E
- Status
N
NM505StKate
Guest
Oh you mean evolution. The theory that has evidence behind it and has a rather huge consensus as fact.
E
edwest2
Guest
A
Aloysium
Guest
Amazing! Awesome, to be sure.
But, I don’t like the word machine because it implies a mindless soullessness.
Thoughts and emotions may be thought of as chemical “reactions”, I would say rather than responses, but (again) that is like saying that Michelangelo’s David is a slab of marble. You would be correct and wrong at the same time.
T
Techno2000
Guest
Microevolution is true, not Macroevolution if not can you explain how a pig is related to a walnut ?
A
Aloysium
Guest
They are both living things whose bodies we eat, break down in our digestive tracts to transform them into the physical part of the unity that is the person. That’s a rather human-centric view. If we consider the walnut to be a part of the walnut tree, in themselves they are alive, they grow and reproduce. They have a vegetative soul, and the pig has an animal soul on top of that. A pig is to a walnut as a human being is to a pig.
T
Techno2000
Guest
I guess you’re right in a sorta general way, and they all come from the Primordial soup, so I believe you are correct .
R
Roseeurekacross
Guest
In the view that to the Catholic Church it doesnt matter, fair enough.
Darwinism is a bit of an outdated red herring.
To answer why so many catholics accept evolution,
I know devout Catholics working in soft rock and hard rock geology, paeleontolgy, pollution chemistry, mine remediation, enegineering, seismologists,
Who work within the precepts of evolution, use geophysics to build or make stable,
And also follow Catholic church teachings in their lives, and expect to in death.
Genesis says God made great sea monsters. Would a Catholic reject that?
Darwinism is a bit of an outdated red herring.
To answer why so many catholics accept evolution,
I know devout Catholics working in soft rock and hard rock geology, paeleontolgy, pollution chemistry, mine remediation, enegineering, seismologists,
Who work within the precepts of evolution, use geophysics to build or make stable,
And also follow Catholic church teachings in their lives, and expect to in death.
Genesis says God made great sea monsters. Would a Catholic reject that?
R
rossum
Guest
Consider the appearance of humans in the Americas. It was a sudden appearance as a group walked over the ice from eastern Siberia to Alaska. One day there were no humans in the Americas, the next day there were. No transitional fossils. You will not find human transitionals wherever you look in the Americas because you would be looking in the wrong place. The same for all of Asia and all of Europe, there are no human transitionals to be found. If you don’t look in the right place then you won’t find them. Human transitionals are only found in parts of Africa and nowhere else.
Similarly whales. For a long time the evolution of whales was uncertain, until palaeontologists started looking in Pakistan, where whales evolved and where the whale transitionals have been found.
Transitionalscan be difficult to find because they are often in a relatively small geographic area, so you have to be in the right place to find them. Also the local conditions have to be right for fossils to form. For example, acidic soils tend to dissolve bones, so those areas do not have many fossils, if any. The bones dissolved away and did not fossilise.
If you consider that Genesis is correct, then we should see fossil birds and whales (day 5) earlier than the first fossil land animals (day 6). Where is your evidence of either birds or whales from before the first reptiles?
We do have transitionals, though not as many as you want. You do not have any birds or whales from before Hylonomus.
The existence of just one transitional fossil is enough to confirm evolution. We have many. The only problem here is your incorrect expectation as to numbers.
rossum
R
rossum
Guest
“My soul thirsts for God, for the living God.” (emphasis added)
If God is alive, then God Himself is the first living thing. Hence creationism cannot explain the origin of the first living thing. QED.
This is a common mistake creationists make, they do not realise that they have no explanation for the origin of all life.
rossum
F
frobert
Guest
The article you referenced: the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/16649/title/Why-Do-We-Invoke-Darwin-/ was an opinion.
The Scientist » August 2005 Issue » Opinion
Note that this is on an opinion page
Philip Skell* does not include any references in his 2005 opinion article. To your knowledge has there been any follow up that generates hypotheses which have subjected to the scientific method?
You can check out Extended Evolution Synthesis. Skell’s opinion might have had some (name removed by moderator)ut unfortunately, these are rather newer challenges to evolution and we will have to wait a few years for the results. If results from these or other studies falsifies evolution then the theory will be jettisoned, but until then it remains the best theory.
*Philip S. Skell (December 30, 1918 – November 21, 2010) was an American chemist, emeritus Evan Pugh Professor at Pennsylvania State University, and from 1977 a member of the United States National Academy of Sciences.
Dr. Skell was a brilliant chemist who wrote several opinion articles disputing evolution that sparked quite a few lively discussions (a good thing) but as far as I can tell he never published any scientific work on evolution. Check out: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_Skell which does not mention of evolution.
F
frobert
Guest
It appears that you have slightly modified your opinion of evolution, good, but outside of a faith based presupposition you offer absolutely nothing that falsifies evolution on either a micro or macro scale. If you are unable to offer anything better, then after your opinion has been stated you are doing nothing to progress the discussion.
I
inocente
Guest
I think there’s only one way to falsify the theory, which is the test Darwin gives:
“If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.” - On the Origin of the Species, chapter VI.
That should be dead easy. After all it’s estimated there are currently at least 8.7 million species, and another five billion extinct species. Just one organ out of all of that would falsify evolution. Behe kept thinking he found one only to be shown evidence he hadn’t. Many have tried to find one, no one has. That makes evolution of the most robust theories in all science.
N
NM505StKate
Guest
ROFLMAO ROFLAMO ROFLMAO
Hi Ken Ham how are you doing? Evolution is a fact. Those words are made up by people whom think a banana was “made” for a human to hold. Ty I needed the chuckle/
N
NM505StKate
Guest
For what reason? As Professor Farnsworth said paraphrasing “We did in fact evolve from filthy monkey men.”
U
Usagi
Guest
Both use DNA as their genetic material.
Both are eukaryotes.
As a plant and an animal, their respective lineages diverged long ago and they don’t have much in common any more, but both are part of the extended family tree that is life on Earth.
Were an extraterrestrial organism discovered, even if it resembled either an Earth plant or an Earth animal, it would be less closely related to a walnut or a pig than the two are to each other.
R
rossum
Guest
There is another potential falsification, from the same chapter of Origin:
Charles Darwin:
Darwin was right. There are some ‘designer bugs’, designed by humans to produce useful chemicals like insulin. Useful for humans that is, not for the bacteria.
rossum
T
Techno2000
Guest
Do you believe all life that we see today came from Primordial soup?
N
NM505StKate
Guest
Yes.
T
Techno2000
Guest
Where did the soup come from ?
- Status