Is Darwin's Theory Of Evolution True? Part Two

[Aloysium]

I’m not sure why you are asking me these questions. I’m not an idiot, outside of my internet persona. I suppose it is easier to tilt at windmills than to engage in actual discourse.

I’ll answer those questions in my own manner. Life is more than simply matter, which constitutes that aspect of an organism that the senses can perceive. A mountain may not actually exist in its own right as a collection of minerals, but even if it did, while it could not grow with the urging of tectonic plates and lava, it would not reproduce or experience the rainfall, the ice, the wind and the life which grows on it. Let’s take ourselves as examples, to avoid pointless discussions about the nature of animal psychology. We exist as whole beings, complex in our make-up, but unified in our existence. We individually perceive, think, feel and act as one being. We connect with one another through the giving of ourselves, in love. The totality of a living being is created at conception but develops and grows, until like a flower, we wilt, creating through our decisions the seed from which sprouts our eternal selves. That’s the reality of our existence in time, since the first man entered into sin, and through Jesus Christ we have journeyed back to God.

What I cannot accept is bad science. My personal interpretation of divine revelation is inconsequential as I defer to the Church on such matters. And it is quite clear that the truth contradicts the Theory of Evolution.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

I’m not sure why you are asking me these questions.

I am asking about plate tectonics because it is something you probably accept, even though the case for plate tectonics is no better than the case for evolution of species. You say that evolution oversteps its bounds of science. So I naturally wanted to know if you think plate tectonics oversteps its bounds of science. A simple yes or no answer would suffice.

I’ll answer those questions in my own manner. Life is more than simply matter, which constitutes that aspect of an organism that the senses can perceive. A mountain may not actually exist in its own right as a collection of minerals, but even if it did, while it could not grow with the urging of tectonic plates and lava, it would not reproduce or experience the rainfall, the ice, the wind and the life which grows on it. Let’s take ourselves as examples, to avoid pointless discussions about the nature of animal psychology. We exist as whole beings, complex in our make-up, but unified in our existence. We individually perceive, think, feel and act as one being. We connect with one another through the giving of ourselves, in love. The totality of a living being is created at conception but develops and grows, until like a flower, we wilt, creating through our decisions the seed from which sprouts our eternal selves. That’s the reality of our existence in time, since the first man entered into sin, and through Jesus Christ we have journeyed back to God.

OK, this way of look at life is something I can agree with. Life is more than science. Concepts like love and awareness and feelings and sin and salvation are only possible within this expanded understanding of life. This understanding is very important. But it is not science. It is more important to our souls, but it is not science. Perhaps science is not very important in the grand scheme of things. OK, fine, I can even support that idea. But science tells us that South America was once part of Africa. Is that important? Perhaps not. But it is what science tells us. And science also tells us that the physical forms of creatures, including ourselves, were generated from other creatures. Perhaps that’s not very important either. Fine. But it is science.

 

[Metis1]

In the simplest of terms, yes. Unfortunately, many add items that are not intrinsic to the ToE or are only hypotheses.

 

[buffalo]

From Biology Direct

Why we don’t want another “Synthesis”

Indeed, abandoning the notion of a unified master theory is an obvious reform for 21st-century evolutionary biology. When the implicit demand for such a theory is removed from the current EES debate, for instance, what is left is a set of causal factors relevant to niche construction, developmental bias, and phenotypic plasticity, each of which deserves to be evaluated on its merits. Debates over such factors would be more productive if proponents of novel causes were to follow the model of Kimura’s Neutral Theory, which does not merely invoke a possible mode of change, but makes a precise general claim about the size of its effects in evolution.

Today, wishy-washy defenses of an ongoing “Synthesis” are easy targets for a badly needed reform in our ongoing discourse on the state of evolutionary thought: rejecting Synthesis propaganda, and accepting evolutionary biology as a legitimate scientific discipline that entertains bold conjectures about the measurable effects of novel causes, with no need for a master theory. The era of master theories based on ruling principles and grand schemes is long past. The OMS was the last such theory. There will not be another.

Why we don’t want another “Synthesis” - Biology Direct

High-level debates in evolutionary biology often treat the Modern Synthesis as a framework of population genetics, or as an intellectual lineage with a changing distribution of beliefs. Unfortunately, these flexible notions, used to negotiate decades of innovations, are now thoroughly detached...

biologydirect.biomedcentral.com

 

[Glark]

However, he relies on interpretation from Jewish sources, who may have some idea on how to interpret, in fact it sounds quite similar to other things.

As far as I know, there are at least three different Jewish interpretations of Genesis 1 (other than mine). Schroeder builds his case on one of them.

Besides that, the ancient Jews had no reason to consider that there may have been a creation that preceded the “six days” of Genesis 1 - they didn’t have the evidence of science (the fossil and geological records and cosmology) to contend with. Unlike theistic evolution, my interpretation requires no radical distortions and denials of Scripture (nor the ludicrous, Church-approved tale of soul-less humans) - in fact, it is based on a very literal interpretation.

Interestingly, the Catholic Encyclopaedia refers to Genesis 1:1 (“In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth” as “the First Creation”, and Genesis 1:3-31 (the “six days” of creation) as “the Second Creation”.

And then you say it is that light is on the Earth, only if the Earth is without form.

I don’t know what you mean.

My point is that if you complain about Adam and Eve being not at the beginning of Creation to me, it would make no sense as well in your view. I think it makes sense. But, in applying your own ideas to your other preconceived notion, it is in the same boat. That is my point.

There is no confusion - the Scriptures make it clear that Adam and Eve were created during the during the “six days” creation. Jesus knew that and so did the Jews he was talking to.

 

[Kei]

Yes, I agree that Adam and Eve were created in the six days. My point is that everyone knows it was toward the end, not the beginning of the creation period. So Jesus most likely means from the beginning as in referring to the whole creation account, the beginning of Creation.
I also find the idea of soulless humans odd.
I suppose I may agree with the Church that it is a creation, a coming of being, and then an ordering. This literal reading of Genesis is also compatible with the big bang, in fact, remarkably similar.

 

[Glark]

Yes, because the theorized mechanism for a microbe evolving into a human is the very same one that permits a roach to evolve into a different species of roach.

Human beings are running 100 meters faster than they were 50 years ago, but I wouldn’t extroplolate on this fact and conclude that, one day, humans will run 100 meters in one second. To do so would be to ignore another fact - nature imposes genetic limits.

 

[Glark]

Well, as it says, they are on the verge of being a new species. That is how drastically they have evolved, in such a short time mind you.

And this is evidence that microbes can evolve into humans? Wow, that’s quite a leap … of faith.

Uranium “evolves” into lead over a long period of time, but this is a demonstrable fact … that doesn’t require a leap of faith. It is science, in other words. Assuming microbes evolved into humans is not a demonstrable fact, and is pseudo-science … a story.

 

[Glark]

Why would we need to calculate anything? We have the fossils showing the change. We can see it happened.

“Why would we need to calculate anything? We have the crop circles showing their presence. We can see it happened.” - a UFOlogist argung for the existence of Aliens.

 

[Glark]

Who claimed it was? Who even mentioned infallibility?

Only me. My point is, since the Church is not infallible in matters of science, she could be dead wrong in accepting evolution as fact. After all, we are talking about the greatest demonic hoax ever perpertrated on mankind.

 

[Glark]

The 60’s marked the final collapse of Christian civilization. The rot started centuries before, during the Renaissance, followed by the so-called Enlightenment. Out of the resultant atheism (and Moderism) came a “scientific” excuse to get rid of the Creator - evolution. (The year 666 AD approximately marked the birth of Islam; 2 x 666 = 1332 AD - approx the Renniasance; 3 x 666 = 1998 AD - Satan gathers these two antichrist forces to battle against the Church, the civilization she built, and the nation of Israel (see “Gog and Magog”, Rev 20:7).

 

[Glark]

The basic ToE is just plain old common sense, namely that it appears all material objects change over time and genes are material objects.

I agree - look what time produced on Mt. Rushmore. And who can doubt that a forest + lots of time can produce a log cabin?

 

[Glark]

civil rights

All hail the great false god of Equality … which is a cultural Marxist construct. But I digress.

 

[Glark]

The 60’s were something lived, a personal voyage in a tumultuous sea of societal norms. I liked the music that flowed from various influences in the past and went on in new directions. I am reluctant to admit, but I didn’t mind and even liked some disco that followed.

The 60’s produced a lot of fantastic music - but some of it was chocolate-covered poison.

 

[Glark]

Not a good comparison. A movement rate for plate tectonics has been established. It can be demonstrated that rock strata from South America and Africa indicate they were joined at one point. Evolution? Not much there at all.

The theory of tectonic plates cannot be used to produce doubts about the existence of
God or promote atheism.

 

[Glark]

Yes, I agree that Adam and Eve were created in the six days. My point is that everyone knows it was toward the end, not the beginning of the creation period. So Jesus most likely means from the beginning as in referring to the whole creation account, the beginning of Creation.

Jesus would have been talking according to the context of Biblical interpretation of his day. Interpreting a creation prior to Adam and Eve from Scripture was probably non-existent in the time of Christ (which doesn’t mean it’s not scripturally feasible, btw). So, for all intents and purposes, when Jesus referred to “the beginning of creation”, he knew everyone would understand that as “the six days”.

Furthermore, believing in a separate pre-Adamic creation was not necessary. Neither is it necessary now, but it may go a long way to explaining certain scientific claims - which is important, as it encourages belief in Scripture, instead of creating doubts about its authenticity. Many folks doubt the Bible - and hence, Christian faith - because they believe science discredits it.

 

[anon65111186]

And this is evidence that microbes can evolve into humans? Wow, that’s quite a leap … of faith.

If you think about the principle, it logically follows.
Animals are evolving into (practically) different species in a short amount of time.
Given the supposed age of earth, lots of short evolutions put together would be accomplish in just enough time the human species.

Bacteria multiplies extremely quickly, and babies grow from one cell to a baby in 9 months. Evolution isn’t that amazing once you realize the amazing things that make up evolution are already happening.

 

[Techno2000]

The 60’s marked the final collapse of Christian civilization. The rot started centuries before, during the Renaissance, followed by the so-called Enlightenment. Out of the resultant atheism (and Moderism) came a “scientific” excuse to get rid of the Creator - evolution. (The year 666 AD approximately marked the birth of Islam; 2 x 666 = 1332 AD - approx the Renniasance; 3 x 666 = 1998 AD - Satan gathers these two antichrist forces to battle against the Church, the civilization she built, and the nation of Israel (see “Gog and Magog”, Rev 20:7).

666 indicated thrice, that is to say, for the third time, expresses the year 1998, nineteen-hundred and ninety-eight. In this period of history, Freemasonry, assisted by its ecclesiastical form, will succeed in its great design: that of setting up an idol to put in the place of Christ and of his Church.

https://www.heartofmaryarabic.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/The-Blue-Book.pdf

 

[Rau]

The theory of tectonic plates cannot be used to produce doubts about the existence of God or promote atheism.

So if someone purports to draw a conclusion (say, about the existence of God) from a theory - which conclusion is in fact no part of the theory, nor a logical necessity of the theory - then the theory is to be condemned. Makes sense.

What we are seeing on this thread is fear of science, masquerading as hatred and derision.

 

[Aloysium]

Problems arise comparing theories having to do with tectonics and the formation of the earth to those related to life, its origins and transformations.

That which truly defines organisms, their individual existence in themselves is outside our direct sensory experience. There is a radical difference between the study of biological entities and those having to do with the earth sciences. Mountains exist as individual beings only in mythology. Understanding life, what it is, how it began and how it changed requires a different approach than that used in studying land formations, one that must extend beyond our current understandings in the physical sciences. The failure to appreciate these limits has resulted in the caricature of reality that is materialism.

We can narrow our focus to just the material, but then must be aware of another issue that arises if we choose to compare the study of organisms to that of tectonics. The problem that arises has to do with the complexity of processes found within a single cell, which is greater than there is in an entire mountain range and, I would say, the entire geology of the earth. We can easily deduce how the earth was formed. We can do actual experiments and create materials similar to those found in the ground. On the other hand, although we might believe it possible, it stretches the imagination beyond its capacities to fully consider, for example, how the first cell with a nucleus could have been formed. While some may believe such things are possible, it is actually quite a wild assertion that prokaryotes underwent some spontaneous metamorphosis based solely on the vagaries of electrochemical interactions. There’s no actual proof that this happened, and no known mechanism by which it could.

There clearly there exists a hierarchy of physical complexity which may be attributed to randomness if by that we mean that it it has no discernible cause. The problem arises when the meaning of random shifts to mean that the cause is to be found in the known physical forces of nature. A cause is stated where none has been shown to occur except when things go wrong, when physically induced mutation disrupts the natural reproductive functioning of the cell. While the study of tectonic plates can rest almost entirely on the physical sciences, living forms exist under another organizing principle which must be accounted for. The Theory of Evolution identifies that organizing principle as the known laws of physics, which amounts to no more than a belief.