T
tomarin
Guest
Skeletons of Pakicetus, among others. If you want me to find out which paleontology departments own the fossils, I will try but can’t promise you it will be today.
- Status
S
St_Francis
Guest
You wrote in your first post referring to this: So you’re saying that cetaceans have always had flippers and no hind limbs? What about the fossil remains of the transitional forms that prove that their ancestors used to live on land?
You are making assumptions here. You are assuming that the order exists as a whole when you say that cetaceans have always had… If one says, have all species within this order have… *that *is what we have evidence of.
Second, you are assuming that the Pakicetidae are the *ancestors *of whales, for which we have no evidence except that of similarity.
Because we have no actual evidence of the offspring of one species being a separate species, no evidence of a “switch” to cause species differentiation, we do not *know *how this worked, and we do not *know *that your assumptions are correct.
T
tomarin
Guest
Whether you’re right or not, it’s not me that’s allegedly making assumptions, it’s paleontologists. I don’t have any problem accepting the scientific consensus that whales evolved from terrestrial mammals but it appears that you and Buffalo do?
Are you saying we don’t know or can’t know anything about the evolutionary origins of whales? If not, why not? Why does this exist as a scientific discipline if that’s the case?
S
samiam1611
Guest
Individuals don’t evolve, populations do.
Individuals don’t evolve, populations do.
One species never gives birth to another species. A land critter did not give birth to a dolphin. It’s gggggrrraaaaaaadddduuuaaalllll. Evolution describes what happens to populations.
pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/faq/cat01.html
So you are saying there will be no speciation?
T
tomarin
Guest
to be honest, I don’t understand what your point is here. Why is it incorrect to generalize about cetaceans?
I’m assuming that whales have a terrestrial ancestor because they are mammals (and are therefore air-breathing) and because they have anatomies that indicate they used to have hind limbs. Therefore they used to walk on the earth and at some point evolved to live in the sea.
It seems to me like you’re questioning whether Pakicetus is the ancestor of whales. I don’t see any reason to question it if paleontologists affirm it but even if the status of this particular animal were in question, I don’t think it’s reasonable to state that whales do not have a terrestrial ancestor.
F
Farsight001
Guest
Not what was said at all.
G
grannymh
Guest
The Catholic Faith is based on a real event in the first three chapters of Genesis.
F
Farsight001
Guest
1st, there is no reason anyone had to be there to see it happen for evidence to exist. There are no witnesses to crimes all the time, but we can still figure out what happened and who did it from evidence. Saying no one was there to see it, thus we can’t know it happened is a baby’s mentality who, when you hide your face behind your hands, forgets that you were there in the first place. Out of sight, out of mind does not have a real life application.
2nd, there is plenty of evidence left behind.
3rd, no part of evolution assumes, argues, claims, or in any way whatsoever says that there is no God. That is, flat out, a downright lie.
4th, the second law of thermodynamics applies only to closed systems, of which the earth is not.
5th, the second law of thermodynamics states that entropy in total must increase, so that it can decrease in places, as long as it increases more elsewhere
6th, there is no need to place such stress on the fact that it is a law. In scientific parlance, laws rank LOWER, not higher, than theories. If theories and laws contradict each other, the LAW gets tossed out.
T
tqualey
Guest
Hi, Yankeeredneck,
I think you have jumped to a couple of unwarrented conclusions. And, that is a problem.
Enchantment with the ‘Big Bang’ THEORY is not what I have been reading in these posts. Enchantment with 24/6 Creation Account THEORY is not here either. What is here is a clear rejection of the Atheistic explanation toward how we got here (without God, according to this truly lost individuals)
The type of evidence you are demanding does not exist. Some people think it exits here or there - but definitive evidence like having an apple always fall down when it leaves the tree - and not up to the sky - does not exist. This is acknowledged, as has been repeatedly stated, by the Catholic Church which does not tell us what we are to believe in this area, but rather what we can not believe. As Catholics we can not believe that we arrived on this Earth by pure chance - and no Divine Power was necessary.
Trying to discredit a THEORY that places God as the origin for all creation - and that this took place over billions of years is simply not honest or honorable. Literal creationism - 24/6 - can not be discredited, either. Truly, I think it would be far more productive to focus in on the ones who actually claim that all that we see (and don’t see) took place without God - and leave the ones who acknowledge God as the Creator of the Universe (albeit taking longer to work out then you think He took…
) alone.
And here is where you have really confused a very specific item: Netwon’s Second Law. Basically, things then to fall apart; the complex becomes progressively simple until it just fails. As we look around, and with additional space telescopes we can look even further in a very finite way, we see more and not less complexity. God is what is holding everything together because God is the One Who created everything. All that is really in contention is, “How did He do it?” And the only real answer is that He did it His Way - and let it go at that.
A long time ago I was talking to a school-mate who believed in the literal 24/6 time table for Creation as it appears in Genesis. The guy was truly sincere and essentially dismissed my arguments about fossils and carbon dating as just so much non-sense. So, I asked him, what was really going on with this and he told me that if evolution (man having come up from the apes) was believed then it would give everyone license to act as animals. Now, I do not know if this has any real validity outside of what my school-mate told me - but, it certainly makes sense to me. No one wants to act like an animal - much less have others act that way - and claiming that we can do no better because it is in our nature! Goodness, I think we have seen enough behaviors in humanity that would totally freak-out all the animals!
It is when we debase our God-given humanity - drinks like a fish, eats like a pig, etc - that we act like animals.
Relax. You do not have to believe in an evolution taking billions of years - only believe that God is responsible for holding everything together for every second of every hour. I feel confident that I do not have to believe in a 24/6 version of creation - only that I believe that God created everything and holds everything together.
God bless
I think you have jumped to a couple of unwarrented conclusions. And, that is a problem.
Enchantment with the ‘Big Bang’ THEORY is not what I have been reading in these posts. Enchantment with 24/6 Creation Account THEORY is not here either. What is here is a clear rejection of the Atheistic explanation toward how we got here (without God, according to this truly lost individuals)
The type of evidence you are demanding does not exist. Some people think it exits here or there - but definitive evidence like having an apple always fall down when it leaves the tree - and not up to the sky - does not exist. This is acknowledged, as has been repeatedly stated, by the Catholic Church which does not tell us what we are to believe in this area, but rather what we can not believe. As Catholics we can not believe that we arrived on this Earth by pure chance - and no Divine Power was necessary.
Trying to discredit a THEORY that places God as the origin for all creation - and that this took place over billions of years is simply not honest or honorable. Literal creationism - 24/6 - can not be discredited, either. Truly, I think it would be far more productive to focus in on the ones who actually claim that all that we see (and don’t see) took place without God - and leave the ones who acknowledge God as the Creator of the Universe (albeit taking longer to work out then you think He took…
) alone.And here is where you have really confused a very specific item: Netwon’s Second Law. Basically, things then to fall apart; the complex becomes progressively simple until it just fails. As we look around, and with additional space telescopes we can look even further in a very finite way, we see more and not less complexity. God is what is holding everything together because God is the One Who created everything. All that is really in contention is, “How did He do it?” And the only real answer is that He did it His Way - and let it go at that.
A long time ago I was talking to a school-mate who believed in the literal 24/6 time table for Creation as it appears in Genesis. The guy was truly sincere and essentially dismissed my arguments about fossils and carbon dating as just so much non-sense. So, I asked him, what was really going on with this and he told me that if evolution (man having come up from the apes) was believed then it would give everyone license to act as animals. Now, I do not know if this has any real validity outside of what my school-mate told me - but, it certainly makes sense to me. No one wants to act like an animal - much less have others act that way - and claiming that we can do no better because it is in our nature! Goodness, I think we have seen enough behaviors in humanity that would totally freak-out all the animals!
It is when we debase our God-given humanity - drinks like a fish, eats like a pig, etc - that we act like animals.Relax. You do not have to believe in an evolution taking billions of years - only believe that God is responsible for holding everything together for every second of every hour. I feel confident that I do not have to believe in a 24/6 version of creation - only that I believe that God created everything and holds everything together.
God bless
T
tqualey
Guest
Hi, Farsight001,
I like your enumeration!
Here is a link on Laws and Theories you may enjoy: science.howstuffworks.com/innovation/scientific-experiments/10-scientific-laws-theories.htm
God bless
I like your enumeration!
Here is a link on Laws and Theories you may enjoy: science.howstuffworks.com/innovation/scientific-experiments/10-scientific-laws-theories.htm
God bless
G
grannymh
Guest
May I respectfully point out that we need to understand how the evolution model is being interpreted in the 21st century. Actually, one needs to go back to the 20th century where natural science research started to intersect with Catholic doctrine regarding human nature per se. Please note that I sincerely respect the work of scientists. However, their domain is rightfully that of material/physical anatomies which eventually decompose in some manner.
The difficulty is that human nature is both material and spiritual. Thus, interpreters of contemporary evolution theories cannot account for the uniqueness of the human species due to the rational spiritual soul. While evolving populations theories do work for non-human species, the spiritual soul is directly created by God and thus does not evolve over centuries as part of social or cultural awareness. While scientists, themselves, can acknowledge God, the evolution model, itself, cannot acknowledge a Creator God as in Catholic teaching regarding human nature.
There is no doubt in my mind that the evolution model works in many areas of the medical arena. It also explains some interesting adaptations in humans living in extremely high altitudes. But the evolution model cannot completely explain human beings who are called to share in the divine life of God.
F
Farsight001
Guest
One species giving birth to another species is not the same thing as speciation. So no, it was not said.
F
Farsight001
Guest
I wouldn’t so much say that evolution cannot acknowledge a creator God, as to me, that implies that it would then deny a creator God. Rather, I would say that it speaks nothing of God, simply because evolution is science, and science is the study of the natural world, while God and the eternal soul are supernatural, and thus, outside science’s field of study. Claiming God does not exist is just as unscientific as claiming God created everything, regardless of its level of accuracy.
So where did all of the different species come from?
The current theory seems to take for granted species to species tranformations.
T
tqualey
Guest
Hi, Grannymh,
When I read your post, I thought about us comparing the 2012 cars on the road today with the Model “T” of Henry Ford in 1908. Yes, they are both cars and it is always a good idea to look back at the historical origins of everything we can. But, this does not mean we are bound to only Model “T” thinking or approaches to a topic.
In an earlier post I gave a link which identified 3 Theories of Evolution: 24/6 Genesis account (short time theory with God as it source) 14 billion year approach (long term theory with God as it source) and the Atheistic approach (the ‘toss of the dice’ that brought all of this togehter - and holds it all together). Trying to combine the God-centered evolutionary appraoch with the Athesistic approach really is not accurate. And, it lacks accuracy because it claims a degree of proof that simply does not exist.
Really, what is the problem with moving on and re-focusing on the Atheistic approach that denies the Power of the All Mighty?
God bless
When I read your post, I thought about us comparing the 2012 cars on the road today with the Model “T” of Henry Ford in 1908. Yes, they are both cars and it is always a good idea to look back at the historical origins of everything we can. But, this does not mean we are bound to only Model “T” thinking or approaches to a topic.
In an earlier post I gave a link which identified 3 Theories of Evolution: 24/6 Genesis account (short time theory with God as it source) 14 billion year approach (long term theory with God as it source) and the Atheistic approach (the ‘toss of the dice’ that brought all of this togehter - and holds it all together). Trying to combine the God-centered evolutionary appraoch with the Athesistic approach really is not accurate. And, it lacks accuracy because it claims a degree of proof that simply does not exist.
Really, what is the problem with moving on and re-focusing on the Atheistic approach that denies the Power of the All Mighty?
God bless
G
grannymh
Guest
I took you comment “or in any way whatsoever says that there is no God” literally
I also referred to Catholic teaching because when it comes to human origins, in my humble opinion, many creationists deviate from Catholic teachings in one way or another.
When I originally, some time back, looked at the method and sample size in this “poll”, my guess is that there would be very few people who held all of the Catholic doctrines regarding human nature. In addition, they are plenty of Catholics who do not agree with all of the Catholic doctrines regarding human nature because they want the Church to be “modern”.
It seems to me, that some words were dropped from the question asked to the conclusion of 46% per cent. That may be proper for this type of poll. Unfortunately, my time on a hotel computer is drawing to a close and I cannot get back to the link to check my failing memory.
L
Lost_Wanderer
Guest
How is that deceptive to anyone? You want deceptive? Try supposedly creating the world in a fantasy fashion and then somewhere in the middle, we went from a land of saints and dragons to a land of urbanite stupidity. THAT is deceptive. What’s deceptive is making people think that real life, the reality I know a lot of people (including myself) scorn and despise, is indeed just some big, mystical cover-up by science while underneath, it’s actually an Evangelical version of Azeroth.
You wanna know what happens if somehow, God proves you people right? Guys like me would have a really BIG bone to pick with Him (as soon as I pick up some courses in spellcraft while I’m at it
). You would not like how guys like me feel forced to put up the mundane of daily life, only to realize we could’ve been living the real-life versions of our MMORPG characters. 
You speak of Greek philosophers and scientists but you’re ignoring the fact that these are the same people who also questioned the existence of a bearded man upon on the mountain who threw thunderbolts, slept with their women, and fathered heroes of legend.
What next? You’re going to tell me the Chimera and the Hydra were real too?
No, it was you who missed my reply.
E
edwest2
Guest
3rd
We can see this in current biology textbooks:
“[E]volution works without either plan or purpose — Evolution is random and undirected.”
(Biology, by Kenneth R. Miller & Joseph S. Levine (1st ed., Prentice Hall, 1991), pg. 658; (3rd ed., Prentice Hall, 1995), pg. 658; (4th ed., Prentice Hall, 1998), pg. 658; emphasis in original.)
“Humans represent just one tiny, largely fortuitous, and late-arising twig on the enormously arborescent bush of life.”
(Stephen J Gould quoted in Biology, by Peter H Raven & George B Johnson (5th ed., McGraw Hill, 1999), pg 15; (6th ed., McGraw Hill, 2000), pg. 16.)
“By coupling **undirected, purposeless **variation to the **blind, uncaring **process of natural selection, Darwin made theological or spiritual explanations of the life processes superfluous.”
(Evolutionary Biology, by Douglas J. Futuyma (3rd ed., Sinauer Associates Inc., 1998), p. 5.)
“Darwin knew that accepting his theory required believing in philosophical materialism, the conviction that **matter is the stuff of all existence **and that all mental and spiritual phenomena are its by-products. Darwinian evolution was not only purposeless but also heartless–a process in which the rigors of nature ruthlessly eliminate the unfit. Suddenly, humanity was reduced to just one more species in a world that cared nothing for us. The great human mind was no more than a mass of evolving neurons. Worst of all, there was no divine plan to guide us.”
(Biology: Discovering Life by Joseph S. Levine & Kenneth R. Miller (1st ed., D.C. Heath and Co., 1992), pg. 152; (2nd ed… D.C. Heath and Co., 1994), p. 161; emphases in original.)
“Adopting this view of the world means accepting not only the processes of evolution, but also the view that the living world is constantly evolving, and that evolutionary change occurs without any goals.’ The idea that **evolution is not directed **towards a final goal state has been more difficult for many people to accept than the process of evolution itself.”
(Life: The Science of Biology by William K. Purves, David Sadava, Gordon H. Orians, & H. Craig Keller, (6th ed., Sinauer; W.H. Freeman and Co., 2001), pg. 3.)
“The ‘blind’ watchmaker is natural selection. **Natural selection is totally blind **to the future. “**Humans are fundamentally not exceptional **because we came from the same evolutionary source as every other species. It is natural selection of selfish genes that has given us our bodies and brains “Natural selection is a bewilderingly simple idea. And yet what it explains is the whole of life, the diversity of life, the apparent design of life.”
(Richard Dawkins quoted in *Biology *by Neil A. Campbell, Jane B. Reese. & Lawrence G. Mitchell (5th ed., Addison Wesley Longman, 1999), pgs. 412-413.)
“Of course, no species has 'chosen’ a strategy. Rather, its ancestors ‘little by little, generation after generation’ merely wandered into a successful way of life through the action of random evolutionary forces. Once pointed in a certain direction, a line of evolution survives only if the cosmic dice continues to roll in its favor. “[J]ust by chance, a wonderful diversity of life has developed during the billions of years in which organisms have been evolving on earth.
(Biology by Burton S. Guttman (1st ed., McGraw Hill, 1999), pgs. 36-37.)
“It is difficult to avoid the speculation that Darwin, as has been the case with others, found the implications of his theory difficult to confront. “The real difficulty in accepting Darwins theory has always been that it seems to diminish our significance. Earlier, astronomy had made it clear that the earth is not the center of the solar universe, or even of our own solar system. Now the new biology asked us to accept the proposition that, like all other organisms, we too are the products of a random process that, as far as science can show, we are not created for any special purpose or as part of any universal design.”
(Invitation to Biology, by Helena Curtis & N. Sue Barnes(3rd ed., Worth, 1981), pgs. 474-475.)
Peace,
Ed
- Status