Scientists Unveil Missing Link In Evolution

[greg_b]

Arandur, it seems our friends are incredibly ignorant of just what a soul is and is not. The soul is not some ghost possessing an organism. The soul in this life is fully integrated with our body. So when scientists say that chemicals in our brain affect us in certain ways, they are absolutely right, and that affects our soul as well. Best example: A man is addicted to cigarettes, he mentally does not want to but it is very hard for him to stop smoking because of his chemical addiction. No one would ever have that problem if our soul was not fully integrated with our body.

 

[altabz]

speaking of evolution if monkeys evolve to humans then does it mean the soul evolve to from monkey soul to human soul pathetic?

 

[M0nkey]

You misunderstand evolution, and you misunderstand “function.” Language has absolutely evolved in very similar ways as organisms.

Ancient languages use similar syntax and structures as we do today, in fact, they are practically the same, it’s just that we have decorated it a bit with superlatives and such. If you look at the structure of a sentence, a sequence of grunts and sounds does not suffice for the complexities of words and sentences. If you recall, Adam and Eve already knew how to talk to God.

Random is a description of a distribution, not a judgment on whether something is knowable or unknowable either to us or to God.

Statistics deal with probabilities as in what are the chances such and such would occur. At it’s core, this is not random. It only gives you what your odds are, sort of like gambling, but the bottom line is that there has to be some design or pattern that generally being followed. That’s how these things are used in mathematics, so you can figure out the pattern and “predict” where future changes are. But it would do much better if you could figure out it’s design based on natural law.

1. I have defined “Darwinism” as a philosophical abuse of evolution.

Wait, so how do you define science? You seem to think “philosophical abuse” is below the sciences. I’ve already explained science has it’s roots in philosophy.

 

[annetteski]

adam, a primate with primate soul evolved into human with human soul …and of course adam used primate language huuuhuuuu haahaaaa eeekkkeeeekkk to communicate with god …kinda luv evolutionists rationale on the matter…coolios…

i wonder what comes next

 

[reggieM]

I have to parse out and qualify your words again. Yes, order can come about by physical laws, but only because God created those laws in such a way that they could do that.

Thanks for the lengthy reply. You’re parsing my words. I might call it an exercise in sophistry, but you may have very good reasons that I don’t yet understand.

Let’s simplify. You’ve insisted that you can observe order and harmony in nature. You agreed with Professor Kreeft that such order (and he said purpose) only come from intelligence.

Could we just look at this again?

What do you mean by order and harmony? How do you define it and distinguish it from disorder and non-harmony and non-purpose?

Again, what do you mean by “order” and “organization” and how could I find them in nature?

How about some examples of order versus non-order that you see in nature?

I think that’s pretty simple and shouldn’t require pages of text to “explain” – true?

 

[reggieM]

As for “function,” the only “function” evolution is ultimately concerned with is reproduction. Adaptation to environment helps organisms to successfully reproduce, so adaptations are a subset of functions. “Function,” then, has always remained the same for organisms, as well.

Language is, then, a very good example of evolutionary processes in action.

How is language an “organism that reproduces”? What is its reproductive system?

 

[M0nkey]

The only thing I would add to reproduction in evolution is the fact that many single celled organism can reproduce at much faster rates than more complex systems. How is it then – if you use natural selection alone – that simple systems ever evolved? Certainly the logic does not follow here.

 

[reggieM]

Michaelo,

First of all, thanks for having an open mind regarding the ID material I posted. I’m very glad to see that you read it and responded.

I appreciate your comments here also. I hope my questions will be of benefit in some way.

You conflate that which dwells outside of science with that which is unnecessary and functionless.

Assumed in my reply was “function in nature”. But even still, I think it would help for you to explain what functions the soul has.

I’ll also ask:

What influence does the soul have on the human body? on the human person?

Are you familiar with the Catholic teaching on the nature of the soul and its functions?

Catholic evolutionists do not deny the soul but rather seek appropriate means of explaining it–theology, not science. This behavior in no way implies that the soul is meaningless or useless.

Ok, well you have some questions that will help explain this.
Again – does the soul have any influence at all on the human body?
What are the functions of the soul?
Also, where did you learn about this topic, since it was not from science or evolution, right?

 

[reggieM]

The only thing I would add to reproduction in evolution is the fact that many single celled organism can reproduce at much faster rates than more complex systems. How is it then – if you use natural selection alone – that simple systems ever evolved? Certainly the logic does not follow here.

Could you explain that more? I think it shows that since the single celled organisms reproduce faster than multi-cell organisms, the single cells would always out-produce any multi-cell organisms that could ever, supposedly, accidentally form – right?

 

[edwest2]

You conflate that which dwells outside of science with that which is unnecessary and functionless.

Evolution cannot and should not explain the soul.

Catholic evolutionists do not deny the soul but rather seek appropriate means of explaining it–theology, not science. This behavior in no way implies that the soul is meaningless or useless.

When all the back and forth discussion reaches a certain point, someone always chimes in with the following: “The Creationists want to get into the schools so they’ll be in charge.” This, of course, suggests a different and opposing belief system is already in charge.

The claim that critically important realities are not covered by science do not make those realities go away.

Adam and Eve. Two individuals. Because of them, we have Original Sin.
Jesus Christ. God made flesh. He had to die as a sacrifice so that all could be in a relationship with God and receive eternal life.

And again, these things are facts. They are the most important things all human beings need to know.

But science can’t comment. I know.

I am completely skeptical of any claims that there were true men other than Adam and Eve. See the encyclical Humani Generis. You can find it online.

Christianity is in radical opposition to materialism. But the triumph of materialism is desperately desired so that the Dictatorship of Relativism can continue.

Current claims of materialism:

You are just another animal, accountable to no one.

Your genetic material brought you to this point, intellectually and physically. That is all you need to know.

Catholics can believe in God but — but — we are living in a culture that does not want anything added to science. That does not want supernaturalism. That prefers self-organization to any hint of intelligence.

Finally, the method has always been the same. The fancy word is incrementalism. What that means is this, and I am speaking to no one in particular here: If they can get Catholics to agree to one thing, then they get us to agree to another, and another and another. And before you know it, we are agreeing to things that are completely and utterly heretical.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Michaelo]

Assumed in my reply was “function in nature”. But even still, I think it would help for you to explain what functions the soul has.

I’ll also ask:

What influence does the soul have on the human body? on the human person?

Are you familiar with the Catholic teaching on the nature of the soul and its functions?

Ok, well you have some questions that will help explain this.
Again – does the soul have any influence at all on the human body?
What are the functions of the soul?
Also, where did you learn about this topic, since it was not from science or evolution, right?

I could use a refresher on the Church’s specific teachings on the soul, but let me make this clear, I do not doubt the soul’s considerable influence on the human body. However, we should not turn to evolution to gain an understanding of the soul and its implications for us. Evolution does not propose an all-encompassing explanation for human existence, so we must employ multiple strategies (theology being one) to maximize our understanding.

 

[Michaelo]

The claim that critically important realities are not covered by science do not make those realities go away.

Exactly! This is what I’ve tried to convey in my posts. Evolution’s inability to address the soul in no way detracts from its reality.

 

[edwest2]

Exactly! This is what I’ve tried to convey in my posts. Evolution’s inability to address the soul in no way detracts from its reality.

Evolution is not a fact.

I stand with Pope Benedict who said, “But it is also true that evolution is not a complete, scientifically proven theory.”

Peace,
Ed

 

[Michaelo]

Evolution is not a fact.

I stand with Pope Benedict who said, “But it is also true that evolution is not a complete, scientifically proven theory.”

This is completely irrelevant to my prior point.

 

[rlg94086]

Well, personally, I am convinced after seeing this new evidence:

 

[M0nkey]

Well, personally, I am convinced after seeing this new evidence:

I think it shows that since the single celled organisms reproduce faster than multi-cell organisms, the single cells would always out-produce any multi-cell organisms that could ever, supposedly, accidentally form – right?

Indeed. Not to mention, if it’s correct that natural selection is only looking for ways to reproduce, this doesn’t tell us how single cells evolved into more complex organism. This is one of the conundrums in the Darwinian model. The single to multicellular step is not fully resolved.

 

[Arandur]

Thanks for the lengthy reply. You’re parsing my words. I might call it an exercise in sophistry, but you may have very good reasons that I don’t yet understand.

Let’s simplify. You’ve insisted that you can observe order and harmony in nature. You agreed with Professor Kreeft that such order (and he said purpose) only come from intelligence.

Could we just look at this again?

What do you mean by order and harmony? How do you define it and distinguish it from disorder and non-harmony and non-purpose?

Again, what do you mean by “order” and “organization” and how could I find them in nature?

How about some examples of order versus non-order that you see in nature?

I think that’s pretty simple and shouldn’t require pages of text to “explain” – true?

I already wrote a lengthy post on order and organization. Address the content of that post rather than asking me to repeat myself. IIRC, I even included questions during that post for you to answer if you still don’t understand what I’m saying, so that I can get a better idea of why you don’t understand what I’m saying. You’ve given me no new information to help me understand why you can’t comprehend what I’ve said about order, harmony, organization, disorder, and chaos.

 

[Arandur]

Ancient languages use similar syntax and structures as we do today, in fact, they are practically the same, it’s just that we have decorated it a bit with superlatives and such. If you look at the structure of a sentence, a sequence of grunts and sounds does not suffice for the complexities of words and sentences. If you recall, Adam and Eve already knew how to talk to God.

Do you disagree that language has changed and grown more complex over human history? That it has adapted to the conditions and interactions of societies?

How is language an “organism that reproduces”? What is its reproductive system?

You’re taking my words out of context again, much too far. Are you deliberately trying to be disingenuous?
I spoke of similarities in the processes of language development and change and organism development and change. I’ve also given examples from human constructions such as machines. In the context of those analogies, isn’t it obvious that I’m not trying to call language or machines “organisms” or say that they are “reproducing” in a biological manner?

Statistics deal with probabilities as in what are the chances such and such would occur. At it’s core, this is not random…

DEFINE RANDOM FOR ME.
I have defined it for you several times. The way you are using it is wrong when applied to our conversation. I have defined it within the context of mathematics and science. By the limited context that it should be used, statistics deals with randomness all the time, because it is a distribution, a mathematical condition.

Seriously, pay attention to what I’m saying and give a reason if you disagree with my definitions. Ignoring it just shows me that you either don’t have the discipline to conduct this sort of discussion or you don’t care what I have to say.

Wait, so how do you define science? You seem to think “philosophical abuse” is below the sciences. I’ve already explained science has it’s roots in philosophy.

I’ve also addressed this numerous times. Science is limited to describing nature by what we can physically observe. It can’t make any statements about anything supernatural, nor anything relating to morality. That’s the realm of philosophy, theology. You must distinguish what you’re talking about, because they are different disciplines of thought and their truth is not directly connected (one can be true while the other is not).

Do you really think that Social Darwinism is a tenet of science? Atheism?

 

[Arandur]

The only thing I would add to reproduction in evolution is the fact that many single celled organism can reproduce at much faster rates than more complex systems. How is it then – if you use natural selection alone – that simple systems ever evolved? Certainly the logic does not follow here.

Explain your logic. I don’t see any in your statement.

Speed of reproduction has no impact on an organism that fills a different ecological niche.
Simple systems would generally evolve before more complex systems.

Indeed. Not to mention, if it’s correct that natural selection is only looking for ways to reproduce, this doesn’t tell us how single cells evolved into more complex organism.

If single cells competed on all ecological levels better than more complex systems, then your statements would be true. They do not, so your statement is not. We have diversity of organisms precisely because ecosystems vary and adaptations to them vary. There are many niches in any ecosystem, enabling many different organisms to coexist with little to no competition.

This is one of the conundrums in the Darwinian model. The single to multicellular step is not fully resolved.

It’s not fully resolved, no. We have many clues and plausible theories, however.

 

[Arandur]

The way it is often presented is that “evolution explains the development of human life since human beings evolved from apes”. The Catholic evolutionist repeats this and defends it. When reminded that a human being possesses an immortal soul which cannot be created by any natural process, the evolutionist claims “the soul is not a part of science”. So the soul for the theistic-evolutionist, is just like Ken Miller’s “god” – it’s an unnecessary appendage that cannot be detected and serves no function.

But then when asked “does the soul have no influence on the human body”? The evolutionist gives a confused reply.

In the Catholic understanding of man, the soul is the seat of consciousness, free will, memory and imagination. These are the spiritual properties of man. They cannot be the products of evolution, but are created directly by God and infused in each person.

Evolution explained none of this. Except, the evolutionary textbooks claimed that “man evolved from apes”. The Catholic evolutionists might say, “well, not all of man evolved – only the body”. But the evolutionary texts never said that. The science literature does not say that “part” of human beings evolved. It takes the materialist view – human beings in their entirety, evolved, period.

So, the soul is denied. Catholic evolutionists will say that the soul is not denied, because there was never a reason to mention the soul. So, for them, the soul is meaningless, useless and not even necessary to mention when talking about “the origin of human beings”.

They cover-up for the materialist belief that is a part of evolutionary theory. Many, like Ken Miller and Fr. Coyne, end up buying-into materialism themselves in order to defend evolutionary theory.

Altabz, annetteski, Reggie, why do you attempt to call science invalid for not attempting to describe something it admits it cannot attempt to describe?

Science and faith are complementary. They operate on different subject matter. Read your Catechism, 159, for starters. Study the Church’s rich history in science, for more.

Evolution says nothing of the soul because it cannot. It would be dishonest for scientists to make any claims, positive or negative, about the soul, so it is not addressed by science. Michaelo spoke succinctly and accurately of this. That it cannot say anything means that it can neither confirm nor deny anything about the soul. So it does not deny the existence of the soul, nor on any impact it has on human beings.

Catholic evolutionists will say that the soul is not denied, because there was never a reason to mention the soul. So, for them, the soul is meaningless, useless and not even necessary to mention when talking about “the origin of human beings”.

This in particular is vile tripe resulting from disingenuous and faulty reasoning. To say that science cannot describe the soul in no way says the soul is meaningless. Explain that logic to me. It is a HUGE non sequitur.

Evolution cannot explain the origin of human beings. It cannot explain the effect of the soul on the human body or the effect that consciousness has – and it cannot explain the origin of either of those aspects of human life (minus which, an organism is not a human).

You’re very right here. You’ve explained the limitations of evolution accurately. Limits are not errors.

That is just one of many of the evolutionary errors which are constantly promoted. Many do not believe that human beings have an immortal soul at all - and evolutionary teaching supports that false belief fully.

And you’re wrong again. The science of evolution makes no error because it recognizes its own limits, as you explained above. Materialist philosophies derived from evolution perpetuate typical materialist errors while hiding behind invalid extensions of evolution beyond its limits.