Gee I didn’t know it was that difficult.’After all this time you still don’t understand how evolution works.
Yes - The Church has always understood Adam and Eve to be real. Only recently has it been argued. I have already showed with more than one source science states it is possible.t was revealed to her that Adam and Eve were buried directly below the Golgotha, where Jesus’ cross stood.
PRIVATE REVELATION.Have you read Anne Catherine Emmerich? It was revealed to her that Adam and Eve were buried directly below the Golgotha, where Jesus’ cross stood.
Nice quote mine! You completely left out that Stanley is a proponent of Punctuated Equilibrium - NOT Intelligent Design theory. He is on board with macro-evolution actually having happened.Macroevolution: Pattern and Process (Steven M. Stanley, The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1998 version), notes that, “the known fossil record fails to document a single example of phyletic evolution accomplishing a major morphological transition and hence offers no evidence that the gradualistic model can be valid.” (pg. 39)
The quote comes from the start of Chapter 3 (see Point 5):
Some distinctive living species clearly originated in the very recent past, during brief instants of geologic time. Thus, quantum speciation is a real phenomenon. Chapters 4 through 6 provide evidence for the great importance of quantum speciation in macroevolution (for the validity of the punctuated model). Less conclusive evidence is as follows: (1) Very weak gene flow among populations of a species (a common phenomenon) argues against gradualism, because without efficient gene flow, phyletic evolution is stymied. (2) Many levels of spatial heterogeneity normally characterize populations in nature, and at some level, the conflict between gene flow between subpopulations and selection pressure within subpopulations should oppose evolutionary divergence of large segments of the gene pool; only small populations are likely to diverge rapidly. (3) Geographic clines, which seem to preserve in modern space changes that occurred in evolutionary time, can be viewed as supporting the punctuational model, because continuous clines that record gradual evolution within large populations represent gentle morphologic trends, while stepped clines seem to record rapid divergence of small populations. (4) Net morphologic changes along major phylogenetic pathways generally represent such miniscule [sp] mean selection coefficients that nonepisodic modes of transition are unlikely. Quantum speciation or stepwise evolution within lineages is implied. (5) The known fossil record fails to document a single example of phyletic evolution accomplishing a major morphologic transition and hence offers no evidence that the gradualistic model can be valid.
The quoted text is part of a list that Stanley believes supports “quantum speciation”. And what is “quantum speciation”?
For the present, we can define quantum speciation simply as speciation in which most evolution is concentrated within an initial interval of time that is very brief with respect to the total longevity of the new lineage that is produced. Implicit in this concept is the idea that during the rapid, early phase of evolution, the seminal population has not yet expanded from its small, initial population size. [bold in original] [pg. 26]
And since, as we see on page 39, Stanley writes that “quantum speciation is a real phenomenon”, there should be no doubt that he believes that evolution has occurred. However, he doesn’t believe that evolution happens by changing an ancestral species into descendant species, but rather by descendants branching off from ancestors, as we can see on page 211:
Major trends in evolution are the result, not of phyletic transition, but of divergent speciation. Most are phylogenetic trends: net changes produced by multiple speciation events.
He comes to this conclusion by examining the fossil record. But the mined quote would have the reader believe that the fossil record doesn’t support evolution, where as Stanley believes that it does.
I didn’t thinks anyone was still using fusion anymore. Tompkins published a paper about this fusion.As you know, chromosome 2 was formed from the fusion of two medium-sized chromosomes,
Why the Catholic Church speaks with authority: It has Magisterium, Tradition and Scripture. Remove one of the three legs of the stool and it topples. This is why we have so many other ecclesiastical communities.How many different Christian denominations are there? All with their own different fallible interpretation of scripture.
The theory of evolution is not a conspiracy. It is a description of a biological process. It is not a threat to morality or God belief. As long as you follow the cherry pickers, you will be engaged in self-deception. Good science revises itself in light of new evidence. Creations science picks the evidence that fits their pre-existing conclusions.Of course he does. They maintain it had to happen. Here and there though snippets show what we actually know.
Just because a creation scientist wrote a paper, does not mean that the scientific community does not hold to the good science.I didn’t thinks anyone was still using fusion anymore. Tompkins published a paper about this fusion.
And therein lies part of the problem You lose the argument as soon as you bring up the author is a creationist. Read the paper, go to talkorigins and see what they have to say. Read the rebuttals. It will help.Just because a creation scientist wrote a paper, does not mean that the scientific community does not hold to the good science.
You said:And therein lies part of the problem You lose the argument as soon as you bring up the author is a creationist.
My point was, that it is not the case that no one thinks that chromosomal fusion happened. That he appears to be a creation scientist does put him on an uphill battle with the general scientific community. Anyone proposing a conclusion outside the norm is facing an uphill battle. Sometimes it is for a good reason. Some times it isn’t.I didn’t thinks anyone was still using fusion anymore.
They are in error. ID does not propose God needs to tinker. ID the philosophy is saying God front loaded creation right from the get go. Catholic understanding is we have creation and then Providence.It is too bad the Thomistic Evolution site is down right now. Their critique of ID is excellent on both the science and the theology.
Subtitle: Ockham’s Fatal Headache Illustrated"Macroevolution: Pattern and Process
- Jon (Augray) Barber
If by this you mean that everything was created in its current form, that is exactly the kind of proposition being critiqued.They are in error. ID does not propose God needs to tinker. ID the philosophy is saying God front loaded creation right from the get go. Catholic understanding is we have creation and then Providence
Huh? IDvolution - God “breathed” the super language of DNA into the “kinds” in the creative act.If by this you mean that everything was created in its current form, that is exactly the kind of proposition being critiqued.
Do you accept that this process took place over billions of years?The core makeup shared by all living things have the necessary complex information built in that facilitates rapid and responsive adaptation of features and variation while being able to preserve the “kind” that they began as.
This of course is the problem. The “scientific view” does not consider anything outside of the observable data, while the ID has expanded the data set to include the supernatural creation. (except that both are embedded in assumptions and theorizing that go well beyond any data) HG asks about reconciling the scientific view with theological, but does not really consider the ID approach, where we come up with a science that includes theology.Subtitle: Ockham’s Fatal Headache Illustrated
The recorded observation is never absent the observer’s bias. This truth is especially applicable to all theories of evolution.This of course is the problem. The “scientific view” does not consider anything outside of the observable data
When scientists extrapolate from their observed data they enter the realm of philosophy. Unfortunately, these “scientists” often disregard the first principles of philosophy and pretend what they propose is scientific.o_mlly said:Science is a construct of the mind which attempts to find order in the chaos of observed phenomena in order to predict some future phenomena. The subjective mind, the observer and predictor, may be regarded as regaining from nature that which the same mind has put into nature.
While there is an objective truth about nature, we can never be certain that the subjective mind has not unknowingly tainted that truth. The scientists follow footprints in the sand of phenomena and come to the discovery that these are their own footprints.