Questions for Christian macroevolutionists

[The_Barbarian]

Somehow or another we’re not understanding each other. If Neanderthals were human then they are part of the human species.

No, that’s wrong. They are humans, i.e. of the genus Homo, but they are not our species. There are a good number of known species of humans. We are the only surviving one. If somehow a group of us became reproductively isolated from all the rest, and formed a new species, that would not in any way mean that original sin wouldn’t apply to those particular descendants of Adam. I can’t understand why you think otherwise.

And of course Koreans are members of the human species.

Neandertals were a human species, too. And it’s possible Cro-Magnons were, and gave rise to us by anagenesis. Which leads us back to the question; how much genetic variation will you allow before original sin no longer counts? Are you saying that the moment we have a speciation event, those who are reproductively isolated are no longer subject to original sin? What makes you think this is so?

 

[Nita]

No, that’s wrong. They are humans, i.e. of the genus Homo, but they are not our species. There are a good number of known species of humans. We are the only surviving one. If somehow a group of us became reproductively isolated from all the rest, and formed a new species, that would not in any way mean that original sin wouldn’t apply to those particular descendants of Adam. I can’t understand why you think otherwise.

Neandertals were a human species, too. And it’s possible Cro-Magnons were, and gave rise to us by anagenesis. Which leads us back to the question; how much genetic variation will you allow before original sin no longer counts? Are you saying that the moment we have a speciation event, those who are reproductively isolated are no longer subject to original sin? What makes you think this is so?

Thanks Barbarian. We were misunderstanding each other due to my ignorance. I did not realize the extent to which the term “species” was used. I didn’t know it was used not only for the general category (human), but also for subsets that come under that general category. As you can tell, I’m not into evolution!!!, or very knowledgeable in biology . I knew there were various names (eg. Neanderthal) for the various fossils but didn’t realize they were considered various separate “species”.
My apologies.

In asking the questions I was thinking more in the line of a “general category” (my terminology) leap in species - comparable to the leap from animal to human.

Nita

 

[rossum]

Are those the same bacteria that evolved from the cells that “just somehow” sprang into existance when the bolt of lightning hit the mud puddle, back in the Pre-Pre Cambrian Era?

Abiogenesis, the origin of life, is much more a matter of chemistry. Chemistry is not a random process. However those first cells originated, modern bacteria have evolved immunity to some older antibiotics. Evolution is happening now and is being observed to happen now.

Where’d the mud puddle come from, by the way?

Ask a cosmologist if you are really interested. In return I will ask you for your explanation for the origin of life. Be careful before you answer, it is a trick question.

rossum

 

[rossum]

You must have skimmed my post rather quickly, and missed the qualifier, “…at least on the species level.” Most evolutionary scientists hold that the human species has ceased to evolve in a way which will result in new species. Microevolutionary change, of course, continues.

I did indeed miss that, my apologies.

Given that with modern communications there are no really isolated populations of humans then species level evolution is very unlikely at the moment. However, if modern communicatins break down, or if we extend our range to other planets, then the possibility of isolated populations arising would reappear. Microevolution plus genetic isolation has the potential to produce a new species reproductively incompatible with the old. Both the old and new species would of course be descended from the same original ancestors.

rossum

 

[The_Barbarian]

In asking the questions I was thinking more in the line of a “general category” (my terminology) leap in species - comparable to the leap from animal to human.

The deal is, it’s not going to be a “leap” for mammals, which rarely can evolve by polyploidy or other mechanisms that produce a sudden change (we know of only one such case, a rodent).

It will be by tiny steps, and speciation would be very slight differences, such as the differences between Neandertals and modern humans. And, of course, we are all animals. The important thing is that we are more than that.

 

[Nita]

The deal is, it’s not going to be a “leap” for mammals, which rarely can evolve by polyploidy or other mechanisms that produce a sudden change (we know of only one such case, a rodent).

It will be by tiny steps, and speciation would be very slight differences, such as the differences between Neandertals and modern humans. And, of course, we are all animals. The important thing is that we are more than that.

Sometimes I think “human” should be a separate genus from “animal”. The changes between the powers of the animal soul and the human soul seem to me greater than the changes between the plant soul and animal soul. Unfortunately most of the natural sciences seem to credit only the material aspects and ignore the importance of differences in the underlying principles of life (souls) present in those material substances. Guess I prefer philosophy which makes clearer distinctions between the various types of life.

Just decided to google “human genus” and it turns out that term is used. Very confusing. I’m beginning to appreciate philosophy’s preoccupation with defining terms!!!

Nita

 

[Donald45]

Given that with modern communications there are no really isolated populations of humans then species level evolution is very unlikely at the moment. However, if modern communicatins break down, or if we extend our range to other planets, then the possibility of isolated populations arising would reappear. Microevolution plus genetic isolation has the potential to produce a new species reproductively incompatible with the old. Both the old and new species would of course be descended from the same original ancestors.

I might be able to line up with this, except for the element of cultural evolution in the human species. With the development of modern brain size and structure, upright bipedalism, etc. came the capacity for sophisticated tool use, technology, art, craft, and other means of manipulating and adapting to the environment without the biological result of further evolutionary change at the species level. So, for example, rabbits might genetically respond to environmental pressures by growing thicker fur (I know this sounds Lamarckian, but I trust you know whay I mean here). Humans, on the other hand, will simply manufacture better parkas. We adapt by means of our culture, rather than through any significant genetic or biological change. We simply don’t need to evolve in any macroevolutionary sense.

Even if worldwide communications failed, or if we colonized other planets, we would still have recourse to our intelligence, technologies,etc. This (cultural evolution) is the major feature that, for scientists, signals the end of any further speciation of humans.

Now, extinction, well that’s another story…

Blessings,

Don
+T+

 

[Wolseley]

Abiogenesis, the origin of life, is much more a matter of chemistry.

Yes, much more.

Chemistry is not a random process.

Certainly not.

However those first cells originated, modern bacteria have evolved immunity to some older antibiotics. Evolution is happening now and is being observed to happen now.

Well, keep watching. When the bacteria evolve into something of a different nature, let me know.

Ask a cosmologist if you are really interested. In return I will ask you for your explanation for the origin of life. Be careful before you answer, it is a trick question.

No need for trick questions. Just run an analysis on some of the water from the original mud puddle. That’ll at least tell you what was in it when the lightning bolt hit it.

Of course, if you don’t happen to have a sample of it to run an analysis with, then we’re out of science again, and back to philosophical speculation.

 

[The_Barbarian]

Well, keep watching. When the bacteria evolve into something of a different nature, let me know.

Heh, the usual dodge. They insist that evolution is wrong. One shows them directly obsered macroevolution, and they say:

“No, no, I mean show me something that takes so long that it couldn’t possibly be documented.”

In fact, the step between eukaryotes and prokaryotes was apparently so difficult, it took as much time as for all other evolution combined.

We do, however, have some rather compelling evidence for the way it happened. If you’d like to learn about it, we can talk.

Of course, if you don’t happen to have a sample of it to run an analysis with, then we’re out of science again, and back to philosophical speculation.

Nice try. But we have a great deal of evidence as to what the origin of life actually was. I do hope you realize that has nothing to do with evolutionary theory, right?

 

[Wolseley]

Heh, the usual dodge. They insist that evolution is wrong. One shows them directly obsered macroevolution, and they say:

“No, no, I mean show me something that takes so long that it couldn’t possibly be documented.”

My dear fellow, I never evolution was wrong. I said that I’m not convinced that it’s a viable theory.

In fact, the step between eukaryotes and prokaryotes was apparently so difficult, it took as much time as for all other evolution combined.

They must have been slow learners, huh?

Nice try. But we have a great deal of evidence as to what the origin of life actually was. I do hope you realize that has nothing to do with evolutionary theory, right?

It doesn’t? If you don’t have life to begin with, how can it evolve?

 

[The_Barbarian]

Barbarian chuckles:
Heh, the usual dodge. They insist that evolution is wrong. One shows them directly obsered macroevolution, and they say:

“No, no, I mean show me something that takes so long that it couldn’t possibly be documented.”

My dear fellow, I never evolution was wrong. I said that I’m not convinced that it’s a viable theory.

Not familiar with it, um? What do you think the salient evidence for evolution might be?

Barbarian observes:
In fact, the step between eukaryotes and prokaryotes was apparently so difficult, it took as much time as for all other evolution combined.

They must have been slow learners, huh?

Tough step. And it’s not hard to see why. The differences are rather great, and there isn’t really a way to do it gradually. Much of the prokaryote cell was actually a matter of endosymbiosis, rather than gradual evolutionary change.

Barbarian observes:
Nice try. But we have a great deal of evidence as to what the origin of life actually was. I do hope you realize that has nothing to do with evolutionary theory, right?

It doesn’t?

Right. It doesn’t.

If you don’t have life to begin with, how can it evolve?

So you’re really upset at chemistry for not explaining where atoms come from?

I think I see the problem, here…

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Yes, much more.

Certainly not.

Well, keep watching. When the bacteria evolve into something of a different nature, let me know.

No need for trick questions. Just run an analysis on some of the water from the original mud puddle. That’ll at least tell you what was in it when the lightning bolt hit it.

Of course, if you don’t happen to have a sample of it to run an analysis with, then we’re out of science again, and back to philosophical speculation.

I found this just a bit ago. I maintain that the only Catholics who still believe in YEC and believe evolution is incorrect are those who choose to both deny the obvious proof to the contrary and choose to deny the actually beliefs of Church leadership. I submit the following…

cwnews.com/news/viewstory.cfm?recnum=55172

Now this is hardly the first time anyone from the Vatican has made such a statement of course, Two popes have said as much. It’s time for YEC folks to admit they choose to ignore the church on this one because it suits them to.

 

[Wolseley]

I found this just a bit ago. I maintain that the only Catholics who still believe in YEC and believe evolution is incorrect are those who choose to both deny the obvious proof to the contrary and choose to deny the actually beliefs of Church leadership. I submit the following…

cwnews.com/news/viewstory.cfm?recnum=55172

Now this is hardly the first time anyone from the Vatican has made such a statement of course, Two popes have said as much. It’s time for YEC folks to admit they choose to ignore the church on this one because it suits them to.

When they raise our astronomer friend’s opinions to an infallible dogma, let me know.

In the meantime, I’m not a Young Earth Creationist. I’m a Skeptic of Darwinian Evolution. If I’m ignoring the Church in favor of ID or YEC or whatever, then I have a lot in common with the Darwinists to choose to ingore the many problems inherent in Darwin’s pet theory—because it suits them to.

 

[The_Barbarian]

If I’m ignoring the Church in favor of ID or YEC or whatever, then I have a lot in common with the Darwinists to choose to ingore the many problems inherent in Darwin’s pet theory—because it suits them to.

Well, let’s talk about those, then. What do you think the most devastating “problem” might be?

 

[inthecloud]

Worseley, I thought this tread was for Christian or at least Theist EVOLUTIONISTS. There are some other tread in this forum to discuss Atheistic Evolution or YEC or OEC or ID. Please do not highjack this tread.

 

[Wolseley]

Worseley, I thought this tread was for Christian or at least Theist EVOLUTIONISTS. There are some other tread in this forum to discuss Atheistic Evolution or YEC or OEC or ID. Please do not highjack this tread.

You have my deepest and most profound apologies, Sir; I do beg your pardon. Pray proceed. Barbarian, perhaps another time.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

When they raise our astronomer friend’s opinions to an infallible dogma, let me know.

In the meantime, I’m not a Young Earth Creationist. I’m a Skeptic of Darwinian Evolution. If I’m ignoring the Church in favor of ID or YEC or whatever, then I have a lot in common with the Darwinists to choose to ingore the many problems inherent in Darwin’s pet theory—because it suits them to.

LOL…yep thats the way to evade the issue, ITS not dogma…Of course its not. Its a vatican astronomer who I assume would like to keep his job and I assume he doesnt say this thinking he will be fired. As I said, JPII and Benedict have essentially agreed in principle that evolution is the method used by God to create. ’

Evolution as the basic means by which life evolved on this planet is agreed upon by the vast majority of people and scientists worldwide. If you re not YEC,then I have no idea what you would be. Those of us who argue here that evolution is the model used by science all argue that God was the original creator, evolution was just His means. So I have no clue what you believe.

To say that Evolution has flaws is to state the obvious. Every science does. Actual scientists however find the theory more than sufficiently accurate to base their work on across multiple disciplines.