Why do so many Catholics accept evolution as fact?

[Bradski]

Now it sounds as though you are insisting that evolution is restricted to just natural selection, and that mutation isn’t part of the process of evolution.

Mutation is part of the process. Part of the process that results in those who are less fit for the particular environment in which they find themselves not surviving as long as those who are. Consequently, the genes of those who are better fitted (for whatever reason) are more likely to pass on their genes to their offspring. Hence…evolution.

In other words, evolution removes those who are less fit from the gene pool, leaving in those who are better fitted.

If bones of an extinct primate species are found with stone tools, then do we know that they are bones of creatures that were ancestral to homo sapiens? Is there some undisputed fact of biology that guarantees that beings who don’t have spoken language are en route to acquiring spoken language if they can make stone tools?

Alternatively, is there some undisputed fact of biology that guarantees that beings who can make stone tools also have language?

Of course, the matter cannot even be discussed unless you are willing to distinguish between human languages and the general capacity for communication that is shared with other species.

I’m really not sure why you think language fits into a discussion about evolution.

 

[cfauster]

Regular bones cannot survive millions of years of deposition, much less collagen or protein.
Ed

???
Check sources.
And, understand the science, at a deeper level than mere titles of the articles.
For example, this post is an example in which an article title was interpreted by someone (buffalo) to mean the opposite of what it meant.
Such misinterpretation can then mislead others (someone you might recognize).
Only reading and understanding the article reveals what it means, strong evidence supporting, not refuting, evolution.

 

[edwest2]

Mutation is part of the process. Part of the process that results in those who are less fit for the particular environment in which they find themselves not surviving as long as those who are. Consequently, the genes of those who are better fitted (for whatever reason) are more likely to pass on their genes to their offspring. Hence…evolution.

In other words, evolution removes those who are less fit from the gene pool, leaving in those who are better fitted.

I’m really not sure why you think language fits into a discussion about evolution.

This seems to be entirely speculative. Let’s look at animals that are alive today in the wild. They are better able to pass on their genes to their offspring. Those who can’t die off. That’s speculation. There is no way of knowing how their predecessors survived, going far back, as they say. We don’t know, in total, what the earth was like 100 million years ago.

Creatures are mobile. Take birds today.

“Global warming also influences the routes of many migratory birds and their annual migration rhythm. A lot of migratory birds change their routes, shorten or completely cancel their journey as a result of changing temperatures.”

Ed

 

[edwest2]

???
Check sources.
And, understand the science, at a deeper level than mere titles of the articles.
For example, this post is an example in which an article title was interpreted by someone (buffalo) to mean the opposite of what it meant.
Such misinterpretation can then mislead others (someone you might recognize).
Only reading and understanding the article reveals what it means, strong evidence supporting, not refuting, evolution.

What I mean is: the dating methods are incorrect. The evidence strongly indicates a much shorter time-frame. Old meat in the refrigerator is a good example. Take the carcass, bury it, for an extremely long time, under pressure. The findings are inconsistent with long burial times.

Ed

 

[Techno2000]

???
Check sources.
And, understand the science, at a deeper level than mere titles of the articles.

You must have never click on the link because the titles were…(Good ribbance: Dinosaur rib bones reveal remnants of 195-million-year-old protein) and (80-million-year-old dinosaur collagen confirmed)

---

 

[rossum]

Could you summarize on this on how this can accurately date stuff that is supposed be Billions of years old ?

You are correct, carbon dating is good for about 60,000 years. As well as carbon dating we have other radiometric dating methods: Ar-Ar, U-Pb, Rb-Sr, Th-Pb and others. Since the elements involved have longer (sometimes much longer) half-lives than C14 those methods can measure much further back into the past, including dates billions of years in the past.

See Radiometric Dating - A Christian Perspective and Isochron Dating for a lot more detail than I can fit into a post here.

rossum

 

[Techno2000]

What I mean is: the dating methods are incorrect. The evidence strongly indicates a much shorter time-frame. Old meat in the refrigerator is a good example. Take the carcass, bury it, for an extremely long time, under pressure. The findings are inconsistent with long burial times.

Ed

Right, after millions year all there should in these bones is dust.

 

[rossum]

Now, while I have an opportunity to ask you directly, here are some questions that I already posted in this thread:

If bones of an extinct primate species are found with stone tools, then do we know that they are bones of creatures that were ancestral to homo sapiens?

No. Both Neanderthals and Denisovans were found with stone tools, and neither are directly ancestral to us. They were close cousins, and some humans have a little (4%) Neanderthal DNA while others have a little Denisovan DNA as well, however that was just interbreeding while the species were separating. Think tigers and lions, which can still interbreed and produce fertile offspring.

Other species, such as some Australopithecines, made stone tools, and at most one of those species was ancestral to humans.

Is there some undisputed fact of biology that guarantees that beings who don’t have spoken language are en route to acquiring spoken language if they can make stone tools?

No. Stone tools are easily preserved. Language not so until the invention of writing. Hence we know the dates for the appearance and development of stone tools. We are far less sure of the dates for the origin and development of language. Here we are in the region of guesstimates, though some useful work has been done of teaching chimps and gorillas some language, such as sign language.

I recall a description by one student who joined an experiment and, having newly learned sign language, was not very proficient. The chimp realised this, and the scientist was mortified to notice that the chimp was deliberately signing slowly! See Washoe

Of course, the matter cannot even be discussed unless you are willing to distinguish between human languages and the general capacity for communication that is shared with other species.

What is your criterion for distinguishing? It is important that we use the same method to make the distinction.

rossum

 

[rossum]

Regular bones cannot survive millions of years of deposition, much less collagen or protein.

No. What was wrong was that scientists wrongly thought that bones, collagen etc could not survive that long. The scientists were wrong on that point. Inside a well-preserved, unbroken bone, some fragments of collagen etc. can indeed survive. The bone being unbroken protects its interior from agents of decay.

There was an error, but is was an error about how long collagen could survive, not an error in the dating of the bone and rocks.

The second point to make is that finding a living dinosaur today (except for birds) is not a problem for evolution. Neither Coelacanths nor the Wollemi pine are a problem for evolution. It just means that something thought to be extinct actually wasn’t, but was hiding.

rossum

 

[rossum]

Right, after millions year all there should in these bones is dust.

Wrong, and we have the bones to prove it.

rossum

 

[Techno2000]

Wrong, and we have the bones to prove it.

rossum

I said inside the bones , not the bones themselves.

 

[Bradski]

This seems to be entirely speculative…Take birds today.

Here’s an example I’ve used before.

Let’s say that a few hundred chickens find themselves on an island. Now chickens aren’t known for their ability to sweep and soar around the sky. If someone says: ‘Look, a chicken’, you don’t automatically look up. But they do flap around and can reach a low perch if they try hard enough.

Now there are ground dwelling animals on the island that can’t climb very well but who just love chickens. Consequently, they start hunting them. The chickens who are a little more adept at reaching the lower branches of trees tend to escape the predators a little more often than those who can’t. Consequently, a chicken who survives long enough to have chicks will pass on that slight advantage.

Likewise, the predators who can climb better get to eat more often and so survive on average longer than those who can’t. Hence their offspring will be better climbers than the general population.

So what happens over time? Well, we have, effectively, an arms race. The chickens who can flap enough to reach lower branches survive longer and the predators who can climb to those branches survive longer. And you will discover over time that the chickens will develop abilities to flap further and further upwards (because those who couldn’t were removed from the gene pool) and the predators will become better climbers (for the same reason).

Come back after X many generations of both animals and you might find that the predators who could hardly climb at all are now adept climbers. And the chickens who could barely reach a low branch are now able to fly to the very top of the trees.

Fair enough says Ed: ‘But they are still chickens’.

OK…but what about another few hundred chooks who find themselves on an island with no predators. They won’t need to flap around to get anywhere. And nature rarely keeps what is not needed (waaaay too many examples to mention). Use it or lose it is the name of the game. So these chickens gradually lose their ability to fly. And eventually, they start to lose their wings (like kiwis did) and become ground dwelling creatures, eventually losing their larger feathers and keeping the small downy ones which help keep them warm.

Now if someone then showed you the two creatures, would you say that they were still the same? One would be a sleek, muscular bird able to soar on thermals and the other would be a fat scrub-dwelling, vaguely furry creature that gets about by hopping. Are either of them still chickens?

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

Are either of them still chickens?

This is a very important point. The system of separating different animals into different categories is an arbitrary, descriptive system, used only for convenience. It has no predictive value.

The fact that there are mutations cannot be denied. The fact that certain mutations make the animals better equipped to a stable environment is obvious. The fact that changing environments are more beneficial to a subset of the population than to others is visible to anyone who is willing to observe.

This whole “creationism” (I almost misspelled it to “cretinism” ) is a leftover from those ages when there was almost no biology, when the biblical text was accepted verbatim. The church tried to maintain this status quo as long as it could. But eventually it became untenable, so now even the church accepts the evolutionary model.

So the OP’s question should be updated: “How come that there are still people who reject the evolutionary model?”.

 

[edwest2]

Here’s an example I’ve used before.

Let’s say that a few hundred chickens find themselves on an island. Now chickens aren’t known for their ability to sweep and soar around the sky. If someone says: ‘Look, a chicken’, you don’t automatically look up. But they do flap around and can reach a low perch if they try hard enough.

Now there are ground dwelling animals on the island that can’t climb very well but who just love chickens. Consequently, they start hunting them. The chickens who are a little more adept at reaching the lower branches of trees tend to escape the predators a little more often than those who can’t. Consequently, a chicken who survives long enough to have chicks will pass on that slight advantage.

Likewise, the predators who can climb better get to eat more often and so survive on average longer than those who can’t. Hence their offspring will be better climbers than the general population.

So what happens over time? Well, we have, effectively, an arms race. The chickens who can flap enough to reach lower branches survive longer and the predators who can climb to those branches survive longer. And you will discover over time that the chickens will develop abilities to flap further and further upwards (because those who couldn’t were removed from the gene pool) and the predators will become better climbers (for the same reason).

Come back after X many generations of both animals and you might find that the predators who could hardly climb at all are now adept climbers. And the chickens who could barely reach a low branch are now able to fly to the very top of the trees.

Fair enough says Ed: ‘But they are still chickens’.

OK…but what about another few hundred chooks who find themselves on an island with no predators. They won’t need to flap around to get anywhere. And nature rarely keeps what is not needed (waaaay too many examples to mention). Use it or lose it is the name of the game. So these chickens gradually lose their ability to fly. And eventually, they start to lose their wings (like kiwis did) and become ground dwelling creatures, eventually losing their larger feathers and keeping the small downy ones which help keep them warm.

Now if someone then showed you the two creatures, would you say that they were still the same? One would be a sleek, muscular bird able to soar on thermals and the other would be a fat scrub-dwelling, vaguely furry creature that gets about by hopping. Are either of them still chickens?

No reason to believe it works that way. But I’ll give it a try. For some unknown reason, a few chickens are born to fly a little higher. How they find food remains the same problem. Meanwhile, the predators have a few born that can climb a little higher, but who knows, can they reach enough chickens to survive? I doubt chickens are their only diet. They may prefer them but let’s say a few predators are born who can run a little faster. Which one is easier? Climbing after chickens or picking off slower ground-dwellers?

At the end of the day, we don’t know all the factors. The Kiwis lost their wings from lack of use? Doubtful.

Both of them are still birds - Kiwis and Chickens.

Ed

 

[edwest2]

This is a very important point. The system of separating different animals into different categories is an arbitrary, descriptive system, used only for convenience. It has no predictive value.

The fact that there are mutations cannot be denied. The fact that certain mutations make the animals better equipped to a stable environment is obvious. The fact that changing environments are more beneficial to a subset of the population than to others is visible to anyone who is willing to observe.

This whole “creationism” (I almost misspelled it to “cretinism” ) is a leftover from those ages when there was almost no biology, when the biblical text was accepted verbatim. The church tried to maintain this status quo as long as it could. But eventually it became untenable, so now even the church accepts the evolutionary model.

So the OP’s question should be updated: “How come that there are still people who reject the evolutionary model?”.

The evolutionary model has no practical use today. I would ask those who think the Church has nothing to say, and those who do, to decide to pick one. What does the Church accept? And why is that important?

Ed

 

[Vonsalza]

Excellent example, Mr. Bradski.

My Christian brethren need to realize that the Vatican and the Natural Sciences Department at Oxford are answering fundamentally different questions that require categorically different approaches.

After the Galileo Affair, the Church largely learned that lesson (from the obvious “black-eye” the Holy Office received). The brethren on this forum are clearly uninformed of that lesson.

And with respect to Ed, if Bradski is so terribly wrong, why are there virtually no surviving, credible alternatives to “evolution” being taught on campus? Massive worldwide conspiracy? :hypno:

Frankly, “evolution” is the best bet going for the scientific explanation of how you got here. If you don’t like it, please debunk it unambiguously. For bonus points, provide a credible alternative.

Thus far, “evolution” has beaten all credible alternatives. And if that rattles the “Truth of Catholicism” for you, it’s only because you’ve decided it does. You need to reevaluate what the Church rules-over for you.

When you have moral questions, go to the Church. When you have car questions, go to the auto-shop. When you have scientific questions, go to the Natural Sciences lab on campus.

Stop trying to use the same information to solve categorically different problems. :banghead:

 

[Bradski]

No reason to believe it works that way. But I’ll give it a try. For some unknown reason, a few chickens are born to fly a little higher. How they find food remains the same problem. Meanwhile, the predators have a few born that can climb a little higher, but who knows, can they reach enough chickens to survive? I doubt chickens are their only diet. They may prefer them but let’s say a few predators are born who can run a little faster. Which one is easier? Climbing after chickens or picking off slower ground-dwellers?

Well, yes – we don’t know all the factors that contribute to any particular direction that evolution might take. That’s why I restricted it to two simple functions: flapping your wings and climbing. It’s easier to understand that way. But ANYTHING that gives even a tiny percentage of any population even a tiny advantage has the opportunity to increase that advantage throughout the population (because the genes for it survive more often than those that don’t).

But yes, not all mutations are beneficial and in some cases there are not enough beneficial ones to cope with a changing environment. And then we get an extinction. Which happens more often than not. Just remember that ALL life today is the result of a successful evolutionary process in any particular line of descent. Including yours.

And you have to bear in mind that this is not an esoteric science that is only available to a select few of well trained, highly educated and brilliant people (such as might be the case with quantum mechanics for example). This is simply a matter of observation. The truly mind boggling aspect of evolution is why no-one before Wallace and Darwin actually realised that it was how the world worked. The noise that you might have heard after Darwin published his work was that of countless people slapping their foreheads and muttering: ‘Now why didn’t I see that’.

The noise that you hear now are those who understand it slapping their foreheads in disbelief and frustration that anyone could seriously question it. It really is on par with claiming that the world is flat.

 

[edwest2]

The world is flat? It’s not on par.

uh.edu/engines/epi2594.htm

Ed

 

[PluniaZ]

Frankly, “evolution” is the best bet going for the scientific explanation of how you got here. If you don’t like it, please debunk it unambiguously. For bonus points, provide a credible alternative.

Exactly, it’s just a bet. None of us really knows where we came from. So I’ll go with the “credible alternative” written in Genesis.

 

[mVitus]

When it comes to Genesis as a literal interpretation, please explain dinosaurs and the rest of the fossil record. There aren’t any cave paintings of T-Rexes and the vast variety of fossils would be a madhouse to all exist at once.