Interesting read, but parrots reproducing parrots, no matter how many millions of years they think they have been doing it, is no help to the theory of evolution.
(hint) Why don’t you try Bacteria!
So while we may believe that man evolved, Catholicism holds that our souls were a special creation and that human beings descend from Adam and Eve. In other words, polygenism is not accepted by the Church.
If a child is born with a duck bill, this would be equivalent proof that man evolved from a duck.
Millions of papers and research to “prove” it, and it’s still just a theory? I’m having a hard time differentiating your idea of “scientific research” from “lottery”.
As a previous poster mentioned, you apparently don’t understand what is meant by a scientific theory, which is significantly more than just a wild idea someone has:
When scientific theory violates common sense, it doesn’t have much to stand on, whatever the rubrics of formulation.
Fear the theocracy. It’s going to happen any minute now. The only thing keeping fundamentalists and creationists out of schools is evolution? Quite a conspiracy theory.
No, that’s not the version being advertised. Apes and men had a common ancestor. Gills went to lungs. The untestable theory is the appearance of new organs with novel, integrated function. Not only does a lung need to be integrated into the body but it needs to be integrated into the central nervous system. An eye is not just an eyeball, it includes an optic nerve that needs to go into the right spot in the brain, and the animal in question must be able to successfully interpret the incoming data.
I read Darwin’s books The Origin of Species and The Voyage of the Beagle. He gave excellent proof of natural selection and so I accept this part of evolutionary theory without any difficulty. But he and paleontologists who have their story that man shares common ancestry with apes does not find it so easy to prove this. e.g. You find fossils that reveal animals existed years back that resembled humans in different ways. Doesn’t that tell tell you there has been different species of animal’s extant now? Animal species change over time and some die off, and animals and humans all resemble each other one way or another. No cross over from animal to human or a common ancestor between man and ape need even be in the picture, as I understand things.
Your basic premise is flawed.
Ask you SIL if God knew what man would look like?
Don’t need to (and SIL would answer that as a Catholic, not as a scientist, btw…)
This sounds so much like what the good Sisters taught us way back in the late '50s and early '60s. As long as we believed that, at some point of His choosing, God “breathed a soul” into Adam, we were good! I’ve heard an orthodox Catholic professor state that that may have happened about 60,000 years ago, but that question is certainly open to discussion; beats me!Scientists are split on whether homo erectus should even be put in the same categorty as humans. I agree with them. That allows me to believe that there exists natural selection and extinction in the animal world with a whole separate reality of adaptation for humans. Now extant animals may have existed long, long ago along with the homo habilis and homo erectus living among them as fellow animals. But I believe it is possible that Adam (a full human being endowed with supernatural and preternatural gifts) was formed from something of the earth and the breath of God breathing life in to his nostrils at a much later time in history (the notorious 4000 yrs ago maybe?
God created the animals first and in the end, much much later on, on the last working “day” (which is not measured by 24 hrs. - as there wasn’t even a sun on the first day), humans were formed.
So that would mean that God guided evolution. If that be the case is it really evolution?
They’re pretty handy at that, though. When all the evidence goes against them, they can always reach into their Magic Hat and produce a whole new line of wishful thinking that they can try to peddle as “proof”, like the Hopeful Monster or Punctuated Equilibrium.
If you only stick to the evidence that the evolutionists allow into the debate, yeah, the evidence is overwhelming. If you add all the evidence that isn’t permitted by the scietific community because it’s anamalous and it doesn’t fit the Standard Darwinian Template, then it’s not so overwhelming. Not even close, in fact.
Ah, talkorigins. Last bastion of the militant Darwinist.
Right. When the virus becomes a whale, let me know.
You mean they just found a bunch of old bones and put them together in a way they thought they oughtta go? Heck, us iggerant, uneddicated hicks out here in th’ sticks been doin’ that fer years:
“Truth” would be the relevant aspect, I believe. Is it, or isn’t it?
A virus mutating is not evidence of evolution. Once again, when the virus becomes something other than a virus, let me know. (I’m sure you’ll understand if I don’t hold my breath, by the way.)
No need to get snotty, my dear fellow.
No, evolution is a fairy tale for adults.
A little girl asked her father, “Daddy, how did the human race appear?”