LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
The implication that you draw from the Catechism on this point is not so obvious to everyone else.
- Status
T
Techno2000
Guest
No. because dogs don’t get better at climbing, and chickens don’t get better at flying.Techno2000:
This isn’t something that happened millions of years ago. This happens all the time right now. Sometimes the differences are too small over too long a period to be noticeable. And there are other factors at play all the time. That’s why we are using this simple hypothetical to show how it works in principle.Bradskii:
If you could show me this in real life right now, I might could extrapolate this is how it worked millons of years ago. But so far this can only be speculation .
I am not saying that there ever was such an island with the dogs and the chooks. But if there were and the scenario was as described, then we would expect to see a result as I described.
This is simply micro evolution. In fact, a classic example. As I recall, you have previously stated that you have a problem with macro evolution, but no problem with micro evolution (because there is no change at the species level). That’s what we have here in our scenario.
And as Buffalo said earlier, no-one has any problem with it.
Agreed?
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
This article by Cardinal Schönborn speaks more philosophical interpretation of evolution than to the scientific truth of it. He rightly criticizes any use of evolution to conclude God is not the responsible creator of everything. But he does not directly criticize the purely scientific theory of evolution which takes no position of the role of God in creation.
E
edwest211
Guest
That’s it? His words made no impression? How about I stand around with a sign that reads:
Evolution.
A meaningless idea.
Let’s face it. It doesn’t affect anybody, including scientists. I mean, it’s obviously fodder for threads here but those go nowhere.
Evolution.
A meaningless idea.
Let’s face it. It doesn’t affect anybody, including scientists. I mean, it’s obviously fodder for threads here but those go nowhere.
E
edwest211
Guest
Catholics are required to believe:
“It follows that the message of Pope John Paul II cannot be read as a blanket approbation of all theories of evolution, including those of a neo-Darwinian provenance which explicitly deny to divine providence any truly causal role in the development of life in the universe.”
Might as well stop talking about the Biology textbook.
“It follows that the message of Pope John Paul II cannot be read as a blanket approbation of all theories of evolution, including those of a neo-Darwinian provenance which explicitly deny to divine providence any truly causal role in the development of life in the universe.”
Might as well stop talking about the Biology textbook.
E
edwest211
Guest
The full title shows a bias:
ON THE ORIGIN OF SPECIES.
OR THE PRESERVATION OF FAVOURED RACES IN THE STRUGGLE FOR LIFE.
ON THE ORIGIN OF SPECIES.
OR THE PRESERVATION OF FAVOURED RACES IN THE STRUGGLE FOR LIFE.
E
edwest211
Guest
But what if a river of lava kills all the dogs on the island and only the chickens survive 
B
Bradskii
Guest
But we already have dogs that cannot climb trees and those that can. And we also have chickens that can’t fly and chickens that can. But they are all just dogs and chickens. So something must have happened at some point to end up with a significant difference in climbing and flying ability.Bradskii:
No. because dogs don’t get better at climbing, and chickens don’t get better at flying.Techno2000:
This isn’t something that happened millions of years ago. This happens all the time right now. Sometimes the differences are too small over too long a period to be noticeable. And there are other factors at play all the time. That’s why we are using this simple hypothetical to show how it works in principle.Bradskii:
If you could show me this in real life right now, I might could extrapolate this is how it worked millons of years ago. But so far this can only be speculation .
I am not saying that there ever was such an island with the dogs and the chooks. But if there were and the scenario was as described, then we would expect to see a result as I described.
This is simply micro evolution. In fact, a classic example. As I recall, you have previously stated that you have a problem with macro evolution, but no problem with micro evolution (because there is no change at the species level). That’s what we have here in our scenario.
And as Buffalo said earlier, no-one has any problem with it.
Agreed?
Now you might say it was selective breeding. Which is simply taking out of the breeding population those dogs and chickens who are no good at climbing and flying and breeding those dogs that are better at climbing and those chooks that are better at flying.
Which is exactly what we have in our scenario. Except that rather than someone making the decision to remove the dogs and chooks who are not good climbers and flyers, it happens naturally.
Nobody else seems to have any problem whatsoever with minor changes in any given species, aka micro evolution. Are you the only one?
Last edited:
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
I don’t know why you think this quote is supposed to be an answer to the comment of mine that you were responding to. To simplify it a bit (for those you who, like me, had to look up what “approbation” meant), this quote says “The message of JPII does not give approval to every possible theory of evolution.” OK, fine. I didn’t expect that it did. But all this quote does is specify what the message does not mean. It does not say anything about what the Church does teach, or what the Church does forbid. So I would file this under the heading of “true by irrelevant.”
E
edwest211
Guest
God had a role and to “deny to divine providence any truly causal role in the development of life in the universe” is wrong. Every Catholic should believe and understand that.
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
Of course. That is the same for all scientific papers. They all proclaim a bias toward the thesis of the work. The question is, “is it an inappropriate bias?” I don’t think so. Did you expect Darwin to title his book “On the Origin of Species, or How I Might be All Wrong about this Evolution Business”?
Last edited:
T
Techno2000
Guest
And we have mountain goats that can out climb them.
And we have bats that can fly in pitch darkness.
Yes, God created every animal to fill a niche in a ecosystem.
Well, you have to come up with something if you don’t believe God created animals.
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
…or is still in the process of creating animals to fill new niches in the ecosystem as those niches arise.
E
edwest211
Guest
But God is not a scientific concept. It all happens by chance.
T
Techno2000
Guest
So random mutations produces animals not fit for survival, so that random mutations can come along later and fix it.
E
edwest211
Guest
Animals survive to fill their niche because they survived. Randomly.
T
Techno2000
Guest
And can you show me where this is happening now.Techno2000:
…or is still in the process of creating animals to fill new niches in the ecosystem as those niches arise.
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
If random mutations produce animals not fit for survival, there is no need to “fix” anything. Those mutations will quickly die with the animals that have them.
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
No, because you will just say it is adaptation.LeafByNiggle:
And can you show me where this is happening now.Techno2000:
…or is still in the process of creating animals to fill new niches in the ecosystem as those niches arise.
K
Kei
Guest
Say. I can mate dogs with other dogs and make dogs have fluffy hair.
I can mate dogs with other dogs and make dogs have long nails.
But I don’t see how I can possibly mate dogs with other dogs and bring about a wing or an extra leg.
This latter proposition is so strange that no one accepts it.
So, what is said is that slow changes accumulate over time. But these slow changes are not simply genetics, but are errors in reproducing. They are mutations. To cause a dog to have a wing, then one needs to have some sort of mutation that causes either a leg or multiple legs to be distorted or to have some sort of extra piece of material that can later serve as a wing.
Further, this mutation needs to be something that is passed on genetically. Then, the dog needs to survive long enough to mate. The dogs’ children need to get it. Then they have to mate in a way that somehow passes down this mutation despite that not seeming to be how genetics works.
Somewhere along the way, the mutation grows worse. But eventually this happens for a very long time and we get a wing. Somehow it will likely be useful, as I don’t know of any species with one wing, so it will have two. The mutation will have the ability to do something.
Now, I would like to know where my understanding is lacking. Please correct it. I am sure I must be in error in understanding as the above sounds ridiculous.
I can mate dogs with other dogs and make dogs have long nails.
But I don’t see how I can possibly mate dogs with other dogs and bring about a wing or an extra leg.
This latter proposition is so strange that no one accepts it.
So, what is said is that slow changes accumulate over time. But these slow changes are not simply genetics, but are errors in reproducing. They are mutations. To cause a dog to have a wing, then one needs to have some sort of mutation that causes either a leg or multiple legs to be distorted or to have some sort of extra piece of material that can later serve as a wing.
Further, this mutation needs to be something that is passed on genetically. Then, the dog needs to survive long enough to mate. The dogs’ children need to get it. Then they have to mate in a way that somehow passes down this mutation despite that not seeming to be how genetics works.
Somewhere along the way, the mutation grows worse. But eventually this happens for a very long time and we get a wing. Somehow it will likely be useful, as I don’t know of any species with one wing, so it will have two. The mutation will have the ability to do something.
Now, I would like to know where my understanding is lacking. Please correct it. I am sure I must be in error in understanding as the above sounds ridiculous.
Last edited:
- Status