Evolution

[grannymh]

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.

Theistic evolutionary position seems too all encompassing. Even when I used the term some time ago, I wasn’t sure what it entailed. Thus, I no longer use it except to wonder what others mean by it.

 

[Namesake]

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

I really hope you don’t believe that. The truth is that evolution scientists are very hard at work trying to find out how nature works. That effort continues to uncover a huge amount of evidence that suggests that evolution is the way biology works.

Seriously, evidence is what science is all about looking for. You really should try to be more accurate.

 

[grannymh]

granny’s quote

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.

My dear Barbarian,

You have been saved from reading a long reply to the above due to a random delete. I’m out of time to rethink it so I will cut to the chase.

Evolutionists have been too quick to say that common descent is the one and only thing which accounts for common genes.
I lost my reply when I shifted to Google to check on the Piltdown Man. A memorial stone was placed at his site and a pub nearby renamed the Piltdown Man. The pub is still in business as of August.

In my little story about the two trees, neither descended from the other. Nor was there a common ancestor appak (before apple and oak diverged). The commonality came from the original source of life – all those little chemicals and protons or whatever in the environment which randomly got together in different combinations. This is the principle of unity in creation.

I never did imply that the two trees became more similar genetically. In my lost reply
I illustrated the exact opposite which fits in with current evolutionary theories such as founder effect and genetic drift.

I don’t have a dog.

Blessings,
granny

All human life comes from God.

 

[Namesake]

Evolutionists have been too quick to say that common descent is the one and only thing which accounts for common genes.

I have never known any who say that. Darwin sure never said that. You ought to be a little more careful with your facts.

 

[Marocchino]

Quote:
While from wolves to dogs it was a genetic loss.

The Barbarian: Sounds interesting. Show us the evidence.

We have produced all dog breeds from wolves but we cannot produce a wolf from the various dog breeds.

If you want more scientific evidence, get it from scientists. I am more interested in how evolutionary theory affects the Catholic doctrine of Original Sina and the historical existence of Adam and Eve.

Here is a website by a geneticist who rejects Darwinian evolution on scientific grounds: giertych.eu/

 

[adolfo123]

Let’s hear it.

here are the bible verse which i think might give some light on evolution :
wisdom 19:6
For all creation, in its several kinds, was being made over anew, serving its natural laws,

wisdom19:11
And later they saw also a new kind of bird when, prompted by desire, they asked for pleasant foods;
wisdom 19:12
For to appease them quail came to them from the sea.

wisdom19:18
For the elements, in variable harmony among themselves, like strings of the harp, produce new melody, while the flow of music steadily persists. And this can be perceived exactly from a review of what took place.
wisdom19:19
For land creatures were changed into water creatures, and those that swam went over on to the land.

 

[grannymh]

I really hope you don’t believe that. The truth is that evolution scientists are very hard at work trying to find out how nature works. That effort continues to uncover a huge amount of evidence that suggests that evolution is the way biology works.

Seriously, evidence is what science is all about looking for. You really should try to be more accurate.

Oops. I deleted part of that quote thinking I would be inaccurate and confusing. Wrong move.

Of course I believe that evolution scientists are very hard at work trying to find out how nature works. Praise God! I’ve read some really neat stuff in magazine birthday issues.

Please note that everyone has been patient with me when I ask questions about evolutionary theory. I really love you all. But what is getting to me – this is my cranky day – is that some of the answers (especially when it comes to Adam and Eve) exclude any other possibility. That’s not science, that’s stagnation.

I would love to discuss creative solutions to Adam and Eve being literal. I would love to use challenging statements like Darwin’s coat tails. I love figuring out challenges like Barbarian’s one about planting an apple and an oak tree.

I’m glad you challenged me about being accurate. It encourages me to learn more, Thank you.

Blessings,
granny

Human life is God’s pride and joy.

 

[adolfo123]

Oops. I deleted part of that quote thinking I would be inaccurate and confusing. Wrong move.

Of course I believe that evolution scientists are very hard at work trying to find out how nature works. Praise God! I’ve read some really neat stuff in magazine birthday issues.

Please note that everyone has been patient with me when I ask questions about evolutionary theory. I really love you all. But what is getting to me – this is my cranky day – is that some of the answers (especially when it comes to Adam and Eve) exclude any other possibility. That’s not science, that’s stagnation.

I would love to discuss creative solutions to Adam and Eve being literal. I would love to use challenging statements like Darwin’s coat tails. I love figuring out challenges like Barbarian’s one about planting an apple and an oak tree.

I’m glad you challenged me about being accurate. It encourages me to learn more, Thank you.

Blessings,
granny

Human life is God’s pride and joy.

here are the bible verse which i think might give some light on evolution :
wisdom 19:6
For all creation, in its several kinds, was being made over anew, serving its natural laws,

wisdom19:11
And later they saw also a new kind of bird when, prompted by desire, they asked for pleasant foods;
wisdom 19:12
For to appease them quail came to them from the sea.

wisdom19:18
For the elements, in variable harmony among themselves, like strings of the harp, produce new melody, while the flow of music steadily persists. And this can be perceived exactly from a review of what took place.
wisdom19:19
For land creatures were changed into water creatures, and those that swam went over on to the land.

 

[ricmat]

here are the bible verse which i think might give some light on evolution :
wisdom 19:6
For all creation, in its several kinds, was being made over anew, serving its natural laws,

wisdom19:11
And later they saw also a new kind of bird when, prompted by desire, they asked for pleasant foods;
wisdom 19:12
For to appease them quail came to them from the sea.

wisdom19:18
For the elements, in variable harmony among themselves, like strings of the harp, produce new melody, while the flow of music steadily persists. And this can be perceived exactly from a review of what took place.
wisdom19:19
For land creatures were changed into water creatures, and those that swam went over on to the land.

Here’s the Haydock commentary, and the CCHS commentary on Wisdom 19:

Wis 19:18 - Water. Men, &c., passed through the Red Sea, while frogs got into houses.

Wis 19:1-20 - XIX 1-20 The Crossing of the Red Sea —Upon the Egyptians came pitiless wrath, until they were finally drowned in the Red Sea…18. ‘For land-creatures became water-creatures’, apparently referring to the Israelites and their cattle crossing the Red Sea, ‘and swimming creatures passed on to the earth’, meaning the frogs (Exo_8:3)…
The author concludes with the thought which has dominated the book as a whole, and especially the third and fourth parts: ‘For in all things, O Lord, thou didst magnify and glorify thy people, and didst not overlook them, standing by them at every time and place’.

These particular passages refer back to the crossing of the Red Sea it seems, although I agree that much of scripture has multiple meanings.

 

[The_Barbarian]

While from wolves to dogs it was a genetic loss.

The Barbarian: Sounds interesting. Show us the evidence.

We have produced all dog breeds from wolves but we cannot produce a wolf from the various dog breeds.

Wrong. A few decades, and feral animals start looking like their wild ancestors. Razorback hogs, for example, resemble wild boars, and feral dogs increasingly look like wolves. Mustangs in the west have reverted back to wild horse proportions.

If you want more scientific evidence, get it from scientists.

Sorry. We don’t have any evidence that it’s loss of information. In most cases, domesticated organisms have additional alleles, not fewer.

I am more interested in how evolutionary theory affects the Catholic doctrine of Original Sina and the historical existence of Adam and Eve.

The Pope seems to think it’s not a problem.

Here is a website by a geneticist who rejects Darwinian evolution on scientific grounds

If you don’t understand the subject, what makes you think he’s right and the vast majority of his fellow geneticists are right? If I’m wrongly judging you, and you do know what you’re talking about, how about supporting your guy’s assertion that there are species virtually unchanged over hundreds of millions of years?

That would be interesting. It’s not prohibited by evolutionary theory, but it’s rather highly unlikely.

Tell us what you know of these remarkable species.

 

[The_Barbarian]

I have never known any who say that. Darwin sure never said that. You ought to be a little more careful with your facts.

There is lateral gene transfer from time to time, but it’s very uncommon in metazoans (multicellular animals).

Common genes indicate common descent. Darwin never said it, because genes hadn’t been discovered.

 

[The_Barbarian]

In my little story about the two trees, neither descended from the other. Nor was there a common ancestor appak (before apple and oak diverged). The commonality came from the original source of life – all those little chemicals and protons or whatever in the environment which randomly got together in different combinations. This is the principle of unity in creation.

Neither scripture nor tradition says so. And the evidence is overwhelmingly for common descent.

 

[The_Barbarian]

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.

Perhaps you weren’t. But another argument here, depended on conflating different categories of causes.

Barbarian observes:
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.

Hmm…

**Since it has been demonstrated that all living organisms on earth are genetically related, it is virtually certain that all living organisms have descended from this first organism. Converging evidence from many studies in the physical and biological sciences furnishes mounting support for some theory of evolution to account for the development and diversification of life on earth, while controversy continues over the pace and mechanisms of evolution.

While the story of human origins is complex and subject to revision, physical anthropology and molecular biology combine to make a convincing case for the origin of the human species in Africa about 150,000 years ago in a humanoid population of common genetic lineage. However it is to be explained, the decisive factor in human origins was a continually increasing brain size, culminating in that of homo sapiens. 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.

1. Pope John Paul II stated some years ago that “new knowledge leads to the recognition of the theory of evolution as more than a hypothesis. It is indeed remarkable that this theory has been progressively accepted by researchers following a series of discoveries in various fields of knowledge”(“Message to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences on Evolution”1996).**

I read brain in the above section. I don’t think brain and soul can be interchanged.

No, but what happens with your soul does affect the mind, and the mind does affect behavior, which is what causes cultural evolution as Cardinal Ratzinger wrote.

Barbarian, regarding why there is only one surviving theory of evolution:
Evidence. All the evidence points to it. None of the evidence points away from it.

That is because evolutionists are not looking for evidence.

Notice that a huge body of evidence has been located, as tests of evolutionary theory. It’s the way science works.

They prefer riding the coat tails of Darwin.

If that were true, we wouldn’t have the modern synthesis or genetics, or punctuated equilibrium, or population genetics, or…
(long list of new theory since Darwin) Notice that John Paul II alludes to it. He knew what he was talking about.

 

[grannymh]

I have never known any who say that. Darwin sure never said that. You ought to be a little more careful with your facts.

Good catch Namesake. Opens up discussion. If Darwin didn’t say that descent is the one and only thing which accounts for common genes what are the other possibilities he referred to?

 

[grannymh]

here are the bible verse which i think might give some light on evolution :
wisdom 19:6
For all creation, in its several kinds, was being made over anew, serving its natural laws,

wisdom19:11
And later they saw also a new kind of bird when, prompted by desire, they asked for pleasant foods;
wisdom 19:12
For to appease them quail came to them from the sea.

wisdom19:18
For the elements, in variable harmony among themselves, like strings of the harp, produce new melody, while the flow of music steadily persists. And this can be perceived exactly from a review of what took place.
wisdom19:19
For land creatures were changed into water creatures, and those that swam went over on to the land.

Thanks. I just put my Bible on top of the papers I’m working on. Time for some God priority.

Blessings,
granny

Human beings were given Scripture to bring them closer to their Creator.

 

[Marocchino]

The Pope seems to think it’s not a problem.

Has the Pope ever discussed the ontological gap that would be necessary between the first generation of human beings with immortal souls and their parents? Has the Pope ever spoken of Adam’s parents? Has he ever explained how a genealogy with 19 men between the year 2000 BC (Abraham) and Adam can encompass the 150 000 timespan according to evolution that modern homo sapiens have been around? Has he ever explained why the Church Fathers and Scholastics (and thus the Church) were wrong for nearly 20 centuries by interpreting Genesis 1-11 in a literal-historical sense?

If I’m wrongly judging you, and you do know what you’re talking about, how about supporting your guy’s assertion that there are species virtually unchanged over hundreds of millions of years?

I thought I made it clear that I’m not a scientist. I am interested in finding answers to the questions posted above.

 

[Namesake]

There is lateral gene transfer from time to time, but it’s very uncommon in metazoans (multicellular animals).

Common genes indicate common descent. Darwin never said it, because genes hadn’t been discovered.

I’m sorry, I misread what the statement was. I for some reason read it as natural selection. My mistake.

 

[buffalo]

Has the Pope ever discussed the ontological gap that would be necessary between the first generation of human beings with immortal souls and their parents? Has the Pope ever spoken of Adam’s parents? Has he ever explained how a genealogy with 19 men between the year 2000 BC (Abraham) and Adam can encompass the 150 000 timespan according to evolution that modern homo sapiens have been around? Has he ever explained why the Church Fathers and Scholastics (and thus the Church) were wrong for nearly 20 centuries by interpreting Genesis 1-11 in a literal-historical sense?

I thought I made it clear that I’m not a scientist. I am interested in finding answers to the questions posted above.

NO!

 

[grannymh]

Neither scripture nor tradition says so. And the evidence is overwhelmingly for common descent.

When was this first declared?

 

[Marocchino]

NO!

I know, those were rhetorical questions for Barbarian.