Scientists Unveil Missing Link In Evolution

[Arandur]

ahhhh…makes one wonder why when God sent his son Jesus, Jesus was in human form…

now why then didn’t God send Jesus in the form of our ancestors APE to put things right? He sent the Holy Spirit in the form of a dove, then why didn’t He send Jesus in the form of an APE? it would be just His chance to put things in proper order so that we, His creatures, would understand how we came to be, through evolution, because all the while, God knows we’re gonna have these questions about how we came to be through Him…

when He created adam, He created him as a physical creature and not a soul…

Do I really need to answer this? It’s really not worth my time. I’ll see if a brief answer will suffice.

Humans are the only ensouled beings in the image and likeness of God. To redeem our physical and spiritual forms (both together make us truly human, which is why we await the bodily resurrection), Jesus had to come as one of us. Other creatures are not ensouled in the image and likeness of God and need no such redemption, though since Jesus is the only Incarnation of God, their physical forms were eternally dignified by sharing that part of their nature now with God; and thus Jesus “made all things new.”

 

[cerad]

that’s a THEORY, NOT A FACT

You should be aware that in science, theories and facts are two different concepts. Theories do not get promoted to facts.

The idea that we are apes is a fact. Don’t read too much into this statement. It’s a simple matter of classification. Jesus was also a mammal, a vertebrate and a multi-cellular organism.

 

[Arandur]

We are in general agreement. God cannot deceive or be deceived. I was focusing on the part about missing pieces of the puzzle. Analogy - the universe is like a billion piece puzzle, we have 1 million pieces. We have only a small portion of the picture. We are extrapolating what we think the picture looks like from this small amount of pieces. We could be way off.

Yes, but that’s only reason for further exploration. Once we have Einstein’s theory of relativity, we don’t rely on just Newtonian physics. Relativity explains what we can observe better. Once we have Copernican heliocentrism, we build on it rather than on Ptolemy’s Spheres. Once we know microscopic chemistry, we discard Greek elementalism.

Once we have evolution, we use it to inform further discoveries, not denying the apparent influence of genetics, isolation, time, randomness, environmental pressures, natural selection. If a “quark” is found which denies the “atom” the title of smallest particle, we will revise the theory, but the existence of what was previously discovered is unlikely to be wholly denied, only the relationships thereof modified in our models to reflect what new information we discover. Thus the forces of evolution, since they can be observed to various degrees and can be well used to describe and predict natural phenomena, are unlikely to be found false; only the relationships and degrees modified.

 

[Arandur]

How is criticism be considered as 'scientific?"…

Consider the assumptions, premises, hypotheses, relationships, and predictions of the theory in question on its merits. Where is it insufficient and why? Use logic and observational evidence to support your arguments.

That would be engaging in scientific criticism. It does require that you understand the theory in order to criticize.

 

[space_trojan]

Do I really need to answer this? It’s really not worth my time. I’ll see if a brief answer will suffice.

Humans are the only ensouled beings in the image and likeness of God. To redeem our physical and spiritual forms (both together make us truly human, which is why we await the bodily resurrection), Jesus had to come as one of us. Other creatures are not ensouled in the image and likeness of God and need no such redemption, though since Jesus is the only Incarnation of God, their physical forms were eternally dignified by sharing that part of their nature now with God; and thus Jesus “made all things new.”

ahhh…so it wasn’t worth your while answering but you did it in…what…2 hours, 3?

sooo…you said “humans” are the only ensouled beings, etc, thus you missed the point entirely…

but just to engage you, you are saying that thru evolution, primates would then be proven as ensouled creatures in the likeness of God, but while they were primates, they were not in need of redemption just because though they were ensouled in the image and likeness of God, they were primates and incapable of sin? Why then Adam, an ensouled primate, in the image and likeness of God, who evolved into human, disobeyed God and committed sin?

or did i miss you saying primates evolved into ensouled beings, and when then did that happen in the branches of evolution?..does the theory of evolution say…ensouled beings evolved from primates?..where does “ensouled beings” fit in the theory of evolution?

 

[space_trojan]

Consider the assumptions, premises, hypotheses, relationships, and predictions of the theory in question on its merits. Where is it insufficient and why? Use logic and observational evidence to support your arguments.

That would be engaging in scientific criticism. It does require that you understand the theory in order to criticize.

i haven’t yet met “scientific critcism”…cos you just made that up…there’s no such thing…

geological criticism…mathematical criticism…chemical criticism…so on…hahaaa…anyone?

 

[space_trojan]

You should be aware that in science, theories and facts are two different concepts. Theories do not get promoted to facts.

The idea that we are apes is a fact. Don’t read too much into this statement. It’s a simple matter of classification. Jesus was also a mammal, a vertebrate and a multi-cellular organism.

omgosh…it is clear that you don’t know what you’re talking about…it is just an idea that led to the formulation of the theory…now an idea is not a fact…and a theory is not a fact…and who said theories get promoted?..they get “established or proven” to be a fact, not promoted…

 

[Arandur]

First off, space trojan, I am sorry; I was uncharitable in my approach to your question. I do think it’s ridiculous, but I didn’t need to be so condescending about it.

ahhh…so it wasn’t worth your while answering but you did it in…what…2 hours, 3?

sooo…you said “humans” are the only ensouled beings, etc, thus you missed the point entirely…

And you’re point was? You don’t agree with me that humans are the only ensouled beings made in the image and likeness of God? You don’t think evolution has anything to say about the soul, do you, because it does not. The theory says nothing one way or another about the existence of anything beyond the physical world.

but just to engage you, you are saying that thru evolution, primates would then be proven as ensouled creatures in the likeness of God,

No, not at all. Evolution says nothing about souls or God.

…but while they were primates, they were not in need of redemption just because though they were ensouled in the image and likeness of God, they were primates and incapable of sin?

Mere animals have no need of redemption because they are not ensouled in the image and likeness of God, thus having no free will and incapable of sin.

Why then Adam, an ensouled primate, in the image and likeness of God, who evolved into human, disobeyed God and committed sin?

Where are you getting that Adam “evolved into [a] human?” Adam was human from the moment of his creation (ensoulment) in the image and likeness of God. Evolution doesn’t happen to individual creatures, anyway. Lamarck theory was disproven.

or did i miss you saying primates evolved into ensouled beings, and when then did that happen in the branches of evolution?..does the theory of evolution say…ensouled beings evolved from primates?..where does “ensouled beings” fit in the theory of evolution?

Evolution says nothing about souls, one way or another. Why are you trying to make it so? Just so you can condemn it? Evolution is perfectly compatible with belief in God because it makes no claims about God or anything beyond what we can observe about His Good Creation.

 

[Arandur]

i haven’t yet met “scientific critcism”…cos you just made that up…there’s no such thing…

geological criticism…mathematical criticism…chemical criticism…so on…hahaaa…anyone?

I used the term to refer merely to criticizing a scientific theory on a scientific basis. It makes no sense to discuss the merits or validity of a scientific theory on the basis of philosophy or theology or art, just as it makes no sense to criticize the merits or validity philosophy or theology or art outside their own spheres. Yes, one sphere can inform another, but not judge it.

Are you familiar with the scientific method? Consider evolution on the basis of that and you might come up with valid criticisms. Of course, all scientific knowledge is limited in some dimension, because we have a limited frame of reference. Weaknesses in understanding won’t make it untrue, though, nor change the fact that current theories are the best explanation currently available.

 

[Arandur]

omgosh…it is clear that you don’t know what you’re talking about…it is just an idea that led to the formulation of the theory…now an idea is not a fact…and a theory is not a fact…and who said theories get promoted?..they get “established or proven” to be a fact, not promoted…

You missed his point. Humans have been classified in the biological classification system as most closely related to apes. It is a FACT that biological science considers us a species of ape. And since “ape” and “species” are defined by biology, and those terms have little meaning outside it in this context, it is factually accurate to say that we are biologically observed to be a species of ape. Thus I am a member of a species of ape, as the terms have been defined, as are you, as was Jesus. Why is that so disturbing? Doesn’t our physical form have dignity? Doesn’t the physical form of any animal have dignity? Our dignity is, of course, much greater than animals, but because God gave us a soul in His image and likeness, and became one of us. That distinction need not divorce us from any relationship to the rest of His Creation.

 

[ready]

We are extrapolating what we think the picture looks like from this small amount of pieces. We could be way off.

Exactly.

 

[edwest2]

And creationists want to use public school to publish their agenda…

hmmm…

If you are just here to man the barricades, I suggest you consider the detailed responses given about Divine revelation. Science operates with blinders on. It does not have the full, complete answer.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Dtmccameron]

Science operates with blinders on. It does not have the full, complete answer.

Yes! There! And not just with blinderes, with one eye *willfully *closed!

 

[Aramis]

i haven’t yet met “scientific critcism”…cos you just made that up…there’s no such thing…

geological criticism…mathematical criticism…chemical criticism…so on…hahaaa…anyone?

Wrong. I’ve read plenty of scientific criticism. The papers challenging Einstein’s Theory of Special Relativity were many; other’s papers in reaction to these established that time dilation was plausible; experiments with cesium decay clocks on aircraft and on an Apollo capsule were consistently predicted by Einstein’s base theory.

Criticism is still alive and well in scientific circles; papers are often sent for peer review, and then the peer reviews responded to, as well. It’s not as public as it used to be, but it is still ongoing. Even a master’s program thesis is usually subjected to a rigorous review process both before and after presentation and defense.

And given the process, it’s not uncommon for an article released in, say, Scientific American, to later be revised based upon further research and responses to and reaction papers about the original.

 

[ready]

I love Catholicism because it is based on pure objective truth. Science, I love too, but I don’t like how “the scientific group” decides on what theory is better than the others based on their collaboration with one another, as the group can make wrong decisions as has been done before, and as this group is not necessarily guided by the Holy Spirit, like we are assured of with the Church’s Magisterium. Natural science should not be put on the same level as Catholic faith, which is the Word (truth) coming from the mouth of God Himself come to earth in the person of Jesus Christ. Natural science is based on trial and error, statistics and observation - not on a body of knowledge given by God Himself - so we should be humble and cautious in making definite statements.

 

[a_priori]

Biologically speaking, Jesus was an ape as are all homo sapiens.

This isn’t even correct scientifically. Perhaps that wasn’t the point anyway. Nevermind.

 

[greg_b]

Seeing people here blinding themselves to something as obvious as evolution and being in such denial is giving me an idea that there are such things as “devolution”, creationists being a great example

 

[ready]

I love Catholicism because it is based on pure objective truth. Science, I love too, but I don’t like how “the scientific group” decides on what theory is better than the others based on their collaboration with one another, as the group can make wrong decisions as has been done before, and as this group is not necessarily guided by the Holy Spirit, like we are assured of with the Church’s Magisterium. Natural science should not be put on the same level as Catholic faith, which is the Word (truth) coming from the mouth of God Himself come to earth in the person of Jesus Christ. Natural science is based on trial and error, statistics and observation - not on a body of knowledge given by God Himself - so we should be humble and cautious in making definite statements.

The last sentence in this paragraph should have read: Natural science is based on trial and error, statistics, and observation - not on a body of knowledge given by God Himself -so we should be humble and cautious in making definite statements and pushing them as “facts.”

 

[space_trojan]

when one does argue with little or no knowledge at all about their terminologies and logic… and worse, making up words just to impress, then, it’s a useless engagement…be well everyone…

 

[cerad]

when one does argue with little or no knowledge at all about their terminologies and logic… and worse, making up words just to impress, then, it’s a useless engagement…be well everyone…

But this is something that’s easy to correct. Spend a few minutes and become familiar with the basic concepts of science. Perhaps then your posts might become a bit more useful.