Scientists Unveil Missing Link In Evolution

[spankyg]

The belief of evolution is fading away as science moves on. The same reason we do not use medical science from 200 years ago, evolution is becoming highly invalid. They needed something to “re-spark” the evolution hype, thus Ida the “lemur monkey”.

I suggest these books:

“Darwin’s Black Box”

“The Edge of Evolution: The Search for the Limits of Darwinism”

“Icons of Evolution: Science or Myth?”

Very thought provoking and interesting books.
The documentary, “Case for a Creator” is also rather interesting, although it only touches on some of the key issues.

 

[Teen4Christ]

The belief of evolution is fading away as science moves on. The same reason we do not use medical science from 200 years ago, evolution is becoming highly invalid. They needed something to “re-spark” the evolution hype, thus Ida the “lemur monkey”.

I suggest these books:

“Darwin’s Black Box”

“The Edge of Evolution: The Search for the Limits of Darwinism”

“Icons of Evolution: Science or Myth?”

Very thought provoking and interesting books.
The documentary, “Case for a Creator” is also rather interesting, although it only touches on some of the key issues.

How’s it becoming invaild exactly greg?

 

[annetteski]

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

dear Arandur,
Where in my post did it say science was invalid?

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.

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.

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

The very fact that evolution cannot explain the soul renders it rather futile when it comes to furthering their agenda.

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.

Of course science in general would recognize its own limits, but so sad to say that evolution advocates just won’t, will they? Maybe one day we will come to hear of the evolutionists theorize that the soul evolved from the air that the first ape breathed in and would defend this theory in any way they can.

 

[annetteski]

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

http://forest.jrc.ec.europa.eu/docs/pattern/guidos/homer-in.png

hilarious!!!..goooooooo Homer!!!

 

[Arandur]

dear Arandur,
Where in my post did it say science was invalid?

Your post assumed evolution had something to say about the soul, and condemned it for saying something erroneous. The theory does not. Proponents of materialist philosophies may speak of souls, but they have no data from evolution about them. Your disparaging comments apply to those philosophies, not to the scientific theories.

The very fact that evolution cannot explain the soul renders it rather futile when it comes to furthering their agenda.

This fact does not affect the truth of the theory of evolution; it only, as you say, gives the lie to any attempts to claim that evolution extends beyond the realm of science into the supernatural.

Of course science in general would recognize its own limits, but so sad to say that evolution advocates just won’t, will they? Maybe one day we will come to hear of the evolutionists theorize that the soul evolved from the air that the first ape breathed in and would defend this theory in any way they can.

Some advocates may not. Others do recognize the limits and speak of them often (advocates of the scientific theory, not of materialistic philosophies). Make the important distinction between those with a materialist agenda and those merely pursuing a scientific investigation of the world. It is an important distinction.

 

[annetteski]

Your post assumed evolution had something to say about the soul, and condemned it for saying something erroneous. The theory does not. Proponents of materialist philosophies may speak of souls, but they have no data from evolution about them. Your disparaging comments apply to those philosophies, not to the scientific theories.

So it is very clear that it’s you who shoots “assumptions”. Pls. don’t read into things and assume the nonsense like you are doing now. Do you even know why the word “assume” starts with those 3 letters? It is because people who assume make an *** of themselves.

This fact does not affect the truth of the theory of evolution; it only, as you say, gives the lie to any attempts to claim that evolution extends beyond the realm of science into the supernatural.

Well it does. Without these facts, evolution is nowhere near the truth, and your attempt to put words into my mouth is just pathetic

Some advocates may not. Others do recognize the limits and speak of them often (advocates of the scientific theory, not of materialistic philosophies). Make the important distinction between those with a materialist agenda and those merely pursuing a scientific investigation of the world. It is an important distinction.

It’s you who is all mixed up with words, I said “evolution advocates”, so did you have to summon up advocates of the materialistic philosophies? Impressive! :clapping:

 

[altabz]

You know people I have this observation of mine correcrt me if i’m wrong, every time that scientists discover something about evolution,universe,beginning of time and other field of science. Especially if it looks like contradict to the bibles’ teaching, they have this notion that said “If we can explain it then God didn’t make it.” Please enlightened me if i’m wrong.

 

[spankyg]

How’s it becoming invaild exactly greg?

I suggest these books:

“Darwin’s Black Box”

“The Edge of Evolution: The Search for the Limits of Darwinism”

“Icons of Evolution: Science or Myth?”

Very thought provoking and interesting books.
The documentary, “Case for a Creator” is also rather interesting, although it only touches on some of the key issues.

 

[M0nkey]

Do you disagree that language has changed and grown more complex over human history?

I believe languages have become less complex. Latin for example contains words which may contain several different meanings given it’s context. Ancient Hebrew has similar properties. However, the syntax and structure of language has remained the same. Have you ever thought of the fact that language is basically made up of verbs, adjectives and nouns? Well, this is seen consistently throughout all languages. If you take verbs away for example, you have virtually no way to communicate.

DEFINE RANDOM FOR ME.

Let me answer your question with another question, do you think anything happens by chance?

statistics deals with randomness all the time, because it is a distribution, a mathematical condition.

Well, not exactly, the distribution gives you an observed “pattern” over time. This in itself, does not mean it’s intrinsically random. I agree with your definition of statistics, I’m only arguing with your induction of randomness.
"Arandur:

Science is limited to describing nature by what we can physically observe.

Are you sure about that? Do you think there is more to the mind than atoms? Is that all there is? Isn’t science meant to point towards the truth? How can this truth be restricted to the physical realm alone? I am aware these are philosophical questions. But let’s try to define science as it pertains to materialism.

Speed of reproduction has no impact on an organism that fills a different ecological niche.

One thing you are failing to mention is the fact bacteria can survive in a barrage of environs. It’s even been observed they may survive in space! So even if you take “a different ecological niche” as a selective pressure single celled organism win every time.

 

[reggieM]

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

I notice that you skipped over the very simple question I posed. This will help you understand the problem. I’ll ask it again:

What influence does the soul have on the human body?

Possible answers:

1. Some
2. None
3. I don’t know
4. I don’t want to answer because it’s a problem for evolutionary theory

Also – what is the “nature of the soul”? Do you reject the perennial Catholic teaching on what the nature of the soul is? If so, where did you learn about what the soul is, and why should we believe that rather than what the Holy Church has taught us (including with an infallible statement) for centuries?

Perhaps you are a dissenting, liberalized Catholic – I don’t know.

If not, then you need not invent your own idea of what the soul is.

Please go back to the first question – repeated again:

What influence does the soul have on the human body?

 

[reggieM]

Let me answer your question with another question, do you think anything happens by chance?

It’s a pretty simple question. I asked what he thought about a pile of rocks at the bottom of an avalanche – the result of physical laws acting on matter. Does that show design?

He replied with an affirmative. A pile of rocks shows organization and design. Apparently, it cannot be distinguished from something like Mount Rushmore – design in the rocks.

Thus, the notion of design is meaningless since it cannot be distinguished from any accidental combination.

The police, looking for the criminal, would not be able to tell if fingerprints, weapon and stolen property on a site were there “by design” or by “random chance”.

 

[Arandur]

Annetteski, perhaps if you read a little bit about the current discussion you would understand what I was talking about.

So it is very clear that it’s you who shoots “assumptions”. Pls. don’t read into things and assume the nonsense like you are doing now. Do you even know why the word “assume” starts with those 3 letters? It is because people who assume make an *** of themselves.

What was I assuming wrongly? I pointed out that your post inherently assumed that evolution (the scientific theory) says something about the soul, namely that it comes from primates.
Your original post:

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

So was that just in jest, or were you trying to say that evolution was ridiculous because you thought it made claims like primate souls evolving into human souls and Adam using primate language?

Well it does. Without these facts, evolution is nowhere near the truth, and your attempt to put words into my mouth is just pathetic

Where was I putting words into your mouth? I used your own words.
So now you’re saying that evolution can’t be near the truth because it doesn’t explain the soul? Is that the argument you want to make?

It’s you who is all mixed up with words, I said “evolution advocates”, so did you have to summon up advocates of the materialistic philosophies? Impressive!

Your terminology of “evolution advocates” perpetuates the common confusion that many people on this thread have. I explained it again here and have been talking about it for pages. The scientific theory of evolution has nothing to say about religious matters or supernatural causes. Some people improperly use evolution, taking it beyond the limitations of science into the realm of philosophy, concluding erroneously that there need be no God or anything supernatural. There are therefore two things at play, here: 1. the scientific theory of evolution, which has no conflict with faith; and 2. the materialistic philosophies of some people improperly extrapolating from evolution to promote an agenda or hide their faulty philosophy behind.

Your objection appeared to be to people who made claims about the human soul. Any such claim is a philosophical or theological claim; no scientific discipline can say anything about it because it has no natural data to work from. So I made the distinction that the people you’re really after are the materialists, not those who stick within the limits of science when they talk about evolution.

 

[Arandur]

I believe languages have become less complex.
Latin for example contains words which may contain several different meanings given it’s context. Ancient Hebrew has similar properties.

You don’t think English has words that contain several different meanings given their context? Or Chinese? Or any other?
I hope you know that “evolution” does not require increasing complexity. The whole concept of vestigial organs demonstrates that.

However, the syntax and structure of language has remained the same. Have you ever thought of the fact that language is basically made up of verbs, adjectives and nouns? Well, this is seen consistently throughout all languages. If you take verbs away for example, you have virtually no way to communicate.

I don’t see where you think this is in contrast to evolution.

Let me answer your question with another question, do you think anything happens by chance?

Over how many more pages of text do you expect me to put up with your discourteous and disingenuous habit of ignoring my questions and my points?

As I explained earlier, perspective and context matters a great deal. By “chance” are you implying a possibility that is completely unknowable beforehand?
The important question of perspective in that case is: “chance” relative to whom? Relative to us, yes, things can happen that we cannot know beforehand. Relative to God, no. That would violate His omniscience.

Well, not exactly, the distribution gives you an observed “pattern” over time. This in itself, does not mean it’s intrinsically random. I agree with your definition of statistics, I’m only arguing with your induction of randomness.

Then, again, what do you mean by “random?” Relative to whom?

Are you sure about that?

Yes. Science can’t do anything more than inspire philosophical speculation about non-material things.

Do you think there is more to the mind than atoms?

Of course I do. Science just can’t describe whatever else there is that is not physical.

Is that all there is? Isn’t science meant to point towards the truth?

Yes, truth within its own sphere. It inspires questions beyond its sphere, but cannot be definitive about such answers. Why do you object to this? It seems inherent in your question that you demand that science explain everything or else it cannot explain anything.

How can this truth be restricted to the physical realm alone? I am aware these are philosophical questions. But let’s try to define science as it pertains to materialism.

What are you referring to by “this” truth? The mind?
Truth about humans in particular is not limited to this physical realm alone. But science can only remark on the physical realm. It is for faith and reason in theology or philosophy to investigate the non-physical.

One thing you are failing to mention is the fact bacteria can survive in a barrage of environs. It’s even been observed they may survive in space! So even if you take “a different ecological niche” as a selective pressure single celled organism win every time.

“Win’s” how?
I didn’t mention the survivability of various species of bacteria because it was irrelevant to the point I was making. Yes, there are types of bacteria that can survive in many hostile environments. That does not preclude the ability of other organisms to inhabit the same environments and still thrive in their particular niche.
I really don’t understand your point here. You seem to be claiming that single celled organisms should outcompete multi-celled organisms everywhere, and that there should be no multi-celled organisms. That borders on nonsensical, considering that it is obviously false. We have multi-celled organisms. They survive just fine along with single-celled organisms because of their various adaptations that make them able to compete for limited environmental resources.

 

[Arandur]

I notice that you skipped over the very simple question I posed. This will help you understand the problem. I’ll ask it again:

What influence does the soul have on the human body?

Possible answers:

1. Some
2. None
3. I don’t know
4. I don’t want to answer because it’s a problem for evolutionary theory

Also – what is the “nature of the soul”? Do you reject the perennial Catholic teaching on what the nature of the soul is? If so, where did you learn about what the soul is, and why should we believe that rather than what the Holy Church has taught us (including with an infallible statement) for centuries?

Perhaps you are a dissenting, liberalized Catholic – I don’t know.

If not, then you need not invent your own idea of what the soul is.

Please go back to the first question – repeated again:

What influence does the soul have on the human body?

Did you miss the several posts where I explained that science can’t remark on the soul, as a supernatural thing, and therefore that your question is irrelevant to the discussion?

I am an orthodox Catholic. Yes, I accept what the Church teaches about the soul, gladly.

The soul is inextricably tied with the body; it is the two together that make us truly human. It has many influences on the body, some known and some unknown.

What’s your point when it comes to evolution? Evolution, as a scientific theory, can’t say anything about it, one way or the other. As such, evolution will never be able to explain everything about human origins, because it cannot explain the soul. All the disciplines of science together will never be able to fully explain human life, because they cannot describe the side of our humanity that is most important to our experience. I would never claim it could, nor should anyone, for our own experience tells us there is more to life than the physically-observable world. The mere existence of abstract thought and meaning, at its most basic, tells us this.

 

[Arandur]

It’s a pretty simple question. I asked what he thought about a pile of rocks at the bottom of an avalanche – the result of physical laws acting on matter. Does that show design?

He replied with an affirmative. A pile of rocks shows organization and design. Apparently, it cannot be distinguished from something like Mount Rushmore – design in the rocks.

Thus, the notion of design is meaningless since it cannot be distinguished from any accidental combination.

The police, looking for the criminal, would not be able to tell if fingerprints, weapon and stolen property on a site were there “by design” or by “random chance”.

Why do you persist in ignoring half of what I say, taking my words out of context?

I explained that order/design is a matter of perspective, of relativity. I gave examples to demonstrate what I meant. There is organization and design in the forces of nature acting on the rocks, in the chemical makeup of the rocks. From God’s perspective, He knew the event would happen, designed nature in such a way that it could happen, and His knowledge is perfect enough that He could have predicted the movement of the wind and the water and the lay of each rock.

From a human perspective, we lack such knowledge to know and predict, so we just classify such an event as a common natural event. Were we to attempt to model such an event, such as in forensic science where we’re trying to figure out after the fact how these rocks fell this way, we know enough about the way natural forces interact that we could design a model that could approximately simulate the likely original events responsible for the rock fall.

I think what you’re really getting at, though, is was there evidence of intention behind the event. In your example of tracking down a criminal, we can take an event and hypothesize willed intention (one of the senses of the word “design,” and the one I think you’re really interested in) based on the evidence. We have experience that correlates criminal events to criminal intention rather than “random” occurrence.

We do not generally ascribe will/intention to natural events. Will is a “why” that philosophy and faith explore. Science can’t tell us “why” we’re here, “why” natural laws operate the way they do, or “why” anything exists at all.

 

[annetteski]

Arandur, my original post was:

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

then you answered with this question:

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

And so I asked back in an answer:

dear Arandur,
Where in my post did it say science was invalid?

To which you answered back:

Your post assumed evolution had something to say about the soul, and condemned it for saying something erroneous. The theory does not. Proponents of materialist philosophies may speak of souls, but they have no data from evolution about them. Your disparaging comments apply to those philosophies, not to the scientific theories.

And so my dear, from the transition of posts so far, isn’t it evident that you assumed that my post assumed what you said it assumed? Isn’t it also clear that you’ve put the words “science is invalid” in my mouth? That’s a pathetic ploy for a trap by the way.

You should take deep breaths because so far, you haven’t defended your position intelligently, but rather, you are trying to force your arguments down people’s throat, spouting seemingly intelligent words, sentences, phrases, paragraphs and yet your arguments are constipated, bordering on the paranoia thereby you get baited and retaliate with poorly coordinated ideas.

You stated that science and faith are complementary yet you cancelled out that statement of yours by stating next: “they operate on different subject matter,” I think you have a troubled mind. If they are complementary, they would operate on the same subject matter with different angles and perspectives yet arriving at one desired end result, and in this case, the subject matter is evolution.

So you say scientific theory of evolution doesn’t have anything to say about religious matters or supernatural causes. This is not so, try looking into the very reason why Darwin came up with this theory. Somewhere in this forum, it has already been discussed but do go over them for refresher.

And we wouldn’t have this endless debate on the theory of evolution if it does not conflict with faith at all.

But tell me in your very own words, where does the theory evolution stand at this point in time?

 

[ready]

As I see things God created everything by his word, not through some evolutionary process. Consider this passage from the second story of creation.

 "The Lord God said:  'It is not good for man to be alone.  I will make a suitable partner for him.'  19 So the Lord **formed out of the ground** various wild animals and various birds of the air, and he brought them to the man to see what he would call them; whatever the man called each of them would be its name.  20 The man gave names to all the cattle, all the birds of the air, and all the wild animals; but none proved to be the suiable partner for the man.

 21  So the Lord God cast a deep sleep on the man, and while he was asleep, he took out one of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh.  22 The Lord God then built up into a woman the rib that he had taken from the man, 23 the man said:
       'This one, at last, is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh;
       This one shall be called 'woman,'
       for out of 'her man' this one has been taken.'"

The first creature on earth appears to be man, then animal, then Eve. How could man come from some common ancestor with apes when man enterd the picture of creation before the ape? Maybe we share similarity with other animals, like apes, as seen in our genes, but I don’t think it is safe to say we descended from them because of this similarity. We just share some familial relationship with them being creatures of the same God. We would be turning the story of creation into a fable if we do not understand it as it written, so I think we need to attend to the fact that man came before the animal in the second story of creation.

 

[reggieM]

The question again:

What influence does the soul have on the human body?

I offered these possible answers:

1. Some
2. None
3. I don’t know
4. I don’t want to answer because it’s a problem for evolutionary theory

Your answer is a good one – perfectly conforming to Catholic teaching.

The soul is inextricably tied with the body; it is the two together that make us truly human. It has many influences on the body, some known and some unknown.

So, the soul has some influence on the human body.

The human body (the subject of science and evolutionary theory) is affected by the soul. It is affected in ways that can be observed. The human soul is the source of consciousness, free will, memory, imagination and the spiritual nature of man. If we take free-will alone – this has major influences on the body, especially with “selection” and “adaptation”. The soul enables a man to freely choose – against nature. Thus, this is a major effect on so-called evolution.

In ignoring this aspect and treating it as if it does not exist (as evolutionary-science does), it gives a false representation of the human being. An aspect of humanity, which you admit has an influence on the human body, could have profound effects on evolutionary processes. But this fact is omitted by science - deliberately. Nowhere in the scientific literature does it state that evolutionary-theory cannot be fully correct until it factors in the influence of the powers of the human soul.

what is the “nature of the soul”?

Do you reject the perennial Catholic teaching on what the nature of the soul is? If so, where did you learn about what the soul is, and why should we believe that rather than what the Holy Church has taught us (including with an infallible statement) for centuries?

Perhaps you are a dissenting, liberalized Catholic – I don’t know.

If not, then you need not invent your own idea of what the soul is.

Please go back to the first question – repeated again:

What influence does the soul have on the human body?

What’s your point when it comes to evolution? Evolution, as a scientific theory, can’t say anything about it, one way or the other.

It “can” say whatever it wants. But it “won’t” say it. We can see, as you admit, that the human body is influenced by the human soul. The body is the subject of science. One cannot explain the human person without understaning the effect of the soul. This alone proves the fallacy of evolutionary theory.

As such, evolution will never be able to explain everything about human origins, because it cannot explain the soul.

Yes, but where in the scientific literature does it state this? As I see it, you’re arguing for a private version of evolution. All of the evolutionary literature claims to explain “everything” about human origins, or at least that it is possible to explain everything. Darwin himself said this.

All the disciplines of science together will never be able to fully explain human life, because they cannot describe the side of our humanity that is most important to our experience.

This is a radically different point of view than can be found in mainstream science. You’re basically rejecting the claims of the evolutionary-science culture.
In this case, I fully agree with you though. But I cannot argue with a personalized version of evolution since it belongs to you alone. I can’t reference evolutionary papers that state that evolution cannot fully explain human life.

Yours is a more Catholic view, and that is very good. But yours is also a radical critique of mainstream science. To have that level of distrust (which I do also), why not extend it to a distrust of many of the findings of science which claim to explain human beings minus anything about the influence of the soul?

In short – I find a lot more agreement with you than I thought – and that, for me is good.
Thanks for taking the time with this explanation.

 

[M0nkey]

I don’t see where you think this is in contrast to evolution.

Language itself is pretty much irreducibly complex.

arandur:

Relative to whom?

Relative to natural law. God would not create something that is not accessible to us through reason. This notion of “random mutations” flies in the face of the idea that the universe is intelligible and that it makes sense.

Arandur:

Science can’t do anything more than inspire philosophical speculation about non-material things.

My point is this. For a long time we speculated light and heat to be non-material things. If you use a materialistic approach to science, you’ll most certainly miss cardinal aspects of reality. This is why you must be inclusive in scientific endeavor. The mind for example is what sits on top of our physical brains. But without understanding the mind, we know little about the brain.

Arandur:

You seem to be claiming that single celled organisms should outcompete multi-celled organisms everywhere, and that there should be no multi-celled organisms. That borders on nonsensical, considering that it is obviously false. We have multi-celled organisms. They survive just fine along with single-celled organisms because of their various adaptations that make them able to compete for limited environmental resources.

You missed the point completely. Natural selection alone fails to explain why multicellular systems evolved in the first place. Since evidently single celled organism can already outgrow, and outlive the competition. My claim is not that it does not happen, but that evolutionary theory is insufficient.

 

[Michaelo]

Arandur, I hope you don’t mind if I respond to reggieM’s post as well

The human body (the subject of science and evolutionary theory) is affected by the soul. It is affected in ways that can be observed. The human soul is the source of consciousness, free will, memory, imagination and the spiritual nature of man. If we take free-will alone – this has major influences on the body, especially with “selection” and “adaptation”. The soul enables a man to freely choose – against nature. Thus, this is a major effect on so-called evolution.

Even if the soul has physical implications for the human body, the source of these influences is still a metaphysical phenomenon that science cannot investigate.

In ignoring this aspect and treating it as if it does not exist (as evolutionary-science does), it gives a false representation of the human being.

Evolution’s inability to address the soul is absolutely not equivalent to an admission of its nonexistence.

It “can” say whatever it wants.

Yes, within the boundaries of science.

But it “won’t” say it.

Right, it won’t and can’t say anything about the soul because it lies outside of the boundaries of science.

We can see, as you admit, that the human body is influenced by the human soul. The body is the subject of science. One cannot explain the human person without understaning the effect of the soul. This alone proves the fallacy of evolutionary theory.

This is a poor syllogism as you presuppose that science attempts to explain every aspect of the human body. Clearly, we must use alternative means to understand the metaphysical components.

All of the evolutionary literature claims to explain “everything” about human origins, or at least that it is possible to explain everything. Darwin himself said this.

This is a radically different point of view than can be found in mainstream science. You’re basically rejecting the claims of the evolutionary-science culture.

You’re definitely going to have to back these statements up with multiple sources.