Scientists Unveil Missing Link In Evolution

[a_priori]

1.the philosophy of evolution is based upon assumptions that cannot be scientifically verified…whatever evidence can be assembled for evolution is both limited and circumstantial in nature." G.A. Kerkut, pro-evolution ([4

2.“In other words, while Osborn, Gregory, and their colleagues considered themselves to have written scientific analysis of human evolution, they had in fact been telling stories (fiction). Scientific stories to be sure, but stories nonetheless.” Misia Landau,

3.“The more one studies paleontology, the more certain one becomes that evolution is based on faith alone.” T.L. Moor, pro-evolution ([22], p.22

4.“We cannot disprove that it (the universe) was created in 4004 B.C…” George Simpson, pro-evolution

5.“Evolution itself is accepted by zoologists, not because it has been observed to occur or can be proved by logical coherent evidence, but because the only alternative – special creation – is clearly incredible.” D.M.S. Watson

6.“The incessant repetition of this unproved claim glossing lightly over the difficulties, and the assumption of an arrogant attitude toward those who are not easily swayed by fashions of science, are considered to afford scientific proof of the doctrine.” Richard Goldschmidt, geneticist.

1. I got a real chuckle from this qoute…those silly evolutionists haha '‘It was once thought that ...an organism was assumed to pass through the stages of its evolutionary history during its development as an embryo." "(This) has been thoroughly discredited by scientists today." ([4], p.354 4) What as thought to be gill slits’ is actually the formation of the middle ear canal, jaw, and parts of the head and neck. Haha…Wow…

Evolutionist John Durant ([11], p.312). "…the only reason why most people seem to believe in evolution is either because they want to believe in it or else because they have been cowed into accepting it out of fear of being called ignorant or reactionary or some such fearful name’’. So true…this is what ive been saying all along.

8.We Paleontologists have said that the history of life supports (the story of gradual adaptive change), all the while really knowing that it does not." Miles Eldredge, pro-evolution

9.“If there are so many problems with Darwinism and no satisfactory alternative within the framework of evolution, why not reevaluate the framework?” ([11], p.62 John Durant

1. “(the record of reckless speculation of human origins) is so astonishing that it is legitimate to ask whether much science is yet to be found in this field at all.” Solly Zuckerman (

Typing endless lists of quotes can be done by anyone on either side of an argument. They prove nothing. In fact, this is the problem with the entire discussion. Nothing “proves” anything. We are talking about what the evidence seems to suggest. Looking out for God’s interests isn’t necessary. He is quite secure in His role as the ultimate power in the universe (and outside the universe, for that matter). God cannot be dethroned by physical evidence or anything else humans think or do.

God is safe. Look around at what we are discovering about the Cosmos and the wonderful creations that came from our amazing, all-loving Father. There is a lot to get excited about and much to praise Him for. Evolution is one of those things!!

 

[buffalo]

With all due charity, and I’m trying really hard here…what a perfectly ridiculous and insulting statement.

It seems to me that Catholics who stick their fingers in their ears and refuse to hear what the Church actually teaches about evolution act more like Protestant fundamentalists than Catholics.

You would likely have a problem with several Popes. (And truth really is beauty, btw…)

So the constant teaching and belief of the Church , many popes, saints and ECF’s are now trumped by the vague statements by a recent Pope? Is your claim they are all wrong?

 

[a_priori]

I will not be fooled by others who don’t know God…

That, my friend, is WAY above your pay grade.

 

[ready]

That, my friend, is WAY above your pay grade.

I wasn’t referring to evolutionists when I made reference to “those who do not know God” - I meant atheists. But I do agree with those statements TruthisBeauty7 posted, and so I think it is bad science to make all those conjectuers (which do require faith) and pass it off as scientific truth. I accept evolution as a theory but hate it when it is glorified into a fact. Even the Vatican accepts the theory and warns us not to make anything seem factual when it really isn’t.

 

[Riseof_Rome]

I really love how people have no concept of what evolution is. And apparently, from reading a few posts, a lot of people don’t.

1. It is a THEORY, therefore it is not proven.
2. It is a very likely possibility for the explanation of what the Earth is today, according to the pope.
3. It is in NO WAY in contrast to the story of creation. Its merely a theory that explains creation (not origin) from a different perspective.

If you oppose evolution because you feel it is scientifically flawed, that’s fine. If you oppose evolution because you think it threatens God, you don’t know what it is.

Lastly, If your faith is shaken by evolution you need to re-think what it is you actually beleive.

 

[dixieagle]

So the constant teaching and belief of the Church , many popes, saints and ECF’s are now trumped by the vague statements by a recent Pope? Is your claim they are all wrong?

I would simply say that the Church has come to a greater understanding of the natural world and how we’ve arrived where we are (understanding has evolved, as it were…) The Church has always been made up of fallible humans (even some Popes, who speak ex cathedra exceedingly rarely.)

None of which changes Truth, and none of which should threaten your faith. It certainly doesn’t mine.

 

[dixieagle]

I really love how people have no concept of what evolution is. And apparently, from reading a few posts, a lot of people don’t.

1. It is a THEORY, therefore it is not proven.
2. It is a very likely possibility for the explanation of what the Earth is today, according to the pope.
3. It is in NO WAY in contrast to the story of creation. Its merely a theory that explains creation (not origin) from a different perspective.

If you oppose evolution because you feel it is scientifically flawed, that’s fine. If you oppose evolution because you think it threatens God, you don’t know what it is.

Lastly, If your faith is shaken by evolution you need to re-think what it is you actually beleive.

I especially like your last statement.

Let’s be clear about what a scientific theory actually is, however:

wilstar.com/theories.htm

It’s not just a wild idea that occurs to someone.

 

[ready]

How would the scientist explain Christ multiplying the 2 fish and 5 loaves of bread into many, many fish and bread, enough to fill 12 wicker baskets after feeding hundreds of people? The fish and bread multiplied but came forth just the same from just a couple of fish and a few pieces of bread. Maybe the story of the creation of man is the same - unexplainable, but understandable through the riddle-like language of the book of Genesis - not science.

 

[buffalo]

I would simply say that the Church has come to a greater understanding of the natural world and how we’ve arrived where we are (understanding has evolved, as it were…) The Church has always been made up of fallible humans (even some Popes, who speak ex cathedra exceedingly rarely.)

None of which changes Truth, and none of which should threaten your faith. It certainly doesn’t mine.

It doesn’t threaten my faith. What is threatened is developing an incorrect understanding.

The Church will need to make a correcting statement that shows how we got it wrong for so long and why. I will await this.

 

[a_priori]

I wasn’t referring to evolutionists when I made reference to “those who do not know God” - I meant atheists. But I do agree with those statements TruthisBeauty7 posted, and so I think it is bad science to make all those conjectuers (which do require faith) and pass it off as scientific truth. I accept evolution as a theory but hate it when it is glorified into a fact. Even the Vatican accepts the theory and warns us not to make anything seem factual when it really isn’t.

“In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” That’s the salient point. Are we really positioned to question His methodology or the steno skills of Moses? Why don’t we look where the evidence points without kicking up all this dust?

 

[dixieagle]

How would the scientist explain Christ multiplying the 2 fish and 5 loaves of bread into many, many fish and bread, enough to fill 12 wicker baskets after feeding hundreds of people? The fish and bread multiplied but came forth just the same from just a couple of fish and a few pieces of bread. Maybe the story of the creation of man is the same - unexplainable, but understandable through the riddle-like language of the book of Genesis - not science.

Well, I would think the “scientist” should not speculate on the miracle of the loaves and fishes, unless he happens also to be a Christian, in which case he believes the miracle and doesn’t spend a lot of time thinking about it.

God has given us the gift of reason with which we are slowly finding answers about His wonderful Creation - the How, which science can begin to address, not the Why, which is left to faith.

 

[dixieagle]

It doesn’t threaten my faith. What is threatened is developing an incorrect understanding.

The Church will need to make a correcting statement that shows how we got it wrong for so long and why. I will await this.

Because “we” are fallible humans, and because we are ever learning.We know a whole lot more about a lot of things that we did hundreds of years ago, or even a decade ago. Seems pretty obvious, I should think.

 

[Wolseley]

As a Catholic, you should at least be familiar with the fact that accepting evolution in no way contradicts the faith…as long as you accept that God is the ultimate Creator. How He did it should not be troubling to us; it is the WHY that concerns us.

This is true, but it still must be borne in mind that NOT believing in evolution does not contradict the Faith, either.

For myself, I personally couldn’t care less if God formed life by direct creation, by billions of years of evolution, or if He followed the directions on the box, added two cups of water, and baked in a 350° oven for two hours. I disbelieve in evolution because it has too many inconsistencies and it also approaches magic, not to mention the arrogance of the scientific community who demand that you bleieve in it or be labelled a fool, up to and including the practice of destroying the careers and reputations of fellow scientists who uncover evidence which flies in the face of the theory.

That’s not science, that’s fascism.

 

[dixieagle]

This is true, but it still must be borne in mind that NOT believing in evolution does not contradict the Faith, either.

For myself, I personally couldn’t care less if God formed life by direct creation, by billions of years of evolution, or if He followed the directions on the box, added two cups of water, and baked in a 350° oven for two hours. I disbelieve in evolution because it has too many inconsistencies and it also approaches magic, not to mention the arrogance of the scientific community who demand that you bleieve in it or be labelled a fool, up to and including the practice of destroying the careers and reputations of fellow scientists who uncover evidence which flies in the face of the theory.

That’s not science, that’s fascism.

Evolution is NOT a system of belief. I don’t “believe” in evolution; I believe in God and the Catholic faith. Evolution is, to put it simply, “a process that results in heritable changes in a population spread over many generations.”

talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-definition.html

I’ll leave it to the scientists on the board to take issue with the rest of your post.

 

[a_priori]

This is true, but it still must be borne in mind that NOT believing in evolution does not contradict the Faith, either.

I agree.

 

[greg_b]

What amazes me is the hubris here… all these people saying they don’t believe or refuse to believe in evolution, basically you are saying that you are smarter than an actual scientist who has studied this his whole life and you are now accusing that scientist and everyone in the scientific community as liars.

 

[Wolseley]

What amazes me is the hubris here… all these people saying they don’t believe or refuse to believe in evolution, basically you are saying that you are smarter than an actual scientist who has studied this his whole life and you are now accusing that scientist and everyone in the scientific community as liars.

It’s not up to you to tell me what I am or am not saying, greg. You don’t know what’s inside my head, so don’t try to guess or put words in my mouth. Also, do not accuse me of calling anyone a liar, which I have not done nore will I.

As for being smarter than scientists, I never claimed that, either. But as Harry Truman once said about economists, if you layed them end-to-end, they’d point all directions. They can’t even egree with each other, even on evolution, so if I tend to disagree with whatever Theory Of the Week happens to be in vogue for the end of May this year, I don’t see how that lowers me, or elevates them—or vice-versa.

As for hubris, excuse me, son, but you’re the last one here who has any business accusing someone else of hubris. You have more than enough for all the rest of us.

 

[greg_b]

But as Harry Truman once said about economists, if you laid them end-to-end, they’d point all directions. They can’t even agree with each other, even on evolution

Once again your hubris is showing, please show me where the majority of evolutionary scientists “can’t agree” with each other. 99.9% of all scientists studying this agree on the overall issues and points, there is no major disagreement at all.

 

[edwest2]

Well, I would think the “scientist” should not speculate on the miracle of the loaves and fishes, unless he happens also to be a Christian, in which case he believes the miracle and doesn’t spend a lot of time thinking about it.

God has given us the gift of reason with which we are slowly finding answers about His wonderful Creation - the How, which science can begin to address, not the Why, which is left to faith.

The why has already been commented upon by scientists: You are the product of a cold, uncaring universe that did not have you in mind.

See the journal Evolutionary Psychology to see how you are not you, your genes decide.

I can get you an article where scientists say religion was an invention of man/our genes; one of those adaptive behaviors on our way from becoming primitive to “modern.”

No, science is being misused to attempt to overthrow faith. It will not work, of course, but a heavy marketing program is currently going on, which is needlessly confusing some.

Peace,
Ed

 

[buffalo]

Because “we” are fallible humans, and because we are ever learning.We know a whole lot more about a lot of things that we did hundreds of years ago, or even a decade ago. Seems pretty obvious, I should think.

God’s true words can transcend time. The simplicity of Genesis is exactly why we should pay attention to it. It could be understood then and now.