Why you should think that the Natural-Evolution of species is true

[Aloysium]

it seems like they’ve dogmatized themselves into another Galileo affair

It’s actually the other way around, where the story of evolution is so important to maintain the values of modern society that the truth, which is creation, is being suppressed.

 

[Aloysium]

YOU are the transition between humans a million years in the past and a million years in the future.

Easier to grasp, hopefully?

It’s not that people do not understanding; they disagree. And, here you provide us with a perfect example of where this occurs. Mankind is one, and we are each of us individual expressions of that reality. Each of us expresses our humanity utilizing our particular given psychological and physical characteristics. Each of us has been granted the graces and crosses that we must bear in order to transcend this state of being, and construct who we are within eternity. Unfortunately, as others have remarked, this may sound to you like so much jibberish, random words stuck together in a pompous fashion. So, cutting to the chase, there are no transitional human beings and our humanity is not defined by our genome or any other material attribute, given or aquired.

 

[IWantGod]

Each of us has been granted the graces and crosses that we must bear in order to transcend this state of being, and construct who we are within eternity. Unfortunately, as others have remarked, this may sound to you like so much jibberish, random words stuck together in a pompous fashion.

It’s not that what you are saying here sounds like gibberish, it’s just has nothing to do with science and the theory of evolution. The bible is not a science book. You choose to portray evolution as being contrary to the Christian faith and it is on that basis alone that you ignore the data. You would have us believe that you reject evolution merely because there is no evidence for it, but that is simply not true despite being a popular conspiracy theory among some Christians. Any reasonable person is going to disagree with you regardless of whether they believe in God or not.

 

[Aloysium]

If reality is contrary to the story of evolution, it makes Natural-Evolution of species not true.

Believe what you will, but to be Catholic one’s faith must include the reality of Adam and original sin, which brought death into the world. Christ is the cure to that disorder, bringing us to wholeness and eternal life in communion within the Trinity.

The data that is used to create the view that is evolution is the same data which supports creation, which incorporates more than the material into a more comprehensive explanation of the mystery that is nature.

It is clear that disagreement would come from any "reasonable’ person who has not questioned what has been inculcated into them since they were able to reason, anyone who cannot deconstruct what they believe into what is truly known and proceed to reconstruct that data into a vision which turns out to be the truth known through the ages.

If one does not believe in God, there are pantheistic and naturalist perspectives on creation, that see the universe, through a creative process whereby it brings into existence individual beings, coming to know itself and its capacities. A bit different is the perspective that sees nature shaping itself into all this wonder, starting with the formation of atoms to the emergence of more complex systems from that basis, each level of which sees the existence of new greater wholes in themselves.

Those who nurture their relationship with the Ground of all being, and the eternal Fount from which all comes into being know the Truth to be God Himself.

 

[Vonsalza]

Vonsalza:

What do I have?

A bunch of currently extant animals that have no fossil records and a bunch of fossilized animals that aren’t on the earth anymore.

Evolution is just the best explanation for that so far. No poof -ing required.

You forgot living fossils. The scientist can and should say in the absence of convincing data, “My best explanation is that I don’t know how that happened!”

No, for “living fossils” the environment in which they lived didn’t change much, so they didn’t change much. A slower evolutionary path (like crocodiles) doesn’t disprove evolution in the slightest. It just shows that the organisms in the environment achieved a near-perfect competitive equilibrium.

 

[IWantGod]

If reality is contrary to the story of evolution, it makes Natural-Evolution of species not true.

Reality is not contrary to evolution

but to be Catholic one’s faith must include the reality of Adam and original sin

Nobody here has questioned the reality of original sin.

Those who nurture their relationship with the Ground of all being, and the eternal Fount from which all comes into being know the Truth to be God Himself.

Are you suggesting that Catholics who accept the theory of the evolution of species are not nurturing their relationship with God or even worse are not Catholic? I find that really offensive.

Like i said what has our faith got to do with it? If evolution is true, then it is true whether you like it or not. If you want to start a thread on whether or not our faith is consistent with the theory of evolution, then by all means start one.

 

[Vonsalza]

Vonsalza:

it seems like they’ve dogmatized themselves into another Galileo affair

It’s actually the other way around, where the story of evolution is so important to maintain the values of modern society that the truth, which is creation, is being suppressed.

Not at all. There’s just nothing else that’s nearly as cogent.

Evolution, like gravity, is a theory and theories change when better ones come out.

Gravity used to be a push from the “ether”. Then it became a pull generated by massive bodies. Now it’s back to being a push generated by displaced space-time.

When something objectively better comes along to replace evolution, rational folks (like I occasionally am) will be happy to adopt the superior argument specifically because we’re not emotionally attached to it.

 

[Vonsalza]

Sure!

But we’re not talking about humanity. We’re talking about biology.

Your grandmother 300,000 years back was much shorter, more hairy, bigger jaw - more ape-like.

Her grandmother another 300,000 years back even more so.

Every generation between you and them was a transition between you and them - of the tiniest increment. But transitional all the same.

 

[Metis1]

Evolution, like gravity, is a theory and theories change when better ones come out.

The term “theory” has a different definition with us in science versus common English usage, and we use it as referring to a conglomeration of hypotheses, theorems, and axioms that all relate to one central topic. We know evolution has and continues to happen-- it’s just some of the details we’re less certain about.

 

[Aloysium]

Reality is not contrary to evolution

See, we disagree. Evolution and creation are ways in which we connect with reality. I find evolution leads us astray.

Are you suggesting that Catholics who accept the theory of the evolution of species are not nurturing their relationship with God or even worse are not Catholic? I find that really offensive.

I think you are reading into what is stated, that might be for your own reasons, which is none of my business.
If we are to discuss intents rather than the OP, then no, what those words were meant to describe is related to how creation is a better way to understand the world. Pantheistic and naturalist understandings are presented as examples of where the word evolution has been used but where they are essentially talking about creation. Closer to the truth is the Christian understanding.

 

[Aloysium]

There’s just nothing else that’s nearly as cogent.

To you.

Evolution, like gravity, is a theory

As to what is analogous to gravity in biology:

The biological equivalent is that there exists a diversity of living forms that procreate, develop, grow and maintain themselves and demonstrate a hierarchy of complexity, their order resting on that belonging to matter itself and at higher levels includes perceptions, feelings, drives, and action. That instinctive structure takes a leap forward to encompass the capacity to know the beautiful, the truth and the good, to be expressed in action through the free will of the person. All this is at the same level of knowledge whereby we know gravity exists and what it does.

 

[rossum]

See, we disagree. Evolution and creation are ways in which we connect with reality. I find evolution leads us astray.

So the God you follow is incapable of creating evolution? Obviously not an omnipotent God then.

rossum

 

[Aloysium]

We know evolution has and continues to happen

That’s not something we know. That is an assumption. But, again the definition of evolution is so slippery, shifting as it does, and lacking in precision, the way it is used even within science, that it can be extremely difficult to know, even the persons themslves, what they mean. Do you believe that human beings are transitional beings in the process that would be the tree of life, evolving into something different, as are simians to us?

 

[Aloysium]

God cannot do what is irrational.

 

[Vonsalza]

Sure he can. What’s rational about mercy?

 

[Vonsalza]

Vonsalza:

There’s just nothing else that’s nearly as cogent.

To you.

No, objectively. All evolutionists need to explain their theory is the creation of the universe - however that occurred. From there, it’s all explainable in a rational way.

Creationism requires much, much more divine poof-ing, which is not rational.

I’m sure I’m not going to get through to you as the subject is an emotional one, but for the other readers this makes evolution a far, FAR more rational approach as it requires less direct intervention from supernatural sources.

Evolution, like gravity, is a theory

As to what is analogous to gravity in biology:

Except, tragically, your theory can’t evolve like theories (like gravity) must be allowed to do.

You’ve dogmatized yourself into a corner

 

[rossum]

God cannot do what is irrational.

Why is evolution irrational? Are random mutations (which we can observe) irrational?

Why is natural selection irrational?

Do you have any basis for your statement beyond your own personal opinion?

rossum

 

[buffalo]

Random mutations are creative

They are? Evidence?

 

[buffalo]

Which is a very big problem if you want to have an impact on science. Science runs on empirical evidence. There is empirical evidence of new species evolving; there is no empirical evidence of any god/dess creating a new species.

True science considers the formal, material, efficient and formal causes. Modern science has disregarded the formal and final causes therefore it is incomplete.

 

[buffalo]

A fossil that is a temporary, intermediate stage between species.

Here is the emerging problem and why not:

Sweeping gene survey reveals new facets of evolution​

More evidence for IDvolution.

Sweeping gene survey reveals new facets of evolution

It is textbook biology, for example, that species with large, far-flung populations—think ants, rats, humans—will become more genetically diverse over time.

But is that true?

“The answer is no,” said Stoeckle, lead author of the study, published in the journal Human Evolution .

For the planet’s 7.6 billion people, 500 million house sparrows, or 100,000 sandpipers, genetic diversity “is about the same,” he told AFP.

The study’s most startling result, perhaps, is that nine out of 10 species on Earth today, including humans, came into being 100,000 to 200,000 years ago.
“This conclusion is very surprising, and I fought against it as hard as I could,” Thaler told AFP.

“another unexpected finding from the study—species have very clear genetic boundaries, and there’s nothing much in between."

“If individuals are stars, then species are galaxies,” said Thaler. “They are compact clusters in the vastness of empty sequence space.”

The absence of “in-between” species is something that also perplexed Darwin, he said."

Read more at: Sweeping gene survey reveals new facets of evolution