Why I don't believe in evolution

[Angainor]

To explain why I don’t believe in evolution, I will return to the popular subject of the evolution of the eye.

Here’s how some scientists think some eyes may have evolved: The simple light-sensitive spot on the skin of some ancestral creature gave it some tiny survival advantage, perhaps allowing it to evade a predator

.

It is conventional wisdom that a simple light-sensitive spot would give the organism a survival advangtage. This seems like common sense, but has it ever been established scientifically? I do not think so. I like to use the example of a deer in the headlights. A deer is able to see oncoming headlights while standing in the road at night. Common sense would tell us that this would represent a survival advantage. An oncoming car is very dangerous. Being able to see it would help out a lot, right? Well no, unfortunately deer do not share our common sense. When a deer sees headlights it has exactly the wrong reaction. A deer will freeze in place.

Until it can be scientifically demonstrated to me that a simple light-sensitive spot represents a survival advantage, I withhold belief. I picture the little critter with a light-sensitive spot seeing a preadator and “thinking” ‘Well, what is that coming this way?’ gulp. Just like the deer “thinking” ‘Well, what is that coming this way?’ thunk.

 

[Kevin_Walker]

Okay.

And how do you feel about Darwinism?

 

[Ahimsa]

Angainor:

I picture the little critter with a light-sensitive spot seeing a preadator and “thinking” ‘Well, what is that coming this way?’ gulp. Just like the deer “thinking” ‘Well, what is that coming this way?’ thunk.

You forgot that the predator has a light-sensitive spot as well. Both predator and prey, thus, are equally matched. If the predator evolves a slightly more efficient light-sensitive spot, then that would drive the prey to evolve an even more efficient light-sensitive spot. And the process would continue, producing the complex eye structures found in octopus and humans alike.

 

[Angainor]

Kevin Walker:

Okay.

And how do you feel about Darwinism?

Why do you ask?

“Evolution” can be a frustrating topic to discuss because the term evolution can mean different things.

My topic is “Why I don’t believe in ‘evolution’.” By “evolution” I mean the modern version of Darwin’s theory that explains the formation of the life on earth today by processes such as natural selection.

I hope that clears up your question.

 

[Angainor]

Ahimsa:

You forgot that the predator has a light-sensitive spot as well.

It does? Who got it first?

 

[vern_humphrey]

Angainor:

To explain why I don’t believe in evolution, I will return to the popular subject of the evolution of the eye.

.

It is conventional wisdom that a simple light-sensitive spot would give the organism a survival advangtage. This seems like common sense, but has it ever been established scientifically? I do not think so. I like to use the example of a deer in the headlights. A deer is able to see oncoming headlights while standing in the road at night. Common sense would tell us that this would represent a survival advantage. An oncoming car is very dangerous. Being able to see it would help out a lot, right? Well no, unfortunately deer do not share our common sense. When a deer sees headlights it has exactly the wrong reaction. A deer will freeze in place.

Until it can be scientifically demonstrated to me that a simple light-sensitive spot represents a survival advantage, I withhold belief. I picture the little critter with a light-sensitive spot seeing a preadator and “thinking” ‘Well, what is that coming this way?’ gulp. Just like the deer “thinking” ‘Well, what is that coming this way?’ thunk.

Try getting through the day wearing a blindfold.http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon12.gif

Being able to see DOES give a deer an advantage – anyone who’s walked through the woods and been spotted by a deer before he spotted the deer can see that.

Deer did not, however evolve in a world of highways and headlights – they were here hundreds of thousands of years before the first automobile was manufactured.

 

[Kevin_Walker]

Angainor:

Why do you ask?

“Evolution” can be a frustrating topic to discuss because the term evolution can mean different things.

My topic is “Why I don’t believe in ‘evolution’.” By “evolution” I mean the modern version of Darwin’s theory that explains the formation of the life on earth today by processes such as natural selection.

I hope that clears up your question.

No. It only manifests more questions. Such as are you aware that the Catholic Church does not have a problem with the theory of evolution? Which essentially renders your initial assertion moot on a Catholic forum.

Or did you realize that the Catholic Church distinguishes the difference between Darwinism and evolution? And the Church’s definition of evolution does not correspond to your definition of evolution, which makes your assertion irrelevent.

Your definition of “the modern version of Darwin’s theory that explains the formation of the life on earth today by processes as natural selection” would appear to be more relevent on a science forum than one on the Catholic faith.

Just thought I’d let you know.

 

[Angainor]

vern humphrey:

Try getting through the day wearing a blindfold.http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon12.gif

Yes, I am very dependant on my eyesight. I also have a complex nervous system. When we are talking about a light-sensitive spot we are probably talking about a one-celled animal.

Do not think of yourself as a human or even a deer. Think of yourself as that one-celled animal. You are swimming around. Now you can see a preadator. So what? What are you going to do now?
vern humphrey:

Deer did not, however evolve in a world of highways and headlights – they were here hundreds of thousands of years before the first automobile was manufactured.

To the one-celled animal who can now detect light everything it sees is new. It can now see a preadator. What next? Even if it had a brain, it would not “know” what to do. It would not even “know” what it was seeing was dangerous. When the deer was confronted with something new it did not “know” what to do, it became roadkill.

 

[Angainor]

Kevin Walker:

No. It only manifests more questions. Such as are you aware that the Catholic Church does not have a problem with the theory of evolution? Which essentially renders your initial assertion moot on a Catholic forum.

Or did you realize that the Catholic Church distinguishes the difference between Darwinism and evolution? And the Church’s definition of evolution does not correspond to your definition of evolution, which makes your assertion irrelevent.

Your definition of “the modern version of Darwin’s theory that explains the formation of the life on earth today by processes as natural selection” would appear to be more relevent on a science forum than one on the Catholic faith.

Just thought I’d let you know.

All good points.

Strictly speaking, this topic does not belong on the forum. I find the topic interesting, and maybe others on this forum might also find it interesting.

However, if someone really does not want this topic here, I would not be offended if someone were to delete it.

 

[Newman60]

Kevin Walker:

No. It only manifests more questions. Such as are you aware that the Catholic Church does not have a problem with the theory of evolution? Which essentially renders your initial assertion moot on a Catholic forum.

That is a partial truth.

The Catholic Church doesn’t see a problem with evolution if science does find a way of establishing it as fact and not theory. And as long as there is no denial of our being descended from ONE set of human parents in whom God infused eternal souls. In other words Adam and Eve and not some indeterminate number of overgrown mudpies or apes or whatever.

If you doubt that, go to the Vatican website and research papal documents.

Perhaps yours is the irrelevant assertion in a Catholic forum.

Newman60

 

[Kevin_Walker]

Newman60:

That is a partial truth.

The Catholic Church doesn’t see a problem with evolution if science does find a way of establishing it as fact and not theory. And as long as there is no denial of our being descended from ONE set of human parents in whom God infused eternal souls. In other words Adam and Eve and not some indeterminate number of overgrown mudpies or apes or whatever.

If you doubt that, go to the Vatican website and research papal documents.

Perhaps yours is the irrelevant assertion in a Catholic forum.

Newman60

Hi Newman60,

Thank you for re-asserting what I had already stated: the Catholic Church doesn’t have a problem with the theory of evolution. And I don’t doubt it a bit.

 

[Newman60]

Kevin Walker:

Hi Newman60,

Thank you for re-asserting what I had already stated: the Catholic Church doesn’t have a problem with the theory of evolution. And I don’t doubt it a bit.

Kevin, Please don’t ignore the big proviso regarding the Catholic Church and evolution: that God put souls in one and only one set of human parents and not some indeterminate number of evolved human ancestors. That is a major line of demarcation and one that most evolutionists have a great deal of trouble with.
Jim

 

[Kevin_Walker]

Newman60:

Kevin, Please don’t ignore the big proviso regarding the Catholic Church and evolution: that God put souls in one and only one set of human parents and not some indeterminate number of evolved human ancestors. That is a major line of demarcation and one that most evolutionists have a great deal of trouble with.
Jim

Hi Jim,

You just described the Church’s difference between evolution and Darwinism!

 

[vern_humphrey]

Newman60:

Kevin, Please don’t ignore the big proviso regarding the Catholic Church and evolution: that God put souls in one and only one set of human parents and not some indeterminate number of evolved human ancestors. That is a major line of demarcation and one that most evolutionists have a great deal of trouble with.
Jim

The theory of evolution doesn’t even discuss souls. So why would evolutionists “have a great deal of trouble with” something outside their purview?

 

[Exporter]

The evolution of the eye is too complex for a discussion here. May er look at something THAT DID HAPPEN in Pittsburg?

A species of Moth , about two inches long, lived in the White Birch trees all around Pittsburg. The Moths were white. The birds liked to eat them, but the moth was hard to find on a Birch tree. Al ways a few of the Moths were a little darker because of random mutations.

Then the steel industry arrived. They burned a lot of coal and the trees became sooty and finally very dark. After 40 years that species of Moth was not White anymore. The moths became very dark, and the birds had a hard time finding the Moths who now blended into their surroundings.

This is a well-known example of “survival of the fittest”. Of course a few gene changes falcilitated the phenominon.

 

[TPJCatholic]

Why is “evolution” such an emotional discussion for so many people? Does it really matter that much?

 

[Newman60]

Exporter:

The evolution of the eye is too complex for a discussion here. May er look at something THAT DID HAPPEN in Pittsburg?

A species of Moth , about two inches long, lived in the White Birch trees all around Pittsburg. The Moths were white. The birds liked to eat them, but the moth was hard to find on a Birch tree. Al ways a few of the Moths were a little darker because of random mutations.

Then the steel industry arrived. They burned a lot of coal and the trees became sooty and finally very dark. After 40 years that species of Moth was not White anymore. The moths became very dark, and the birds had a hard time finding the Moths who now blended into their surroundings.

This is a well-known example of “survival of the fittest”. Of course a few gene changes falcilitated the phenominon.

I see that the changing moth story (or myth) has migrated from England to, I assume, Pittsburgh, PA. This by the way is not even a good example of micro-evolution.

Please don’t forget that we are each “created” in the image and likeness of God. I still like that idea. It is so much more appealing. And it actually requires a much simpler act of faith than to believe in pure chance against astronomical odds.
Newman60

 

[GoodKnight1443]

Regardless of what transpired before the creation of man and since then, GOD is the creator and it is His plan… Missing link(s), no missing links it is all just theory by human minds that cannot yet comprehend the Divine. How that plan has unfolded is HIS doing. Maybe we will figure it out someday when He has demed us to be ready on earth. Until that time, we have to wait until we join him to gain the knowledge. We have the choice to accept and appreciate the wonderful gifts He gives us and MArvel at his glory.

 

[Kevin_Walker]

TPJCatholic:

Why is “evolution” such an emotional discussion for so many people? Does it really matter that much?

That is a good question, especially on a Catholic forum. The Vatican has made it very clear how the Church views the theory of Evolution.

And the Vatican has made it very clear how the Church dislikes Darwinism. The Church is not threatened by the theory of evolution and takes a very dim view towards Darwinism.

Every Catholic should know the differences between Evolution and Darwinism!

 

[Kevin_Walker]

Exporter:

The evolution of the eye is too complex for a discussion here. May er look at something THAT DID HAPPEN in Pittsburg?

A species of Moth , about two inches long, lived in the White Birch trees all around Pittsburg. The Moths were white. The birds liked to eat them, but the moth was hard to find on a Birch tree. Al ways a few of the Moths were a little darker because of random mutations.

Then the steel industry arrived. They burned a lot of coal and the trees became sooty and finally very dark. After 40 years that species of Moth was not White anymore. The moths became very dark, and the birds had a hard time finding the Moths who now blended into their surroundings.

This is a well-known example of “survival of the fittest”. Of course a few gene changes falcilitated the phenominon.

Hi Exporter,

I took BIOLOGY 111 & 112 (with lab), PHYSICAL ANTHROPOLOGY 211 (with lab), GENETICS 212 (with lab), and the PHILOSOPHY OF EVOLUTION as an undergraduate in the early 80s, and we beat the subject of the Peppered Moth (Biston Betularia) and industrial melonism to death in each of those courses.

Exactly what level of education are you currently on? Because this is old news to anyone familiar with biological evolution in Manchester England between 1848 & 1950! Selective evolution with the Peppered moth is a classic case study required by all BIOLOGY 101 undergraduates, and is common knowledge.