R
reggieM
Guest
In spite of what evolutionists claim, an ape is not a human being.
- Status
R
rossum
Guest
There are two different definitions of ‘ape’ in use.* ape (colloquial) any member of the Hominidae except Homo sapiens.
- ape (scientific) any member of the Hominidae including Homo sapiens.
rossum
R
reggieM
Guest
You’re being quite ambiguous and slippery here, while you attack me as lacking discernment.
Which of the theories of evolution are **you **discussing and/or defending? You’ve never specified that, to my knowledge. Which evolutionists espouse the theory that you’re talking about? Which textbooks teach the theory that you defend?
We can see the problem very clearly on this thread. The pro-evolutionists argue that human beings are apes. Which of your, supposed, more-than-one-theory of evolution are **they **talking about? Do you know? If not, how can you argue against them if you’re referring to an entirely different theory?
You’ve used this argument before and I have to conlude that you’re dodging the issue and muddying the waters.
I was glad to see your objection to the claim that human beings are apes.
You have the claims of evolutionists right here on this thread, supporting that notion.
You have nowhere argued with them to prove that they’re using the “wrong” theory of evolution and that they should only use the theory that you’ve chosen (out of the many).
So, I really shouldn’t be the focus of your attack. Evolutionists here have made a claim based on **their **theory. You objected to their claim and now attacked me for not realizing that there is more than one theory.
What you need to do is either use **their **theory to prove the statement wrong, or else – prove that their theory is false in itself and that they should accept your (as yet unspecified or referenced in any literature) version of evolution.
Attacking me will not help you with either of these tasks.
R
reggieM
Guest
When one talks about the “biological evolution” of man from ape-like predecessors that assumes that mutations and natural selection alone are responsible for the physical differences in humans and apes. This then assumes that the presence of an immortal soul has zero influence on the biological qualiteis of a being.
The fact that a rational soul is not determined by mutations and can make “intelligent selection” which goes against supposed natural selection means that the evolutionary story, even on the “biological nature” of human beings is inadequate.
No scientific explanation is given for the presence of a soul – and this assumes that the rational soul (free-will especially) has no discernable influence on the shape of the body.
Soul and body are united. The human soul has obvious effects on the body (the placebo effect, we can freely choose our destiny or the destiny of others for reasons other than a survival advantage) – and those effects are not driven by mutations and natural selection.
The fact that a rational soul is not determined by mutations and can make “intelligent selection” which goes against supposed natural selection means that the evolutionary story, even on the “biological nature” of human beings is inadequate.
No scientific explanation is given for the presence of a soul – and this assumes that the rational soul (free-will especially) has no discernable influence on the shape of the body.
Soul and body are united. The human soul has obvious effects on the body (the placebo effect, we can freely choose our destiny or the destiny of others for reasons other than a survival advantage) – and those effects are not driven by mutations and natural selection.
R
reggieM
Guest
It’s important to recognize that you have not explained “exactly what an ape is”. You merely placed these beings into a category. This does not explain the difference between man and ape. Most importantly, it does not explain what an ape is, or what a human is.
In the Catholic view, science is not capable of explaining exactly what an ape or human being is. Many evolutionists (I suspect yourself) disagree with the Catholic view and claim that science can fully explain what a human being is.
This can be done because there is the belief that human beings and apes are biological entities that differ only in terms of their genetic adaptations (different physical mutations, etc). This is the view that reduces human beings to matter and the process of physical laws alone.
In the Catholic view, there is an infinite difference between humans and apes. Humans are of a different order of being – radically different than any other animal.
R
reggieM
Guest
There is confusion because it’s an ambiguous term. There is even confusion in dictionary definitions of the term “ape”
Columbia Encyclopedia: ape
any primate of the subfamily Hominoidea, with the possible exception of humans
Those who want to use a secondary or alternative to the primary meaning of the term ape should indicate what meaning they’re using.
Beyond that, classification of organisms into categories and how those categories are named is subjective. It cannot be proven that Hominoidea, for example, is the correct classification (it depends on what one is classifying) or that it is the best term to use for the classification.
D
donsnow
Guest
I think, “What we have here is a failure to communicate”Ok i will try again… Real slow now, and this has NOTHING to do with evolution we are talking about biological classification. You do know Carl Linnaeus was a creationist, in fact do you even know who Carl Linnaeus is??? Is again, and please answer the question…
An ape is a member of the Hominoidea family, this includes HUMANS!!!
So if you don’t agree… define APE!
By each of you and me.
I’m not in your class, nor was I in your professor’s class, where you had it drummed into your head that you and other humans are apes. I don’t have to go by what you learned. No, I don’t.
I have learned that we are not apes, in any functional sense. I don’t believe in descent of species, either.
What is an ‘ape’? Ape is a label applied loosely instead of specifically to a certain creature. There. Personally, my heart of heart’s definition of ‘ape’ is, “Not me.”
Mr. Albert Ball, please get this next straight: not one person on this entire CAF have to go by your science standards, not even you. Nobody in the whole world has to go by science’s standards. They are an artificial construct as a method to see differently than politically, militarily, religiously or economically, etc. But, science is no better way to see things than politically, militarily, religiously or economically. It is NOT any better, it’s just different.
For your own peace of mind, on the web and in the real world, which is comprised of a melding of all the aforesaid establishments, as well as many other establishments, don’t force science’s standards on non-science people. My standards serve me, my family friends and neighbors, quite well, for where I’m at.
I’m not against science; I enjoy a science frame of mind while observing amateur astronomer that I am. But, science doesn’t rule my mind nor life…for that, there’s Jesus Christ and His Church. (You wish everybody thought like a scientist? Well, cops wish everybody thought like a cop; politicians wish everybody thought like a politicians; etc.).
But there’s not anybody that has to think like somebody else. That’s why this is a free country. That’s why we enjoy more freedom of thought in the Catholic church than in any other Christian church and why I believe that all Christians enjoy more freedom of thought than people of other evangelical religion.
I got carried away, here.
To reiterate and close: I don’t have to think like you and you don’t have to think like me and that’s the way it’s supposed to be.
That means, we don’t have to agree on the same definition of ape. No, sir, we don’t.
D
donsnow
Guest
Johnny, thank you for sharing, too.
Personally, I think I have a lot further to go in my faith pilgrimage, to catch up to where you’re at. I’m glad you’re here.
Blessings,
Don
I
itinerant1
Guest
Well, I need to start over. It sounds like I misunderstood what you were trying to say several posts back. Mea culpa!
First, if evolution theory is right at least in a general sense about the evolution of man’s body from lower forms, then well and good. Of course we must agree that man is radically different than non-human primates because he possesses a spiritual soul. Genetically, man has much in common with the anthropoid apes. However, since man is radically different than even the closest non-human primate because of his intellect, I think he really belongs in his own kingdom and not as currently classified with the Apes. Now that I said that I expect to hear from the hard-core, standard, run-of-the-mill evolutionists on CAF.
Science cannot address the human soul because that is a matter for philosophy and theology or religion. The spiritual soul is beyond the scope of the natural sciences. Evolutionists who deny that man has a spiritual soul are speaking as philosophical materialists and not scientists. Materialist evolution theory is the “religion” of the modern atheist. Darwin’s Descent of Man is strictly a materialist interpretation of nature and the mind of man.
So, regarding those things that are of critical importance, we are in agreement as Catholics.
Of course, I prefer a theistic evolution theory, one that does not contradict Revelation. Also, I believe the commonly accepted version of evolution may need some radical overhauling. The book Forbidden Archeology makes some serious and convincing points.
No doubt, neo-Darwinian versions of evolution that are materialist have been very destructive of culture and human lives.
I hope this statement of my position will suffice for my misguided criticism.
G
grannymh
Guest
May I add that there is also some confusion between the family Hominidae of which Homo sapiens is the only extant species and the super-family of Hominoidea. (reference: The American Heritage College Dictionary). It seems to me that the people who do not appear confused about human ancestry are those who consider the human species as a distinct, separate species different in kind from the brute animal kingdom.
I
itinerant1
Guest
I don’t have a copy of what you are reading. I hope to buy one soon. If you have any questions, feel free to ask. Hopefully I won’t add to the confusion. You can message me on CAF if you prefer.
M
MonFrere
Guest
Will do. I think I’ll take another read of the book Credo for Today and carefully formulate some questions but I’ll not get to it before Christmas break because this is a pretty busy time for me. I’ll either go personal message or maybe formulate some questions for the forum. I really don’t know if many people are “current” with some of the thought and refinement brought to the Church by the likes of our present Pope. I think we’re going through a learning curve and everyone seems to be on a slightly different page. That’s my impression from reading this thread!! You may not be surprised by the contents of Credo for Today – but I was, because a good bit of the content took me to places I’ve never been to before. Thanks again for the offer.
MonFrere
A
AlbertBall
Guest
You really are making in difficult form me not be intellectually snobbish.I think, “What we have here is a failure to communicate”
By each of you and me.
I’m not in your class, nor was I in your professor’s class, where you had it drummed into your head that you and other humans are apes. I don’t have to go by what you learned. No, I don’t.
I have learned that we are not apes, in any functional sense. I don’t believe in descent of species, either.
What is an ‘ape’? Ape is a label applied loosely instead of specifically to a certain creature. There. Personally, my heart of heart’s definition of ‘ape’ is, “Not me.”
Mr. Albert Ball, please get this next straight: not one person on this entire CAF have to go by your science standards, not even you. Nobody in the whole world has to go by science’s standards. They are an artificial construct as a method to see differently than politically, militarily, religiously or economically, etc. But, science is no better way to see things than politically, militarily, religiously or economically. It is NOT any better, it’s just different.
For your own peace of mind, on the web and in the real world, which is comprised of a melding of all the aforesaid establishments, as well as many other establishments, don’t force science’s standards on non-science people. My standards serve me, my family friends and neighbors, quite well, for where I’m at.
I’m not against science; I enjoy a science frame of mind while observing amateur astronomer that I am. But, science doesn’t rule my mind nor life…for that, there’s Jesus Christ and His Church. (You wish everybody thought like a scientist? Well, cops wish everybody thought like a cop; politicians wish everybody thought like a politicians; etc.).
But there’s not anybody that has to think like somebody else. That’s why this is a free country. That’s why we enjoy more freedom of thought in the Catholic church than in any other Christian church and why I believe that all Christians enjoy more freedom of thought than people of other evangelical religion.
I got carried away, here.
To reiterate and close: I don’t have to think like you and you don’t have to think like me and that’s the way it’s supposed to be.
That means, we don’t have to agree on the same definition of ape. No, sir, we don’t.
E
edwest2
Guest
Technology does not come into existence on its own. I can choose not to own a cell phone or a computer or cable TV. You see. It is about absolute truth. Not that long ago, I saw an article in a major Detroit newspaper that bluntly stated: There Are No Absolutes.
The problem is not devices or the means to manufacture them, the problem is man deciding the truth is unknowable, or only partly true, or only true in certain situations, leading to situational ethics. One TV show has a web site that declares everything about life is simply shades of grey.
If we, as Catholics, deny absolute truth, then we will be the victims of the current Dictatorship of Relativism. Jesus said, “I am the way, the truth and the life.” Anything outside of that should be carefully examined.
Peace,
Ed
C
Cruciform
Guest
Forgive me, but it seems that one who doesn’t have time to properly educate himself regarding evolutionary science really has no place expressing his admittedly uninformed opinions about evolution on a public forum. However, as you like.
Gaudium de veritate,
Cruciform
+T+
A
Abu
Guest
Even Ernst Mayr, the dean of living evolutionists, longtime professor of biology at Harvard, who has alleged that evolution is a “simple fact,” nevertheless agrees that it is an “historical science” for which “laws and experiments are inappropriate techniques” by which to explain it. One can never actually see evolution in action. (Ernst Mayr, “Darwin’s Influence on Modern Thought,” Scientific American (vol. 283. July 2000), p. 83).
As we now know evolutionism is not empirical science, but historical assumptions, and never has been an empirical science…
From The Scientific Case Against Evolution: A Summary Part 1, by Henry Morris, Ph.D.
The scientific method traditionally has required experimental observation and replication. The fact that macroevolution (as distinct from microevolution) has never been observed would seem to exclude it from the domain of true science. “The Cambrian explosion was the most remarkable and puzzling event in the history of life.” (Stephen Jay Gould, “The Evolution of Life,” chapter 1 in Evolution: Facts and Fallacies. ed. by J. William Schopf (San Diego, CA., Academic Press, 1999), p. 9).
Puzzling? Only because it doesn’t fit the assumptions!
As we now know evolutionism is not empirical science, but historical assumptions, and never has been an empirical science…
From The Scientific Case Against Evolution: A Summary Part 1, by Henry Morris, Ph.D.
The scientific method traditionally has required experimental observation and replication. The fact that macroevolution (as distinct from microevolution) has never been observed would seem to exclude it from the domain of true science. “The Cambrian explosion was the most remarkable and puzzling event in the history of life.” (Stephen Jay Gould, “The Evolution of Life,” chapter 1 in Evolution: Facts and Fallacies. ed. by J. William Schopf (San Diego, CA., Academic Press, 1999), p. 9).
Puzzling? Only because it doesn’t fit the assumptions!
I
itinerant1
Guest
E
edwest2
Guest
“The initial conditions would need to be set right.”? What does that mean? Do you believe matter spontaneously generated living things? If so, how can that be true since science cannot demonstrate that life came from non-life?
Peace,
Ed
I
itinerant1
Guest
If you consider speciation to be macroevolution what do you think about the following statements? Is it good science? Are the examples incontestable proof of macroevolution?
“Study of the Drosophila species of Hawaii has revealed one of the most dramatic cases where “perfect” sequential arrangements have provided compelling evidence that new species do arise from existing species in nature.”
“One of the clearest examples of the first kind of evidence [finding a sequence of intergrading forms leading unambiguously from one form to another] is present by the phenomenon of circular overlaps. This is where there is a chain of intergrading subspecies forming a loop or overlapping circle whose terminal links, although inhabiting the same geographical region, do not interbreed even though they are connected by a complete chain of interbreeding populations.”
The classic case of the example above is the two species of European gull, the herring gull and the lesser black backed gull, which are two distinct species, *Larus argentatus *and Larus fuscus, respectively.
N
NowAgnostic
Guest
It means what it says.
We can synthesize DNA and proteins in laboratories. We can create bacteria with artificial genomes now. Life is just the right arrangement of molecules. When we do so we create the right initial conditions for the desired chemical reaction to occur.
Now perhaps you’ll dig in your heels and insist we didn’t create a giraffe, but your argument is a non sequitur to begin with. Because today’s science can’t demonstrate, but only hypothesize (although I’d say it’s stronger than that), that life came from non-life therefore it can’t be true? Just shows to me how, when there’s an ideology to defend, critical thinking just goes by the wayside…
- Status