Evolution

[Marocchino]

Argumentum ad silentio. Genesis attests that all that came into being came into being from God, and nothing had its existence apart from God. It says nothing of the ***way ***God chose to create.

Actually, it does. It tells us exactly what God created on each of the 6 days. God later attests to the factuality of the hexaemeron in Exodus 20:11: “For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, and the sea, and all things that are in them, and rested on the seventh day: therefore the Lord blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it”.

Argumentum ad silentio. Have you found one that asserts we must believe in Creationism?.

Evolutionary theories were well known to the Patristics; Greek philosophers like Anaximander proposed long ages and an emergence of more complex species from simpler ones. The Fathers opposed such theories and held to the literal meaning of Genesis.

I believe I cited that one a couple of times in the last week. It does not exclude evolution. It permits the concept of day being viewed in a figurative sense. Thus one of the major Creationist arguments is shot down.

It says that day may be interpreted as signifiying a period of time greater than 24 hours. My point is that all of the Fathers except Augustine (who said God created all things instantaneously) and Origen (who allegorized everything) interpreted the Genesis days as 24 hour periods; so I’ll do the same but I won’t bind anyone else to it.

I believe the word former is the most significant word in that statement. Are you lumping all evolutionists together because they believe in evolution? If so, under this logic, one can group Lefebvre and Hans Kung together because they are Catholic.

From what I have read, Dr. Ayala is not an apostate. He still claims to be a Catholic.

If Catholics who believe in evolution believe that all humans descended from Adam and Eve, you have much explaining to do. Once again, no theistic evolutionist has properly explained the theory to me. I welcome you to do so.

 

[Marocchino]

If they do believe that
Catholics did not descend from Adam and Eve, then they are contradicting Church teachings.If they persist in contradicting Church teachings, then they are protestants.

Actually, one who contradicts Church teaching is a heretic. Not all heretics are Protestants, but all Protestants are heretics.

Protestants are not to be counted as Catholics. But it is better for you to quote here and show the link of what Ayala actually said.

Type Franciso J Ayala in Google and read about his scientific experiments yourself.

 

[agangbern]

Actually, one who contradicts Church teaching is a heretic. Not all heretics are Protestants, but all Protestants are heretics…

There is a little defect in that line of thinking. But the defect is negligible. So,let us keep it that way.

 

[Marocchino]

There is a little defect in that line of thinking. But the defect is negligible. So,let us keep it that way.

After you read Ayala’s scientific reports, take a course in elementary logic.

 

[grannymh]

.Regarding this statement

Evolutionary theory excludes the possibility that all humans have descended from one couple; thus, it destroys original sin, which is spread by propagation (not imitation).

No, that’s wrong. It is not impossible. And of course, if God miraculously gives people immortal souls, He can easily give them to two orginal ancestors. Why do you think the Pope accepts the common descent of all living things

?

And why is the most obvious question missing?—

Before anyone can say that “Evolutionary theory excludes the possibility that all humans have descended from one couple,”
a simple logical, scientific question has to be asked. Get the answer to one simple basic question and then follow-up with the obvious related questions.

Since I am writing this pre-Pepsi, my brain may be sliding on the ice patch rather than operating in gear. There is an old saying: “a chain is only as strong as its weakest link.” Coincidentally, evolution is often simplified to being the link between the present and the past when life was in its earliest forms.

Now this “chain” did not fall from a tree in one, whole, intact, ready for market masterpiece. If it did, scientists would be looking for work in Hollywood. Nor is every link created equal in regards to quality, reliability, predictability, replication and so on.

I can’t think of any reason why the whole of current evolutionary theory, which includes necessary speculation, must be taken as an unquestionable fact. Does it make sense to accept the weakest and most damaging links as absolute?

Blessings,
granny

God smiled when He created human beings, seeing that they were very good. Genesis 1:31

 

[agangbern]

Type Franciso J Ayala in Google and read about his scientific experiments yourself.

I did not find there any statement of Ayala saying he does not believe that we descended from Adam and Eve.

 

[grannymh]

After you read Ayala’s scientific reports, take a course in elementary logic.

Are you referring to:

Ayala, The myth of Eve, Molecular biology and human origins, Science 270, 1930 - 1936

Is this on line somewhere?

Google and I are not the best of friends so if you have a direct link, I would appreciate it.

Blessings,
granny

All human life is sacred.

 

[Marocchino]

I did not find there any statement of Ayala saying he does not believe that we descended from Adam and Eve.

“The second example concerns an autosomal recessive disorder in lipid metabolism due to the absence of apolipoprotein C-II, the physiological activator of lipoprotein lipase, a key enzyme in very low density lipoprotein metabolism. Two deleterious alleles, one from a Venezuelian Caucasian family and one from a Japanese family, share a frameshift mutation suggesting common ancestry. These two mutants diverged from the normal allele at least 2 Myr B. P. The persistence of two defective alleles over such a long time is a puzzle, perhaps a consequence of small heterozygote advantage. But this persistence (i) argues against extremely small population bottlenecks throughout the Pleistocene human history, and (ii) favors the conclusion that European and Asian H. erectus have contributed to the gene pool of modern H. sapiens.” ~ Francisco J. Ayala, Ananias Escalante, Colm O’hUigin and Jan Klein, “Molecular Genetics of Speciation and Human Origins,” Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci, USA, 91:6787-6794, July 1994, p.
6793.

 

[Darwinsbulldog]

Well, if I may, address some misconceptions about evolution. Frogs do not turn into reptiles, and reptiles into mammals or birds.

All species can be traced back to a common ancestor. Humans for example, share a common ancestor with the great apes. In fact, we know [almost certainly] the event which caused the split off between the great apes and man. The fusion of chromosomes 13 and 2. Human chromosome two is actually a “double” This is why apes have 48 chromosomes, but humans only 46.
Have a look here:-
evolutionpages.com/chromosome_2.htm

Or even better, Ken Miller’s video:-
youtube.com/watch?v=zi8FfMBYCkk
Prof. Kenneth B. Miller’s website:-
bms.brown.edu/faculty/m/kmiller/
Ken is a Catholic!!

Another thing I would like to mention: speciation is not an overnight process…previously interbreeding populations of the same species accumulate differences over time due to local selection pressures, and fertility between those populations slowly drop until they cannot interbreed to produce fertile offspring.

I can also highly recommend his book “Finding Darwin’s God” (1999, 2007)

Finally, I am familiar with Genesis and evolutionary theory, and they do not agree-not even close. One is theory, and the other, of course, science.

 

[agangbern]

“The second example concerns an autosomal recessive disorder in lipid metabolism due to the absence of apolipoprotein C-II, the physiological activator of lipoprotein lipase, a key enzyme in very low density lipoprotein metabolism. Two deleterious alleles, one from a Venezuelian Caucasian family and one from a Japanese family, share a frameshift mutation suggesting common ancestry. These two mutants diverged from the normal allele at least 2 Myr B. P. The persistence of two defective alleles over such a long time is a puzzle, perhaps a consequence of small heterozygote advantage. But this persistence (i) argues against extremely small population bottlenecks throughout the Pleistocene human history, and (ii) favors the conclusion that European and Asian H. erectus have contributed to the gene pool of modern H. sapiens.” ~ Francisco J. Ayala, Ananias Escalante, Colm O’hUigin and Jan Klein, “Molecular Genetics of Speciation and Human Origins,” Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci, USA, 91:6787-6794, July 1994, p.
6793.

I still did not find in your above quote Ayala saying he does not believe that man descended from Adam andEve.

 

[agangbern]

After you read Ayala’s scientific reports, take a course in elementary logic.

nice advice…just be sure you fully mastered the the rules of categorical syllogism.

 

[grannymh]

Well, if I may, address some misconceptions about evolution. Frogs do not turn into reptiles, and reptiles into mammals or birds.

All species can be traced back to a common ancestor.
.

Dear Dawinsbulldog,

Welcome to the ever challenging forum.

I did check out the two websites you mentioned and will go back to them. Anything which depends on sound is out for me since my computer is without it.

Speaking of misconceptions.

I am curious about what exactly a common ancestor is since my early reading on evolution talks about the components which got together to make a living cell or was it bacteria…

Blessings,
granny

All human beings are worthy of profound respect.

 

[Darwinsbulldog]

Dear Dawinsbulldog,

Welcome to the ever challenging forum.

I did check out the two websites you mentioned and will go back to them. Anything which depends on sound is out for me since my computer is without it.

Speaking of misconceptions.

I am curious about what exactly a common ancestor is since my early reading on evolution talks about the components which got together to make a living cell or was it bacteria…

Blessings,
granny

All human beings are worthy of profound respect.

The first cell was probably very simple, but I did not mean to take you back that far, because of course, science cannot answer that question. The first cell was probably even simpler than bacteria, which are, of course, modern life forms. Within any grouping of life however: Eucalyptus trees, mushrooms, humans or cats, they all have a common ancestor at the root of their particular tree of life.

Evolutionary theory does not actually cover the ultimate origin question, because it is [at present at least] not a testable question. There are strong indications however, that natural selection may have operated on a chemical basis. Who knows ? God could have been the FIRST CAUSE. Possible, but I don’t believe that, I have no objections to others believing that though-I just think it may have been a totally natural process without any external agency. But all this happened about 3.6 billion years ago, and although I am old, I am not quite that old, so I cannot say for sure either way!

 

[buffalo]

The first cell was probably very simple, but I did not mean to take you back that far, because of course, science cannot answer that question. The first cell was probably even simpler than bacteria, which are, of course, modern life forms. Within any grouping of life however: Eucalyptus trees, mushrooms, humans or cats, they all have a common ancestor at the root of their particular tree of life.

Evolutionary theory does not actually cover the ultimate origin question, because it is [at present at least] not a testable question. There are strong indications however, that natural selection may have operated on a chemical basis. Who knows ? God could have been the FIRST CAUSE. Possible, but I don’t believe that, I have no objections to others believing that though-I just think it may have been a totally natural process without any external agency. But all this happened about 3.6 billion years ago, and although I am old, I am not quite that old, so I cannot say for sure either way!

You may soon have to change your name as the EES states that continuous small incremental steps ( Darwinism) cannot explain saltations.

 

[grannymh]

You may soon have to change your name as the EES states that continuous small incremental steps ( Darwinism) cannot explain saltations.

It is time for me to make a list of meanings …

What is EES?

and what do other mysterious science-related letter combinations mean?

Thanks.

Blessings,
granny
HLIS (Human Life Is Sacred)

 

[buffalo]

It is time for me to make a list of meanings …

What is EES?

and what do other mysterious science-related letter combinations mean?

Thanks.

Blessings,
granny
HLIS (Human Life Is Sacred)

Extended Evolutionary Synthesis

 

[Marocchino]

Another thing I would like to mention: speciation is not an overnight process…previously interbreeding populations of the same species accumulate differences over time due to local selection pressures, and fertility between those populations slowly drop until they cannot interbreed to produce fertile offspring.

Finally, I am familiar with Genesis and evolutionary theory, and they do not agree-not even close. One is theory, and the other, of course, science.

I know how evolution works. And you are correct, Genesis and evolution do not agree. I will remain committed to this position until a theistic evolutionist offers me a consistent explanation of his theory.

I still did not find in your above quote Ayala saying he does not believe that man descended from Adam andEve.

Adam and Eve would be an extremely small population bottleneck (actually, what Ayala refers to as an extremely small bottleneck is a population under 10 000, so 2 would be inconceivably small in the evolutionary framework). Ayala says that the data he refers to argues against an extremely small population bottleneck. Understand?

nice advice…just be sure you fully mastered the the rules of categorical syllogism.

LOL, you’re a real joker. OK, first I’ll apologize for my uncharitable remark. Now I’ll explain what I meant by all Protestants are heretics but not all heretics are Protestants (which is a logically sound statement). There were heretics around before the Protestant Reformation of 1517. The Gnostics of the first century were heretics. Then came the Montanists (2nd century), the Sabellians (3rd cent.), the Arians (4th cent.), the Pelagians (5th cent.), the Nestorians (5th cent.), the Monophysites (5th cent.), the Iconoclasts (7th/8th cent.), the Cathars (11th cent.), the Protestants (16th cent.), and the Jansenists (17th cent.). So, like I said, not all heretics are Protestants – some are Nestorians, some are Iconoclasts; but ALL Protestants are heretics.

You’re going to have to start paying me per reply I give you.

 

[Marocchino]

You may soon have to change your name as the EES states that continuous small incremental steps ( Darwinism) cannot explain saltations.

If I am not mistaken, Darwin’s bulldog himself (Mr Huxley) pointed out the weakness of evolutionary gradualism.

 

[grannymh]

Adam and Eve would be an extremely small population bottleneck (actually, what Ayala refers to as an extremely small bottleneck is a population under 10 000, so 2 would be inconceivably small in the evolutionary framework). Ayala says that the data he refers to argues against an extremely small population bottleneck. Understand?

Are you referring to:

Ayala, The myth of Eve, Molecular biology and human origins, Science 270, 1930 - 1936

If so, please provide a link. Thank you.
If you have a link to current work, I would apeciate that also.

Blessings,
granny

Human life is worthy of profound respect.

 

[Marocchino]

Are you referring to:

Ayala, The myth of Eve, Molecular biology and human origins, Science 270, 1930 - 1936

If so, please provide a link. Thank you.
If you have a link to current work, I would apeciate that also.

Blessings,
granny

Human life is worthy of profound respect.

Sorry Granny, I don’t have the link. You may want to check the Wikipedia article on Francisco J Ayala. It may provide links to some of his work.