Evolution

[The_Barbarian]

Sounds like you all are in the middle of a philosophical discussion regarding evolution. So I have some philosophical thoughts about the beginning of evolution.

Apparently, evolutionary theory doesn’t extend to the exact origin of life, that wonderful nudge that got inanimate stuff becoming life. That gives me the idea that the door is wide open, So why can’t the philosophers say that God looked around and saw all the wonderful chemical properties and other goodies and decided to combine them in different ways.

I think that’s what He had in mind from the start. Stephen Gould once speculated that God made us because He wanted someone to share it with. Not bad for a self-proclaimed agnostic.

So instead of having one common source of life, there could be two.

It’s always been One. It’s just that He does almost everything by natural means in this world. Like life. He says the Earth brought forth life as He intended.

The second source of life would include the ability to become human with natural physical bodies and the ability to receive a supernatural soul.

So we, with sufficiently complicated nervous systems to do this, evolved. Perhaps, as Pope Benedict XVI suggests, the gift of a soul and that complicated nervous system moved things along a bit further.

Because their bodies would come from the same building blocks as other animals of course there would be similar genomes etc. between humans and monkeys etc. It’s called unity of creation.

It’s a bit more complicated than that. We have, for example, a modified quadruped skeleton which is partially converted to bipedalism. But there’s a lot of left-over stuff that causes us endless misery in feet, knees, hips, lower backs, etc. If God started over with us, this makes no sense at all.

It only makes sense if we evolved from quadrupedal primates. And there are hundreds of such traces of earlier adaptations that are no longer useful or even functional in us. I can do a list if you like. BTW, Wallace, who co-discovered natural selection with Darwin, believed what you are suggesting.

The ability to become human and the ability to receive a supernatural soul separates humanity from animals who do go through various kinds of bottlenecks. This creates another theory which theoretically can remove natural limits on procreation. The evidence for this idea would be the conflicting points in evolutionary theory. Logically, two conflicting points indicates more than one possibility. Bingo!

I’d like to see a little more detail, but I’m intrigued by your idea.

As long as we are philosophizing, the Garden of Eden would substitute for that nasty bottleneck that Ayala referred to.

I think the bottleneck may have come later.

 

[grannymh]

Quote:
or know the ‘cause’ for the diversity of life.

Random mutation and natural selection. If this seems contrary to faith, it might be time for you to learn about the different sorts of causes.

different sorts of causes [plural]…

Could there be another cause for the development of the physical (not soul, sole cause is God) or material nature of human life?

Why is the “the tree of animal life” the only game in town from natural scientific observation?

 

[grannymh]

Granny, I agree. Some of Ayala’s remarks are contradictory to Catholic teaching, which may be why he left the priesthood. But Ayala’s skewed theology is the result of a consistent theistic evolutionary position.

And do you agree with the point in post 282?

I beg to differ. Ayala’a skewed theology is the result of scientific research based on incomplete assumptions. And he is not alone in that regard.

 

[oriel16]

He wasn’t the first, you know. Aristarchus of Samos figured it out over a thousand years before Copernicus. And I had the “enjoyable experience” of doing the same observations as Aristarchus, and directly experiencing the process, as a teen.

It’s not hard to understand. Science follows Newton’s theory, because it works. They don’t follow yours, because it doesn’t work. End of story.

.

People who are generally indifferent to astronomy can actually tell you that Newton and those who follow his precepts have never experienced the enjoyable means by which Copernicus showed how the Earth orbits the central Sun .

The following time lapse footage of Jupiter and Saturn and their motions are explained by Galileo correctly -

antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/image/0112/JuSa2000_tezel.gif

" The illnesses are in Ptolemy, and the cures for them in
Copernicus. With Ptolemy it is necessary to assign
to the celestial bodies contrary movements, and make everything move from east to west and at the same time from west to east, whereas with Copernicus all celestial revolutions are in one direction, from west to east. And what are we to say of the apparent movement of a planet, so uneven that it not only goes fast at one time and slow at another, but sometimes stops entirely and even goes backward a long way after doing so? To save these appearances, Ptolemy introduces vast epicycles, adapting them one by one to each planet, with certain rules about incongruous motions–all of which can be done away with by one very simple motion of the earth. " Galileo

Then we have the distorted junk from Newton which makes no sense and is contrary to Western scientific Christian tradition -

" For to the earth planetary motions appear sometimes direct,
sometimes stationary, nay, and sometimes retrograde. But from the sun they are always seen direct," Newton

It is that simple,those who have the enjoyable experience of seeing how Copernicus realised that the Earth’s orbital motion overtaking the other planets accounts for the apparent retrograde/backward motions as we all head in one direction around the central Sun.

Those who follow Isaac and his false precepts based on his own idiosyncratic ‘observer on the Sun’ will be drawn like moths to a flame and imagine they know the ‘cause’ for the Earth’s motions.

Darwin was just jumping on the ‘law’ bandwagon created by the Arian Newton back in the 17th century but is all a silly mess for those who know no better.

Want to see how a Christian looks on creation,didn’t think so but here it is anyway -

“To see a World in a Grain of Sand
And a Heaven in a Wild Flower,
Hold Infinity in the palm of your hand
And Eternity in an hour.”

William Blake

 

[grannymh]

A good book I’m reading on evolution from the perspective of a doctor: What Darwin Didn’t Know by Geoffrey Simmons.

The body has between 10-100 trillion cells (no one knows the exact number) which conduct “more than a quadrillion purposeful chemical interactions each day … In many ways the human body functions like an extremely well-organized blizzard of invisible chemical responses and rapidly changing electrical impulses.” (page 16) As King David said in one of the Psalms: “we are fearsomely and wonderfully made!”

How interesting, thank you.

Does Geoffrey Simmons talk about the first or original chemical origins of the human body?

I would like someone to explain to me why it is assumed that there is only one primary source or cause – a cell coming together, chemical interactions, etc, – which becomes the trunk of the evolutionary tree of life.

Considering the fearsomely and wonderfully made (I love the passion of the psalms) body, why couldn’t humans be their own tree?

Speaking of trees – Two trees side by side in the same forest sink their roots in common soil sucking up the same nutrients under the same sun and rain. So of course, humans and monkeys coming from the same soil and environment would have lots of similar genomes and functional characteristics.

Blessings,
granny

Humanity is God’s pride and joy.

 

[oriel16]

Technically, it’s falling. If this puzzles you, read here.

.

The explanation of Kepler’s refinement of orbital motion is just as simple as the reasoning of Copernicus in resolving the apparent backward motion of the planets by realising the Earth is in motion between Venus and Mars.

I have yet to see a single person grasp the fundamental argument for the Earth’s orbital motion,at least here, so I have nothing to go on in terms of the “measure by which you measure”.

I have the gifts of God to know what Newton was doing with respect to Kepler,that he temporarily got away with it is due to lack of familiarity with the original reasoning of Copernicus and so it is to this day.To knowingly distort a very intricate correlation, between planetary periods and their distance from the Sun as Kepler did is vandalism on a scale not seen, yet modern imaging eases both the correct understanding of Kepler’s insight and the mutation Newton introduced to suit his own agenda.

Newton tries to be a scientific Moses with his ‘laws of motion’ and so are the rest who followed him in applying ‘laws’ to creation.All these nuisance Christians who beg questions without making the effort to understand their true Western scientific heritage will follow you and the uninspiring contrived notions whereas genuine Christians see true inspiration in the great works of the Christian scientists -

“A thief comes only to steal and slaughter and destroy; I came so that they might have life and have it more abundantly.” Jesus

 

[Marocchino]

Not one of them argued that the Earth orbited the Sun either. There’s a lesson there, if you’re willing to listen to it.

Well, sir, I do not see how the theory of heliocentrism / acentrism affects any Catholic doctrine. It possibly affects the doctrine of Biblical inerrancy but that is easily resolved by saying that the Biblical writers of the so-called geocentric passages were speaking according to appearances. Or maybe geocentrism is right. As a non-scientist who does not understand the physical formulae and reasoning involved in that debate, I do not argue for or against but I have an open mind and I am willing to consider that geocentrism may be true.

Evolution of the human species, on the other hand, directly affects the doctrine of original sin, which, as far as I am aware, requires that all humans are descended from Adam and Eve. Until someone either shows me A. that an evolutionary origin for the human species can be harmonized with universal human descent from Adam and Eve, or B. that original sin does not require that w have all descended from Adam and Eve, I have no choice but to remain a creationist, which is quite different from an “evolution-hater”. I don’t hate evolution, as genetic changes over time have produced my cocker spaniel from a savage wolf (caused by a loss of genetic information), but I do not see how genetic changes over time can produce man from a savage ape (caused by a gain in genetic information).

 

[The_Barbarian]

I have the gifts of God to know what Newton was doing with respect to Kepler…

Ah, who can argue with God?

 

[Marocchino]

And do you agree with the point in post 282?

Yes, but my point remains. His skewed theology is based on a consistent theistic evolutionary position (since evolutionary theory does not speak of an original two parents of the human species but of an evolving population), and his theistic evolutionary position may be the result of what you said.

 

[The_Barbarian]

Well, sir, I do not see how the theory of heliocentrism / acentrism affects any Catholic doctrine. I possibly affects the doctrine of Biblical inerrancy but that is easily resolved by saying that the Biblical writers of the so-called geocentris passages were speaking according to appearances.

In other words, you aren’t fearful of a heliocentric system, so it’s all right for God to do it that way.

Evolution of the human species, on the other hand, directly affects the doctrine of original sin, which, as far as I am aware, requires that all humans are descended from Adam and Eve.

Which is not contrary to evolutionary theory.

Until someone either shows me A. that an evolutionary origin for the human species can be harmonized with universal human descent from Adam and Eve

How do you think it isn’t in harmony? Do you suppose the Pope knows something you don’t? He has no problems with it, so long as people don’t try to make it a religious doctrine, or try to refute religion with it. (which is something scientists know can’t be done with scientific theories)

…I do not see how genetic changes over time can produce man from a savage ape.

Most apes are gentler than humans have been, although chimps can certainly behave like humans when aroused. That point aside, the argument from incredulity is simply vincible ignorance.

 

[Marocchino]

Most apes are gentler than humans have been, although chimps can certainly behave like humans when aroused. That point aside, the argument from incredulity is simply vincible ignorance.

My point was that the evolution of a human from an ape would be upward progression – a genetic increase. While from wolves to dogs it was a genetic loss. I called apes savages for poetic affect but I am aware that humans have a higher potential for savagery (and for good) than do apes, who act merely by instinct.

 

[Marocchino]

How do you think it isn’t in harmony? Do you suppose the Pope knows something you don’t? He has no problems with it, so long as people don’t try to make it a religious doctrine, or try to refute religion with it. (which is something scientists know can’t be done with scientific theories)

I have yet to hear Pope Benedict speak of Adam’s biological parents. Until he does so I will remain wary of his acceptance of theistic evolution.

 

[oriel16]

Ah, who can argue with God?

Its the difference between an Arian and a genuine Christian -

“We have not received the spirit of the world but the Spirit that is from God, so that we may understand the things freely given us by God.And we speak about them not with words taught by human wisdom, but with words taught by the Spirit, describing spiritual realities in spiritual terms.Now the natural person does not accept what pertains to the Spirit of God, for to him it is foolishness, and he cannot understand it, because it is judged spiritually.The spiritual person, however, can judge everything but is not subject to judgment by anyone.For “who has known the mind of the Lord, so as to counsel him?” But we have the mind of Christ.”

usccb.org/nab/bible/1corinthians/1corinthians2.htm

This is true,inspirational things are understood in like manner and that is why it is enjoyable going through the works of Copernicus and Kepler using modern imaging.

As for empiricism,it has painted itself into so many conceptual corners at the moment that it only survives out of the indifference of Christians and the wider popluation,it is great at making wide sweeping statements but effectively is an anti-scientific empty package in matters of structural/timekeeping astronomy and terrestrial evolutionary science.

 

[The_Barbarian]

I have yet to hear Pope Benedict speak of Adam’s biological parents. Until he does so I will remain wary of his acceptance of theistic evolution.

“Wary” is permitted. Declaring evolution to be contrary to Catholic belief, that’s denying what the Church teaches.

 

[FindTruth7]

Evolution , wow, it’s so unbelievably touchy for christians, I wonder what God thought in advance before we ever knew about it.

 

[The_Barbarian]

My point was that the evolution of a human from an ape would be upward progression – a genetic increase.

Show us your evidence. It might be true. But often a species becomes fitter by becoming less complex genetically.

While from wolves to dogs it was a genetic loss.

Sounds interesting. Show us the evidence.

I called apes savages for poetic affect

“Poetic effect” is what’s getting you in trouble. Less poetry, more evidence.

but I am aware that humans have a higher potential for savagery (and for good) than do apes, who act merely by instinct.

When we say “instinct”, we really saying “we don’t know why.”

Apes, it turns out, can reason, and can even infer mental states in others, something that seems limited to them and us among organisms.

 

[The_Barbarian]

Speaking of trees – Two trees side by side in the same forest sink their roots in common soil sucking up the same nutrients under the same sun and rain.

Maybe so. But if I plant an apple and an oak tree side by side, they don’t become more genetically similar thereby. Only common descent gives organisms common genes.

 

[The_Barbarian]

different sorts of causes [plural]…

Yep. Efficient vs. Final causes, for example. Don’t get them mixed up. You see what it did to someone else here.

Could there be another cause for the development of the physical (not soul, sole cause is God) or material nature of human life?

See “Communion and Stewardship” report submitted by Cardinal Ratzinger. Yes, since the evolution of humans, the soul can affect our evolution.

With the development of the human brain, the nature and rate of evolution were permanently altered: with the introduction of the uniquely human factors of consciousness, intentionality, freedom and creativity, biological evolution was recast as social and cultural evolution.
INTERNATIONAL THEOLOGICAL COMMISSION
COMMUNION AND STEWARDSHIP:
Human Persons Created in the Image of God

Why is the “the tree of animal life” the only game in town from natural scientific observation?

Evidence. All the evidence points to it. None of the evidence points away from it.

 

[grannymh]

That point aside, the argument from incredulity is simply vincible ignorance.

Say what Or is there a typo above? Most likely I live in a different neighborhood or century which is why I don’t get the usage of the above argumnet ; but have heard it so often that I am challenging my understanding. So, what are you implying to the person who said: I do not see how genetic changes over time can produce man from a savage ape."

Science gets its desire to move forward from incredulity. Everyone, almost everyone, is vincibly ignorant until they gain knowledge, meaning that in the big picture, ignorance can be overcome.

 

[grannymh]

Yep. Efficient vs. Final causes, for example. Don’t get them mixed up. You see what it did to someone else here.

I’m not referring to Thomistic casues (did I remember that right?).
I’m referrning to cause (what is a better word?) in the Darwinian sense. His followers seem stuck.

See “Communion and Stewardship” report submitted by Cardinal Ratzinger. Yes, since the evolution of humans, the soul can affect our evolution.

With the development of the human brain, the nature and rate of evolution were permanently altered: with the introduction of the uniquely human factors of consciousness, intentionality, freedom and creativity, biological evolution was recast as social and cultural evolution.
INTERNATIONAL THEOLOGICAL COMMISSION
COMMUNION AND STEWARDSHIP:
Human Persons Created in the Image of God

I’d like to read the above and below paragraphs to get a sense of what is being talked about. I read brain in the above section. I don’t think brain and soul can be interchanged. I’m sure they could be related but not substituting one for the other. So is your use of the soul above from some other section?

Evidence. All the evidence points to it. None of the evidence points away from it.

That is because evolutionists are not looking for evidence. They prefer riding the coat tails of Darwin.