Is Darwin's Theory of Evolution True? Part Three

[Techno2000]

Techno2000:

Ok… get to the part about whole new species being created, I’m excited to see a new animal evolution has made for us.

A new species of animal? I have already shown you the Marbled Crayfish, which is the result of one mutation. Alternatively try Tauber and Tauber (1977) Sympatric Speciation Based on Allelic Changes at Three Loci for a new animal species after three mutations.

rossum

But it’s still a Crayfish.

 

[mVitus]

The descendants would need to survive the environment they are born into, waiting a few generations would be too late.

If the change in the environment is slow and gradual, then the change in a species can be slow and gradual with its members surviving to reproduce. But if a change happens quickly, odds are the species dies out.

 

[mVitus]

But it’s still a Crayfish.

Scientists seem to see it as a new species. Your objection is kind of like saying about a new species, “But it’s still an animal.”

 

[Techno2000]

Techno2000:

If it can’t have sex hows it going to evolve ?

Ahh… At last. You are beginning to understand natural selection.

rossum

I should of said supposedly evolve.

 

[Techno2000]

change happens quickly, odds are the species dies out.

These so-called quick environmental changes would have to have happen to every transitional stage for every plant and animal on the planet. And it would have to be severe enough to shut down all their reproductive capabilities… too vague and
too far-fetched.

 

[Aloysium]

Aloysium:

Rather than simply making the claim that God created us, this means you and I both here communicating, using random mutation and natural selection, which is the essence of Darwinism, please explain what you mean, because it is a contradiction.

I honestly fail to see the contradiction. What exactly is seen as a contradiction with God making us through evolution? Remeber that random is as it regards our observations.

There are actually theories of evolution. I am speaking about Darwinism because that is what this thread is about - random mutation of the genome and natural selection as being the fundamental agents of diversity in nature.

An evolutionary creationist, might believe that God utilized the fundamental forces of nature through those particular mechanisms. However, this would be more a deistic god, who creates the basic elements of nature and allows them to play out. Alternatively, god as nature transforms itself to enable itself to realize what it is; the “randomness” would not be caused by the interplay of forces, but through the direct action of one universal identity, which is the totality of the environment, undergoing transformation. But, we are individuals who exist in relation to everything else including the Source of our being - God as Love, the Triune Godhead.

Our individual creation in time and ontologically here and now, expresses a human nature that came into existence with Adam. It was not transformed from more primitive states of being. This all gets very complicated because creation occurs from eternity and not a point at the beginning, from which it flows. And, it contains beings with a free will who are self-determined, all the while complying with the will of God. The truth of creation, while it can be known, is beyond the linear ways in which we think. In this way, it is similar to the concept of Trinity, which itself has been revealed and can be known through love and reason, but can be very difficult to explain. Darwinism has absolutely nothing to say about who we are as spiritual beings participating in time and space, expressing ourselves through the building blocks that constitute our material being. We were created and science unfortunately has taken a wrong turn in putting together the pieces that it has revealed through its research.

You may want to express your understanding of how evolution and creation are one and the same thing.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

Techno2000:

LeafByNiggle:

they will all have what it takes to survive there.

But it takes millions of years for evolution to do anything.

No, it takes millions of years for evolution to do something big enough to impress you as macro evolution. Evolving better tolerance for cold you would call microevolution, and can take place in only a few generations.

how’s that going to help any creature to survive the cold when it needs to be able to survive right from the start.

Evolution does not help any one individual creature survive. It helps the descendants to survive. They don’t all need to survive “from the start.” Only some of them need to survive.

The descendants would need to survive the environment they are born into, waiting a few generations would be too late.

Some of them would survive.

 

[Aloysium]

Aloysium:

Darwinism conflicts with the teachings of the church.

I don’t think you know what the Church teaches, you are just seeing things through your own personal interpretation of it. All i know is what the Pope and the church authority told me. So unless you are saying he is a heretic, i think you should humbly refrain from saying that the scientific theory of evolution is in conflict with church teaching.

If it was, the Pope would have explicitly said so, which is a legitimate argument in the context of what does and does not conflict with church teaching…

Or at least admit that you are no-longer speaking for the church, but rather you are promoting your own sola-scriptura

For what it’s worth, you might wish to reconsider your opinon of me.

Of course I am seeing things through my personal interpretation.
It is all we have as relational beings who know/see/love through the knowing/seeing/loving what is known/seen/loved.
Isn’t that what you are doing?

Rather than making blanket personal comments, it is far better to address the points under discussion.
What would make me think would be to demonstrate the reason behind what you think a particular Pope has said.
Did they say Darwinism is good science? What reasoning did they use to come to that conclusion? Pope Bnedict is an amazing writer, very clear, succinct and to the point. Quote that if you truly want to discuss the matter.

Since we have gotten personal, I would comment that I’m not sure what you are doing, and suggest that you may wish to reflect on possible conflicts within yourself; Lord knows, we have them, all of us.

 

[Techno2000]

Some of them would survive.

What happen to the other ones out there, surviving and multiplying, did they all make a big mistake,and all move to the North Pole at the same time ?

 

[mVitus]

Darwinism has absolutely nothing to say about who we are as spiritual beings participating in time and space, expressing ourselves through the building blocks that constitute our material being. We were created and science unfortunately has taken a wrong turn in putting together the pieces that it has revealed through its research.

Darwinism isn’t a theological statement, it’s a scientific one. I wouldn’t expect a neurologist to explain how the soul functions and I wouldn’t expect an evolutionary scientist to say why we’re created by God.
When it comes to hominids being before Adam, that’s a bodily thing, not a soul one. Adam would’ve had the first human soul, directly created by God, but the process God used to bring about his body is open to evolution. So again I’m failing to see what contradictions you’re talking about. Seeing the lack of conflict between evolution and God is very natural to me and the points you bring up are, for most of them, received as, “Okay, that’s true. Yes. But that isn’t contradicted by evolution.”

 

[Techno2000]

So by the time they get to Minnesota, they will all have what it takes to survive there.

No animal in this day and age goes into an environment it’s unfit for.

 

[edwest211]

Evolution is not a person. It is an idea. It assumes certain things happened in a dynamic early earth, which was sometimes met with extreme changes, including, it is said, an asteroid impact. Basically, the proposal is that land animals, for example, develop this small change and it is supposedly passed along, and as these unguided, non-goal oriented changes accumulate, a particular type of animal not only improves its “fitness” to survive but can go from having gills to having lungs, from walking on land to becoming a whale. You see?

Pope Benedict

“Science fiction exists, however, in the context of many sciences. What you set forth on the theories about the beginning and the end of the world in Heisenberg, Schrödinger, etc. I would designate as science fiction in the best sense: they are visions and anticipations, by which we seek to attain a true knowledge, but in fact, they are only imaginations whereby we seek to draw near to the reality. Even within the theory of evolution, a great style of science fiction exists. Richard Dawkins’ selfish gene is a classic example of science fiction. The great Jacques Monod wrote sentences that he himself would certainly have inserted in his work just as science fiction. I quote: “The emergence of tetrapod vertebrates … derives its origin from the fact that a primitive fish ‘chose’ to go and explore the land, on which, however, he was unable to move except by hopping awkwardly and thus creating, as a result of behavioral modification, the selective pressure thanks to which the sturdy limbs of tetrapods would have developed. Among the descendants of this daring explorer, of this Magellan of evolution, some can run at a speed of more than 70 miles per hour …” (quoted according to the Italian edition Chance and Necessity, Milan 2001, p. 117ff) .”

 

[edwest211]

Exactly. No food source, no movement outside of a defined territory.

 

[Techno2000]

When it comes to hominids being before Adam, that’s a bodily thing, not a soul one.

So God used a soulless animal womb to bring Adam into the world ?

 

[edwest211]

That is the critical mistake being made here. One that some want to shoehorn into Catholic thinking. Adam and Eve were special creations. Period.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

So by the time they get to Minnesota, they will all have what it takes to survive there.

No animal in this day and age goes into an environment it’s unfit for.

They do if there are other factors propelling it, like too much competition where they are at.

 

[Techno2000]

Exactly. No food source, no movement outside of a defined territory.

If a alligator went to the desert, how do you think that would turn out ?Alligator jerky ?

 

[Aloysium]

I wouldn’t expect a neurologist to explain how the soul functions

I would.

Acknowledging that I failed to convince you otherwise, I would be interested in hearing your vision of how God brought us into being.

 

[edwest211]

There you go, stating the obvious again

Ed

 

[rossum]

But it’s still a Crayfish.

So you have no problem with humans evolving from earlier primates? “But they are still primates.”

Unless you understand the nesting of clades within the taxonomic hierarchy you will continue to make basic errors like this.

rossum