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

  • Thread starter Thread starter IWantGod
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I’ve lost confidence in National Geographic to be objective. The Curator of Birds at the Smithsonian “In 1999 he penned an open letter to National Geographic , condemning an article about a new “missing link” in the dinosaur-to-bird transition and the problem generally of publishing new identifications in non-peer-reviewed journals. A subsequent investigation revealed that the fossil specimen in question, “Archaeoraptor,” which had been illegally exported from China, was actually a composite one. The controversy also drew attention to the illegal trade of fossils in China.”

A bit more about a growing problem with fossils from China.

https://www.paleodirect.com/fake-chinese-fossils-fossil-forgery-from-china/
 
buffalo said:
40.png
Metis1:
Again, I have yet to read any scientific evidence whatsoever that has it that “micro-evolution” somehow miraculously stops before becoming “macro-evolution”. Why is it that those who make such a claim cannot provide any evidence from actual scientific sources?
Click to expand...
Miraculously? It is by design macro-evolution does not happen. Over and over I have given scientific sources that show macro does not happen. Why do you deny these so?
Click to expand...
Because you have not done what you just said you have done.
 
buffalo said:
Consistent with philosophy, genetics and the second law what we actually observe is devolution.
Click to expand...
Giving something a misapplied name does not change the nature of what we observe. We observe evolution. You can call it devolution or you can call it something else, but it is still evolution.
 
buss0042 said:
The martyrology you refer to is found in the Bible, Genesis I’m guessing? The problem with relying on these texts for precise dates is that histories were not written or utilized the way the are today - ancient historical texts aren’t the equivalent of modern historical texts. In that regard, the numbers we see are largely symbolic of large passings of time, and are not meant to be precise as they would be if they were created today.
Click to expand...
Surely Catholic scholars were aware of these things when they formulated the Martyrology. The date for the creation of Adam (about 7200 years ago, if memory serves) is of course no longer taken seriously by the Church’s theistic evolutionists - because the historicity of Genesis is no longer taken seriously, despite the obvious historical nature of the text. That troubles me.
 
Last edited:
buss0042 said:
The names of Noah’s sons aren’t translated from the native language in any Bible - they’re in the native language, simply transliterated instead of translated. When translated, they are the names of ancient lands, such as Egypt and Greece - meaning that “Noah’s sons” weren’t literal people, they were groups of people that ended up settling in various areas of the ancient world after what was likely a large regional flood. The dates they give were, again, not used as we would use them today, because those societies had different methods for conveying the passing of time.
Click to expand...
I suspect this is a novel interpretation of the text - utterly unheard of until evolution arrived on the scene. It seems to me that thevo’s have made of art form of twisting Scripture to suit themselves.
 
Last edited:
buss0042 said:
Lots of replies, my apologies - the fact that these stories of Genesis are not scientific or historical literal stories does not, by any stretch of the imagination, mean that the theological truths they convey are false - they are unequivocally and unflinchingly truth.
Click to expand...
If a biblical text is written in an historical style, I suggest it is not merely conveying a “theological truth”, but real history.
 
LeafByNiggle said:
How do you square your interpretation of “thousands of years of traditional exegesis” with the Catechism, that somehow neglected to make the exact point you are trying to make? Specifically, how do you square your interpretation with paragraph #283 of the Catechism, which I quoted earlier and which seems to contradict you?
Click to expand...
I’m familiar with #283 - how do I contradict it?
 
LeafByNiggle said:
You can call it devolution or you can call it something else, but it is still evolution.
Click to expand...
The idea here is that God created living things perfect. This is to say without genetic anomolies, and with the capacity for diversity in reproduction.

Let’s consider the interaction between bacteria and molds. What evolutionary theory may consider an ancient battle between them seems better understood as a means to provide homeostasis in their shared environment. Bacteria have the capacity to detect fungi as well as the size of their own population, this enables them to produce toxins and change their genome to allow their offspring to be better adapted to the environment (quorum sensing). On the mold side of the equation, there is the production of what we use as antibiotics. As life was created, it happened as an environmental system with checks and balances.

What has happened over time and following the fall is the onset of random mutations. The molecular structures that make up an organism and its genome can be understood as information in action, matter being the tip of the iceberg that is the organism’s being, that which we can perceive and measure. That order has been corrupted by a brokenness that has occurred where all this is brought into existence, here and now, and always. Atoms doing their random thing cause a distortion of the information that constitutes genetic and epigenetic processes. As a result we have genetic mutations, which cannot explain evolution, but most certainly do congential disorders.

Sickle cell anemia, for example, which shortens life spans cannot be held as an example of evolution; it’s simply an illness that harms the Plasmodium parasite moreso than the affected person.
 
Last edited:
Edgar said:
40.png
LeafByNiggle:
How do you square your interpretation of “thousands of years of traditional exegesis” with the Catechism, that somehow neglected to make the exact point you are trying to make? Specifically, how do you square your interpretation with paragraph #283 of the Catechism, which I quoted earlier and which seems to contradict you?
Click to expand...
I’m familiar with #283 - how do I contradict it?
Click to expand...
Your claim was:
My opinion is, Genesis is not scientific until Adam comes on the scene. Then Genesis become ‘scientific’ in the sense that, post-Adam, it describes literal history.
Click to expand...
While #283 says:
The question about the origins of the world and of man has been the object of many scientific studies which have splendidly enriched our knowledge of the age and dimensions of the cosmos, the development of life-forms and the appearance of man.
Click to expand...
When it comes to scientific questions regarding the origin of things on his planet, the Catechism does not condemn scientific studies that describe the development of life forms. You do. If the Church had a view contrary to science, this is where that view would have been expressed.
Edgar said:
40.png
LeafByNiggle:
This a non-canonical interpretation of Genesis.
Click to expand...
How is my literal interpretation of Genesis 2:7 non-canonical?
Click to expand...
The burden is on you to show that it is canonical, since that is your claim.
 
Last edited:
Aloysium said:
40.png
LeafByNiggle:
You can call it devolution or you can call it something else, but it is still evolution.
Click to expand...
The idea here is that God created living things perfect. This is to say without genetic anomolies, and with the capacity for diversity in reproduction. …
Click to expand...
By using the word “perfect” you are implicitly assuming a valuation under which they are perfect. We have no such universal valuation. So your notion of “perfect” is meaningless.

Living things, at any stage of their evolution, are neither perfect nor imperfect. They just are what they are. Sometimes the environment changes so that a mutation that previously did not lead to increased offspring now does. Sometimes the environment changes so that the previous form of the organism is more fruitful, in which case evolution will appear to “go backwards” to that previous form. There is no such thing as a constant march to perfection, nor can we say that at any point in the past an organism was at its perfection. The notion of perfection is relative to its environment.
 
LeafByNiggle said:
your notion of “perfect” is meaningless.
Click to expand...
Please be aware that I understand evolution; otherwise I would be unable to see its catastrophic failings.

As to the comment above, if anything it is what is meaningless.

I do not hold to your vision of reality; the world was truly created in perfect harmony, only to be broken by sin.
 
The flaws in your logic lie in your assumption that what you think of as history is the same way everybody in the history of the world has thought of history.

Just as any type of literature has developed through time, so has the telling of stories. Historical literature today does not equal historical literature 3000 years ago. I suggest (with scholarly backing) that the conveying of theological truth can stand apart from historical truth. You bring in evolution, while it is entirely irrelevant to the discussion; this topic of scholarly inquiry stands on its own.

I have plenty of examples from the entirety of Genesis to choose from - name a story.

You also didn’t respond to Joseph Ratzinger’s writing. Any thoughts?
 
Last edited:
Aloysium said:
40.png
LeafByNiggle:
your notion of “perfect” is meaningless.
Click to expand...
Please be aware that I understand evolution; otherwise I would be unable to see its catastrophic failings.

As to the comment above, if anything it is what is meaningless.

I do not hold to your vision of reality; the world was truly created in perfect harmony, only to be broken by sin.
Click to expand...
The perfection you speak of is a philosophical and spiritual perfection. It has no bearing on evolution.
 
Evolution is an illusion at best, a delusion for those who see no alternatives. It is all about creation ultimately, grounded in love, but that reality is distorted by ignorance, the outcome of sin.
 
Aloysium said:
I do not hold to your vision of reality; the world was truly created in perfect harmony, only to be broken by sin.
Click to expand...
So, are you essentially saying that God is killing a child through a miscarriage because people in the past sinned? same with serious birth defects? What kind of loving God would do such things?

Instead I propose a paradigm shift, namely that maybe God purposely did not complete Creation so as to make it ours to fix and to take care of. If God made all to perfection, then how could we as God’s creation sin? We would even have to blame the Fall on God as well to fit your paradigm.

An excellent book that covers this is “The Image of the Unseen God: Catholicity, Science, and Our Living Understanding of God” by Fr. Hosinski C.S.C.
 
Metis1 said:
So, are you essentially saying that God is killing a child through a miscarriage because people in the past sinned? same with serious birth defects? What kind of loving God would do such things?
Click to expand...
How did you derive such nonsense? You’ve mentioned this before, and I responded, obviously with no effect. What’s the point of doing so now? You may wish to contemplate the church’s teachings on pain and suffering, original sin and such matters.
 
Last edited:
Aloysium said:
How did you derive such nonsense? You’ve mentioned this before, and I responded, obviously with no effect. What’s the point of doing so now? You may wish to contemplate the church’s teachings on pain and suffering, original sin and such matters.
Click to expand...
Instead of an ad hominem attack, why don’t you actually deal with what’s supposedly theologically wrong in what I wrote? I taught theology for many years, so I have done the research through multiple sources, including numerous Catholic and Jewish sources, on this plus many other matters.

So, please answer this question: “Why would God have a baby miscarried or borne with serious birth defects on the basis of previous generations back to Adam?” , and please try and deal with this without throwing insults around like they’re candy. And, btw, “pain & suffering” hardly helps a child that’s miscarried or borne with a serious birth defect.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top