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

[Glark]

The Bible is not a science textbook and it is a gross error to treat it as such.

I never claimed it is a science textbook. Genesis describes history, not science.

 

[Bradskii]

Why were there no humans in the Origin?

The elephant in the living room in the Origin of Species was its absence of discussion of human evolution. Specifically Darwin felt that his theory would make the realization of shared common human ancestry unavoidable.

His book wasn’t concerned specifically with human evolution. So it wasn’t discussed in the Origin of The Species. But it appears that you don’t know about his next block buster (available at all good bookshops): The Descent of Man.

“The sole object of this work is to consider, firstly, whether man, like every other species, is descended from some pre-existing form; secondly, the manner of his development; and thirdly, the value of the differences between the so-called races of man.”

You will NEVER guess what his conclusion was.

In passing, may I ask from whom you are getting your information? Whoever it is they need to be told they are giving you info that is very clearly wrong. You need to find other sources I would suggest.

 

[Bradskii]

Well no-one was expecting you to understand even the title of the book, let alone anything within the cover.

Survival of the fittest means survival of those best fitted. Not the strongest.

 

[Bradskii]

In passing, here’s a tip for some of you. You know the old court room adage: never ask a question unless you know the answer’? Well, you can apply that to these discussions. So if you want to argue a point that relies on a comment such as ‘Darwin never discussed human evolution’, then Google something along the lines of: ‘Did Darwin discuss human evolution’ before you fire one off from the hip.

It’ll save you looking foolish. And you will learn something into the bargain as well. Two birds as it were.

 

[Uriel1]

@Bradski; it is you who is trolling using unscientific conjecture on a Catholic site; if you knew Poverbs at all you would know 1:7 tells us that

The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge,
but fools despise wisdom and instruction.

 

[rossum]

Why were there no humans in the Origin?

Darwin was very aware of the firestorm that including human descent in ‘Origin’ would cause, so he limited himself to the single sentence you quoted. He covered the subject later in a separate book: “The Descent of Man”.

rossum

 

[Hugh_Farey]

According to Gould, “stasis may emerge as the theory’s most important contribution to evolutionary science.”[43]

Wheee! Here comes another! Guess what, all my fellow evolutionists, Steven Jay Gould didn’t believe in evolution! He thought that no species evolved into any other! Shock horror!!

Sorry, buffalo, another damp squib. Back to the quote mine. But really, this one was verging on the absurd - I’d demand my money back if I were you.

 

[Hugh_Farey]

Whether a Genesis creation “day” is literally 24 hours or not …

Yay! Wrigglin’ like a worm on a hook. The clear and obvious meaning of Genesis. According to Glark.

If you had a proper understanding of that verse you would realize that it refers only to the six days of creation and not to the creation of the earth.

Yay! “A proper understanding.” According to Glark. Really, even the literalists can’t get their literalism to match.

 

[Uriel1]

Uriel1:

Why were there no humans in the Origin?

Darwin was very aware of the firestorm that including human descent in ‘Origin’ would cause, so he limited himself to the single sentence you quoted. He covered the subject later in a separate book: “The Descent of Man”.

rossum

“The Descent of Man” You refer to the follow-up so let’s see what it says

In chapter 21 Darwin writes:

“We thus learn that man is descended from a hairy, tailed quadruped probably arboreal in its habits and an inhabitant of the Old World.” … “The main conclusion arrived at in this work, namely that man is descended from some lowly organized form, will, I regret to say, be highly distasteful to many. But there can hardly be a doubt that we are descended from barbarians.”

In support of this Darwin then writes;

"The astonishment which I felt on first seeing a party of Feugians on a wild and broken shore will never be forgotten by me, for the reflection at once rushed into my mind—such were our ancestors. These men were absolutely naked and bedaubed with paint, their long hair was tangled, their mouths frothed with excitement, and their expression was wild, startled, and distrustful. They possessed hardly any arts, and like wild animals lived on what they could catch; they had no government, and were merciless to every one not of their own small tribe. He who has seen a savage in his native land will not feel much shame, if forced to acknowledge that the blood of some more humble creature flows in his veins. For my own part I would as soon be descended from that heroic little monkey … or from that old baboon … as from a savage who delights to torture his enemies, offers up bloody sacrifices, practises infanticide without remorse, treats his wives like slaves, knows no decency, and is haunted by the grossest superstitions.”

And you give this man credibility? You do this @rossum because you reject God and elect for sin
LOL

 

[Hugh_Farey]

And you give this man credibility?

Want exactly do you find incredible in this quotation?

 

[rossum]

In chapter 21 Darwin writes:

“We thus learn that man is descended from a hairy, tailed quadruped probably arboreal in its habits and an inhabitant of the Old World.”

I give this man credibility because he was correct. Humans did descend from primates, with both hair and tails that lived in the Old World; Africa to be precise. In modern terms, Homo sapiens is classified as a Catarrhine primate.

Why do you have a problem with a true statement?

rossum

 

[Aloysium]

How do you define the “standard theory”, then?

I will look it up. How about:

https://www.nature.com/news/does-evolutionary-theory-need-a-rethink-1.16080

The story that SET tells is simple: new variation arises through random genetic mutation; inheritance occurs through DNA; and natural selection is the sole cause of adaptation, the process by which organisms become well-suited to their environments. In this view, the complexity of biological development — the changes that occur as an organism grows and ages — are of secondary, even minor, importance.

Science, however, since it doesn’t truck in discussions about ‘souls’, would define ‘human’ differently.

That’s a problem with science today. Neglecting reality can lead it astray. But as Buffalo keeps pointing out and for some reason he is misunderstood or ignored, we are coming around.

No. We cannot baptize a dog.

I don’t think you are justifying the comment you made that it is a sort of ontological change along the lines of what happens at baptism.

So… an ontological change, right? Well… isn’t that what we say happens to living humans who are baptized and/or ordained to the priesthood? So, yeah… such a change is conceivable!

We are talking about the creation of a new kind of being, of whom we are all manifestations

Now we’re in the realm of speculative theology, aren’t we?

At the very least, however, we can note that human nature includes physical death, but that Adam and Eve had the gift of (physical) immortality prior to the fall, and lost that preternatural gift as a result of the

It’s more like speculative science from my perspective, asking what, if anything in their physical make-up might contribute to this, given and taken away. Close to the beginning, when we had to spread throughout the earth, people lived abot ten times as long as they do now, presumably in good health. I’m sure some genetic loss occured when this changed.

In the instant that God gives us an immortal soul, in His image and likeness, we cease being “just hominids” – we’re now humans , and therefore, children of God!

This has the ring of what happens when conversion occurs, when we begin our journey towards God, trying to be more Christ-like. Soil, rain and sunlight do not become a plant; the soul of the plant incorporates these physical events into itself. Hominids remained hominids, but their purpose of producing the information necessary to then bring about human beings physically compatable with the earth’s environment done, they died off.

 

[Aloysium]

Umm… what will happen?

In the resurrection of the dead at the end of time, we will become what we were intended to be - a unity of body and spirit, to tend to this garden universe and share in His glory. What makes sense to me is that God can and did create the unity of the person at the beginning as He will at the end, with no need of primates to transform into humans.

 

[Uriel1]

Uriel1:

In chapter 21 Darwin writes:

“We thus learn that man is descended from a hairy, tailed quadruped probably arboreal in its habits and an inhabitant of the Old World.”

I give this man credibility because he was correct. Humans did descend from primates, with both hair and tails that lived in the Old World; Africa to be precise. In modern terms, Homo sapiens is classified as a Catarrhine primate.

Why do you have a problem with a true statement?

rossum

A true statement? Where all the fossil evidence was manufactured/fraudulent
The problem with the missing links is that they are all missing
God made you @rossum and you know it

“Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he become wise in his own eyes.” Proverbs 26:5

 

[Chris4]

How long was a creation day? Could it have been eternity?

 

[Uriel1]

@chris4 It is allegorical for a short time.

 

[Chris4]

Thank you! It was appearing to me as if one day would be a like a thousand years, then, with the thousand years having 365,000 days where each day is like another thousand years…one would have infinity. And before the first day there must have been an infinite previous ‘day’ that he had used to create the creatures who were with Him before he created man - Gen. 1:28. Here I am referring to Angels, not the Trinity.

 

[rossum]

A true statement?

Yes, a true statement.

Where all the fossil evidence was manufactured/fraudulent

If you are going to repeat a lie, then you would do better to pick a lie that is at least halfway believable. The “all” is very obviously and egregiously false. Do you really know so little of palaeontology that you believed whoever lied to you about this?

The problem with the missing links is that they are all missing

Of course they are missing. When we find them they become found links and are no longer missing. We have a great many found links, which support the theory of evolution in general and the evolution of Homo sapiens from earlier Hominid and Primate ancestors in particular.

God made you @rossum and you know it

A bit of career advice: do not take up a job as a mind reader as you are not very good at it. I am Buddhist, as I have told you before. Buddhism is not an Abrahamic religion, so a great many common assumptions in the Abrahamic religions do not apply. In Buddhism I made myself by my own actions in my previous lives and earlier in my current life.

“ Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he become wise in his own eyes. ” Proverbs 26:5

“Even a fool is thought wise if he keeps silent, and discerning if he holds his tongue.” - Proverbs 17:28

rossum

 

[Uriel1]

“ Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he become wise in his own eyes. ” Proverbs 26:5

Wise words for and from an anti-Catholic; heed them and prosper

 

[Glark]

Jay Gould didn’t believe in evolution! He thought that no species evolved into any other! Shock horror

No, no, no; you miss the point - Gould believed in evolution DESPITE the contrary evidence.