Is The Theory of Evolution mandatory for the modern worldview

[Philipp]

Feb 24, '08, 7:34 pm
Replies: 332 Is The Theory of Evolution mandatory for the modern worldview
Views: 3,168 Posted By The Barbarian
Re: Is The Theory of Evolution mandatory for the modern worldview

It’s a popular scam for creationists. Here’s how to do it:

You find some freshly-formed volcanic rock, making sure there are some unmelted xenocrysts in it (these, not having melted will be very,…

PHILIPP: That is a total falsehood. Don’t judge others by the way you quote other peoples’s statements: Example - what the pope said when it was really the Pontifical Academy of Science’s propaganda. There is a good report on zonocrysts which shows that such crystals give ages in the many millions and billions of years. The samples chosen by all scientists are strictly of the variety needed to get what is considered accurate ages and they DON’T come anywhere close to C-14 dates for the same strata or magmatic event [almost always 50 to 50,000 times older therefore what does that say for your old earth belief!]—you and Cremo should read something other than evolutionism dating references so then you might realize that Bible History is real cool Yes I realize that dating Pompei gave a date 2000 BP. But I suspect that was pick the closest to what they knew really did happen and stuff the other reports in file 13, the same way they did for for dating Leakey’s 1410 skull that he found. Here’s the reference to zenocrysts:
Funkhouser, J.G. and J.J. Naughton. 1968. He and Ar in ultramafic inclusions. Journal of Geophysical Research 73:4601-4607. Want more?

Want more?

 

[PhilVaz]

other Phil << The 1909 PBC decrees on Adam and Eve are still binding. They have never been abrogated as some TE’s claim our resident theologian etc would never say that; he of course most certainly would know better. Cardinal Schonborn’s speculations do not have any magisterial authority. >>

What is it you have against Cardinal Schonborn? You realize he knows the Catholic faith better than you and I put together. He wrote the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Once you concede the current Pope and a leading Cardinal are on the theistic evolutionist side, the debate is over, the TE case is won. Thank you. We also have Cardinal Paul Poupard.

As for the 1909 PBC decrees, I’ll beat you to it. Another article on my site contains the De Fide dogmas on creation from Ludwig Ott, and the statements from the 1909 PBC commission:
Catholic Dogma and Teaching on Creation

This is to be distinguished from another article on creationism:
Catholic Creationism and Jack Chick Comics

As for whale evolution and questions you may have, you should take it up with the leading researchers: Thewissen and Gingerich. Thewissen also has a 500 page book on the subject (price is a bit steep). I am fairly confident you (or the creationist sites you get your objections from) haven’t thought of anything they don’t know about it already. I am not the one questioning the evidence, so you need to look into it deeper yourself (their peer-reviewed articles in Nature and Science as well).

Phil P

 

[Namesake]

That is a false statement. It is why Pope Benedict was compelled to state: “We are not some casual, meaningless product of evolution.” It is why Catholics are taught not to believe in atheistic evolution. Get it straight: textbook evolution tells everyone that evolution works entirely on its own with no outside (supernatural) intervention of any kind.

God bless,
Ed

Of course evolution theory is devoid of reference to the supernatural. Science by definition does not address the supernatural. Science is about facts. Religion is about belief. The two must remain separate.

 

[Memaw]

Hardly nastiness. He is giving good advice about how to improve the effectiveness of Memaw’s arguments. By confusing monkeys and apes, Memaw is showing a lack of basic knowledge in the area of human evolution. Suggesting a remedy to that lack is good advice, and will lead to better arguments.

At a basic level monkeys have tails while apes do not. Humans did not evolve from monkeys, but evolved from apes - we do not have tails. Confusing the two is an elementary error; making such a mistake does not impress those of us with some biological knowledge.

rossum

I am not showing ANY knowledge in human evolution and I am NOT trying to impress anyone either. Its a common expression that man came from monkeys, I just borrowed it from others. I know where I came from and I don’t need anyone to “improve my effectiveness”. I seem to be getting the very effect I wanted.

 

[The_Barbarian]

All of the following features “appear” in the whale without precursors in the land mammals from which the whale is supposed to have evolved.

Well, that’s why they are whales. They have apomorphic features that show they evolved from ungulates, but these features have been greatly modified in whales.

Let’s take a look at your list.

Counter current heat exchanger for intra-abdominal testes

It’s called a “rete”, a counter-current designed to control temperature by warming (or cooling) incoming blood with cooler (or warmer) blood. The rete testes is found in various ungulates, so it’s not surprising that they are found in whales, which evolved from ungulates.

biolreprod.org/cgi/content/abstract/23/1/29

Dorsal fin

You think a streamlined bump on the back is impossible for evolution? We’ve observed the evolution of an irreducibly complex enzyme system. That’s hard. Bumps are easy.

Ball vertebra

Earliest known whales didn’t have them. So it’s pretty foolish to claim that they didn’t evolve. They gradually evolved in a series of steps to their present form.

Tail flukes and musculature

The same applies. If we can find complicated enyzme systems evolving, it’s pretty dumb to deny bumps can evolve. Moreover, we can show why whales have horizontal flukes, while fish have vertical tails. It is another important demonstration that whales evolved from terrestrial mammals. Would you like to learn about it?

Blubber

You think ungulates don’t have subcutaneous fat? Really? Incidentally, hippos, which have a 5 cm layer of blubber, are genetically very close to whales.

Baleen plates

Early whales didn’t have them, either, and we have intermediate steps in the evolution of these:

**Morphological and Molecular Evidence for a Stepwise Evolutionary Transition from Teeth to Baleen in Mysticete Whales
Systematic Biology, Volume 57, Issue 1 February 2008 , pages 15 - 37
Abstract
To date, all formally described mysticete fossils conform to two types: toothed species from Oligocene-age rocks (sim 24 to 34 million years old) and toothless species that presumably utilized baleen to feed (Recent to sim 30 million years old). Here, we show that several Oligocene toothed mysticetes have nutrient foramina and associated sulci on the lateral portions of their palates, homologous structures in extant mysticetes house vessels that nourish baleen. The simultaneous occurrence of teeth and nutrient foramina implies that both teeth and baleen were present in these early mysticetes. Phylogenetic analyses of a supermatrix that includes extinct taxa and new data for 11 nuclear genes consistently resolve relationships at the base of Mysticeti. The combined data set of 27,340 characters supports a stepwise transition from a toothed ancestor, to a mosaic intermediate with both teeth and baleen, to modern baleen whales that lack an adult dentition but retain developmental and genetic evidence of their ancestral toothed heritage. Comparative sequence data for ENAM (enamelin) and AMBN (ameloblastin) indicate that enamel-specific loci are present in Mysticeti but have degraded to pseudogenes in this group. **

Modified eyes

All mammals have modified eyes, not just whales and other ungulates.

Cartilaginous supports for trachea and lungs

All mammals have cartilagenous support for trachae and lungs, not just whales and other ungulates.

Ability to drink sea water

Most marine mammals have the ability to drink seawater. That ability has also evolved in reptiles and birds. It requires a slight modification of kidneys, or modification of tear or other glands.

Nurse young underwater

They don’t nurse young under water. No teats. Just squirt it out and the young one drinks.

Forelimbs transformed into flippers

It’s happened in several groups of mammals. You don’t have to do much to make that happen. And since basic mammalian limbs are useful as flippers to start with, you’re only talking about modification of existing structures.

(and polydactyly)

A single mutation in a gene that controls timing of the limb bud does this. It’s why humans are sometimes polydactyl, and why very large dogs frequently are.

Loss of hind limbs

The earliest whales had hind limbs and could actually walk on land with them. Over time, they evolved to smaller and smaller size. But they still have the genes for legs. Every now and then a whale will be born with sizable hind legs.
daphne.palomar.edu/ccarpenter/whale_legs.htm

The genes never went away; they were just shut off. But sometimes, a mutation can turn them back on.

Reduction/modification of pelvis

Many ungulates (horses for example) have undergone modification of the pelvis. Why is that a problem?

Everyone enjoys fairy tales, but not in a biology forum.

Right. So the next time you copy this sort of foolishness from some fundamentalist Protestant website, how about doing just a bit of fact-checking so you don’t do this to yourself, again?

On another point with regards Adam and Eve:

The 1909 PBC decrees on Adam and Eve are still binding. They have never been abrogated as some TE’s claim

As the Pope says, the reality of Adam and Eve, does not conflict with evolution. He points to the vast body of evidence from numerous sources that make evolution and even common descent “virtually certain.”

But is that hard science?

Harder than physics, according to Nobel Laureate Irwin Schroedinger ( What is Life?, 1944)
dieoff.org/page150.htm

Next time, be more careful who you let lead you.

 

[rossum]

Because new animal groups did not continue to appear after the Cambrian explosion 530 million years ago, he believes that a unique kind of evolution was going on in Cambrian seas.

I do not know what Dr Chen means by “new animal groups”, but he is probably wrong, or has been misreported. Tetrapods are a “new animal group” which emerged after the Cambrian - all land animals and plants have developed after the Cambrian. If Dr Chen means phyla, then he is also wrong. There are phyla whose date of emergence we do not know, because we have no fossils, only living representatives. Other phyla have good fossil records starting well after the Cambrian. I also notice that Dr Chen does not mention plant phyla, we have plant phyla first emerging well after the Cambrian.

And, because his years of examining rocks from before the Cambrian period has not turned up viable ancestors for the Cambrian animal groups, he concludes that their evolution must have happened quickly, within a mere 2 or 3 million years.

Again I think that Dr Chen has been misreported. There are Vendian (late Precambrian) ancestors of some modern phyla, for example Kimberella (a probable mollusc ancestor) or Spriggina (a possible arthopod ancestor). Sponges have been found a lot earlier.

Some figures for the appearance of phyla:

Period              # animal phyla    # plant phyla  total phyla
======              ==============    =============  ===========
Recent               12                 1             13
Oligocene             1                 1              2
Eocene                1                 1              2
Jurassic              1                 0              1
Triassic              0                 3              3
Carboniferous         3                 2              5
Devonian              1                 3              4
Silurian              0                 1              1
Ordovician            1                 0              1
Cambrian              9                 0              9
Vendian               4                 0              4

From Glenn Morton: [home.entouch.net/dmd/cambevol.htm](http://home.entouch.net/dmd/cambevol.htm)

Here “Recent” phyla include phyla with no fossil record - mostly small squishy marine invertebrates that do not fossilise well. The Cambrian is obviously important in animal evolution but much less so in plant evolution. Dr Chen has either been misreported or is overstating his case.

rossum

 

[Memaw]

You can only hear your head rattling from inside it, so that’s why I assumed she must have been speaking from experience.

Go back and see whose doing all the talking. Again, NOPE

 

[Wolseley]

reggieM:

Again, agreed – but I hope you’ll be back.

Memaw:

Yes, please stick around, we need you.

Thanks, guys, but I really have very little desire for these threads. After dealing with certain comments and attitudes, I’d just as soon undergo a cayenne pepper suppository inserted with a red hot fireplace poker.

However, if either one of you are interested enough to know what’s in Forbidden Archeology, I’ll be happy to provide it for you via PM. I wouldn’t depend on what anyone else here has told you about it—other than me, since I’m the only one here who’s actually read it. Just drop me a line. (And by the way, it has absolutely nothing to do with Hinduism. )

 

[PhilVaz]

Thank you Barbarian.

I’ll just add, the transitional whale species as of 1998 now number about 30. Some of them are recent (1980s, 1990s), others have been known for 100 years or more. Here is a list and when first published or discovered:

- Pakicetidae - include:
Pakicetus inachus (1981), Pakicetus attocki (1980), Ichthyolestes pinfoldi (1958), Nalacetus ratimitus (1998)

- Ambulocetidae - include:
Ambulocetus natans (1994), Gandakasia potens (1958)

- Remingtoncetidae - include:
Remingtoncetus harudiensis (1975), Remingtoncetus sloani (1972), Andrewsiphius kutchensis (1975), Andrewsiphius minor (1975), Dalanistes ahmedi (1995), Attockicetus praecursor (1998)

- Protocetidae - include:
Protocetus atavus (1904), Eocetus schweinfurthi (1904), Pappocetus lugardi (1920), Babiacetus mishrai (1998), Rodhocetus kasrani (1994), Takracetus simus (1995), Georgiacetus vogtlensis (1998)

- Basilosaurids - include:
Basilosaurus cetoides (1834), Basilosaurus isis (1906), Basilosaurus drazindai (1997), Basiloterus hussaini (1997)

- Dorudontines - include:
Dorudon serratus (1845), Dorudon atrox (1906)

others -

Pontogeneus brachyspondylus (1849), Zygorhiza kochii (1847), Saghacetus osiris (1894), Ancalacetus simonsi (1996)

All from Thewissen’s book The Emergence of Whales: Evolutionary Patterns in the Origin of Cetacea (Springer / Plenum Press, 1998). An explanation and summary of the content from James Acker. A quote from the beginning of chapter 14: “Isotopic Approaches to Understanding the Terrestrial-to-Marine Transition of the Earliest Cetaceans”

"The fossil record is replete with examples of evolutionary transitions between marine and freshwater environments, in both directions. Perhaps the most striking and best documented example of such a transition is the evolution of cetaceans (whales, dolphins, and porpoises) from the extinct group of terrestrial mammals called mesonychians." (J.G.M. Thewissen, editor, The Emergence of Whales, chapter 14)

So once again, those who disagree, you’ll want to take it up with them. And get yourself published in the peer-reviewed science literature as well.

Phil P

 

[The_Barbarian]

Barbarian, on dishonesty in some creationists:

It’s a popular scam for creationists. Here’s how to do it:

You find some freshly-formed volcanic rock, making sure there are some unmelted xenocrysts in it (these, not having melted will be very,…

(Phillip interrupts)

That is a total falsehood.

It’s the truth. The Mt. St. Helens example is one such. Austin took dacite from the lava dome in the crater, and submitted it for analysis, knowing it was contaminated with unmelted material that that (because of the zoned structure) solidified long before the eruption. Such large crystals take a very long time to produce.

Even more egregious, he then submitted the sample to a lab which told him (and anyone submitting a sample) that their methods could not accurately date anything less than several million years old. So why did he do it anyway? Right.

Don’t judge others by the way you quote other peoples’s statements: Example - what the pope said when it was really the Pontifical Academy of Science’s propaganda.

C’mon, be honest with yourself. The Pope chaired that committee, and signed off on the conclusions. At some point you need to reconcile with reality.

There is a good report on zonocrysts which shows that such crystals give ages in the many millions and billions of years. The samples chosen by all scientists are strictly of the variety needed to get what is considered accurate ages and they DON’T come anywhere close to C-14 dates for the same strata or magmatic event [almost always 50 to 50,000 times older therefore what does that say for your old earth belief!]

It says someone suckered you into thinking C-14 can be used for such things. It’s half-life is only a few thousand years old, and so it can’t be used for that kind of dating.

you and Cremo should read something other than evolutionism dating references so then you might realize that Bible History is real cool

As you know, it was the creationists who were endorsing their Krishna advocate, and evolutionists who were hooting at his foolishness. If you were smarter than Ed and Wolseley and others, good for you. Now, the next step is to not let guys like Austin snocker you.

Yes I realize that dating Pompei gave a date 2000 BP. But I suspect that was pick the closest to what they knew really did happen and stuff the other reports in file 13

Nope. It was submitted with no information as to where it was gathered. In the end, you guys always fall back on “they’re just lying.”

 

[edwest2]

Of course evolution theory is devoid of reference to the supernatural. Science by definition does not address the supernatural. Science is about facts. Religion is about belief. The two must remain separate.

And there is the fallacy. The two are not separate.

from Human Persons Created in the Image of God, part 69:

“Any evolutionary mechanism that is contingent can only be contingent because God made it so. An unguided evolutionary process - one that falls outside the bounds of divine providence - simply cannot exist…”

Textbook evolution is faulty and incomplete.

God bless,
Ed

 

[The_Barbarian]

For those who don’t know, Irwin Schroedinger, who wrote that biology is harder than physics, was a Nobel Laureate physicist. He was one of the few physicists who successfully wrote about biology.

 

[ricmat]

For those who don’t know, Irwin Schroedinger, who wrote that biology is harder than physics, was a Nobel Laureate physicist. He was one of the few physicists who successfully wrote about biology.

I’m certain (not just “virtually certain”) that you are talking about Erwin Schroedinger, not Irwin Schroedinger.

 

[The_Barbarian]

I’m certain (not just “virtually certain”) that you are talking about Erwin Schroedinger, not Irwin Schroedinger.

Himmel! Er war nicht judisch, er war? Er war katholisch, aber nicht ein gutes.

 

[awfulthings9]

Himmel! Er war nicht judisch, er war? Er war katholisch, aber nicht ein gutes.

Okay, here is what Babel Fish gave me:

“Sky! It was not judisch, it was? It was catholic, but not a good.”

Huh?

 

[Philipp]

Odd then, that two Christians first discovered it. And odd that Pope Benedict considers common descent to be virtually certain. But maybe you understand theology more fully than he does.

PHILIPP: (1) The Barbarian first made the false claim the Pope said evolution was “virtually certain” on Feb 19 and has repeated it 18 TIMES or more. That’s an old propaganda trick used by proponents of evolutionism for decades Tell a falsehood or hkalf truth many times and pretty soon everyone starts believing it.- The claim is a description of modern science beliefs, not that of the Pope.
2. The paragraph was truncated to hide that fact.
3. The statement is from the PAS, inserted into the ITC document w/o attribution.
4. Whenever the ITC makes any statement about modern(ist) science we know immediately that it is mere opinion – out of their scope. Who would cede these wayward theologians any science credentials at all, when even their theological credibility is highly suspect?
5. The Pope’s approval of the document – including the ‘virtually certain’ section # 63 – accepts the PAS insert as a summary of modern science beliefs, not as his beliefs necessarily. The Pope has no authority or credibility in science. Like the last popes he prefers to get his science from the secular subjective speculation of the PAS atheists, agnostics and theovolutionists.

I wonder what group or person in the vatican appoints such people to the PAS. That would be an exellent research project for an enquiring reporter. Just because many have received Nobel prizes in physics, chemistry, biology, astronomy or cosmology does entitle them to tell Catholics why they should abandon their core beliefs and chuck Christ and the church fathers down the sewer.
6. Cardinal Ratzinger and PB16 are, of course, the same person, but not the same charism, by virtue of the office and title. Beliefs stated and approvals given by CR do not carry over, with the force of the papacy, to PB16. Laying out this distinction in theological detail is far beyond me, but easily within the scope of an enquiring reporter far more familiar with Vatican history and its many voices.

Evolultionism causes its proponents to be ever so subtle and calm while they twist their belief icons into falsehoods that they call “facts.”
The Pope said that evolution belief is OK. There is no sin.  “Did God say you could not eat the fruit? Surely you will not die!”.
This was covered before, Huey/Philipp, in the attached email. It’s disappointing that no challenge to the Barb’s false claim was made since then, based on the content of that email.

 

[Namesake]

Adam and Eve were our first parents. Fact.

God bless,
Ed

And what is your source for this fact?

 

[Namesake]

Textbook evolution is faulty and incomplete.

God bless,
Ed

There is not a lot of disagreement within the scientific community that the theory of evolution probably is faulty and incomplete. That’s why we keep working it out.

 

[elt1956]

The bible “says” they were called Adam and Eve. Boy, I sure know how to get myself into the soup.

 

[ricmat]

There is not a lot of disagreement within the scientific community that the theory of evolution probably is faulty and incomplete. That’s why we keep working it out.

So I guess what the Pope really meant was that he is “virtually certain” that it is faulty and incomplete.