R
Rau
Guest
That’s an odd criticism to make when one is inclined to say “God snapped his fingers, and voila”. That truly can explain anything.
- Status
B
benjamin1973
Guest
Giraffes that couldn’t reach the higher leaves during a food shortage.
B
benjamin1973
Guest
?
Evolution isn’t an on-off species switch. There are gradual changes as a kind of organism adapts to its environment. There’s no “first” anything: there are individuals which match to greater or lesser degrees the archetypal animals we have in mind when we say “monkey” or “giraffe.”
Whoever / whatever you would call the first person would eat whatever people ate at that time. They didn’t get dropped out of a UFO and have to figure out what to eat by trial-and-error.
Evolution isn’t an on-off species switch. There are gradual changes as a kind of organism adapts to its environment. There’s no “first” anything: there are individuals which match to greater or lesser degrees the archetypal animals we have in mind when we say “monkey” or “giraffe.”
Whoever / whatever you would call the first person would eat whatever people ate at that time. They didn’t get dropped out of a UFO and have to figure out what to eat by trial-and-error.
Last edited:
R
Rau
Guest
No, that is not. Nor have you claimed it to be.
E
edwest211
Guest
Evidence? 16 characters.
B
benjamin1973
Guest
For evolution?
Provided pages of evidence for it already.
For “people ate whatever people ate”? That’s true by definition. They didn’t eat grass, and they didn’t eat wood, because people are not well-adapted to eating those foods.
Provided pages of evidence for it already.
For “people ate whatever people ate”? That’s true by definition. They didn’t eat grass, and they didn’t eat wood, because people are not well-adapted to eating those foods.
E
edwest211
Guest
That’s not evidence. Blank slate human beings could grab anything and give it a try. Snakes would be a mystery. So would poisonous plants. Their chances of dying would be very high. Cliff? What’s that? I want to see that walking thing down there. Fall to death. No witnesses. What is this glowing stuff? Burned hand. No witnesses. Infection? Disease? More death. They were dumb as bricks. “Can’t eat wood?” Why not give it a try? Tastes a little funny but animals chew on branches. Who told them any different?
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
Read “Why Evolution is True” by Jerry Coyne to see what evidence there is.
E
edwest211
Guest
The media has had a habit for selecting Jerry Coyne as their answer man. One article I read made me see why. Evolution appears useless but it’s not. It’s useful for helping people imagine a world where no one made them and they’re not really responsible for their actions.
F
Frankenfurter
Guest
No, this fish (the one in the picture) was born with the appendage so she did not have to wait.
Perhaps when we describe ‘this fish’ we mean this species of fish, not the singular animal. We have to be careful, because now we are talking about something that might change slowly over very long times. Is that even a thing?
We have to think of life (this species of fish for example) as a process, not a static event. The species of fish itself is a process that by its existence moves and changes and adapts. The ‘thing’ itself (the species) is a dynamic process, not a static physical animal. Even a single animal can adapt and change if needed. That is the beauty of life, it is itself a process.
Now where did this ability to change come from? It appears to be built into creation. So there is an intimate link between creation itself and life. The free-will that we have been given is infused into all of creation. It is the ability of creation to change. Without this, we would be robots only capable of doing what we were statically designed to do. But having the ability to change means that we take part in creation itself. This may not always go well, and may not always end up in beauty. This is what we mean by the fall of man and the fall of all creation. Our free-will and the free will of all creation has affected creation itself. We are part of the creative process. Where did that gift of creation come from? From God.
Perhaps when we describe ‘this fish’ we mean this species of fish, not the singular animal. We have to be careful, because now we are talking about something that might change slowly over very long times. Is that even a thing?
We have to think of life (this species of fish for example) as a process, not a static event. The species of fish itself is a process that by its existence moves and changes and adapts. The ‘thing’ itself (the species) is a dynamic process, not a static physical animal. Even a single animal can adapt and change if needed. That is the beauty of life, it is itself a process.
Now where did this ability to change come from? It appears to be built into creation. So there is an intimate link between creation itself and life. The free-will that we have been given is infused into all of creation. It is the ability of creation to change. Without this, we would be robots only capable of doing what we were statically designed to do. But having the ability to change means that we take part in creation itself. This may not always go well, and may not always end up in beauty. This is what we mean by the fall of man and the fall of all creation. Our free-will and the free will of all creation has affected creation itself. We are part of the creative process. Where did that gift of creation come from? From God.
Begs the question.
Why didn’t the trees that one would presume grew tall to keep our of reach of the giraffes get taller.
Unless it was a benefit that the giraffe eat their leaves…but then why grow taller then the giraffe on the first place?
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
So did you read his book? Or are you not really interested in hearing about evidence for evolution?
B
benjamin1973
Guest
I said I gave general evidence for evolution. I can provide the link if you like, and you’ll find the evidence is quite robust.
Why do you keep talking about “blank slate” human beings? Nobody either Catholic or evolutionists believes in that. Do you think people just fell out of a UFO according to evolution? That’s not how it works.
Why do you keep talking about “blank slate” human beings? Nobody either Catholic or evolutionists believes in that. Do you think people just fell out of a UFO according to evolution? That’s not how it works.
B
benjamin1973
Guest
Trees definitely do grow taller to gain resources and avoid damage, or they grow thistles. Evolution is often an arms race-- but a tree is much more limited in the nutrition at its disposal than a mammal, so in dry climates, a tree just isn’t going to be able to grow that big unless it’s very exceptional indeed.
G
Glark
Guest
You’re right, of course. I don’t know for sure that the Church will eventually come down against evolution - it’s just a hunch.
G
Glark
Guest
The Pope and the Catholic education system also support the notion that man is the main cause of global warming - doesn’t mean it’s true. Personally, I think it better to use one’s own judgement than to mindlessly follow the herd.
This may come as a shock to you: Many so-called Catholic teachers aren’t even believers.
Last edited:
T
Techno2000
Guest
So the higher leaves were immune to food shortages…sorry that ain’t going to happen.
I
IWantGod
Guest
You don’t understand. The Catholic Authority supports the science and they support it theologically in the sense that they are not against the possibility of it. Its not just a political or scientific opinion.
And I’m certainly not going to follow a group who try to imply that Catholics who support evolution are not Catholics or are less faithful. The evidence for evolution is sufficient for it to be a legitimate scientific theory. It could be wrong, but that’s besides the point.
And the fact that some teachers in Catholic schools are not believers is irrelevant.
Last edited:
- Status