My thoughts on evolution

[rocklobster]

I have a confession to make: I actually used to think the theory of evolution had some merit. (I didn’t believe it. That’s not the same thing) I mean if you look at the world, most animals are adapted to their environments pretty well (excepting mutations since they’re not normal). But what made me change my mind was when I took a history of psychology class and learned about the eugenics movement. That movement takes evolution and applies it to humanity, saying that those who are deemed unfit for society should be eliminated or at least made sterile. I realized that kind of talk would’ve gotten rid of people like me. Then what really made me not like evolution was that I learned Hitler bought into this garbage. That settled it. If Hitler believed in evolution, then the theory had no merit.
However, I’m not a complete creationist. I don’t think it took 6 days to create the world, nor do I think the Earth is 6000 years old (or however old the creationists think it is). The reason I don’t take that part literally is that I know in the Bible it says that to God a thousand years is like a single day. And besides, we didn’t know days lasted 24 hours until the Middle Ages. So who knows if those were actual 24-hour days (or “God-days”, which are even longer)?
That’s one question I’m definitely asking God when I get there.
I hope you won’t consider me a heretic for thinking this stuff.

 

[mathematician]

Whether evolution is a valid scientific theory, and whether a bastardised version of it can be used as a basis for almost everything else, are two different questions.

Even good old Richard Dawkins seems to be aware of the fact that evolution is a non starter as a basis for morality. Given the history of the twentieth century it would be difficult not to be aware of the dangers.

 

[mlchance]

And besides, we didn’t know days lasted 24 hours until the Middle Ages.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[Sarpedon]

Do crimes committed by Catholics in the name of the Faith invalidate Catholicism? You have to make a distinction between ideas and things that have been spun off from them.

 

[Sideline]

Then what really made me not like evolution was that I learned Hitler bought into this garbage. That settled it. If Hitler believed in evolution, then the theory had no merit.

Although I applaud your rejection of Nazi ideology, I think you will find that your logic has a couple of flaws in it. Hitler believed in gravity. I presume you believe in gravity don’t you? I mean, you don’t go jumping out of airplanes without a parachute do you? Do you know much about Stalin? He didn’t believe in evolution. You don’t want to be like him do you?

Evolution and eugenics aren’t the same thing. Evolution tells us how got here, not how we should act.

And besides, we didn’t know days lasted 24 hours until the Middle Ages. So who knows if those were actual 24-hour days (or “God-days”, which are even longer)?

People have been using 24 hour days for thousands of years. It’s true people didn’t know that the Earth revolved on its axis, but they still knew how long it was between noon on one day and noon on the next.

 

[Pondero]

We only have no more than 30% of a bi-pedal species complete. On the basis of a coffin full of bones we postulate evolutionary theory. It doesn`t make sense to me that we humans evolved by the method of genetic mutation or random selection. Genetic mutation leads to nothing new.

 

[Sideline]

We only have no more than 30% of a bi-pedal species complete. On the basis of a coffin full of bones we postulate evolutionary theory. It doesn`t make sense to me that we humans evolved by the method of genetic mutation or random selection. Genetic mutation leads to nothing new.

I’m kind of confused about how you could think that genetic mutations add nothing new. Have you studied the way that mutations happen and are passed on the the next generation?

The other point that confuses me, is why you would suggest that natural selection is random. The whole point of the theory is that it is ***not ***random. Mutations are random, but the selection process isn’t.

 

[Bendita_Loma]

For anyone who really wants to get their arms around this topic I would recommend the book Did Darwin Get it Right: Catholics and the Theory of Evolution by George Sim Johnston. (Our Sunday Visitor Publishing, 1998).

Right off the bat Sims makes clear the distinction between evolution and Darwinism. Evolution is the idea that all life shares common ancestors, and perhaps even a single ancestor. It is an inference based on the fact that all life forms have certain genetic material in common and the observed similarity in body structure of the major groups of animals. No one has ever seen one species turn into another species, however, so the question is: how does evolution happen, or rather, what is the mechanism?

Darwin’s idea was that tiny changes (microevolution) add up to one species changing into another. The offspring with the little changes that help them to survive best survive. In other words, the successful succeed (duh!) He called it natural selection. In his first edition of Origen of Species, he speculated that bears turned into whales (he later took that out). It’s a large jump in logic and that’s why real scientists intereted more in science than in defending “scientific” materialism (that is, all life arose from matter through blind chance), have poked holes in it.

The real debate is not over evolution itself but rather over the ultimate ends or purpose of all life, and specifically of human beings.

I just wrote a term paper on evolution and Darwinism. I post here the final portion of it which I label a Catholic response to Darwinism. It is mostly a paraphrase of what Sims says in his book, and includes some direct quotes.

"The hypothesis of the common biological descent of species is ineresting and worth exploring, but must be tested against the evidence. Up until now evolution or common descent is no more than an inference based on similarites in the way creatures look and similarities in genetic material. The theory has not been able to account for gaps in the fossil record and the sudden appearance of new species. Nobody has ever seen one species change into another. The claim that natural selection explains all biological phenomena is supported neither by empirical evidence nor logical argument. Darwin’s theory of natural selection explains small changes, or microevolution, as in dog breeding, but does not explain the origin of the higher animal groups. We are no closer to explaining the origin of life now than in Darwin’s day. If, however, some mechanical or physical explanation of the origin of life were found some day (which is not very likely), it would not be incompatible with Catholic doctrine. God created everything from nothing. Science cannot explain creation ex nihilo. Science can tell us much about how things work but it cannot tell us why they exist or what our ultimate purpose is as human beings.”

 

[steveandersen]

I have a confession to make: I actually used to think the theory of evolution had some merit. (I didn’t believe it. That’s not the same thing)

No one “believes” in evolution it is not a matter of faith

I mean if you look at the world, most animals are adapted to their environments pretty well (excepting mutations since they’re not normal).

You and I probably have about 3 mutations each
Mutations are very normal

But what made me change my mind was when I took a history of psychology class and learned about the eugenics movement.

What does eugenics have to do with evolution?

That movement takes evolution and applies it to humanity, saying that those who are deemed unfit for society should be eliminated or at least made sterile.

That is sort of like saying that agriculture is bad because slaves were once used for planting

I realized that kind of talk would’ve gotten rid of people like me. Then what really made me not like evolution was that I learned Hitler bought into this garbage. That settled it. If Hitler believed in evolution, then the theory had no merit.

The Nazis also made jet engines too does mean we should give up flying?

Eugenics has nothing to do with evolution

It is Unnatural selection

However, I’m not a complete creationist. I don’t think it took 6 days to create the world, nor do I think the Earth is 6000 years old (or however old the creationists think it is). The reason I don’t take that part literally is that I know in the Bible it says that to God a thousand years is like a single day. And besides, we didn’t know days lasted 24 hours until the Middle Ages.

While we may not have built certain types of mechanical clocks until the Middle Ages
We certainly knew how long a day was (is)

But yes you are right that an hour is an arbitrary subdivision of a day

So who knows if those were actual 24-hour days (or “God-days”, which are even longer)?
That’s one question I’m definitely asking God when I get there.
I hope you won’t consider me a heretic for thinking this stuff.

Nope
We are perfectly free to hold to a literal 6-day creation or to 5 billions years of evolution as long as we acknowledge that it was the work of God.

 

[Pondero]

I am in agreement with the post of Bendita Loma,I should really read that book : Did Darwin get it Right. Catholics and the Theory of Evolution. Thank you for that Bendita.

Mutations don’t lead to anything new and improved. If you start with one of Shakespeare’s Sonnets and change a word or letter at random and continue,what you will get is a lot of meaningless gobbledigook.
If on the other hand something that shows the evidence of planning ,such as DNA in a virus where to mutate into another virus, it would do it by splitting up its DNA and reforming into another virus. This is evidence for intelligent design, not chance.

 

[Swan]

Although I applaud your rejection of Nazi ideology, I think you will find that your logic has a couple of flaws in it. Hitler believed in gravity. I presume you believe in gravity don’t you? I mean, you don’t go jumping out of airplanes without a parachute do you? Do you know much about Stalin? He didn’t believe in evolution. You don’t want to be like him do you?

Evolution and eugenics aren’t the same thing. Evolution tells us how got here, not how we should act.

People have been using 24 hour days for thousands of years. It’s true people didn’t know that the Earth revolved on its axis, but they still knew how long it was between noon on one day and noon on the next.

Wonderful!

 

[Sideline]

Mutations don’t lead to anything new and improved. If you start with one of Shakespeare’s Sonnets and change a word or letter at random and continue,what you will get is a lot of meaningless gobbledigook.

If Shakespeare’s sonnets were anything like DNA, that would be a good point, but it doesn’t work like that.

If Shakespeare’s sonnets had 4 letters, it would be closer. It would be closer still if there were lots of words in Shakespeare that didn’t mean anything. To make it a better example still, you only keep the changes that don’t make it unintelligible. I mean if you mess up, you toss that change out. So calling it random isn’t accurate.

You know what? Ignore every other point. The really important distinction is that last one: You only keep the changes that work.
The other ones die out.

If on the other hand something that shows the evidence of planning ,such as DNA in a virus where to mutate into another virus, it would do it by splitting up its DNA and reforming into another virus. This is evidence for intelligent design, not chance.

I’m pretty sure you are thinking of RNA viruses, not DNA viruses. Still, not evidence of intelligent design.

 

[Cara_Serrano]

I think the only important issue here is how you choose to act. Do you act like the beloved child of a divine Creator or do you act like your ancestors were apes? Your own behaviour will reveal what you think your origins are.

 

[steveandersen]

…Mutations don’t lead to anything new and improved.

They don’t?
What do you base this on?

.If you start with one of Shakespeare’s Sonnets and change a word or letter at random and continue,what you will get is a lot of meaningless gobbledigook.

Poor analogy

Obviously there is more to it than chance; some sort of deterministic processes and selection mechanisms perhaps?

A better analogy would be what if you started with a selection of letters and for various reasons some were added and/or changed. Then each time you had one that formed a word or a sentence you kept that sequence and tossed out the rest.

Each time you had sentences that made paragraphs you kept those and tossed out the rest.

.If on the other hand something that shows the evidence of planning ,such as DNA in a virus where to mutate into another virus, [/quotre]
why would that be evidence of planning?
Pondero;3436100:

.it would do it by splitting up its DNA and reforming into another virus.

And how would a virus do that?

.This is evidence for intelligent design, not chance.

What is wrong with chance?
Most things in the world have some sort of probability associated with it. God must like things that way.
Think of the probabilities surrounding your conception.

 

[buffalo]

I think I see a bi-pedal realtive in this video.

The Inner Life of the Cell

 

[mathematician]

For anyone who really wants to get their arms around this topic I would recommend the book Did Darwin Get it Right: Catholics and the Theory of Evolution by George Sim Johnston. (Our Sunday Visitor Publishing, 1998).

Right off the bat Sims makes clear the distinction between evolution and Darwinism. Evolution is the idea that all life shares common ancestors, and perhaps even a single ancestor. It is an inference based on the fact that all life forms have certain genetic material in common and the observed similarity in body structure of the major groups of animals. No one has ever seen one species turn into another species, however, so the question is: how does evolution happen, or rather, what is the mechanism?

Darwin’s idea was that tiny changes (microevolution) add up to one species changing into another. The offspring with the little changes that help them to survive best survive. In other words, the successful succeed (duh!) He called it natural selection. In his first edition of Origen of Species, he speculated that bears turned into whales (he later took that out). It’s a large jump in logic and that’s why real scientists intereted more in science than in defending “scientific” materialism (that is, all life arose from matter through blind chance), have poked holes in it.

The real debate is not over evolution itself but rather over the ultimate ends or purpose of all life, and specifically of human beings.

I just wrote a term paper on evolution and Darwinism. I post here the final portion of it which I label a Catholic response to Darwinism. It is mostly a paraphrase of what Sims says in his book, and includes some direct quotes.

"The hypothesis of the common biological descent of species is ineresting and worth exploring, but must be tested against the evidence. Up until now evolution or common descent is no more than an inference based on similarites in the way creatures look and similarities in genetic material. The theory has not been able to account for gaps in the fossil record and the sudden appearance of new species. Nobody has ever seen one species change into another. The claim that natural selection explains all biological phenomena is supported neither by empirical evidence nor logical argument. Darwin’s theory of natural selection explains small changes, or microevolution, as in dog breeding, but does not explain the origin of the higher animal groups. We are no closer to explaining the origin of life now than in Darwin’s day. If, however, some mechanical or physical explanation of the origin of life were found some day (which is not very likely), it would not be incompatible with Catholic doctrine. God created everything from nothing. Science cannot explain creation ex nihilo. Science can tell us much about how things work but it cannot tell us why they exist or what our ultimate purpose is as human beings.”

The problem with knocking holes in scientific hypotheses is that it is a fairly pointless exercise unless you have got an alternative hypothesis on offer, and one which peer reviewers are prepared to accept as an improvement upon the one which is currently available.

I suppose there is a sense in which trying to figure out what happened 4 billion years ago is a pretty pointless exercise anyway. We can certainly never know for sure.

 

[Pondero]

Sideline wrote:

*If Shakespeare’s sonnets had 4 letters, it would be closer. It would be closer still if there were lots of words in Shakespeare that didn’t mean anything. To make it a better example still, you only keep the changes that don’t make it unintelligible. I mean if you mess up, you toss that change out. So calling it random isn’t accurate.
*
No, of course it isn’t random and that is my point. There is evidence of planning, not blind chance in genetic evolution. And you can’t have a plan without a planner.

 

[rwoehmke]

Mutations don’t lead to anything new and improved.

While it is true that this is not so easy to do with some warm blooded creatures. People like Luther Burbank and plant scientists today are doing this all the time with plants. I dare say that dog breeders, among others, have had some success at this as well. Had Hitler won and been able to keep working eugenics (Not something I would favor, but even in civilized society we can warn certain couple to expect certain probabilities of problems with their offspring.) who knows he may have succeeded in producing super humans with no consciences.

 

[Pondero]

While it is true that this is not so easy to do with some warm blooded creatures. People like Luther Burbank and plant scientists today are doing this all the time with plants. I dare say that dog breeders, among others, have had some success at this as well. Had Hitler won and been able to keep working eugenics (Not something I would favor, but even in civilized society we can warn certain couple to expect certain probabilities of problems with their offspring.) who knows he may have succeeded in producing super humans with no consciences.

Random genetic mutations, out of which new species are supposed to be generated, does not lead to new species. What you are talking about is planned breeding of plants and dogs to get the best features (the one’s that they planned to get). That is far removed from **random **anything.

 

[Sideline]

No, of course it isn’t random and that is my point. There is evidence of planning, not blind chance in genetic evolution. And you can’t have a plan without a planner.

Non-random doesn’t mean planned, it means following certain rules.