Has science falsified macroevolution?

[kalt]

Why on earth would i have to? This is illogical reasoning, do you believe everything you cant disprove.

I cant disprove an invisible green dog isn’t magically guiding evolution with its super invisible evolution guiding doggy powers. Do you think we should consider that an option to?

Every piece of evidence we have points to evolution being a totally natural process, so if you want to posit a god’s guidance the burden of proof is on you! I eagerly await your evidence.

Hey, you’re the one who said that evolution theory disproves God. I only asked you to prove it. Please decide what your position is.

The burden of proof is on you, because you are the one who made the claim.

Proof please.

 

[Kaninchen]

I care for many reason.

I dont believe in imaginary lines. American, Russin, African its all the same to me. Were all people, and i believe in a cooprative society and empathy for my fellow man.

The reason it really matters is the next, Alexander Fleming, Marie curie or Charles Darwin could be living in those areas. People who can make a difference to millions of lifes through out the world, and your not going to produce these type of people teaching junk science.

The thing is that there are such rapid changes happening elsewhere - particularly China and India - to take up the slack. Perhaps it’s America’s turn to fall into obscurantist fallow.

There seems to already be a massive failing within the education system in the USA. I had never even met someone who believed this nonsense until i came online. These people dont even understand the basics of science or the scientific method. This problem needs to be addressed.

How does one address a loss of confidence on this scale?

 

[M0nkey]

Perhaps it’s America’s turn to fall into obscurantist fallow.

The problem with your assertion is, if America falls, so does the rest of the world. India and China are hinging on the American economy.

 

[Kaninchen]

The problem with your assertion is, if America falls, so does the rest of the world. India and China are hinging on the American economy.

The problem with your answer is that I wasn’t suggesting that it would happen overnight. The world would learn to live without America.

 

[buffalo]

Actually the real reason is so people can have proper discussions. Its clear you have little to no understanding of evolution. This makes it impossible to discuss.

People like you amaze me, is biology the only are you are uneducated in that you think you know more than the worlds greatest experts. I guess you know more about physics than Einstein, more about acting then De niro, more about playing golf than Tiger Woods?

Please explain to me what goes through your head, why is it you think you know more about biology then the the cleverest biologists on the planet that have dedicated there life’s to the subject, when you don’t even understand the equivalent of the 5 X table?

Sorry, I will try harder to understand evolution with one caveat. You try harder to understand Catholicism.

 

[buffalo]

I’m deadly serious and i will still like to know why you think you know more about biology than the cleverest biologists on the planet, who have dedicated their lifes to the subject, when you don’t even understand the equivalent of the 5 X table?

I am not sure I do, but my first thought is that I try to be humble vs arrogant.

 

[reggieM]

I’m deadly serious and i will still like to know why you think you know more about biology than the cleverest biologists on the planet, who have dedicated their lifes to the subject, when you don’t even understand the equivalent of the 5 X table?

Here’s a list of scientists who know more than you and are far more qualified than you are in this topic. Therefore, according to your logic, they must be correct and you are wrong.

A SCIENTIFIC DISSENT FROM DARWINISM

 

[buffalo]

Never refuted so obviously accepted. Roger asked about polygenism vs monogenism. This document makes it clear that the teaching of Humani Generis is not dogma and that we, as Catholics, are allowed to accept polygenism.

Peace

Tim

I disagree.

 

[Orogeny]

I disagree.

With what?

Peace

Tim

 

[reggieM]

Were all people, and i believe in a cooprative society and empathy for my fellow man.

I’ll quote you: “Firstly one should believe something because it is true, not because it feels good.”

It’s clear to me that your views are not consistent. You have plenty of opportunities here to show your scientific expertise also, but I’ve seen very little of that. It’s just atheistic sloganeering. Why not put aside the hostility and engage the many arguments that many people here are giving to you? By that, I mean, back up your claims with something substantial.

 

[buffalo]

With what?

Peace

Tim

You: This document makes it clear that the teaching of Humani Generis is not dogma and that we, as Catholics, are allowed to accept polygenism.

 

[Orogeny]

You: This document makes it clear that the teaching of Humani Generis is not dogma and that we, as Catholics, are allowed to accept polygenism.

Unless this official Vatican document is teaching something that contradicts dogma, polygenism is acknowledged as a reality. Can you point out anywhere in the document where that is denied? If not, then either the Church allows for polygenism or this document is endorsing a falsehood.

Peace

Tim

 

[buffalo]

Unless this official Vatican document is teaching something that contradicts dogma, polygenism is acknowledged as a reality. Can you point out anywhere in the document where that is denied? If not, then either the Church allows for polygenism or this document is endorsing a falsehood.

Peace

Tim

1. 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. Now it is in no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled with that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the Teaching Authority of the Church propose with regard to original sin, which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam and which, through generation, is passed on to all and is in everyone as his own.[12]

To take on the position of polygenism admits that Hitler was right.

 

[Kolbe300]

The process of evolution is fully understood, there is no need or place for a “god”. I’m sorry to say the only reason you could think this way is if you don’t fully understand evolution.

My question: Why are you debating on this forum? If I had a dollar for every time you have said a person debating here lacks enough understanding to contribute (to your standards, apparently) I’d be a rich man. It’s quite annoying, considering the forum you are on. A biology degree and an expertise in evolution isn’t a requirement for membership to this Catholic forum.

Oh and Stephen C. Meyer is not a biologist. So why on earth would one listen him when hes out with his field. You’d be better listening to real biologists like Richard Dawkins for example.

Most people in this discussion aren’t biologists, why are you debating with them?

Evolution eliminates the idea that we were created in a god image. Christians believe were created in gods image. Therefore evolution falsifies the idea we are created in the image of a god, which in turn is devastating to Christianity.

You obviously don’t understand what “In God’s image” means. Thankfully, your lack of understanding Christianity (unlike your biological smarts), is a perfect reason to be here!

Peace!

 

[Orogeny]

1. 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. Now it is in no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled with that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the Teaching Authority of the Church propose with regard to original sin, which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam and which, through generation, is passed on to all and is in everyone as his own.[12]

Since you can’t show me where the The July 2004 Vatican Statement on Creation and Evolution document refutes “the current thinking on the subject”, do you agree that polygenism is allowed in the context of that document? I’m not asking if you agree that it supercedes Humani Generis, I’m asking if you find anything in the ITC document that suggests that polygenism is wrong.

To take on the position of polygenism admits that Hitler was right.

Wow, the Hitler card. That is usually pulled to stop the discussion. If you don’t want to discuss this, buffalo, don’t. You are better than using this tactic.

Peace

Tim

 

[buffalo]

Since you can’t show me where the The July 2004 Vatican Statement on Creation and Evolution document refutes “the current thinking on the subject”, do you agree that polygenism is allowed in the context of that document? I’m not asking if you agree that it supercedes Humani Generis, I’m asking if you find anything in the ITC document that suggests that polygenism is wrong.Wow, the Hitler card. That is usually pulled to stop the discussion. If you don’t want to discuss this, buffalo, don’t. You are better than using this tactic.

Peace

Tim

First off - the Vatican has been silent on this since HG. The issue is that Original Sin has to be shown to be compatible. It has not. (perhaps it could be in the future)

I will not retreat from the Hitler comment. It is clear that if polygenism is true then, Houston, we have a problem! Tell me what will stop us from making determinations that go against “All men are created equal”, when polygenism says otherwise.

Remember, silence by the Church does not mean acceptance or rejection. The Church often finds it uneccessary to repeat prior teachings.

I would need the same reconciliation that Pope Pius XII asks for in HG.

 

[Orogeny]

First off - the Vatican has been silent on this since HG. The issue is that Original Sin has to be shown to be compatible. It has not. (perhaps it could be in the future)

The Vatican published the ITC document. That is not silence.

I will not retreat from the Hitler comment. It is clear that if polygenism is true then, Houston, we have a problem!

By we you mean you. I don’t have a problem.

Tell me what will stop us from making determinations that go against “All men are created equal”, when polygenism says otherwise.

How does polygenism do that? Do all men have souls?

Remember, silence by the Church does not mean acceptance or rejection. The Church often finds it uneccessary to repeat prior teachings.

A published document is not silence. The ITC document was clear - “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.” What is silent about a statement like that. How can the Vatican be clearer that humans originated from a population with common genetic lineage?

I would need the same reconciliation that Pope Pius XII asks for in HG.

Again, I ask my question - does the ITC document reject polygenism or does it acknowledge it? I’m not asking you to accept the conclusion, I am asking specifically if the document allows for polygenism.

Peace

Tim

 

[avflf]

Evolution is an unguided process, that is not my opinion, that is a fact.

The evolution of Evolution

Lamarckism (or Lamarckian evolution) is the once popularly accepted, but since discredited, idea that an organism can pass on characteristics that it acquired during its lifetime to its offspring (also known as heritability of acquired characteristics or soft inheritance).
↓
Darwinism In the late 19th century it came to mean the concept that natural selection was the sole mechanism of evolution, in contrast to Lamarckism
↓
neo-Darwinism George Romanes coined the term neo-Darwinism to refer to the version of evolution advocated by Alfred Russel Wallace and August Weismann with its heavy dependence on natural selection. Weismann and Wallace rejected the Lamarckian idea of inheritance of acquired characteristics, something that Darwin had not ruled out.
↓
Adaptive Mutation as the central dogma of evolutionary theory is selection from random variation. In other words, mutagenesis occurs randomly, regardless of the utility of a genetic mutation to the organism
↓
Hopeful Monster is the colloquial term used in evolutionary biology to describe an event of instantaneous-speciation, saltation, or systemic mutation, which contributes positively to the production of new major evolutionary groups. The memorable phrase was coined by the German born geneticist Richard Goldschmidt, who believed that small gradual changes could not bridge a hypothetical divide between microevolution and macroevolution.
Saltation is a sudden change from one generation to the next that is large, or very large, in comparison with the usual variation of an organism
↓
Punctuated equilibrium refers instead to a pattern of evolution where most speciation occurs relatively rapidly from a geological perspective (tens of thousands of years instead of millions of years), but through neo-Darwinian evolution, not by saltations.
↓
The next step???
↓
↓
↓
↓
Intelligent Design:thumbsup:

 

[buffalo]

The Vatican published the ITC document. That is not silence.By we you mean you. I don’t have a problem.How does polygenism do that? Do all men have souls?A published document is not silence. The ITC document was clear - “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.” What is silent about a statement like that. How can the Vatican be clearer that humans originated from a population with common genetic lineage?

Again, I ask my question - does the ITC document reject polygenism or does it acknowledge it? I’m not asking you to accept the conclusion, I am asking specifically if the document allows for polygenism.

Peace

Tim

Then it is clearly indicated that I am superior in lineage and intellect to you. So quit arguing for I am right.

It does not reject polygenism:

Paragraph 22:

1. Invoking the theme of the image of God, the Council affirmed in * Gaudium et Spes* the dignity of man as it is taught in Genesis 1;26 and Psalm 8:6 (GS 12). Within the conciliar vision, the imago Dei consists in man’s fundamental orientation to God, which is the basis of human dignity and of the inalienable rights of the human person. Because every human being is an image of God, he cannot be made subservient to any this-worldly system or finality. His sovereignty within the cosmos, his capacity for social existence, and his knowledge and love of the Creator - all are rooted in man’s being made in the image of God. Basic to the conciliar teaching is the christological determination of the image: it is Christ who is the image of the invisible God (Col 1:15) (GS 10). The Son is the perfect Man who restores the divine likeness to the sons and daughters of Adam which was wounded by the sin of the first parents (GS 22). Revealed by God who created man in his image, it is the Son who gives to man the answers to his questions about the meaning of life and death (GS 41). The Council also underscores the trinitarian structure of the image: by conformity to Christ (Rm 8:29) and through the gifts of the Holy Spirit (Rm 8:23), a new man is created, capable of fulfilling the new commandment (GS 22). It is the saints who are fully transformed in the image of Christ (cf. 2 Cor 3:18); in them, God manifests his presence and grace as a sign of his kingdom (GS 24). On the basis of the doctrine of the image of God, the Council teaches that human activity reflects the divine creativity which is its model (GS 34) and must be directed to justice and human fellowship in order to foster the establishment of one family in which all are brothers and sisters (*GS *24).

Further is this statement:

Catholic theology affirms that that the emergence of the first members of the human species (whether as individuals or in populations) represents an event that is not susceptible of a purely natural explanation and which can appropriately be attributed to divine intervention.

In this statement it gives assent that either way a supernatural event happened which can be attributed to Divine Intervention". As you are well aware I have stated this many times: God could have created Adam and Eve supernaturally and inserted them into the timeline wherever he wished regardless of what may or may not have been happening in the universe at the time.

I see this as affirming constant Catholic teaching as to mans origins. I also see it says even if science makes a claim it doesn’t matter for we have first parents through Divine Intervention. My opinion is it is a brushoff.

 

[M0nkey]

I’m not asking if you agree that it supercedes Humani Generis, I’m asking if you find anything in the ITC document that suggests that polygenism is wrong.

Orogeny, polygenism disregards Adam and Original Sin. How can you think it fits within the context of the faith? If you disbelieve in Adam, you disbelieve in the second Adam; Jesus Christ.