Population Bottleneck

  • Thread starter Thread starter Hope1960
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
rossum said:
God did not directly create living things. There is no “Let there be armadillos” in Genesis, the same way there is “Let there be light.” Instead God used an indirect method: “Let the waters bring forth…” and “Let the earth bring forth…”

All science is doing is to describe in great detail the process by which the waters and the earth brought forth the array of living species we see today.
Click to expand...
I completely agree. And I think it is OK for Science to try to describe evolution using its own methods and procedures. But I do not agree with scientists who claim more than what Science has actually verified.
 
rom said:
But I do not agree with scientists who claim more than what Science has actually verified.
Click to expand...
In science, nothing is ever final; science does not do infallible. Newton’s theory of gravity was the best science had to offer for a long time, but it was not perfect. It was replaced by Einstein’s theory, which is more accurate but still has known problems. So scientists are now working on a theory of Quantum Gravity to replace Einstein.

Any scientific theory is “the best explanation we currently have” for the good reason that we do not know everything about the universe. There is still more to discover, so in principle any theory may be modified or replaced by newly discovered data.

Evolution is the best explanation we currently have for the number of different species alive on earth now and in the past. If it is to be replaced then its replacement has to be a better explanation than the one we currently have. At the moment none of the proposed replacements are better than what we have, so they all fail.

rossum
 
Does anyone have a solid rebuttal they can post from a well respected scientist? And not IDvolution, which I don’t respect or bother to read.
 
That is not correct. Nothing has changed regarding the word polygenism. Science cannot study the soul which means it does not exist.

“37. When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains that either after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parent of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents. Now it is in no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled with that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the Teaching Authority of the Church propose with regard to original sin, which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam and which, through generation, is passed on to all and is in everyone as his own.[12]”
 
Like what? old bones show that extinct animals once lived on the earth.
 
As far as the Catholic Church is concerned all “true men” descended from Adam had souls. Since souls do not show up in fossils or in DNA science remains silent about which members of Homo sapiens did or did not have souls. Where science has no information it remains silent – though scientists, being human, may not.

There is nothing scientifically impossible about all souled humans being descended from a single couple, and no non-descendants being alive today. There is no scientific evidence for it either, so it is a subject where science will not help you decide one way or another.

rossum
 
rossum said:
In science, nothing is ever final; science does not do infallible.
Click to expand...
Agreed.
rossum said:
Any scientific theory is “the best explanation we currently have” for the good reason that we do not know everything about the universe.
Click to expand...
Let me modify that a little bit: A verified scientific theory is “the best scientific explanation we currently have” for the good reason that we do not know everything about the universe.

With those qualifications, I agree again.

By the way, the best explanation for a phenomenon is not always a scientific explanation. Science generally looks only for causes that are observable. So, when science fails to find a cause for a phenomenon whose cause is not observable, then we may need to have recourse to philosophy to find the hidden cause of the phenomenon.
rossum said:
Evolution is the best explanation we currently have for the number of different species alive on earth now and in the past.
Click to expand...
If by “evolution” you mean the Darwinian theory of evolution, then I disagree.

First, the number of different species alive on earth now and in the past can also be explained by indirect creation by God. Indirect creation could involve evolution, but not necessarily according to the Darwinian model. I submit that this will not be a scientific but a philosophic explanation, since it requires the agency of an unobservable cause, God, who directs the trajectory of evolution from the formation of the first living cell to the formation of the various species now living on earth. However, I think it is a better explanation than the Darwinian theory.

Second, the Darwinian theory may be the most popular scientific explanation to date, but it is also disputed by many scientists. I will not be surprised if it gets modified or replaced by a different one later. As you said, scientific theories are never final.
 
Last edited:
Darwinian evolution is disputed by “many” scientists? Can you name a handful?
 
Hope1960 said:
Darwinian evolution is disputed by “many” scientists? Can you name a handful?
Click to expand...
I can, but you will not accept my links. Over and over I have posted mainstream science links, yet you don’t respect them? You only RESPECT papers that support evolution? Why even start this thread?
 
buffalo said:
I can, but you will not accept my links. Over and over I have posted mainstream science links, yet you don’t respect them? You only RESPECT papers that support evolution? Why even start this thread?
Click to expand...
No. I disrespect links from the IDvolution site. I welcome learning about and want science that supports creationism as long as it’s from well respected, well educated scientists.
 
I see your DI list and raise you the List of Steves. That is over 1,400 scientists called Steve (or Stephanie, Esteban etc) who support evolution. Compare that with the number of Steves in the DI list.

rossum
 
edwest said:
What are hominids?
Click to expand...
This is actually a good question. There are three terms, hominoid, hominid and hominin, that are sometimes incorrectly used interchangeably, but actually have different meanings.

Hominoids – are generally called “apes,” and include the gibbon, the orangutan, the gorilla, the chimpanzee, and even man. Surprised? Man belongs to the ape family! According to the theory of evolution the chimpanzees are our cousins, and the gorillas and the orangutans are distant relatives but not our ancestors.

Hominids – are the members of the family Hominidae. This family includes the orangutan, the gorilla, the chimpanzee and man. The gibbon is not included because the gibbon actually belongs to a different family, Hylobatidae. Thus, all hominids are hominoids, but not all hominoids are hominids.

Hominins – are a subset of the family Hominidae , but usually refers to those belonging to the genus homo (such as homo neanderthalensis, homo heidelbergensis, homo erectus, homo habilis, etc.), and their immediate ancestors, such as the Australopithecus. Again, all hominins are hominids, but not all hominids are hominins.

If you get confused and don’t know what term to use in referring to any creature that looks like a monkey or a man, just call it a hominoid.
 
rossum said:
I see your DI list and raise you the List of Steves. That is over 1,400 scientists called Steve (or Stephanie, Esteban etc) who support evolution. Compare that with the number of Steves in the DI list.
Click to expand...
Hahaha. I know. Sadly, we are greatly outnumbered. But let me clarify one thing. The people in the list I provided don’t necessarily disagree with evolution. Many of them support evolution, but they don’t agree with the Darwinian model of evolution.
 
Last edited:
Do you think there is more evidence for evolution or the miracle at Fatima?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top