazy theories of Catholic theologians. Almost every teaching encyclical they write is to
correct the errors introduced or promoted by Catholic theologians and scripture scholars.

The papal condemnation was issued by the Holy Office of the Inquisition, established by the Church to suppress heresy and promote theological orthodoxy. The condemnation was not issued by a few theologians lacking magisterial authority, but a body imbued by the Pope with the full authority to determine and eliminate heresy. The actual Inquisitional court that condemned Galileo comprised ten cardinals. Your apologetics are misleading.

And despite encyclical after encyclical, papal bull after papal bull, the Popes have NEVER taught error when teaching for all Christians on any matter pertaining to faith or morals. Even on evolution or any science that has to do with faith or morals.

Pius XII in Humani Generis: ‘When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains that either after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parent of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents’ . Here’s an example of an error taught by a pope.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[dcdurel]

PhilVaz:

durel << Yet for years all these evolutionists were saying that Archaeopteryx was definitly the missing link.How can I believe these evolutionists? >>

Feduccia is definitely saying Archaeopteryx is half-bird and half-reptile and therefore a transitional fossil = missing link so I don’t see the problem here. He has a different view on precisely how birds evolved, but that also is not a problem. He is saying Archaeopteryx may not be directly related to the dinosaurs. Fine. We don’t know everything about the mechanisms of evolution, but no reputable scientist today working in the field denies it happened (except cranks at ICR, AiG, or the Kolbe Center).

Here is more Feduccia’s view you can look up and try to understand better:

That was Feduccia’s old view. Now he saying that Archaeopteryx
is simply a bird, nothing else.

"Paleontologists have tried to turn Archaeopteryx into an earth-bound, feathered dinosaur. But it's not. It is a bird, a perching bird. And no amount of ‘paleobabble’ is going to change that."

Dr. J. Alan Feduccia,
Prof. Avian Evolution and world authority on birds at the University of North Carolina. Archaeopteryx: Early Bird Catches a Can of Worms by V. Morell, Science 259(5096):764–65, 5 February 1993.​

Here is some more on what he says.
biblicalcreation.org.uk/scientific_issues/bcs150.html
And he admits that we have NO transitional fossils now linking birds and reptiles. That is exactly what I said at the beginning. Because I read it from the few sane evolutionists out there. Most of them are blind fanatics and come up with claims for which there is no good evidence.

Here is some thoughts by a retired professor of anatomy, showing that feathers could never have developed from reptile scales.
answersingenesis.org/creation/v16/i4/birds.asp

Here is another point he answers about Archaeopteryx.:
“Evolutionists point out that it does have some characteristics which are found in other classes, such as reptiles.”
This is true, but then it’s true of almost any vertebrate skeleton. There are also design similarities between reptiles, mammals and living birds too. Birds have a distinctive, specialized skeleton because, as one distinguished evolutionist who is also an ornithologist once said, ‘Birds are formed to fly.’ So was Archaeopteryx.

 

[hecd2]

dcdurel:

**Australopithecus – **Current number one contender for missing link, Australopithecus, constructed from a few bone fragments and someone’s huge imagination, also is regarded by many experts as most likely being an orangutan.

These are only SOME of the frauds and errors.

Yes, but it seems that the fraud and error is in your sources. You are either the innocent victim of lies or you are knowingly perpetrating them yourself.

Australopithecus:

Australopithecus anamensis: Leakey et al, Nature 376, 565 - 571 (1995); KNM-KP 29281 Type specimen and KNM-KP 29283, mandibles

A afarensis, Taieb et al, CR Acad Sci Paris 281; 1297 - 1300. AL 288 - 1 (Lucy) partial skeleton

A afarensis, Taieb et al, CR Acad Sci Paris 287; 459 - 461. Al 333 (The first family) 13 individuals including a cranium

A afarensis, Kimbel et al, Nature 368, 449- 451. AL 444-2 Complete adult cranium

A africanus, Broom, Nature 159, 672. STS 5 Complete cranium.

A africanus; Broom et al, Mem Transvaal Mus No 4; STS 14. Complete Vetebrae, pelvis, shaft of femur and ribs

A africanus; Broom et al, Transvaal Mus Mem No 4; STS 71 and STS 36. Cranium

A aficanus Undescribed. Stw 505. Cranium

A africanus; Dart, Nature 115, 195-199. Taung Child. Complete skull

A robustus; Broom, Nature 142 377 - 379; TM 1517. Face, jaws and teeth

A robustus; Broom Nature 163; 57. SK6 Adolescent mandible

A robustus; Broom and Robinson, Trans Mus Mem No 6; SK48. Adult cranium

A robustus: Robinson, Transvaal Mus mem No 9; SK 79. Adult cranium

A aethiopicus. Walker et al; Nature 322, 517 - 522. KNM-WT 17000 (the Black Skull). Complete cranium

A boisei: Leakey, Nature 184, 491 -493. OH5 - Type specimen. Complete cranium.

A boisei; Leakey Nature 226, 223 - 224. KNM-ER 406. Complete cranium

No competent paleaontologist or competent anatomist thinks that Australopithecus is an orang-utan.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[dcdurel]

PhilVaz:

No No, please continue. What else can you come up with? Let me just mention you are serving up Jack Chick, Lorraine Boettner, and Dave Hunt type anti-evolution arguments. Just so you know. Please get out of the darkness of your bad creationist sources and get into the light of a university library or TalkOrigins. Whichever is more convenient.
Phil P

There are many excellent scientists who totally reject Darwinian evolution. Just because yo yo’s like Dave Hunt also reject it doesn’t mean anything. They have to get somethings right now and then.
It is such a pleasure to read the ideas of those who are honest, open and objective, like this professor Professor David Menton and Feduccia and Gould. While the latter two believe in the theory, they are honest enough to admit the serious problems in the theory. If all were like them, very few people would believe in evolution, because people would have the correct knowledge to make up their own minds.
But most evolutionists are blind fanatics. That is why you actually believed there were transitional species linking birds and reptiles. There are none.

As far as whales, and other transitionals, etc. try reading this sane article
answersingenesis.org/docs/2403.asp
And by the way, I am sure you know by now that there is not even any theory whatever to postulate the beginnings of life, since it is now agreed that amino acids can’t form in oxygen, yet the earth was created with an oxygen rich atmospher.

Do you realize that EVERY example of evolution I learned from childhood to adulthood was either a fraud, hoax, or just plain false. Every one. From the so called ape man, to the so called evolution of the horse, from spotted moths in England, from embryology, to the primordial soup, everything was false. If the Catholic Church had a record like this it wouldn’t have lasted 2 years. If everyone would only believe Jesus when He said to listen to His Church which teaches regarding evolution:

“Some however, rashly transgress this liberty of discussion, when they act as if the origin of the human body from pre-existing and living matter were already completely certain and proved by the facts which have been discovered up to now and by reasoning on those facts, and as if there were nothing in the sources of divine revelation which demands the greatest moderation and caution in this question.”

Since the Church has never taught a single error in 2000 years, even in regards to science and evolution and since scientists teach and promote hundreds of errors every day, who do you think I am going to trust and believe?

If you say that I should also trust the “good” scientists then who would those be? Even Gould admitted that the only reason he still held to evolution in the face of the gaps in the fossil record was because he did not want to believe in creation by God. Thus he came up with the hopeful monster theory, which he actually believed. I try only to read the good scientists, but I actually trust none of them.

 

[hecd2]

dcdurel:

That was Feduccia’s old view. Now he saying that Archaeopteryx
is simply a bird, nothing else.

“Paleontologists have tried to turn Archaeopteryx into an earth-bound, feathered dinosaur. But it’s not. It is a bird, a perching bird. And no amount of ‘paleobabble’ is going to change that.”

Dr. J. Alan Feduccia,
Prof. Avian Evolution and world authority on birds at the University of North Carolina. Archaeopteryx: Early Bird Catches a Can of Worms by V. Morell, Science 259(5096):764–65, 5 February 1993.​

Here is some more on what he says.
biblicalcreation.org.uk/scientific_issues/bcs150.html
And he admits that we have NO transitional fossils now linking birds and reptiles. That is exactly what I said at the beginning. Because I read it from the few sane evolutionists out there. Most of them are blind fanatics and come up with claims for which there is no good evidence.

And here are some recent papers which he has written:

Feduccia et al, ‘Non-avian feathers ina late Triassic archosaur’, Science 288, 2202 - 2205 (2000):
‘*Longisquama insignis *was an unusual archosaur from the Late Triassic of central Asia. Along its dorsal axis Longisquama bore a series of paired integumentary appendages that resembled avian feathers in many details, especially in the anatomy of the basal region. The latter is sufficiently similar to the calamus of modern feathers that each probably represents the culmination of virtually identical morphogenetic processes. The exact relationship of Longisquama to birds is uncertain. Nevertheless, we interpret Longisquama’s elongate integumentary appendages as nonavian feathers and suggest that they are probably homologous with avian feathers. If so, they antedate the feathers of Archaeopteryx, the first known bird from the Late Jurassic.’

Feduccia et al, ‘Early adaptive radiation of birds: evidence from fossils from North-eastern China’, Science 274, 1164 - 1167 (1996)
‘Late Jurassic and Early Cretaceous birds from northeastern China, including many complete skeletons of Confuciusornis, provide evidence for a fundamental dichotomy in the class Aves that may antedate the temporal occurrence of the Late Jurassic Archaeopteryx. The abundance of Confuciusornis may provide evidence of avian social behavior. Jurassic skeletal remains of an ornithurine bird lend further support to the idea of an early separation of the line that gave rise to modern birds. Chaoyangia, an ornithurine bird from the Early Cretaceous of China, has premaxillary teeth’

Feduccia and Burke, ‘Developmental patterns and the identification of homologies in the avian hand’. Science 278; 666 - 668 (1996) ‘Comparison to serially homologous elements of the hindlimb indicates that the retained digits of the avian hand are II-III-IV’

Feduccia et al, ‘A diapsid skull in a new species of the primitive bird, Confuciusornis’, Nature 399, 679 - 682 (1999)
‘Here we report a new species based on a remarkably well preserved skeleton with feathers and, for the first time in the Mesozoic record, direct evidence of the shape of a horny beak…The presence of a typical diapsid cheek region with two openings in Confuciusornis may preclude the presence of prokinesis (upper jaw mobility against the braincase and orbital area), a feeding adaptation found in most modern birds. The presence of a horny beak, characteristic of modern birds, coupled with a primitive temporal region provides new evidence for a mosaic pattern in the early evolution of birds.’

That’s a transitional

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[dcdurel]

hecd2:

The papal condemnation was issued by the Holy Office of the Inquisition, established by the Church to suppress heresy and promote theological orthodoxy. The condemnation was not issued by a few theologians lacking magisterial authority, but a body imbued by the Pope with the full authority to determine and eliminate heresy. The actual Inquisitional court that condemned Galileo comprised ten cardinals. Your apologetics are misleading.

No, the body was imbued by the Pope to deal with disciplinary matters regarding Galileo. The body had NO teaching authority. None whatsoever. The ONLY time the Holy Office had teaching authority was when it became known as the Pontifical Biblical Commission, and that authority extended from 1914 to 1962, if I remember correctly.

Don’t you think that after 2000 years of scrutiny by those who hate the Church that someone would actually be able to find an error in the Pope’s teachings? Of course, and all the Protestants, and Secular Humanists today would jump on that teaching and have it posted all over the internet, and in every book in the world.
It is a well known fact the the Catholic Church is infallible in ALL her teachings. And the Popes, as head of the Church, have NEVER taught error when officially teaching for the whole Church.

Since you seem to believe in evolution. Let me ask you something simple. Please describe how the first living organism evolved from chemicals on the earth. Of course, be sure to get the latest scientific information regarding the amount of oxygen on the earth at that time. Don’t refer me to a web site. Just post a clear and lucid answer.

 

[Led_Zeppelin75]

dcdurel:

No, the body was imbued by the Pope to deal with disciplinary matters regarding Galileo. The body had NO teaching authority. None whatsoever. The ONLY time the Holy Office had teaching authority was when it became known as the Pontifical Biblical Commission, and that authority extended from 1914 to 1962, if I remember correctly.

Don’t you think that after 2000 years of scrutiny by those who hate the Church that someone would actually be able to find an error in the Pope’s teachings? Of course, and all the Protestants, and Secular Humanists today would jump on that teaching and have it posted all over the internet, and in every book in the world.
It is a well known fact the the Catholic Church is infallible in ALL her teachings. And the Popes, as head of the Church, have NEVER taught error when officially teaching for the whole Church.

Since you seem to believe in evolution. Let me ask you something simple. Please describe how the first living organism evolved from chemicals on the earth. Of course, be sure to get the latest scientific information regarding the amount of oxygen on the earth at that time. Don’t refer me to a web site. Just post a clear and lucid answer.

**Level of ignorance of that post: **89.94783/100.

dcdurel:

No, the body was imbued by the Pope to deal with disciplinary matters regarding Galileo. The body had NO teaching authority. None whatsoever. The ONLY time the Holy Office had teaching authority was when it became known as the Pontifical Biblical Commission, and that authority extended from 1914 to 1962, if I remember correctly…

Well, the pope DID summon Galileo to the Inquisition because he proved the Church’s scientific theory on the geocentric theory wrong. The church had an official teaching: the geocentric theory. And when that got proven wrong they tried to kill him for it.

dcdurel:

Don’t you think that after 2000 years of scrutiny by those who hate the Church that someone would actually be able to find an error in the Pope’s teachings? Of course, and all the Protestants, and Secular Humanists today would jump on that teaching and have it posted all over the internet, and in every book in the world.
It is a well known fact the the Catholic Church is infallible in ALL her teachings. And the Popes, as head of the Church, have NEVER taught error when officially teaching for the whole Church. .

**LOL!! **

You, my freind, are suffering from a virus called ignoratious idiotoic. You quite obviously have never heard an atheist arguement have you? The Church origianlly condemned Darwin and evolution, but now the POPE ACCEPTS EVOLUTION! No a very good Catholc are you now? Catholics gererally pride themselves on two things:

1. The church never changes
2. The church is constantly changing.

Why have there been so many diffrent councils? The Church has revised many of her doctrines. So why would the be revised? One of them isn’t telling truth, that is supposeing Christians are right when they say “god never changes”.

Educate yourself: atheisme.free.fr/Atheisme/Arguments_e.htm

Now onto your next brilliant statement:

dcdurel:

Since you seem to believe in evolution. Let me ask you something simple. Please describe how the first living organism evolved from chemicals on the earth. Of course, be sure to get the latest scientific information regarding the amount of oxygen on the earth at that time. Don’t refer me to a web site. Just post a clear and lucid answer.

Since for some reason you don’t want a site I’ll copy text: (I’ll put it on another post (wont fit here)

 

[Led_Zeppelin75]

Biologists consider the existence of biological evolution to be a fact. It can be demonstrated today and the historical evidence for its occurrence in the past is overwhelming. However, biologists readily admit that they are less certain of the exact mechanism of evolution; there are several theories of the mechanism of evolution. evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world’s data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don’t go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein’s theory of gravitation replaced Newton’s in this century, but apples didn’t suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin’s proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered.
We also need to distinguish between facts that are easy to demonstrate and those that are more circumstantial. Examples of evolution that are readily apparent include the fact that modern populations are evolving and the fact that two closely related species share a common ancestor. The evidence that Homo sapiens and chimpanzees share a recent common ancestor falls into this category. There is so much evidence in support of this aspect of primate evolution that it qualifies as a fact by any common definition of the word “fact.”

In other cases the available evidence is less strong. For example, the relationships of some of the major phyla are still being worked out. Also, the statement that all organisms have descended from a single common ancestor is strongly supported by the available evidence, and there is no opposing evidence. However, it is not yet appropriate to call this a “fact” since there are reasonable alternatives.

Finally, there is an epistemological argument against evolution as fact. Some readers of these newsgroups point out that nothing in science can ever be “proven” and this includes evolution. According to this argument, the probability that evolution is the correct explanation of life as we know it may approach 99.9999…9% but it will never be 100%. Thus evolution cannot be a fact. This kind of argument might be appropriate in a philosophy class (it is essentially correct) but it won’t do in the real world. A “fact,” as Stephen J. Gould pointed out (see above), means something that is so highly probable that it would be silly not to accept it. This point has also been made by others who contest the nit-picking epistemologists.

And if this isn’t enough stip being so lazy and read the bloody site: talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html

 

[hecd2]

dcdurel:

There are many excellent scientists who totally reject Darwinian evolution. Just because yo yo’s like Dave Hunt also reject it doesn’t mean anything. They have to get somethings right now and then.
It is such a pleasure to read the ideas of those who are honest, open and objective, like this professor Professor David Menton and Feduccia and Gould. While the latter two believe in the theory, they are honest enough to admit the serious problems in the theory.

I seriously doubt that you have actually ever read any Gould (or Feduccia) outside the misrepresentation of their views on creationist resources.

Let me quote you some things from Stephen Jay Gould’s ‘The Structure of Evolutionary Theory’ - his last work and his 1400 page magnum opus:
'Since modern creatonists…can advance no conceivable argument in the domain of proper logic or accurate empirics, they have always relied, as a primary strategy, upon the misquotation of scientific sources. They [read Answers in Genesis here] have shamelessly distorted all major evolutionists in their behalf, including the most committed gradualists of the Modern Sythesis…Since punctuated equilibrium provides an even easier target for this form of intellectual dishonesty (or crass stupidity if a charge of dishonesty grants them too much acumen), no one should be surprised that our views have become grist for their mills and skills of distortion.

Standard creationist literature on punctuated equilibrium rarely goes beyond the continuous recycling of two false characterizations: the conflation of punctuated equilibrium with the true saltationism of Goldschmidt’s hopeful monsters, and the misscaling of punctuated equilibrium’s genuine breaks between species to the claim that no intermediaries exist for the larger morphological transitions between classes and phyla.’

In 1997 he wrote the following in response to an egregious misuse of his views by Rep Capps of the North Carolina General Assembly in a justly failed attempt to ban the teaching of evolution as a fact:
‘My article is not an attack on evolution at all, but an attempt to explain how evolution, properly interpreted, yields the results we see in the fossil record…the modern theory of evolution does not require gradual change. In fact the operation of Darwinian processes should yield exactly what we see in the fossil record.’

Now, lest you too be accused of intellectual dishonesty or crass stupidity by misusing Gould’s views, just what do you think are the specific serious problems with evolutionary theory that Gould ‘admitted’?

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[PhilVaz]

I’d like to keep arguing with dcdurel, but I also think the thread should end sometime soon.

Just what I figured, dcdurel goes to AnswersInGenesis and other creationist sites to get the real scoop on evolution. That’s not the way to do it. Go to evolutionists and Feduccia himself, he has articles online you can read for yourself. I cited from an interview on his 1996 book, and you said that is his “old view.” Then you proceed to quote from a 1993 article saying his “new view” is that Archaeopteryx is a bird. Hello, his 1996 book and the 1997 interview I cited dates after your 1993 article. All Feduccia is saying in your quotes from him is that birds did not evolve from (or are not directly related to) the dinosaurs. I’ve already explained your misunderstanding. He accepts bird evolution as a fact as do all reputable scientists, and says they took a different path over a shorter period of time (5 to 10 million years).

I concede Archaeopteryx is “classified” as a bird because it has feathers. Only birds have feathers. Reptiles do not have feathers. That’s not the issue. The issue is whether Archaeopteryx also clearly has reptile characteristics. It does, Feduccia accepts that as I cited above, and this is spelled out in this TalkOrigins article. Another summary of Feduccia’s view is found here. His home page at UNC is found here. Maybe we can write him together and see who represents him correctly. Dr. Kenneth Miller responds to his Email, maybe this guy does too.

I and others have dealt with your other “frauds” in many other past threads: evidence for human evolution, peppered moth (not a hoax), origin of life, etc. You are exaggerating the so-called “problems” with evolution while ignoring the best evidence. I am not trained in biology or geology but it takes a few minutes (maybe a few hours) online to see the qualitative difference between TalkOrigins and much of the stuff you find at ICR or AiG. They can’t admit any transitional forms because of their young-earth interpretations of early Genesis, not because the evidence of transitionals is not conclusive.

You don’t want to accept evolution, that’s fine. Don’t accept it then. I’ve already answered much of your posts, HECD2 and others provide more documentation. Check it out with an open mind. And you should forget those creationist sites, and go to a university library if you are serious. I’ve done it myself, but the Internet is more convenient.

Phil P

 

[dcdurel]

PhilVaz:

I’d like to keep arguing with dcdurel, but I also think the thread should end sometime soon.

I concede Archaeopteryx is “classified” as a bird because it has feathers. Only birds have feathers. Reptiles do not have feathers. That’s not the issue. The issue is whether Archaeopteryx also clearly has reptile characteristics. It does, Feduccia accepts that as I cited above, and this is spelled out in this TalkOrigins article. Another summary of Feduccia’s view is found here. His home page at UNC is found here. Maybe we can write him together and see who represents him correctly. Dr. Kenneth Miller responds to his Email, maybe this guy does too.

I am quoting from your link “a summary of Feduccia’s view”
“He contends that Archaeopteryx wasn’t the ancestor of all birds, but just another of nature’s many experiments. He argues that a huge evolution of birds had been going on before[italics] Archaeopteryx, and that they evolved from four-legged forest reptiles.”
Notice that he admits "Archaeopteryx wasn’t the ancestor of all birds". Thus it was NOT the missing link you have been misled to believe.

Again Feduccia said:
"Paleontologists have tried to turn Archaeopteryx into an earthbound feathered dinosaur. But it’s not. It is a bird, a perching bird. And no amount of ‘paleobabble’ is going to change that."
(Feduccia, Alan; “Evidence from Claw Geometry Indicating Arboreal Habits of Archaeopteryx,” Science, 259:790, 1993. Morell, Virginia; “Archaeopteryx: Early Bird Catches a Can of Worms,” Science, 259:764, 1993. Monastersky, R.; “Flight: A Bird Hand Is Worthy in the Bush,” Science News, 143:87, 1993.)

Thus, Archaeopteryx was not a missing link. It was a bird, not a half bird, not a missing link, that is why Feducci says, “it was not the ancestor of all birds”, I am quoting YOUR link. If it was a missing link, it would have to be the ancestor of all birds.
If you notice what Feduccia says, he dismisses ALL dinosaur-bird links. In his theory, which makes sense if you study his writings and if you accept the myth of evolution, is that birds would have had to evolve from a much earlier reptile than dinosaurs. And there are NO missing links to these reptiles and birds. None. He thinks they will be found, just as evolutionists think all missing links will be found one day. Of course they never are.

Thus I repeat, there are NO missing link fossils between reptiles and birds. None, zero, zilch. And there never will be. For even if you believe in the theory of natural selection, a reptile would have to develope a useless leg, and this useless leg would have to become even more useless for walking or climbing for millions of years, until it developed enough to fly with. And the theory of natural selection will not permit that. For ONLY beneficial mutations will be selected for, and useless legs are not beneficial mutations.

So what about all those so called missing links you posted in the beginning? Why does Feduccia dismiss all those, and the evolution web sites you found promote them? Because most evolutionists are blind fanatics and will grab at anything to promote their cause. Feduccia is obviously more objective, much more knowledgable, so much so that even the blind fanatics have to listen to him. But, he and others like him, such as Gould, are few and far between. The others constantly grab at straws and pronounce everthing a missing link. Look how the National Geographic bought Archaeorapture hook line and sinker. Look how they are always financing Leaky and his Lucy.

 

[dcdurel]

Phil, lets study real science, instead of the junk science of Darwinian evolution

“The moment a person forms a theory, his imagination sees, in every object, only the traits which favor that theory.”
Thomas Jefferson to Charles Thompson - 1787

To sum it up, here is what Dr. Austin Clark, a leading biologist of the Smithsonian Institute in Washington has to day about the subject: "No matter how far back we go in the fossil record of previous animal life on earth, we find no trace of any animal forms which are intermediate between the major groups of phyla. Scientists have sometimes come up with a few things that they have elected as candidates as transitions, but on a later closer examination these have been seen to be misinterpretations. There are no such things as missing links. … Missing links are misinterpretations."50

Lehigh University professor of biochemistry Michael Behe’s 1993 book Darwin’s Black Box had an enormous impact on the scientific world. It shows that at the molecular level (the proteins and enzymes) the picture of every organism is one of irreducible complexity. They are more complex than a computer or a space ship and filled with intricate parts which all have to work together34
For example, complex functions like vision and digestion are performed by intricate biochemical molecular machines. If one part were to evolve in isolation, the entire system of interacting parts would stop functioning; and since, according to Darwinism, natural selection preserves the forms that function better than their rivals, the nonfunctioning system would be eliminated by natural selection - like the fish with lungs. Therefore, there is no possible Darwinian explanation of how irreducibly complex structures and systems came into existence.14, 17

Living things cannot simply change piecemeal - a new organ here, a new limb there. An organism is an integrated system with many interdependent components, and any isolated change in the system is more likely to be harmful than helpful.16, 17

Even Darwin himself understood the problem and admitted that it could falsify his theory. “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications,” he wrote, “my theory would absolutely break down.” Today we can say with confidence that his theory has broken down, for we now know that creation is full of examples of complex organs that could not possibly have been formed by numerous, slight modifications - life is just too complex to support the theory of evolution.14, 17

 

[dcdurel]

**Level of ignorance of that post: **89.94783/100.
The Church origianlly condemned Darwin and evolution, but now the POPE ACCEPTS EVOLUTION! No a very good Catholc are you now? Catholics gererally pride themselves on two things:

1. The church never changes
2. The church is constantly changing.
   Why have there been so many diffrent councils? The Church has revised many of her doctrines. So why would the be revised? One of them isn’t telling truth, that is supposeing Christians are right when they say “god never changes”.
   Educate yourself: atheisme.free.fr/Atheisme/Arguments_e.htm
   Now onto your next brilliant statement:
   Since for some reason you don’t want a site I’ll copy text: (I’ll put it on another post (wont fit here)

You make many errors.
The Church never condemned Darwin. The Holy Office held a trial disciplining Darwin. The Holy Office is not the Church. The Holy Office had no teaching authority at that time, thus it could not teach for the Church. It was a discipinary body. The opinions of the Pope are not Church teaching. The Pope only teaches for the Church when he teaches as head of the Church to all Christians on matters pertaining to faith or morals. The Pope did neither with Galileo. He never addressed the whole Church about Galileo’s views, he never taught as head of the Church said that Galileo’s views are heretical or not heretical. The Holy Office was NOT an extension of the Pope’s teaching office.

If you want to understand what the Catholic Church teaches, you must go to Catholic documents, such as the Catechism, Vatican II, etc. You will not learn the truth on atheist web sites

You wrote:
"Catholics gererally pride themselves on two things:

1. The church never changes
2. The church is constantly changing."

This is False. The Church always changes. The Church teaches that her** teachings will never change**. They will be understood better, and what is implicit in divine revelation will become explicit with time. But the clearer more explicit newer understanding will never contradict what has been taught before.

Again, you will make no progress with a knowlegable Catholic by quoting the errors of anti-Catholic web sites.

I will repeat this again, since you seem to have trouble learning.
The ONLY teaching authority in the Church is the Pope and those few bishops in union with the Pope.

No one else has teaching authority. Neither the Cardinals, theologians, scripture scholars, priests, bishops apart from the Pope, the Holy Office (Unless the Pope specifically gives it teaching authority), nor friends of the Pope, nor saints, nor Doctors of the Church have teaching authority.

 

[dcdurel]

Led Zeppelin75:

Since for some reason you don’t want a site I’ll copy text: (I’ll put it on another post (wont fit here)

And I repeat again, the Catholic Church has NEVER taught error in 2000 years. That is why you cannot get any agreement by anti-Catholic protestants, atheists, secularists, news media, etc. on any error they can find. For there is no error in Church teaching.

Second, whether the Pope accepts evolution is a moot point. What the Pope believes is not Church teaching. The only thing Catholics have to know is if the Pope teaches that evolution is part of God’s Divine Revelation. And he never has. Also, there are many different theories of evolution. He could never teach a Darwinian evolution, because that evolution rejects God. He could possibly teach an evolution in which God is control of everything that happens. That is why he said there are many theories of evolution.

The personal beliefs of the Pope are not Church teaching. Only what the Pope defines as a matter for all Christians to believe is Church teaching.

Also, the Church has never revised any doctrine. The Church has never contradicted any previous teaching. Once the Church teaches something, that teaching will never change. The Church is infallible, because God founded the Church and gave the leaders of the Church HIS DIVINE AUTHORITY.

Thus, the Church is NOT a man-made organization. It is a DIVINE organization, made up of sinful men, under the leadership of a sinful Pope, who cannot teach error when teaching for the whole Church on matters pertaining to faith or morals.

The reason Jesus founded the Church was so that sinners would have the grace to overcome their sins and eventually spend eternity in heaven with Him.

Thus, Jesus did not start the Church in order to condemn sinful men, but He founded it so that sinful men would have a source of grace to be freed from their sins and have some degee of happiness in this world.
In other words, Jesus loves athiests and He wants them to believe in Him and join His Church so that they can find happiness now on this earth and forever, by the grace He merited. He gives us this grace freely through prayer and through His sacraments. He wants all to have this grace. He wants everyone to be happy.

 

[teajay]

I just have a general question. Before I ask it, I’d just like to make clear that my view on evolution pretty much matches that which is taken by the majority of scientists (that I have read or been taught by). So, although I studied biochemistry towards the end of my science degree, I do have some understanding of the principles behind evolution (at least as it was understood in 1993 when I studied biology and 1994 when I studied genetics). I’ve done a bit of reading on polygenism and it seems to be the generally accepted view held by scientists.

My question is, how are humans defined, from a genetic perspective? I am just trying to imagine a scenario in which a non-human (incredibly near to human but not quite fulfilling the definition) could give birth to a human (that comes within the scope of the definition). Could a single mutation in a single gene (say a developmental gene) be sufficient to distinguish between two species? Or would something have to occur at the chromosome level? How do scientists see that “final step” as occuring? I have trouble imagining a definition that includes all human variation (including those with genetic defects) but excludes our most immediate non-homo sapien ancestors.

 

[ISABUS]

hecd2:

Dear Mary,

Thank for this - fascinating - reconstructing ancestral genomens and karyotypes is a new science. Not long ago in Nature we had this, that I posted once before:

Jaillon et al,‘Genome duplication in the teleost fish Tetraodon nigroviridis reveals the early vertebrate proto-karyotype, Nature 431; 946 -957’

The paper is too detailed and involved to summarise in any detail here, but the two major conclusions are that sometime in the ancestry of teleost fish about 230 million years ago there occured a complete genome duplication (if you are interested I can post a summary of the evidence for this); and that the common ancestor of humans and puffer fish (which lived about 400 million years ago) had 12 pairs of chromosomes (puffer fish have 21 pairs and humans 23 pairs) - they even determine on which of the 12 chromosomes of our common ancestor (which was an unknown primitive fish) particular genes reside. They also determine the major chromosomal events that occurred in the puffer fish lineage to convert from the 12 ancestral to the extant 21 chromosomes: a whole genome duplication, two ancient fusions, three recent fusions, one ancient and one recent fission and three major translocations). A similar analysis in the human lineage shows a more complicated pattern of chromosomal rearrangements but correctly predicts the well known recent fusion of two primate chromosomes to form human chromosome 2, the different origins of the two arms of the human X-chromosome, and the fission of a single ancestral chromosome to form chromosome 12 and 22 in the primates.

However fascinating, neither of these are particularly strong evidence for evolution - they both use evolutionary theory to arrive at their conclusions.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

Dear Alec ~

Thank you for sharing this information with me. Yes, I would be interested in the summary of the evidence.

Please correct me if I am wrong, it seems to me that the ‘evidence’ of Evolution has raised a higher level of consciousness among individuals which allows them to create a new vision by using evolution theory. Is this the Science of Evolution?

At Howard Hughes Medical Institute they published an article on November 21, 2004, **Visualizing the End of the Human Genome. ** hhmi.org/news/cech2.html

Why is this important to know? What is the benefit of this knowledge. How will it help us in the long run? Hope you don’t mind me asking. I’m curious.

Again, thank you.

Mary ~