Sorry Evolution Again

  • Thread starter Thread starter Rogerteder
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
R

Rogerteder

Guest
As I understand it evolution states (for lack of a better word) that species changed (evolved) over time and two different species evolved from a common ancestor that did not survive. The common ancestor was distinct ( a different species) than the two other species. example" chimps and humans evolved from a common ancestor that didn’t survive.(from this common ancestor some species evolved into humans and some into chimps) This common ancestor was not human nor was it chimp. Ok, here is my question. How do we know that humans and chimps evolved from this common ancestor??? Try to keep it as simple as you can.
 
As I understand it evolution states (for lack of a better word) that species changed (evolved) over time and two different species evolved from a common ancestor that did not survive. The common ancestor was distinct ( a different species) than the two other species. example" chimps and humans evolved from a common ancestor that didn’t survive.(from this common ancestor some species evolved into humans and some into chimps) This common ancestor was not human nor was it chimp. Ok, here is my question. How do we know that humans and chimps evolved from this common ancestor??? Try to keep it as simple as you can.
DNA.
 
The soul, however, has no DNA and did not evolve. It is infused by God.
 
The soul, however, has no DNA and did not evolve. It is infused by God.
Very good. And very compatible with evolutionary theory. Science can’t address the matter of a soul.

Here is the most persuasive evidence I can imagine for a common ancestor of chimps and humans:
gate.net/~rwms/hum_ape_chrom.html

The evidence shows that human chromosome 2 is analogous to two chimp chromosomes, right down to the remains of telomeres and a centromere right where they would have to be if there was a chromosome fusion.
 
I think a more convincing explanation is the fact that all life has to breathe the same air and live under the same gravity. Certain body plans were then created. The coded DNA instructions for men and apes would be very similar because their body plans are very similar. This is unambiguously true. Any other explanation relies on conjecture that cannot be proven; i.e. a suggested common ancestor for apes and men which no longer exists.

Peace,
Ed
 
I think a more convincing explanation is the fact that all life has to breathe the same air and live under the same gravity.
These forces actually could be considered tools used by God that enabled natural selection to occur.
Certain body plans were then created.
True, but by what means: specially created or by evolutionary means?
The coded DNA instructions for men and apes would be very similar because their body plans are very similar.
This is basically what evolution states.
This is unambiguously true.
Yes.
Any other explanation relies on conjecture that cannot be proven; i.e. a suggested common ancestor for apes and men which no longer exists.
Hold on a moment: You’ve just given your own conjecture I think.

If you’re saying that God is the Creator, then we agree.

If you’re saying that God could have only specially created each individual species independently of evolutionary means, then this is your own conjecture and not necessarily a conjecture supported by the Catholic Church either.
 
I think a more convincing explanation is the fact that all life has to breathe the same air and live under the same gravity. Certain body plans were then created. The coded DNA instructions for men and apes would be very similar because their body plans are very similar. This is unambiguously true. Any other explanation relies on conjecture that cannot be proven; i.e. a suggested common ancestor for apes and men which no longer exists.
Ah yes - and then God cleverly broke the human and chimpanzee Vitamin C synthesis genes in exactly the same way, broke in identical fashion a large number of other olfactory genes, inserted several identical endogenous retroviruses into the same genomic location in humans and chimps and similarly inserted a large number of common transposons, perhaps to deceive us? The evidence is far more detailed and compelling than mere similarity of functional sequence.

You should learn to discuss these sorts of things, Ed, if you’d like to make any sort of reasonable argument. As it is, your mantra is that God created every species miraculously, which is a trivial and useless hypothesis given that it can be applied irrefutably to any observation we make. We moved beyond magical explanations for natural phenomena several centuries ago.

Alec
evolutionpages.com
 
I think a more convincing explanation is the fact that all life has to breathe the same air and live under the same gravity. Certain body plans were then created. The coded DNA instructions for men and apes would be very similar because their body plans are very similar.
Not necessarily true. Both ourselves and Chimpanzees have DNA for cytochrome C. We share identical DNA for cytochrome C down to the last base pair. However, there is not just one way to have the DNA for cytochrome C, there are many different ways to code for cytochrome C: 2.3 x 10[sup]93[/sup] different ways. God could have picked any one of those, indeed He generally did, because different species usually have different versions of cytochrome C. The fact that ourselves and chimpanzees have identical DNA for cytochrome C is evidence for common descent. The pattern of similarities and differences in cytochrome Cs conforms to the pattern of the phylogenetic tree.

As hecd2 said, we also share non-functional DNA with chimps. While we can understand a designer re-using working systems in different species why would a designer repeat mistakes and errors in different species by copying a broken system across species? Especially a designer supposed to be omniscient - why didn’t He know that the GULO gene was broken?
This is unambiguously true.
It is true that body plans are similar. Any inferences you or I draw from that fact are not “unambiguously true”.

rossum
 
I think a more convincing explanation is the fact that all life has to breathe the same air and live under the same gravity.
Pretty much.
Certain body plans were then created.
True. The only problem here is, you don’t approve of the way He did it.
The coded DNA instructions for men and apes would be very similar because their body plans are very similar.
Faking the evidence for a chromosome fusion seems to be a little dark for the God I know.
This is unambiguously true. Any other explanation relies on conjecture that cannot be proven;
Like assuming humans and apes are alike because God made them alike.

However, as you know, there is abundant evidence for the common ancestry of humans and other apes.
 
These forces actually could be considered tools used by God that enabled natural selection to occur.

True, but by what means: specially created or by evolutionary means?

This is basically what evolution states.

Yes.

Hold on a moment: You’ve just given your own conjecture I think.

If you’re saying that God is the Creator, then we agree.

If you’re saying that God could have only specially created each individual species independently of evolutionary means, then this is your own conjecture and not necessarily a conjecture supported by the Catholic Church either.
Latern VI says God created EACH CREATURE OUT OF NOTHING!!!

Lateran VI says: Firmly we believe and we confess simply that the true God is one alone, eternal, immense, and unchangeable, incomprehensible, omnipotent and ineffable, Father and Son and Holy Spirit: indeed three Persons but one essence, substance, or nature entirely simple. The Father from no one, the Son from the Father only, and the Holy Spirit equally from both; without beginning, always, and without end; the Father generating, the Son being born, and the Holy Spirit proceeding; consubstantial and coequal and omnipotent and coeternal; one beginning of all, creator of all visible and invisible things, of the spiritual and of the corporal; who by His own omnipotent power at once from the beginning of time created each creature from nothing, spiritual, and corporal, namely, angelic and mundane, and finally the human, constituted as it were, alike of the spirit and the body. For the devil and other demons were created by God good in nature, but they themselves through themselves have become wicked. But man sinned at the suggestion of the devil.

The Council of Cologne stated (a provincial council, but approved and praised by Pius IX)

In 1860, the Council of Cologne condemned the idea of human evolution in very straightforward words: "Our first parents were formed immediately by God. Therefore we declare that…those who…assert…man…emerged from spontaneous continuous change of imperfect nature to the more perfect, is clearly opposed to Sacred Scripture and to the Faith.”

In 1441, the Council of Florence stated in its decrees: “God…is the creator of all things visible and invisible, who, when he wished, out of his goodness created all creatures, spiritual as well as corporal; good, indeed…since they were from nothing…”

Vatican Council I says: If anyone does not confess that the world and all things which are contained in it, both spiritual and material, as regards their whole substance, have been produced by God from nothing, or, shall have said that God created not by a volition free of all necessity, but as necessarily as He necessarily loves Himself, or, shall have denied that the world was created to the glory of God: let him be anathema.

The new catechism talks about how the literal sense, of scripture, should be adhered to unless there is a good reason not to.

Accordingly, the 1994 Catholic Catechism, in quoting St. Thomas Aquinas from the Summa Theologica, says in paragraph 116:

“The literal sense is the meaning conveyed by the words of Scripture and… ‘all other senses of Sacred Scripture are based on the literal.’”
 
In 1441, the Council of Florence stated in its decrees: “God…is the creator of all things visible and invisible, who, when he wished, out of his goodness created all creatures, spiritual as well as corporal; good, indeed…since they were from nothing…”
Why then, did some (nearly all) of those created species go extinct? Were they a mistake?
 
Latern VI says God created EACH CREATURE OUT OF NOTHING!!!
That is strange, most creatures I have seen were created by their parents, and not from nothing but from sperm and egg.

Could it be that the Laterna Council was talking about creation at a different level?

rossum
 
That is strange, most creatures I have seen were created by their parents, and not from nothing but from sperm and egg.

Could it be that the Laterna Council was talking about creation at a different level?

rossum
It is obviously talking about the species.
 
Fortunately, the Catholic Church is clear in its warnings to Catholics that science has been overcome by a materialist-only ideology. That scientists themselves are promoting it.

“Now at the beginning of the 21st century, faced with scientific claims like neo-Darwinism and the multiverse hypothesis in cosmology invented to avoid the overwhelming evidence for purpose and design found in modern science, the Catholic Church will again defend human reason by proclaiming that the immanent design evident in nature is real. Scientific theories that try to explain away the appearance of design as the result of ‘chance and necessity’ are not scientific at all, but, as John Paul put it, an abdication of human intelligence.”

Peace,
Ed
 
the overwhelming evidence for purpose and design found in modern science,
There is no evidence of purpose and design in modern science. None whatsoever. Science doesn’t address those ideas. As soon as people address purpose and design science no longer is operative.
 
I strongly disaggree with that statement. Cardinal Schoenborn has clearly identified the problem with science as it is being done today.

“Any system of thought that denies or seeks to explain away the overwhelming evidence for design in biology is ideology, not science.”

The National Academies of Science has chosen Ken Miller as a sort of ambassador to Christianity, instead of Richard Dawkins who PZ Myers prefers. Mr. Myers goes on to say the NAS is deluding itself by choosing Mr Miller. Why? Because it is a political choice.

Science exists today to make money. Scientists go into the lab at the behest of investors who only want a big dollar return for whatever product scientists produce. There is another product being marketed by scientists today - atheist materialism. It is being spread by Dawkins, Dennett, Harris and others.

I have every confidence in the words of the Cardinal and the evidence is clear that the atheist message is getting out there using the same “mountains of evidence,” whether it’s offered by scientists or so-called comedians like Bill Maher.

Catholics must oppose the atheist-materialist ideology that has so infected the people doing science. Nature magazine tells us most leading scientists reject God. And Sam Harris is openly hostile to “the alien hiss” of religion.

Peace,
Ed
 
Catholics must oppose the atheist-materialist ideology that has so infected the people doing science. Nature magazine tells us most leading scientists reject God. And Sam Harris is openly hostile to “the alien hiss” of religion.
And scientists must oppose any ideas about including God in science. Therefore, as long as there are people like you who insist on including God in science there will be a battle for the hearts and minds of people. Not so much in the rest of the world as in the USA.
 
I offer my admiration to Cardinal Schoenborn for speaking so clearly about the threat from scientists to the people of the Western world.

The Catholic Church has clearly defined the relationship between religion and science:

“Science can purify religion from error and superstion; religion can purify science from idolatry and false absolutes.” Pope John Paul II

If truth cannot contradict truth, then it must flow in both directions, not just one.

Peace,
Ed
 
I offer my admiration to Cardinal Schoenborn for speaking so clearly about the threat from scientists to the people of the Western world.

The Catholic Church has clearly defined the relationship between religion and science:

“Science can purify religion from error and superstion; religion can purify science from idolatry and false absolutes.” Pope John Paul II

If truth cannot contradict truth, then it must flow in both directions, not just one.

Peace,
Ed
Maybe I have misunderstood you. I thought you wanted God included in science? No?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top