Is Darwin's Theory of Evolution True? Part Three

[Aloysium]

the split of homo sapiens and Neanderthals

evolution, it states the scientific aspect of it

Adam was made eternal and would never die had we chosen to allow God His central place in our lives, and not succumbed to the temptation to make ourselves God without God. In this world, even in Eden, there are tectonic plates and therefore earthquakes, weather that includes hurricanes, and bacteria that are necessary to maintain environmental equilibrium, but may be damaging to ourselves. When Adam was fashioned, he was made to move and withstand the elements, to mend cuts, bruises, and broken bones, to fight off infections, basically to live in harmony with nature, which he was made to tend , to witness and share in the glory of its Creator. Even though Adam was intimately connected to the Source of all being, which would have made him new in any instant, these would be some of the ways in which this would be accomplished. So his genome was perfect in this sense.

As to the sapiens-neanderthalensis split, what we are discussing are mutations that occurred in humanity over a significant period of time within two separate groups that would not have much contact with each other. The phenotypic mutations, whether the result of built in factors in the genome to promote adaptation, or caused by the impact of physical forces that are universally destructive, demonstrate what we understand as mirco-evolution. Individuals from the two groups, sapiens and neanderthalensis, would have later met as they spread out and recognizing each other as human, intermarried. The genomic split was the result of a geographical split.

While science is utilized to create the story of evolution, it can also be used to create stories far more in keeping with the facts that research continues to bring forth.

 

[buffalo]

Once again. you are using a man made definition of species and one that is changing. Speciation is loss of an ability once had.

 

[buffalo]

There are those here who have made the claim evolution has been behind so much scientific progress. It has not.

I submit had we not been led astray, focusing on design would have been much better.

 

[Hugh_Farey]

There seem to be a number of arguments from authority being banded about here, which if possible I would like to probe. When a commenter declares that “the Catholic Church says this” or “the Catholic Church says that”, I always feel the urge to ask “where does the Catholic Church say any such thing?” Many people, it seems to me, depend on old Sunday school Teachers, Parish Priests and Newspapers for their authority.

In less Catholic forums, the word of the Bible itself is often treated as if it were the only authority, but even among fairly fundamentalist commenters there, there is constant dissent as to how literal it is. Our own doctrine is that

• the Church, to whom the transmission and interpretation of Revelation is entrusted, "does not derive her certainty about all revealed truths from the holy Scriptures alone. Both Scripture and Tradition must be accepted and honoured with equal sentiments of devotion and reverence. (CCC 82)

The Catechism, of course, says nothing about the literal truth of the worldwide flood. For further, non-canonical, elucidation, we can examine the encyclicals, sermons or speeches of various popes, many of which are published at vatican.va, and which should always be used as a confirmation (or otherwise) of what newspaper reports claim.

After all this diligent enquiry, it is well apparent that the “Catholic Church” is far less dogmatic than many of its adherents, and that in most matters of biblical interpretation, for example, Catholics are free to explore whatever interpretations they like, subject to the proviso:

• The whole concern of doctrine and its teaching must be directed to the love that never ends. Whether something is proposed for belief, for hope or for action, the love of our Lord must always be made accessible, so that anyone can see that all the works of perfect Christian virtue spring from love and have no other objective than to arrive at love. (CCC 25)

I’m aware, of course, that some commenters reject the authority of the more recent popes, the current Catechism, and the teachings of Vatican 2, and boldly declare that they are the ‘true’ Catholics. Well, fair enough, but what is their doctrinal authority? The old Roman Catechism can be found online; and it too refers to interpretation and exposition. Before they pontificate on what I ‘must’ believe, I should like to know how they know themselves.

 

[Aloysium]

He brought that knowledge together in the formation of the first human being, who then was made two, to be reunited as one in Love.

Isn’t it amazing that there are so many of us.

There’s a person, there’s another, and another, each one unique and irreplaceable in themselves - fathomless wonder!

Life becomes so trivialized, so filled with distractions and anxieties, pursuits of the wrong kinds, we become deadened to its mystery. There are so many different living things, each one as itself!

As other to each other, we meet in Loves embrace.

 

[edwest211]

It’s not just the scientific community but atheists who need to believe “no one made us.”

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Once again. you are using a man made definition of species and one that is changing. Speciation is loss of an ability once had.

Why do you say “man made definition” as if there is some better definition given by God? You want to change the rules of science, but still want to call it science. Only you and those who think like you accept the scientific definition of “speciation” as the loss of ability once had. Why don’t you just admit you don’t like science as man defines it?

 

[edwest211]

Yes, design makes far more sense. That is what is happening right now with genetic knock-out experiments. Biologists are treating the genome like a machine in an attempt to reverse engineer it. Evolution is a non-concept that does not help them.

 

[buffalo]

Because species is a man made definition.

As we learn more about genetics we will see a different definition emerge.

We already have seen the “tree of life” now become and entangled bush.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Because species is a man made definition.

As we learn more about genetics we will see a different definition emerge.

We already have seen the “tree of life” now become and entangled bush.

What you call “learning” I call drinking the Kool-Aid of YECs.

 

[edwest211]

Why are you using religious leaders to promote this idea?

 

[edwest211]

Wow! That makes absolutely no sense but it’s close enough to what we’re told to believe.

 

[Aloysium]

It’s not just the scientific community but atheists who need to believe “no one made us.”

Sorry for the long post, that I have to split up.

Julie Payette is Canada’s Governor General. Quoting Canadian Broadcasting artcles in the following, she is:

. . . one of 10 Canadians to go to space, and the second Canadian woman to do so. She has degrees in engineering, worked for IBM before joining the Canadian Space Agency, was chief operating officer of the Montreal Science Centre, speaks a half dozen languages, plays the piano and is an accomplished singer.

She has flown commercial and military jets, is certified as a deep sea diver, operated the Canadarm in two missions to the International Space Station. She is someone with fantastic credentials and a model for not only girls but for everyone, in terms of what she has acheived in a relatively short time.

As the keynote speaker at the ninth annual Canadian Science Policy Convention in Ottawa four months ago, she defended the new vision of reality - Scientism basically.

“Can you believe that still today in learned society, in houses of government, unfortunately, we’re still debating and still questioning whether humans have a role in the Earth warming up or whether even the Earth is warming up, period,” she asked, her voice incredulous.

"And we are still debating and still questioning whether life was a divine intervention or whether it was coming out of a natural process let alone, oh my goodness, a random process."

She generated giggles and even some guffaws from the audience when she said too many people still believe “taking a sugar pill will cure cancer if you will it good enough and that your future and every single one of the people here’s personalities can be determined by looking at planets coming in front of invented constellations.”

She went on to remark:

“Democracy and society have always gained from learned debate but we have to remain vigilant and we cannot let ourselves fall into complacency and we must be vocal, all the time, everywhere, every single one of us, so we can deconstruct misinformation and don’t end up in an echo chamber just listening to what we want to hear,”

There is much that could be said about the foregoing; my comments would include:

• I too am surprised why we are debating creation when it is so clear.
• Placebo is recognized to have an important role in medicine, so it is not far-fetched to interpret her statements as being against prayer.
• This is clearly a call to atheistic evangelism.

 

[Aloysium]

Canada’s Prime Minister Trudeau who has pledged to give science a more prominent place in his government’s policy-making, appointing a chief science adviser earlier this fall and undergoing a national science policy review. He defended Payette when questioned by reporters the next day.

“We are a government grounded in science. Canadians are people who understand the value of science and knowledge as a foundation for the future of our country,” the prime minister said.

“And I am extraordinarily proud of the strength and the story of our Governor General, Julie Payette, who has never hidden away her passion for science and her deep faith that knowledge, research and the truth is a foundation for any free, stable, successful society,” added Trudeau.

“And I applaud the firmness with which she stands in support of science and the truth.”

Under Trudeau, Canada has seen the introduction of “Doctor assisted Death” as a treatment modality, immediately certified by the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada. In Ontario, a doctor who refuses to make a referral for the procedure could be taken before a disciplinary board; this contentious issue is being defused by allowing patients in the government run health system to make self-referrals, where for other specialties they cannot. He also, in establishing a federal program to help local small businesses, nonprofits and charities provide summer jobs to over 70,000 students, required any organization receiving government funding to “attest” to liberal beliefs on abortion and LGBT rights, in line with their particular view of what constitutes “science and the truth”.

In this situation, we have the full power of the state, that of a presumed democratic nation, pushing an atheistic agenda, not dissimilar to what we have seen in Communism.

 

[edwest211]

That is exactly right. Science has been manipulated to promote falsehoods. While much of what scientists discover is neutral, much of it, if seen as useful by certain groups, is funded or appropriated for other uses. Or outright manipulations are promoted as “scientific truth” when, in fact, it amounts to Group A lobbied Science Group B to agree to their agenda.

 

[Glark]

This implies that Catholics can now be free masons. This is untrue. Can Catholics Become Freemasons? - Canon Law Made EasyCanon Law Made Easy

Okay, thanks for that. but I like to know how a Freemason in my parish managed to become a Eucharistic Minister. Another fine example of “the spirit of Vatican II” in action, I suppose.

Source please? Something not from a rad trad/sede site, but a reputable source.

The source is padrepioandchiesaviva.com … It is a “rad trad” site. These kind of sites serve up their fair share of rubbish, but I think some of the points they make are legitimate.
For example, If Father Luigi Villa swears Saint (Padre) Pio made those comments about the Church being infiltrated by Freemasonry, then I am willing to believe him - because of what I see going on in the post-Vat II Church - the evidence fits the theory very convincingly. If the source of the Church’s contemporary corruption isn’t Freemasonry, then it’s something very much like it.

Incidentally, it’s interesting to observe how JP2’s “inter-faith” movement stood the test of time. Well, it didn’t - it disappeared with his coffin into the dark oblivion of history. So it was not of God, but just one Pope’s demented, humanist fantasy. Yet this sick Church of ours declared this nutter a saint! What a joke. Thankfully, sainthoods can be revoked.

 

[Glark]

Green Warblers speciate into more Green Warblers. Is this evidence that Green Warblers can evolve into something other than Green Warblers? In the mad, sad world of Darwinism it is, but I don’t believe it.

 

[Glark]

I can’t give you an intro to evolutionary biology course

No need to - I learnt about how evolution works more than 40 years ago. I’m not an expert, but I understand the basics - certainly enough to know that, as science, it’s on very thin ice (although as an atheist bed-time story, it is excellent).

The fact that you phrase the question as you have proves that you aren’t even conversationally familiar with what evolution is

Mysterious. Please explain. Btw, I asked you in a previous post to supply evidence of your earlier claim that I don’t understand the theory of evolution. You haven’t supplied any such evidence. (Please be aware that some my posts are just me being silly or sarcastic and are not meant to be taken seriously.)

practical uses. Okay. Medical research, especially in immunology. Population biology. Agriculture, animal husbandry. All of these fields depend upon evolution as the fundamental theory that explains what it is they do and why. Your doctors all depend upon it as the foundation of medicine and why medicine does what it does once the subject is drilled down to the very basics.

This doesn’t answer my question. if you read my post again, you will notice that I didn’t ask you for an example of a practical use for “evolution”. Rather, I asked for an example of a practical use for the theory that all life on earth evolved from a microbe. There’a a big difference - you see, Darwinism is intellectual fraud - it attempts to deceive people (like you) with words games: Some forms of “evolution” are demonstrably factual and useful; other forms of “evolution” are not demonstrably factual and are useless.

I’ve got more news for you: None of the fields of science you have mentioned here depend in any way, shape or form on the theory that all life on earth evolved from microbes.

Please note that evolution DOES NOT mean abiogenesis.

Thank you, but I have long been aware of that.

 

[Glark]

Wow! That makes absolutely no sense but it’s close enough to what we’re told to believe.

It’s clear that my aptitude for evolutionary biology is quite extraordinary. I’m thinking of making a career out of it. It’s so much fun!

 

[Glark]

But the fact is they are not all atheists.

Name one evolutionary biologist who isn’t an atheist.