Why do so many Catholics accept evolution as fact?

[rossum]

I completely reject the unproven assumption that chimps and humans had a common ancestor.

I accept the evidenced position that humans and chimps had a common ancestor. It is less than 1 in 2.3 x 10^93 likely that we do not share a common ancestor. That is what the evidence says.

It doesn’t make sense that an ape just gave birth to a baby that looked more human while other apes just kept producing apes.

Have a good look at a baby chimp compared to an adult chimp. The baby is closer to the human look than the adult. Then look up the meaning of the word “neoteny”.

rossum

 

[SAVINGRACE]

OK, I am opting out of evolution threads. They end up being dominated by that ever so rare creature - the fundamentalist Catholic. I used to think it was good to participate so that lurkers seeking to learn about Catholicism don’t assume that the rare creationist was typical of Catholics. But the frustration of the disingenuous fake “dialogue” is just too much. If anyone is actually here to learn about Catholic teaching, read the Church’s actual statements on science and evolution and don’t rely on the fringe creationists that try to dominate these threads.

:clapping::clapping:

 

[Wesrock]

I completely reject the unproven assumption that chimps and humans had a common ancestor. It doesn’t make sense that an ape just gave birth to a baby that looked more human while other apes just kept producing apes.

Ed

I reject that idea, too. It’s completely absurd. And also not what the theory of evolution proposes.

 

[Wesrock]

Right, and what happen to the wasp… where did it go?

Where did your great great great grandfather go?

 

[Wesrock]

OK, I am opting out of evolution threads. They end up being dominated by that ever so rare creature - the fundamentalist Catholic. I used to think it was good to participate so that lurkers seeking to learn about Catholicism don’t assume that the rare creationist was typical of Catholics. But the frustration of the disingenuous fake “dialogue” is just too much. If anyone is actually here to learn about Catholic teaching, read the Church’s actual statements on science and evolution and don’t rely on the fringe creationists that try to dominate these threads.

You’re right. The discussion just becomes unproductive.

 

[Lost_Sheep]

Yes…Can you show any animal today that is in the process of changing into something new ?

Any animal might very well be in the process of changing into something new. But that process takes 1000s if not millions of years. We’d have no way of knowing it if we saw it.

 

[Fragile]

The millions of years theory makes it pretty much impossible to prove, or disprove…

 

[Roseeurekacross]

Techno, you may well be confused due to a lot of mis informatiom given here stemming from popular coffee table science. Let me humbly correct a few things.

1. Scientific American is not peer reviewed, it is more a coffee table mag. It does function to alert well on new inventions and research though.
2. We dont believe any more that the modern canine evolved from the grey wolf. The jury is now well and truly out on that old theory, while new research , pivotal on DNA research, is on going.
3. On modern dogs. The appearance of diverse new breeds like a chihuaha , poodle, tibetan mastiff, bull dog, is the result of ARTIFICIAL selection. it is a man made thing. We create the dog breeds, cat breeds, cattle and sheep breeds we want. The divergence of canine dog breeds doesnt indicate evolution at all.
   Breeders select for different traits, and develop that breed over generations of clever breeding. Ie the Australian Kelpie was developed from a dog that was ideal for herding sheep in Australian conditions. Less then perfect specimens were culled.
   Another great example of this is the Thoroughbred horse from 3 historical ancestors that were also modern horses.
   It is not evolution.
4. There were horses with a horn in their forehead, in Solomon’s time. The British Museum has a few skulls.
   I dont think any pegasus skeletons have been found.
5. Sub atomic particles can be determined in those big atom colliders.
6. Edwest might benefit from education into Accuracy and Precision. Enough said.
7. Bacteria stay bacteria, but like to do things like become antibiotic resistant, very swiftly, in order to survive. Bacteria are amazing examples of rapid change when faced with destruction, or adaptation.
8. Darwinism had a few holes in it, and was quite badly misinterpreted too. Ie that we evolved from Apes/monkeys etc.
   But its ok Darwinism had holes in it. Knowledge, and wisdom, gifts from the Holy Spirit, is ever being granted to we humans.
9. If you are still reading, check out Australian Mega Fauna and the Ediacaran Fauna. And Stromatolites.
10. Just what is the definition of evolution? The real definition.

 

[GEddie]

Bacteria remain bacteria, just as dogs remain dogs, but with a generational cycle of 20 minutes or less, can mutate very rapidly.

There are bacteria that eat petroleum fuels and others that can live inside nuclear reactor cores. If that’s not evolution, what is?

ICXC NIKA

 

[Techno2000]

Any animal might very well be in the process of changing into something new. But that process takes 1000s if not millions of years. We’d have no way of knowing it if we saw it.

Thank for saying that did you see post #173 ?

 

[Techno2000]

Any animal might very well be in the process of changing into something new. But that process takes 1000s if not millions of years. We’d have no way of knowing it if we saw it.

Thanks for saying that did you see post# 173 on page 12 ?

 

[Usagi]

1. We dont believe any more that the modern canine evolved from the grey wolf. The jury is now well and truly out on that old theory, while new research , pivotal on DNA research, is on going.

My cursory research earlier indicated that dogs are most commonly considered a subtype of Canis lupus, so they all seem to remain the same species as wolves. I have been careful in this discussion to refer to “ancestral wolves,” since the modern grey wolf is not an ancestor of its doggie cousins but another modified descendant of that ancestral wolf, much as with humans and modern apes.

1. On modern dogs. The appearance of diverse new breeds like a chihuaha , poodle, tibetan mastiff, bull dog, is the result of ARTIFICIAL selection. it is a man made thing. We create the dog breeds, cat breeds, cattle and sheep breeds we want. The divergence of canine dog breeds doesnt indicate evolution at all.
   Breeders select for different traits, and develop that breed over generations of clever breeding. Ie the Australian Kelpie was developed from a dog that was ideal for herding sheep in Australian conditions. Less then perfect specimens were culled.
   Another great example of this is the Thoroughbred horse from 3 historical ancestors that were also modern horses.
   It is not evolution.

True, artificial breeding is not an example of natural selection, but until very recently we were limited in our breeding of animals to the same tools natural selection uses. Our criteria for “fitness” are different (and serve us rather than necessarily the animal’s survival), but the fact that we can alter a population’s characteristics over time by selecting which individuals survive to produce offspring shows at least that the principles behind evolutionary theory are sound.

1. Just what is the definition of evolution? The real definition.

I have seen both the very broad “descent with modification” and the more technical “change in allele frequency in a population over time.” Take your pick.

 

[Usagi]

Thanks for saying that did you see post# 173 on page 12 ?

Yes, we all know that a visible change to a very different kind of creature (the only form of evolution you seem to think counts) takes a very long time. We can’t make it happen in the lab nor predict exactly what form it will take in the future, though we have good reason to think, based on growing evidence, that it has happened many times in the past and continues to happen. Why is this a problem?

 

[Techno2000]

(the only form of evolution you seem to think counts)

 

[STT]

Well, just look at bacteria when they become drug resistance to see that evolution is true.

 

[Techno2000]

Well, just look at bacteria when they become drug resistance to see that evolution is true.

Is that all you got.

 

[STT]

Is that all you got.

There is of course other evidences too. You can however see a quick action if you dobut, just look at bacteria.

 

[Techno2000]

There is of course other evidences too. You can however see a quick action if you dobut, just look at bacteria.

Give me the other evidences too.

 

[STT]

Give me the other evidences too.

Just read this and the references within.

 

[Bradski]

Give me the other evidences too.

I think that you’ve worn out any good will that anyone might have had left in trying to help you understand the matter.